Nepal: experiencing pangs of transition
S.D. Muni
The challenge to Nepal’s peace process comes from political vested interests, Maoist activities, and the gradually spreading turbulence in the Terai region.
Nepal’s peace process is passing through a delicate phase. The core objective of this process is to integrate the Maoists into an inclusive and fully democratic political order. This process of transiting a 238-year-old feudal state into a vibrant and responsive democratic order has been reasonably smooth and speedy so far. Since the success of the peoples’ movement in April 2006, led peacefully by the Maoists and the democratic forces, much progress has been a chieved. The Maoists have committed themselves to non-violent and democratic politics under a Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed with the government on November 2001. Following this, the Maoists have registered their arms and armed cadres under United Nations supervision. An interim Constitution, interim parliament, and interim coalition government of an eight-party alliance (of Maoists and seven mainstream political parties) have been put in place. The King has been stripped of all his powers raising the prospects of establishing a democratic Republic. The culmination of the peace process, and thereby the prospects of a stable and prosperous Nepal, now depends upon the sincere implementation of assurances and commitments by the Maoists and other political parties and the drafting of a Constitution by a Constituent Assembly scheduled to be elected in November 2007.
The challenge to the smooth advancement of the peace process and the holding of the Constituent Assembly elections comes from three sources: political vested interests, Maoist activities, and the gradually spreading violence in the Terai region. The royalists, both around the palace and within the political parties, have no interest in the elections as a Constituent Assembly in its very first sitting is expected to abolish monarchy and establish a Republic. There are sections of royalists who may settle for a ceremonial monarchy. However, King Gyanendra, unaware of the shift against him of the popular mood since 2005, has not accepted the option of ceremonial monarchy and continues to scheme to regain as much of his powers as possible. He wants to drive a wedge in the ruling coalition and disrupt the election process. His failed birthday bash on July 7, 2007, was a clear indication of this.
Some of the political parties too do not seem to be ready for elections, having lost political ground during the 10 years of Maoist insurgency. The Nepali Congress (NC) is awaiting the reunification of its breakaway group under Sher Bahadur Deuba. The royalists as well as smaller left parties are not too sure of their electoral prospects. There are assessments that even the Maoists may want to delay elections as they have lost much of their goodwill in the post-peoples’ movement (Jan Andolan) period, though their top leaders are of the view that the more the elections are delayed the more their political ground will be eroded. Uncertainty in the minds of these political stakeholders has seriously daunted their enthusiasm for elections. The Chief Election Commissioner has complained of the government’s delay in filling the vacancies in the poll panel.
All those who want to delay the elections are seeking shelter behind the prevailing violence and lawlessness in Nepal. The abductions, extortions, and use of force by the Youth Communist League (YCL) created by the Maoists from their erstwhile Peoples’ Liberation Army (PLA) cadres invite considerable flak from various sources, including the Prime Minister. The Maoists’ inability to return properties seized during the insurgency period are also cited as examples of their bad faith vis-À-vis joining the mainstream. The Maoists are partly using YCL strong-arm methods to pressure the other coalition partners but, on the other hand, there are differences in the Maoist leadership on this issue. There are clearly two lines on the degree and extent to which the group should integrate in the prevailing multi-party politics. Many in the Polit Bureau feel that they are walking in a trap to be gradually marginalised and eliminated, as their cadres are killed in the Terai and their image is tarnished in the rest of the country. Therefore, an organised YCL is required to deter their enemies, mobilise political support, and garner votes if and when elections take place. For them, YCL is their youth wing as in all other parties.
The Terai is in a state of virtual anarchy on account of the unrest in the Hindi-speaking Madheshi community. Long neglected and discriminated against, the Madheshis are demanding proper representation in the new Nepal. Royalists backed by Hindu extremists from across the borders in India fanned the initial sparks of violence, caused by Maoist blunders, to discredit the interim government. Initially, even some of the major political parties and sections of the international community tried to turn the Madheshis’ ire against the Maoists to erode the latter’s support base. The Madheshis have a genuine issue but in the absence of a credible leadership, a number of criminal, self-serving and narrow-based political groups are taking undue advantage of the situation. In the forefront of violence and disruption are three splinter Maoists factions of Jai Krishan Goit, Jwala Singh, and Bisfotak Singh, the Madheshi Janadhikar Forum of Upendra Yadav, the Sadbhawana Party, which is a part of the ruling alliance, and lastly, the Terai Cobra and the Terai Tigers led by unknown Robin Hoods. Some Terai political activists are still waiting to float new leadership platforms. The royalists continue to indirectly support and encourage some of these groups in the hope that a disordered Terai will mar the prospects of smooth elections. Slow and uncalibrated responses from the government as well as the eight-party alliance have worsened the situation. The Maoists’ proposal to raise an eight-party front to politically deal with the Terai violence has yet to take off. If the Terai situation has to be brought under control, the government must move fast to seriously engage with the genuine Madheshi groups.
Behind all this confusion and persisting conflict in Nepal is the fact that the old mindsets are finding it hard to come to terms with the new challenge thrown by the peoples’ movement. The political parties and the Maoists had perhaps forged only a tactical alliance to deal with the autocratic King. It is doubtful if this alliance is based on a shared grand strategic vision of building a new Nepal of popular aspirations. This is reflected in the divergence among the eight parties on the questions of the monarchy’s future status, inclusion of hitherto marginalised sections of Madheshis and ethnic minorities, restructuring of the Nepalese army, and of priorities of socio-economic transformation. Such divergences have worsened the trust deficit between not only the Maoists and the other political parties, but also among the non-Maoist parties in the ruling alliance. Maoists continue to grumble about being discriminated against, be it the question of ambassadorial appointments or allocation of funds for their registered cadres or resources for the ministries allocated to them. One wonders if India and the rest of the international community, which are deeply engaged with Nepal’s peace process, have also not been afflicted by the old mindset problem. The outspoken and outgoing American Ambassador, James F. Moriarty, made it amply clear in a number of his departing statements. All those who are engaged in restructuring a new Nepal need to understand clearly that the continuing alliance between the political parties and the Maoists, and election of a Constituent Assembly are the basic requirements for peace and stability in Nepal. There is no alternative except chaos and disorder.
After receiving the shock of popular disenchantment with King Gyanendra’s April 21, 2006, proclamation on the peoples’ movement, India has tried to push Nepal’s peace process in a positive direction, both through diplomatic persuasion and the allocation of generous financial resources. There are, however, elements in the Indian political and policy establishments that would still like to see a ceremonial monarchy and the marginalisation of the Maoists. They want India to be prepared to pick up the pieces and deal with the debris if Nepal were to fall apart due to the Madheshi issue and the ethnic tensions. One hopes Indian policy steers clear of such elements. While continuing to support the peace process, India must throw its weight behind a constructive engagement between Kathmandu and the Madheshi people. Many of the Madheshi groups have in the past thrived and prospered on Indian doles. They must be prevailed on by New Delhi to desist from the path of violence and seek a just but negotiated resolution of their grievances with Kathmandu. If the Terai violence is allowed to delay or disrupt the election process in Nepal and its peace process collapses, India will be the worst affected by its extensive negative spillover.
Source: The Hindu, July 27, 2007
The challenge to Nepal’s peace process comes from political vested interests, Maoist activities, and the gradually spreading turbulence in the Terai region.
Nepal’s peace process is passing through a delicate phase. The core objective of this process is to integrate the Maoists into an inclusive and fully democratic political order. This process of transiting a 238-year-old feudal state into a vibrant and responsive democratic order has been reasonably smooth and speedy so far. Since the success of the peoples’ movement in April 2006, led peacefully by the Maoists and the democratic forces, much progress has been a chieved. The Maoists have committed themselves to non-violent and democratic politics under a Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed with the government on November 2001. Following this, the Maoists have registered their arms and armed cadres under United Nations supervision. An interim Constitution, interim parliament, and interim coalition government of an eight-party alliance (of Maoists and seven mainstream political parties) have been put in place. The King has been stripped of all his powers raising the prospects of establishing a democratic Republic. The culmination of the peace process, and thereby the prospects of a stable and prosperous Nepal, now depends upon the sincere implementation of assurances and commitments by the Maoists and other political parties and the drafting of a Constitution by a Constituent Assembly scheduled to be elected in November 2007.
The challenge to the smooth advancement of the peace process and the holding of the Constituent Assembly elections comes from three sources: political vested interests, Maoist activities, and the gradually spreading violence in the Terai region. The royalists, both around the palace and within the political parties, have no interest in the elections as a Constituent Assembly in its very first sitting is expected to abolish monarchy and establish a Republic. There are sections of royalists who may settle for a ceremonial monarchy. However, King Gyanendra, unaware of the shift against him of the popular mood since 2005, has not accepted the option of ceremonial monarchy and continues to scheme to regain as much of his powers as possible. He wants to drive a wedge in the ruling coalition and disrupt the election process. His failed birthday bash on July 7, 2007, was a clear indication of this.
Some of the political parties too do not seem to be ready for elections, having lost political ground during the 10 years of Maoist insurgency. The Nepali Congress (NC) is awaiting the reunification of its breakaway group under Sher Bahadur Deuba. The royalists as well as smaller left parties are not too sure of their electoral prospects. There are assessments that even the Maoists may want to delay elections as they have lost much of their goodwill in the post-peoples’ movement (Jan Andolan) period, though their top leaders are of the view that the more the elections are delayed the more their political ground will be eroded. Uncertainty in the minds of these political stakeholders has seriously daunted their enthusiasm for elections. The Chief Election Commissioner has complained of the government’s delay in filling the vacancies in the poll panel.
All those who want to delay the elections are seeking shelter behind the prevailing violence and lawlessness in Nepal. The abductions, extortions, and use of force by the Youth Communist League (YCL) created by the Maoists from their erstwhile Peoples’ Liberation Army (PLA) cadres invite considerable flak from various sources, including the Prime Minister. The Maoists’ inability to return properties seized during the insurgency period are also cited as examples of their bad faith vis-À-vis joining the mainstream. The Maoists are partly using YCL strong-arm methods to pressure the other coalition partners but, on the other hand, there are differences in the Maoist leadership on this issue. There are clearly two lines on the degree and extent to which the group should integrate in the prevailing multi-party politics. Many in the Polit Bureau feel that they are walking in a trap to be gradually marginalised and eliminated, as their cadres are killed in the Terai and their image is tarnished in the rest of the country. Therefore, an organised YCL is required to deter their enemies, mobilise political support, and garner votes if and when elections take place. For them, YCL is their youth wing as in all other parties.
The Terai is in a state of virtual anarchy on account of the unrest in the Hindi-speaking Madheshi community. Long neglected and discriminated against, the Madheshis are demanding proper representation in the new Nepal. Royalists backed by Hindu extremists from across the borders in India fanned the initial sparks of violence, caused by Maoist blunders, to discredit the interim government. Initially, even some of the major political parties and sections of the international community tried to turn the Madheshis’ ire against the Maoists to erode the latter’s support base. The Madheshis have a genuine issue but in the absence of a credible leadership, a number of criminal, self-serving and narrow-based political groups are taking undue advantage of the situation. In the forefront of violence and disruption are three splinter Maoists factions of Jai Krishan Goit, Jwala Singh, and Bisfotak Singh, the Madheshi Janadhikar Forum of Upendra Yadav, the Sadbhawana Party, which is a part of the ruling alliance, and lastly, the Terai Cobra and the Terai Tigers led by unknown Robin Hoods. Some Terai political activists are still waiting to float new leadership platforms. The royalists continue to indirectly support and encourage some of these groups in the hope that a disordered Terai will mar the prospects of smooth elections. Slow and uncalibrated responses from the government as well as the eight-party alliance have worsened the situation. The Maoists’ proposal to raise an eight-party front to politically deal with the Terai violence has yet to take off. If the Terai situation has to be brought under control, the government must move fast to seriously engage with the genuine Madheshi groups.
Behind all this confusion and persisting conflict in Nepal is the fact that the old mindsets are finding it hard to come to terms with the new challenge thrown by the peoples’ movement. The political parties and the Maoists had perhaps forged only a tactical alliance to deal with the autocratic King. It is doubtful if this alliance is based on a shared grand strategic vision of building a new Nepal of popular aspirations. This is reflected in the divergence among the eight parties on the questions of the monarchy’s future status, inclusion of hitherto marginalised sections of Madheshis and ethnic minorities, restructuring of the Nepalese army, and of priorities of socio-economic transformation. Such divergences have worsened the trust deficit between not only the Maoists and the other political parties, but also among the non-Maoist parties in the ruling alliance. Maoists continue to grumble about being discriminated against, be it the question of ambassadorial appointments or allocation of funds for their registered cadres or resources for the ministries allocated to them. One wonders if India and the rest of the international community, which are deeply engaged with Nepal’s peace process, have also not been afflicted by the old mindset problem. The outspoken and outgoing American Ambassador, James F. Moriarty, made it amply clear in a number of his departing statements. All those who are engaged in restructuring a new Nepal need to understand clearly that the continuing alliance between the political parties and the Maoists, and election of a Constituent Assembly are the basic requirements for peace and stability in Nepal. There is no alternative except chaos and disorder.
After receiving the shock of popular disenchantment with King Gyanendra’s April 21, 2006, proclamation on the peoples’ movement, India has tried to push Nepal’s peace process in a positive direction, both through diplomatic persuasion and the allocation of generous financial resources. There are, however, elements in the Indian political and policy establishments that would still like to see a ceremonial monarchy and the marginalisation of the Maoists. They want India to be prepared to pick up the pieces and deal with the debris if Nepal were to fall apart due to the Madheshi issue and the ethnic tensions. One hopes Indian policy steers clear of such elements. While continuing to support the peace process, India must throw its weight behind a constructive engagement between Kathmandu and the Madheshi people. Many of the Madheshi groups have in the past thrived and prospered on Indian doles. They must be prevailed on by New Delhi to desist from the path of violence and seek a just but negotiated resolution of their grievances with Kathmandu. If the Terai violence is allowed to delay or disrupt the election process in Nepal and its peace process collapses, India will be the worst affected by its extensive negative spillover.
Source: The Hindu, July 27, 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment