Nepali Army in discussion

Some of them, including the former generals, spoke/wrote against the views of MPs or even changed the subject. At the insistence of the army, the then defense minister made a statement in the parliament that the current number and role of the army could not be changed. A monthly magazine even published a special issue. Other media outlets have had a variety of ideas. The Commander-in-Chief was further criticized at the civilian level due to his angry and unbalanced expression. But even the former generals who thought that "the army is not a separate state within the state" did not like it and remained silent.

This time, UML MP Prithvisubba Gurung expressed his opinion that the ministry should change its policy with the response that during the discussion of the allocated budget under the Ministry of Defence, the traditional budget was proposed by the employees and the political leadership could not intervene in it. While saying that the army should not be used for non-military work, he said that the republic has not come to the army. In addition, Congress MP Sanjay Kumar Gautam also proposed that the army's originality and dignity should not be reduced, saying that it is wrong to contract the army.

The army, which was criticized for being aggressive in the opinion of the previous parliamentarians, not only remained silent on the subject matter this time, but even in the newspaper's inquiries, it was presented in a general way saying that the army is informed about the defense discussions. Some former generals argued that 'the military has done what the government has done', conveying the message that the government is the accountable body for involvement in the civilian sector. Finally, the Minister of Defense stood up in Parliament on this matter, whose 'unsentant' answer (Parliament Record) heated up the House, showing the extent to which those who have no understanding of the subject can run away and spread when they reach the Defense leadership. Big parties also remained silent. It seems that the opinion that appropriate decisions should be made according to the situation regarding the issues raised in the parliament regarding the organization, functioning and national needs of the army, seems to be increasing among the leaders of the second-third status of those parties.

Debate and narrow understanding of democratization

There is a strong opinion that there should not be an open debate about the army in Nepal. In the world, military-government relations continue to be studied and discussed on theoretical basis such as objective and subjective control, civil supremacy and supervision. In Nepal, security/defense is a sensitive issue, it should not be a subject of public debate, it weakens the national security and the army. Even now, the military issue has been complicated and complicated by making it the only organization that ensures national unity, integrity, sovereignty, and national security. It is a subject that is beyond the understanding of people who are not involved in the security forces, it is thought that those who do not know how to use a gun cannot understand security. As if to be an expert, you have to get the recognition or certificate of a security organization, there is a tendency for the 'others' to become insecure as if they are an intrusion into their field, to be underestimated or dismissed.

A section of high-ranking ex-military/officers is still alive to consider civilians as raiti. And, he keeps questioning the courage and status of those who are concerned about defense and reach the leadership. The antiquarian zealots at the civil level see their interest in this, and eat by propagating and promoting this commentary. At the civilian level, there was no discussion about the role and responsibility of the army, so there was no clarity. Because they do not understand the nature and limits of the army, they think it is appropriate to show some development projects that have been completed on time and let the army do all the work. He gets irritated when he thinks about the military at the civil society and political level, which is said to understand a little, he has guns (weapons of power) and ideas (archaic and status quo), he has a deep fear that he cannot survive when it goes against his interests.

The role of the military should be raised from the status quo and the opinion of a limited non-military group and the creation of a group that will protest against the expertise may have been spent on the leader's mind. As a result, not only the civil society but also at the leadership level, there is a psychology of being safe and running the state by withdrawing the army or leaving it alone. But for the institutionalization and strengthening of unestablished democracy, a transparent, responsible and accountable military organization is necessary, for this a debate is needed to define the concept and basis. It is necessary to understand the fact that any activity to stop/suppress it cannot be strong and all the forces that have advanced in the process of democratization.

The secret of fear or crisis in adoption?

There are many examples of the past, the memory of which also has a situation like 'jogi to buffalo and buffalo to jogi' in party leaders and army. The Prime Minister of the interim government formed after the 2046 change, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, did not only say that 'a king with 35,000 soldiers cannot be used', but he had to plead with the king to call on the security forces to fulfill the responsibility of the government to maintain peace and stability in the country. In the 2047 constitution, he also believed that the failure to make the king fully constitutional was the result of the pressure and maneuvering of the army.

In 1995, Khum Bahadur Khadka's invitation to the then army chief to establish the tradition of calling the army to the parliament for a briefing, as the chairman of the state affairs committee, the general's ignoring the advice, and the initiative and results of standing before the parliament after he was not heard, it is heard in political and administrative circles that his political future has come to a complete halt. Due to the non-cooperation of the army, the home administration became innocent in suppressing the Maoist movement and Govindraj Joshi was resigned as the home minister due to the fact that the phone calls of the civilian leaders were made public, and then Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala had to resign due to the non-cooperation of the army. The recent 'fiasco' with the sacking and reinstatement of the then army chief Rukmangad Katwal has left the political level in awe.

On the other hand, after the end of the monarchy, there are no people and institutions who know, understand and adopt the army. The army, which considers itself to be 'royal', which is used to suppress all movements for political change, is reluctant to accept people who were citizens yesterday as leaders, and politicians think that the army has not internalized the old system and the current system. Due to such opposite psychology, it seems that an environment of open and creative thinking about how to develop the organization of the army in line with the national interest has not been created. Due to the lack of development and acceptance of political parentage, the practice of leaving it as it is or otherwise diverting it instead of proceeding towards the professional modernization of the army as required is not correct.

A leading politician who secures his politics by leaving the army, which is proceeding according to profit-oriented business-oriented motives, and a military mindset that publicizes political speeches through the media such as 'The army is monitoring the situation of the country... the army will never tolerate... the army understands politics but does not' are both healthy. no In the later stages, it seems that the leaders chose the option of becoming its 'partner' rather than being infected by taking a stand against the interests of the army. This environment can also be said to have been created by the example of the defense minister who tried to lead and command the army, left the government, or stayed in the prime minister's office without a department.

These activities to reach and stay in the government by maintaining a balance in terms of money are successful till date, but it does not seem to work in the initiative of democratization, modernization and commercialization of the army, which is not seen in the interest of both the nation and the army. The civil-military relationship is not just a relationship between the government and the military. It is not expected and appropriate in a democratic society to not discuss the condition and functioning of institutions built to ensure the safety of the countrymen, run by their own taxes, and fostered. If this narrow practice and psychology in public affairs and institutions continues, then the army, which has hitherto been regarded as the foremost of the people's trust, will remain only a public institution like any other.

Creative discussion and addressing

The debate on determining the appropriate number of troops to address the contraction in the economy based on the defense budget alone does not seem rational and reasonable. National security challenges and policies should be its basis. Investments in defense are based on long-term thinking rather than immediate profit and loss. But when such investments are used for non-defense/non-military purposes for profit, it is natural to raise questions. Defense budget can increase if the modernization process is to go for competitiveness and agility rather than numbers. Parliament is the legitimate and proper place to discuss the work and role of the army, which does not allow the army to be criticized.

The government should use the defense channel when taking information or decisions about the army, empowering the Ministry of Defense and equipping it with resources. Bringing the military out of civilian engagement, it is too late to start discussions in parliament for professional modernization exercises. A new parliamentary committee can be formed for that. If not, the best option is to move forward by creating a sub-committee by activating the State Affairs Committee on defense matters.

But it also has a special structure and process, which Nepal seems indifferent to establish a tradition of systematic debate. Examples of countries that have organized democratic and powerful armies like India, America and Britain can be seen. Standing Committee on Defense in India 6, which looks after the entire affairs of the Ministry of Defence. Apart from the daily administration of the army, it discusses, suggests and gives necessary instructions regarding numbers, recruitment, budget, equipment and arms and other defense industries, production and distribution. The United States has the Senate Committee on Armed Forces, which has separate subcommittees that look not only at all organizations of the military but also at areas and scopes. He conducts regular testimony and hearings bringing together military and allied civilian officials, moving to understand each other's situation.

The actions and decision recommendations made by those committees and sub-committees are so credible and mature that little room is left for final debate. If it is seen on some surface, it is through this process that the initiative of addressing, informing and communicating takes place. In such decisions, the army and the civilians are involved. In the case of success, the main partner of praise will be the army, but in the case of failure, the parliament and the government will be held accountable, so the army is higher and less criticized in the eyes of the citizens.

In India, even in the defense industry, the military has no institutional participation except in an expert capacity. In terms of security, the military has no role in development, construction and other businesses except in strategic and sensitive areas. When sending security personnel to the Peace Mission, the government invests, the government itself is responsible and accountable for the purchase of materials, and the research money is deposited in the government account. The welfare policy for the army has been implemented by the government itself, there is no place to create funds and invest and be profitable. As a result, the military is perceived and operated in a supporting role rather than a development partner of the government. Trusted or respected in the eyes of citizens and powerful and effective in the eyes of external forces.

The role of the Security Council is extensive in all three countries mentioned. Not only the external but also the comprehensive security concept including internal challenges and human security. In the UK, such a committee also scrutinizes expenditure, administration and policy within the Ministry of Defence, as well as other defense public institutions and organisations. There is a committee within the cabinet that looks after military affairs, which conducts thematic studies, monitoring and informed decisions.

In Nepal, along with the constitutional commission including federal affairs, home affairs, the office of the council of ministers, the investigation of authority, the defense ministry has also been designated under the state administration committee. Ironically, due to its involvement in the non-military sector, the army is also found to be in the crosshairs of the Public Accounts, Technology and Development Committee, Infrastructure Development Committee, Sustainable Development and Good Governance Committees. What is needed now is to get out of this irony.