First and foremost, it faces the challenge from the political leaders, who still seem reluctant to trust it as a force that stands for the Nepali people and their democratic aspirations. Despite it quietly accepting the political changes that took place in 1950, *1990 and 2006, many political leaders seem to view it as a threat to democracy.
NA has always kept itself aloof from politics, except for an instance in the past when one of its units, Bijuli Garad helped Bir Shumsher become the prime minister in 1885 AD. Therefore, one of the major challenges to tackle this year and for many more years to come is to make the leaders not doubt its democratic credentials and pass irresponsible comments on army in particular and about security forces in general, and have them treat the issue of national security with utmost importance.
Second challenge it faces is related to procurement of arms and ammunitions. Because of the embargo placed by many countries after the royal takeover in 2004, it has not been able to procure supplies to arm its soldiers. This has even affected its training process. And as the political parties either still see it as a threat to them or fear displeasing the Maoist and being labeled anti-peace process, they are yet to ask the foreign governments to lift the arms embargo. The misconception is: A strong army is a threat to democracy. Those who make this argument often fail to take into consideration how NA has peacefully accepted the political changes.
Similarly, they also forget to look at the other side of the coin: A weak army is a threat to national security. The leaders ought to understand that when it comes to national security, there can be no compromise and Nepal, although relatively secure is not immune from both traditional and emerging risks and challenges. Due to changing political dynamics both inside and outside of Nepal and the emergence of new security threats make it imperative that our army is well-trained and well-equipped with up-to-date arms and intelligence. Since the army has no mechanism to deal with the foreign governments to ask them to lift the embargo, it is the government’s responsibility to do so. A strong standing army is a source of national pride and there is no reason why we should be deprived of such pride.
Another major challenge is to stop it from becoming politicized like other security forces in the country, most notably the Nepal Police. Under the rubric of democratization of NA, some political parties along with some foreign-funded NGOs seem hell-bent on politicizing it and making it weak for their own vested interests. So far, NA has resisted all attempts of political parties micromanaging it and has repeatedly asked the government to clearly define ‘civil-military relations’ in today’s changed context, but the government is yet to respond favorably to it.
This has made some army officers engage in political lobbying. Recently, NA took actions against a high-ranking officer and his associates for political lobbying. However, if the government is not serious about defining civil-military relations in clear terms, ie, where the army’s authority ends and where the government’s/civilian’s begins, there is a likelihood of more officers knocking the doors of political leaders, thus, leaving the door wide open to blatant politicization which, not only affects the smooth functioning of the institution, but also, can lead to national security disasters.
As they say, national security is everybody’s concern, and all those who love Nepal and want to see it safe and secure should lend their support to NA in these challenging times.
The fourth challenge NA faces has to do with the integration of ex-Maoist combatants. The government and political parties should also take NA’s valid concerns into considerations before forcing a decision on it, if they want to keep it as a professional army. Similarly to make the political parties understand the ramifications of such forced bulk-integration and how it affects its functioning as a professional army will not be easy. Eroding of professionalism resulting from bulk integration will only make the civilian control of NA difficult. And to make the political parties aware of it, will be an uphill battle for NA: When it voices its valid concerns, it is regarded as undemocratic by the political parties and the media, but if it doesn’t, it might be forced a decision that it will find quite difficult to accept. How the issue is dealt with depends much on the diplomacy and reasoning skills of its top-brass and understanding on the part of political leaders.
As an institution that was instrumental in realizing Prithvi Narayan Shah’s dream of a unified Nepal, and as an institution that has always stood by the people of Nepal, it should not be subjected to unnecessary controversies by the political leaders and vilification campaign by the media. As they say, national security is everybody’s concern, and all those who love Nepal and want to see it safe and secure should lend their support to NA. But this does not mean we have keep mum if it goes against people’s aspirations or is involved in activities unfitting for a professional army. Likewise, NA too should strive to become more transparent regarding its welfare fund, recruitments and promotions, so that no media and political leaders can get away with their unfounded comments on a vital national institution.
That said, let’s wish all of our men and women in uniform a very happy Army Day 2067.
trailokyaa@yahoo.com
*Corrected
Related story
Army committed to saving country from challenges: Army Chief
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
