Nepal 2007: A Review of Political Developments
Paul Soren
Overview
Nepal’s progress towards democracy and stability was marked by two historic developments: First, the decision by the Maoists to join the mainstream politics and become part of the interim government. Second was the abolition of the monarchy. The peace process advanced rapidly in 2007 following the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) by the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) government and the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-Maoist) in November 2006. The government’s promise to hold Constituent Assembly (CA) elections by mid-June 2007 was the first step.
This process was, however, seriously interrupted due to political disruptions, misunderstanding between political parties and Maoists, and the continuing Terai problems on Madhesh issue, which threatened to derail the peace process. The violent agitations in the Terai emerged as a new challenge for the new government which was struggling to cope up with the Maoists openly violating the peace accord by indulging in violent activities. On several occasions, the SPA and Maoists leadership were at loggerheads over political issues, delaying the elections at least twice raising questions about their credibility and intentions.
Political Transition
The year began on a positive note. On January 15, 2007, the interim government promulgated the interim constitution and suspended the institution of monarchy. The SPA and Maoists formed an interim government under Nepali Congress (NC) leader Girija Prasad Koirala. The Maoists participation in the government, marked a new era in Nepal’s history. The government announced a Common Minimum Programme (CMP) and announced to hold elections in June 2007.
In an equally important decision, the Parliament passed a second amendment to the interim Constitution authorising the Parliament to abolish the institution of monarchy by a two-thirds majority if the King conspired to disrupt the polls. Though, the King had been stripped off most of his powers, the Maoists ensured that the institution of monarchy was abolished. They feared monarchy may jeopardize the elections.
The government was also assigned the task to hold the assembly elections in June but it was delayed due to political confusion and lack of preparation on the part of the parties. Even the Election Commission (EC) said it was technically impossible to conduct free and fair elections on June 20 due to fragile security environment. Finally, after months of discussion it was decided to hold the elections on November 22. The Maoist Parliamentarians, however, chose to resign and put two important pre-conditions, declaration of republic and proportional representative system. They also called for a special Parliamentary session to decide on these issues. A special session was held and the Parliament passed both these resolutions with some amendments. A legislation was passed that enabled the elections to include a mixed-allotment system, combining first-past-the-post and proportional representation system, an important demand of the Maoists and several ethnic groups across the country.
On December 23, the SPA and Maoists signed a 23-point new agreement which cleared the way for holding of polls. The Parliament passed an amendment to the interim constitution declaring Nepal federal democratic republic. Another amendment increased the number of members from 497 to 601. Now, 335 members will be elected on proportional representation system, 240 members on first- past- the- post system and 26 members will be nominated by the Prime Minister. This provision is expected to accommodate aspirations of marginalised and deprived sections and provide them an opportunity to represent their political viewpoint. These steps clearly denote a forward movement in the political scene in Nepal.
Elections
The Constituent Assembly election is an issue of intense debate across the country. To some extent, the government’s inability to hold the polls on time and the postponement undermined the credibility of the interim government, the SPA and that of the Maoists. The parties were unprepared and were hesitant to seek public mandate. Even the Maoists, due to their declining public image and shrinking support base, mainly in the Terai, were apprehensive of participating in the polls. In fact, the major political stakeholders in Nepal were trying to avoid the elections. The situation worsened after the Maoist ministers resigned from the cabinet in September and put forward two conditions. The suspension of the elections only eroded the parties’ image and raised questions on the legitimacy of the government.
The postponement was received with varied degrees of reactions. The civil society came out strongly and demanded the resignation of the government. The government’s move gave an opportunity to the pro-monarchy parties to demand Koirala’s resignation. Even the international community was baffled by the government’s decision to defer the polls and expressed concern.
The parties in the coalition government and some from outside the alliance accused the leadership of delaying the process deliberately. The political environment turned ripe with charges and counter-allegations. A major share of the blame should be borne by the Maoists. It was their insistence on first settling their 22 demands---mainly two dealing with declaring Nepal as a republic and adopting fully proportional representative based election system—which only added to the atmosphere of uncertainty.
Since joining the interim government, the Maoists have always been actively involved in political decisions but suddenly they decided to backtrack from their earlier agreement. This move at a critical juncture was seen as part of their strategy and tactic to pressurise the government to accept their demands. A more flexible approach on the part of both the parties would have helped defuse the situation.
Seven Party Alliance
The Jana Aandholan of 2006 mandated parties to work jointly and find a plausible solution to the pressing problems of the country. It was therefore the responsibility of the SPA and Maoists to ensure a smooth political transition.. However, both the parties chose to ignore their primary responsibility and instead harboured dissimilarities on various issues and refused to resolve them in the larger interest.
The SPA’s behaviour had always been characterised by suspicion and partisan interest. They preferred closed-door decision-making to a more transparent process, making consensus-building difficult. This was aggravated by poor discipline within the parties, with individual politicians making provocative statements and pursuing personal vendettas. Opinions within the party were also divided over the issue of declaring the country a republic. Like Maoists, the SPA too were bent on cornering the spoils of being in power rather than consolidating the peace process.
Amidst fears of losing the polls, the SPA constituents-- the Nepali Congress (NC) and NC-Democratic-- reviewed their policies and initiated talks for unity. On September 25, leaders of both factions of Nepali Congress-Koirala and Sher Bahadur Deuba agreed to merge and become the single largest political party.
The Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist)--UML, the second largest political party was put in a Catch- 22 situation after several of its cadres expressed their willingness to join the Maoists rather than aligning with NC. At some point of time the UML was thinking of forming alliance of all the Left parties to counter the NC.
The SPA leadership was not able to deal with the important issues in a decisive manner. But to be fair, they did make attempts to bridge the gap between expectations and performance of the government. The alliance set up a task force, representing members from all seven parties, to finalise points of consensus and prepare the draft agreement. The taskforce recommended for a 20-point pact to end the current political stalemate and evolve an understanding on crucial issues like declaring the country as a republic and the shape of the electoral system. The SPA leaders succeeded in evolving an understanding and endorsed the new pact, and helped end the year0long political stalemate.
Maoists
The Maoists joined the mainstream politics with a political objective in their mind and their subsequent decisions and actions were part of this strategy. In February 2007, during the People’s War (PW) anniversary, Maoists Chairman Prachanda announced his party’s position on several major issues. He emphasized Maoists commitment to establish a republican state. He also reiterated their group’s decision to participate in the elections and cooperate with the democratic forces. However, in April 2007, the Maoists turned back on their promise and demanded that Nepal be declared a republic before holding the elections. This was mainly done to recover from the damage they suffered in Terai and to justify their decade-long armed struggle.
This stance dramatically changed the political situation in Nepal. The Maoist held their fifth plenum in August in Kathmandu which was attended by more than 2000 party members. The plenum unanimously passed political and organisational report of Prachanda with some amendments. The report also put forth two preconditions for the elections – an immediate announcement of the formation of a republic by Parliament and implementation of a Proportional Representation (PR) based electoral system. Subsequently, the Maoist Central Committee meeting also implemented the decision of the fifth plenum.
The Maoists were also concerned over their growing unpopularity and rising dissent within the party. The Maoists affiliated Young Communist League (YCL) was involved in various violent activities and their acts were roundly condemned across the country. The Maoists made initiatives to restructure the party to demonstrate their intension to transform it from a revolutionary group to a political organization. However, the violence unleashed by their cadres undermined their political alteration and the peace process. The Maoists pre-poll demand put a spanner in the electoral works as none of the parties were sure about the next course of political direction in the country. They made continuous effort to make the interim Parliament declare a republic. Gauging the political environment, Prachanda announced formation of a possible Left Front to contest the elections which was received with wider acceptance from all other Left parties. The aim was to counter the NC and other royalist forces. The UML came out openly supporting the Maoists demand for republic.
In September, the Maoists quit the coalition government after their demands for announcement of republic before the elections and proportional representation-based election system were not accepted. However, they decided not to burn the bridge completely and continued persuading the SPA leadership to accept their demands in the larger interest. Though Prachanda and senior Maoist leaders strongly advocated for the need to hold the polls under the proportional representation system, the Maoist cadre indulged in violence despite their commitment for peace. At one time, the Maoists strongly supported delaying the elections and proposed a new agreement with the SPA. These moves and rhetoric were mainly tactical move to put pressure on the government to meet their demands.
The Maoist withdrawal from the government was prompted by unhappiness with the implementation of the peace deal, pressure from their own cadres and a growing realisation that their electoral prospects may be poor.
Terai Trouble
The continuing crisis in the Terai region poses a serious challenge for the present government. The Madhesi groups have been demanding the restructuring of the state on federal lines; adopt proportional electoral system and delimitation of election constituencies on basis of population ratio and geographical conditions. Although many of the Madhesi grievances were genuine and needed to be amicably resolved, but the wave of violence indulged in by different groups undermined their objective. Over a dozen underground groups became active with their own set of agendas. Almost all of them strongly advocated violence as a weapon against the State to achieve their objectives.
The government's initiatives to contain the movement at initial phase resulted in worsening the situation and dramatically increased the Madhesi involvement. The agitating groups rejected the offer of negotiations from the government and continued with their violent agitation across the region.
The government was, however, successful in bringing the Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum (MJF) to the negotiating table. During the three rounds of peace talks, many key issues including the demand for federal structure, autonomy and proportional representation were discussed. In the last round, the government rejected MJF’s demand to dissolve the interim Parliament which provoked the group to warn that it would start another agitation. The government and MJF, however, decided to settle their differences and agreed to a 22-point deal on August 30. According to the agreement, the assembly will decide the character boundaries, and rights of autonomous states under a federal structure, on the basis of suggestions from State Restructuring Commission. In a positive note, the MJF renounced its demand for a fully proportional electoral system to cooperate in conducting the polls.
Apart from MJF, two other prominent armed factions-- the Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha (JTMM), one led by Jai Krishna Goit and another by Jwala Singh demanded a separate state for the Madhesis. These groups operate in the entire Terai region but are stronger mainly in the eastern part of Nepal. Their presence is visible in almost all the major industrial areas. There are also forces, with their hidden agendas, backing the monarchy and pro-royalist in fuelling the Madhesi uprising. The Indian Rightist groups are instigating the Madhesi uprising by fuelling religious sentiments. The World Hindu Federation (WHF), a Hindu fundamentalist group, Shiv Sena-Nepal, National Defence Force and Nepal Independent Youth Society (NIYS) are fuelling religious sentiments. The WHF, NDF and Shiv Sena-Nepal have expressed displeasure at Nepal's transformation into a secular nation. These fundamentalist groups in Nepal are being strongly backed by Indian Rightist groups. They have been demonstrating and demanding for return to pre-Jana Andolan period. All these forces intend to disrupt the elections and derail the peace process. The government continues to face difficult time in dealing with these armed groups, especially after it rejected the Goit faction's demand for a United Nations (UN) mediation.
As the year closed, the crisis in Terai only worsened. A group of Parliamentarians from Terai resigned from Parliament on December 10. This once again raised doubts about the elections. Senior Nepali Congress leader and Minister for Science and Technology, Mahant Thakur, along with three other influential Terai leaders, Hridayesh Tripathi formerly with (Nepal Sadbhawana Party-Anandi Devi), Mahendra Yadav of (Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist) (CPN-UML) and Ram Chandra Raya of Rastriya Prajatantra Party resigned from the Parliament alleging the government and parties insensitivity and indifference towards resolving the Terai problems.
The Madhesi groups also showed signs of unity. The newly-formed Terai Madhes Democratic Party (TMDP) led by senior Madhesi leader Mahanta Thakur and the Joint Madhesi Front (JMF), an alliance of the Madhesi People’s Right Forum (MPRF) led by Upendra Yadav and Sadbhavana Party (SP) led by Rajendra Mahato, jointly warned to start a decisive movement if the government failed to fulfill their demand before the polls.
Role of External Powers
India’s contribution in facilitating the process of democracy in Nepal was apparent. India played a crucial role in bringing the democratic forces and Maoists together under a common platform which led to the signing of peace accord. India facilitated the evolution of a broader political consensus among different forces. During the time of political crisis and confusion, India brokered peace between various factions. The eruption of violence in Terai and the deepening political crisis concerned India most and it expressed serious concern over the developments.
However, India’s pro-active engagement has not been well received by some political stakeholders in Nepal. After the spurt in the Terai violence, some political leaders and the Maoists started accusing India of supporting a secessionist movement in the area. Though much of India’s policy has been reactive, it still continues to strengthen the bilateral relationship by providing economic assistance for development programmes, and for the preparation of polls. By and large, India will continue to be a major player in Nepal.
Some of the major external powers, namely the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK) and European Union (EU) have been towing India’s line. All these countries have promised to support the peace process and democracy for stability in Nepal. They have been unanimously voicing their support for the peace process and have been urging the government to hold the elections. Much of the support by UK and EU countries was focused on development projects linked with the peace process rather than military. The EU countries argued that the Nepali people’s aspirations for change will not be fulfilled unless there is development taking place.
The Americans, however, had a different agenda. The US government reiterated its stance to support the peace process and an early election. It, however, expressed serious concern on the Maoists role and their activities. They continued to perceive the Maoists as a threat to the evolution of democracy in Nepal. In the present circumstances, the US, UK and EU countries will continue to wait and watch the developments taking place.
China kept a close watch on the developments in Nepal. China established contacts with the interim government, parties and most importantly with the Maoists. In 2007, China sent several high ranking government officials and important leaders of the Communist Party of China (CPC) to Nepal to explore feasibility to strengthen ties with the present establishment. Through these high-level visits China tried to convince Nepal that it continued with its non-interventional approach. Besides, China promised to provide economic assistance, expand rail and road network and support the peace process and polls in Nepal. By and large, China initiated an assertive foreign policy and tried to engage actively in the political transition.
Nepal’s progress towards democracy and stability was marked by two historic developments: First, the decision by the Maoists to join the mainstream politics and become part of the interim government. Second was the abolition of the monarchy. The peace process advanced rapidly in 2007 following the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) by the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) government and the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-Maoist) in November 2006. The government’s promise to hold Constituent Assembly (CA) elections by mid-June 2007 was the first step.
This process was, however, seriously interrupted due to political disruptions, misunderstanding between political parties and Maoists, and the continuing Terai problems on Madhesh issue, which threatened to derail the peace process. The violent agitations in the Terai emerged as a new challenge for the new government which was struggling to cope up with the Maoists openly violating the peace accord by indulging in violent activities. On several occasions, the SPA and Maoists leadership were at loggerheads over political issues, delaying the elections at least twice raising questions about their credibility and intentions.
Political Transition
The year began on a positive note. On January 15, 2007, the interim government promulgated the interim constitution and suspended the institution of monarchy. The SPA and Maoists formed an interim government under Nepali Congress (NC) leader Girija Prasad Koirala. The Maoists participation in the government, marked a new era in Nepal’s history. The government announced a Common Minimum Programme (CMP) and announced to hold elections in June 2007.
In an equally important decision, the Parliament passed a second amendment to the interim Constitution authorising the Parliament to abolish the institution of monarchy by a two-thirds majority if the King conspired to disrupt the polls. Though, the King had been stripped off most of his powers, the Maoists ensured that the institution of monarchy was abolished. They feared monarchy may jeopardize the elections.
The government was also assigned the task to hold the assembly elections in June but it was delayed due to political confusion and lack of preparation on the part of the parties. Even the Election Commission (EC) said it was technically impossible to conduct free and fair elections on June 20 due to fragile security environment. Finally, after months of discussion it was decided to hold the elections on November 22. The Maoist Parliamentarians, however, chose to resign and put two important pre-conditions, declaration of republic and proportional representative system. They also called for a special Parliamentary session to decide on these issues. A special session was held and the Parliament passed both these resolutions with some amendments. A legislation was passed that enabled the elections to include a mixed-allotment system, combining first-past-the-post and proportional representation system, an important demand of the Maoists and several ethnic groups across the country.
On December 23, the SPA and Maoists signed a 23-point new agreement which cleared the way for holding of polls. The Parliament passed an amendment to the interim constitution declaring Nepal federal democratic republic. Another amendment increased the number of members from 497 to 601. Now, 335 members will be elected on proportional representation system, 240 members on first- past- the- post system and 26 members will be nominated by the Prime Minister. This provision is expected to accommodate aspirations of marginalised and deprived sections and provide them an opportunity to represent their political viewpoint. These steps clearly denote a forward movement in the political scene in Nepal.
Elections
The Constituent Assembly election is an issue of intense debate across the country. To some extent, the government’s inability to hold the polls on time and the postponement undermined the credibility of the interim government, the SPA and that of the Maoists. The parties were unprepared and were hesitant to seek public mandate. Even the Maoists, due to their declining public image and shrinking support base, mainly in the Terai, were apprehensive of participating in the polls. In fact, the major political stakeholders in Nepal were trying to avoid the elections. The situation worsened after the Maoist ministers resigned from the cabinet in September and put forward two conditions. The suspension of the elections only eroded the parties’ image and raised questions on the legitimacy of the government.
The postponement was received with varied degrees of reactions. The civil society came out strongly and demanded the resignation of the government. The government’s move gave an opportunity to the pro-monarchy parties to demand Koirala’s resignation. Even the international community was baffled by the government’s decision to defer the polls and expressed concern.
The parties in the coalition government and some from outside the alliance accused the leadership of delaying the process deliberately. The political environment turned ripe with charges and counter-allegations. A major share of the blame should be borne by the Maoists. It was their insistence on first settling their 22 demands---mainly two dealing with declaring Nepal as a republic and adopting fully proportional representative based election system—which only added to the atmosphere of uncertainty.
Since joining the interim government, the Maoists have always been actively involved in political decisions but suddenly they decided to backtrack from their earlier agreement. This move at a critical juncture was seen as part of their strategy and tactic to pressurise the government to accept their demands. A more flexible approach on the part of both the parties would have helped defuse the situation.
Seven Party Alliance
The Jana Aandholan of 2006 mandated parties to work jointly and find a plausible solution to the pressing problems of the country. It was therefore the responsibility of the SPA and Maoists to ensure a smooth political transition.. However, both the parties chose to ignore their primary responsibility and instead harboured dissimilarities on various issues and refused to resolve them in the larger interest.
The SPA’s behaviour had always been characterised by suspicion and partisan interest. They preferred closed-door decision-making to a more transparent process, making consensus-building difficult. This was aggravated by poor discipline within the parties, with individual politicians making provocative statements and pursuing personal vendettas. Opinions within the party were also divided over the issue of declaring the country a republic. Like Maoists, the SPA too were bent on cornering the spoils of being in power rather than consolidating the peace process.
Amidst fears of losing the polls, the SPA constituents-- the Nepali Congress (NC) and NC-Democratic-- reviewed their policies and initiated talks for unity. On September 25, leaders of both factions of Nepali Congress-Koirala and Sher Bahadur Deuba agreed to merge and become the single largest political party.
The Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist)--UML, the second largest political party was put in a Catch- 22 situation after several of its cadres expressed their willingness to join the Maoists rather than aligning with NC. At some point of time the UML was thinking of forming alliance of all the Left parties to counter the NC.
The SPA leadership was not able to deal with the important issues in a decisive manner. But to be fair, they did make attempts to bridge the gap between expectations and performance of the government. The alliance set up a task force, representing members from all seven parties, to finalise points of consensus and prepare the draft agreement. The taskforce recommended for a 20-point pact to end the current political stalemate and evolve an understanding on crucial issues like declaring the country as a republic and the shape of the electoral system. The SPA leaders succeeded in evolving an understanding and endorsed the new pact, and helped end the year0long political stalemate.
Maoists
The Maoists joined the mainstream politics with a political objective in their mind and their subsequent decisions and actions were part of this strategy. In February 2007, during the People’s War (PW) anniversary, Maoists Chairman Prachanda announced his party’s position on several major issues. He emphasized Maoists commitment to establish a republican state. He also reiterated their group’s decision to participate in the elections and cooperate with the democratic forces. However, in April 2007, the Maoists turned back on their promise and demanded that Nepal be declared a republic before holding the elections. This was mainly done to recover from the damage they suffered in Terai and to justify their decade-long armed struggle.
This stance dramatically changed the political situation in Nepal. The Maoist held their fifth plenum in August in Kathmandu which was attended by more than 2000 party members. The plenum unanimously passed political and organisational report of Prachanda with some amendments. The report also put forth two preconditions for the elections – an immediate announcement of the formation of a republic by Parliament and implementation of a Proportional Representation (PR) based electoral system. Subsequently, the Maoist Central Committee meeting also implemented the decision of the fifth plenum.
The Maoists were also concerned over their growing unpopularity and rising dissent within the party. The Maoists affiliated Young Communist League (YCL) was involved in various violent activities and their acts were roundly condemned across the country. The Maoists made initiatives to restructure the party to demonstrate their intension to transform it from a revolutionary group to a political organization. However, the violence unleashed by their cadres undermined their political alteration and the peace process. The Maoists pre-poll demand put a spanner in the electoral works as none of the parties were sure about the next course of political direction in the country. They made continuous effort to make the interim Parliament declare a republic. Gauging the political environment, Prachanda announced formation of a possible Left Front to contest the elections which was received with wider acceptance from all other Left parties. The aim was to counter the NC and other royalist forces. The UML came out openly supporting the Maoists demand for republic.
In September, the Maoists quit the coalition government after their demands for announcement of republic before the elections and proportional representation-based election system were not accepted. However, they decided not to burn the bridge completely and continued persuading the SPA leadership to accept their demands in the larger interest. Though Prachanda and senior Maoist leaders strongly advocated for the need to hold the polls under the proportional representation system, the Maoist cadre indulged in violence despite their commitment for peace. At one time, the Maoists strongly supported delaying the elections and proposed a new agreement with the SPA. These moves and rhetoric were mainly tactical move to put pressure on the government to meet their demands.
The Maoist withdrawal from the government was prompted by unhappiness with the implementation of the peace deal, pressure from their own cadres and a growing realisation that their electoral prospects may be poor.
Terai Trouble
The continuing crisis in the Terai region poses a serious challenge for the present government. The Madhesi groups have been demanding the restructuring of the state on federal lines; adopt proportional electoral system and delimitation of election constituencies on basis of population ratio and geographical conditions. Although many of the Madhesi grievances were genuine and needed to be amicably resolved, but the wave of violence indulged in by different groups undermined their objective. Over a dozen underground groups became active with their own set of agendas. Almost all of them strongly advocated violence as a weapon against the State to achieve their objectives.
The government's initiatives to contain the movement at initial phase resulted in worsening the situation and dramatically increased the Madhesi involvement. The agitating groups rejected the offer of negotiations from the government and continued with their violent agitation across the region.
The government was, however, successful in bringing the Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum (MJF) to the negotiating table. During the three rounds of peace talks, many key issues including the demand for federal structure, autonomy and proportional representation were discussed. In the last round, the government rejected MJF’s demand to dissolve the interim Parliament which provoked the group to warn that it would start another agitation. The government and MJF, however, decided to settle their differences and agreed to a 22-point deal on August 30. According to the agreement, the assembly will decide the character boundaries, and rights of autonomous states under a federal structure, on the basis of suggestions from State Restructuring Commission. In a positive note, the MJF renounced its demand for a fully proportional electoral system to cooperate in conducting the polls.
Apart from MJF, two other prominent armed factions-- the Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha (JTMM), one led by Jai Krishna Goit and another by Jwala Singh demanded a separate state for the Madhesis. These groups operate in the entire Terai region but are stronger mainly in the eastern part of Nepal. Their presence is visible in almost all the major industrial areas. There are also forces, with their hidden agendas, backing the monarchy and pro-royalist in fuelling the Madhesi uprising. The Indian Rightist groups are instigating the Madhesi uprising by fuelling religious sentiments. The World Hindu Federation (WHF), a Hindu fundamentalist group, Shiv Sena-Nepal, National Defence Force and Nepal Independent Youth Society (NIYS) are fuelling religious sentiments. The WHF, NDF and Shiv Sena-Nepal have expressed displeasure at Nepal's transformation into a secular nation. These fundamentalist groups in Nepal are being strongly backed by Indian Rightist groups. They have been demonstrating and demanding for return to pre-Jana Andolan period. All these forces intend to disrupt the elections and derail the peace process. The government continues to face difficult time in dealing with these armed groups, especially after it rejected the Goit faction's demand for a United Nations (UN) mediation.
As the year closed, the crisis in Terai only worsened. A group of Parliamentarians from Terai resigned from Parliament on December 10. This once again raised doubts about the elections. Senior Nepali Congress leader and Minister for Science and Technology, Mahant Thakur, along with three other influential Terai leaders, Hridayesh Tripathi formerly with (Nepal Sadbhawana Party-Anandi Devi), Mahendra Yadav of (Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist) (CPN-UML) and Ram Chandra Raya of Rastriya Prajatantra Party resigned from the Parliament alleging the government and parties insensitivity and indifference towards resolving the Terai problems.
The Madhesi groups also showed signs of unity. The newly-formed Terai Madhes Democratic Party (TMDP) led by senior Madhesi leader Mahanta Thakur and the Joint Madhesi Front (JMF), an alliance of the Madhesi People’s Right Forum (MPRF) led by Upendra Yadav and Sadbhavana Party (SP) led by Rajendra Mahato, jointly warned to start a decisive movement if the government failed to fulfill their demand before the polls.
Role of External Powers
India’s contribution in facilitating the process of democracy in Nepal was apparent. India played a crucial role in bringing the democratic forces and Maoists together under a common platform which led to the signing of peace accord. India facilitated the evolution of a broader political consensus among different forces. During the time of political crisis and confusion, India brokered peace between various factions. The eruption of violence in Terai and the deepening political crisis concerned India most and it expressed serious concern over the developments.
However, India’s pro-active engagement has not been well received by some political stakeholders in Nepal. After the spurt in the Terai violence, some political leaders and the Maoists started accusing India of supporting a secessionist movement in the area. Though much of India’s policy has been reactive, it still continues to strengthen the bilateral relationship by providing economic assistance for development programmes, and for the preparation of polls. By and large, India will continue to be a major player in Nepal.
Some of the major external powers, namely the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK) and European Union (EU) have been towing India’s line. All these countries have promised to support the peace process and democracy for stability in Nepal. They have been unanimously voicing their support for the peace process and have been urging the government to hold the elections. Much of the support by UK and EU countries was focused on development projects linked with the peace process rather than military. The EU countries argued that the Nepali people’s aspirations for change will not be fulfilled unless there is development taking place.
The Americans, however, had a different agenda. The US government reiterated its stance to support the peace process and an early election. It, however, expressed serious concern on the Maoists role and their activities. They continued to perceive the Maoists as a threat to the evolution of democracy in Nepal. In the present circumstances, the US, UK and EU countries will continue to wait and watch the developments taking place.
China kept a close watch on the developments in Nepal. China established contacts with the interim government, parties and most importantly with the Maoists. In 2007, China sent several high ranking government officials and important leaders of the Communist Party of China (CPC) to Nepal to explore feasibility to strengthen ties with the present establishment. Through these high-level visits China tried to convince Nepal that it continued with its non-interventional approach. Besides, China promised to provide economic assistance, expand rail and road network and support the peace process and polls in Nepal. By and large, China initiated an assertive foreign policy and tried to engage actively in the political transition.
Source: ORF, February 1, 2008
