---

Nepal

My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for securing the debate and opening it so effectively. As he mentioned, I was privileged to be part of the group of six which visited Nepal in March, supported by the Foreign Office and led most ably by Sir John Stanley, chair of the All-Party Group on Nepal. The cross-party group was very cohesive, and the visit extremely instructive. We visited at a fluid and unstable time. The King had suspended Parliament, the political parties seemed out in the cold, and the Maoists controlled much of the country. There was violence on all sides. The political parties had been calling, to no avail, for the restoration of democracy. They had made a pact with the Maoists calling for change. Was that weakness or strength? We have to hope for the latter. One of our tasks was to lend support to the call for change, in a visit carefully choreographed by the experienced ambassador there, Keith Bloomfield. None of us would have predicted that things would have moved so far and so fast—in merely a couple of months. It was not predicted that the demonstrations would be on the scale that they were. Danger and disaffection might have dissuaded people. There were major worries that the demonstrators would be greeted with massive oppression and loss of life. As the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, noted, although there was loss of life, it was not on the scale anticipated. One has to assume that the army and police at least saw the writing on the wall for the King and knew that it was not the time to clamp down hard on those who might be their future masters. The army wishes to be involved in UN peacekeeping exercises, and the fact that that would have been jeopardised if they had clamped down may also have played a useful role. Once those demonstrations began, the King might have been brutally deposed, but he was not. Certainly the UK Government did not quite predict the outcome, welcoming the King’s moves prematurely and upsetting some of those who successfully pressed him much further. It also became clear that the political parties were not in control of the demonstrations. Civilians, civil society, the media, the judiciary, political parties, Maoists, the international community—the UN, the UK, India, the US and others—all came together to put pressure on the King, but it was the people of Nepal who took their lives into their hands and demonstrated as they did. Parliament has now been reinstated. The King has lost his executive power, Nepal has been declared a secular state, the Royal Nepalese Army has been brought under Parliament’s control, and there will be an election to a constituent assembly, as demanded by the Maoists. That may well spell the end of the monarchy in whatever form. It is quite a change in a matter of months but, as others have said, the situation is far from stable. The King remains deeply unpopular, his son even more so. We met many leaders who were adamant that the monarchy had to go. Others thought that a constitutional monarchy along UK lines was possible. I note that Prime Minister Koirala has said as much and then been chided, even from within his own party. Perhaps that indicates the way things are going, and perhaps my noble friend Lord Avebury is right and the King should see where his personal future might best lie. The political parties themselves are disparate, and they held together with some difficulty. They do not have deep roots and, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, has said, were noted for their corruption. There has been a fear that even if democracy were restored, that might benefit only the haves and not the have-nots—those who had turned to the rebels. Clearly work has to be undertaken to ensure that the political parties are transparent and that they link to their constituents, so that the people of Nepal can see the benefits of democracy. There are different interpretations of the Maoists. Are they simply indigenous, or part of a sinister, wider movement? What is their funding? Are they influencing Maoists in India, and do they threaten stability there? The Americans are particularly concerned about a wider influence both on and of the Maoists. The consensus from others is that their access to arms and funds was relatively limited. Are the Maoists exploiting a situation for their own ends, seeking to depose the King and set up a dictatorial Maoist state? Or were their leaders themselves feeling excluded from the political scene and wanting to be brought in? We saw burnt-out lorries on roads. There was a bomb in Kathmandu when we were there. We heard of extortion and killings. Now the rebel leaders are walking freely in Kathmandu. The Maoists say they will demobilise but not yet disarm. Both sides have agreed to the involvement of the UN to monitor their arms, and we are familiar, from Northern Ireland and the Middle East, with which comes first, disarming or talking. It is surely not surprising that disarmament may have to wait until they feel they are part of the settlement, of the solution. When we were there, India indicated that it would not welcome a further UN presence. India plays a critical role, but the Nepalese have mixed feelings about that role. I would like the Minister to comment on that UN proposal. There are wider, more fundamental problems, which others have referred to, which have helped to underpin conflict in the first place. The vast majority of the Nepalese live in great poverty. There is not the economic miracle happening there that we see in India, although of course many are benefiting from that and crossing the border. If there are excluded people, you have an unstable society. War has further exacerbated that, and so the cycle goes on. We saw impressive DfID programmes, but gather that the budget has been reduced and may be reduced further. Again, I wonder if the Minister could comment. Among those who have been excluded in Nepal are women. This afternoon I met a very impressive lady, Lily Thapa, who chairs the Women for Human Rights Single Women’s Group in Nepal. She reports on new demonstrations in Kathmandu of women who are demanding participation in the current talks. There are no women at all on the draft constitutional committee. Women have been told that there are no suitably qualified women able to be participants at the peace table. That does not augur well for an inclusive settlement. The Maoists claim they stand for equality of the sexes. They claim they empower women—they use them as equal combatants in the conflict—but even they have only taken one woman into a very low-level committee. She does not attend the peace meetings. When we were in Nepal we heard the political parties say how women had suffered particularly in this conflict. We met some very impressive women leaders of NGOs. We met women lawyers and other experts. I note that in theory it has been agreed that the new Parliament should be one-third women, but how is that to be believed, and how is it to be delivered, if no women are included in these stages? Nepal is a stunningly beautiful country and has strong historic links with the UK. The Gurkhas, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, play a role way above their numbers in the British Army. It used to have a thriving tourist industry. It is on the rim of India, and should be able to benefit from the sub-continent powering forward, but its development has been fatally undermined by conflict. We should play our part in helping to support and encourage those who are negotiating for Nepal’s future to think of that future as being won for all its citizens and not just for the ruling elites. It has to be inclusive of the rural as well as the urban areas, of all levels of society, and all ethnic groups, both sexes. That is too important for the country and the region not to get right.