|
In 1990, multiparty democracy was restored in Nepal. Since then, internal conflicts have been a regular feature in this Himalayan Kingdom. Earlier most of the South-East Asian countries looked at Nepal as a nation of peace and stability. Sometime back, it has also played its card of political harmony to curry favours from India and China, by skillfully pitting one against the other, in the backdrop of the uptight relationship between these two nations.
The Maoist agitation originated in Nepal in 1996, when a leftist group, namely the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-M), constituted in 1995, following a split in the Communist Party of Nepal-Unity Centre, condemned the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninists) or the CPN (UML) and other mainstream communist factions as ‘renegades’ and ‘revisionists’ due to their participation in the parliamentary process.
Initial incidents of violence were confined to remote mountainous regions, but by the late 1990s, it had spread over more than half of the nation.
In the beginning, the Maoists started their campaign by castigating social evils like gambling, spurious liquor consumption, girl trafficking, domestic violence, smuggling, etc., and supported diverse nationalities and ethnic groups to win self-determination. In January 2003, it declared Rolpa and Rukum as Magarat Autonomous Region.
Advocacy of people’s war through the mobilisation of 21 sub-national, ethnic and professional organisations; forced recruitment; confiscating arms from the local feudal and security forces, and turning the safe areas into strategic ones; eliminating “class enemies”; and creation of “people’s governments” are its other tactics. Slowly but surely they started attacking security forces and glorified their comrades’ deaths in clashes as an act of martyrdom.
The conflict between the establishment and the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-Maoist) has now intensified. As a consequence, democracy and process of development in Nepal has received a jolt. Increasing atrocities, weak leadership, poor governance and political factionalism together continue to impede economic reforms and deteriorate social justice. According to a NHRC report so far, more than 11,000 people have been killed in the Nepal-insurgency, inclusive of 500 workers, 500 women and 268 children.
The joint agitation of five parties–Nepali Congress (NC), Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML), Nepal Sadbhavana Party (NSP-Anandi Devi), Nepal Workers and Peasants’ Party (NeWPP), and Jana Morcha Nepal (JMN) had demanded the restoration of the Parliament. That forced King Gyanendra to reappoint Deuba as Prime Minister, on 10 June 2004.
In June 2004, King Gyanendra re-appointed Sher Bahadur Deuba as the Prime Minister of Nepal and entrusted him with the responsibility to include all sides in the government; restore peace in the country by initiating dialogue with the CPN-Maoist, and initiate elections to the House of Representatives. But surprisingly, in February 2005, the King dismissed Deuba and his government; assumed executive power and, declared a state of emergency. He accused Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba’s government of failing to win the support of Maoist rebels within the deadline of 13 January 2005 and failing to invite them for peace talks; and also failing to prepare the ground for elections in the spring. However, analysts suggest, the king may be using these issues to strengthen his own role in Nepalese politics, with the objective of seeking to create an absolute monarchy.
The CPN-Maoist is sceptical over the legitimacy of the government to hold any negotiation and fulfil its demand for a Constituent Assembly (CA), or take any decision regarding the monarchy or the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA). Certain foreign powers, such as India, the USA and the UK are supporting the security forces in order to prevent Nepal from slipping towards a failed state. The CPN-Maoist’s preference for ‘a direct dialogue with the king’ has evoked apprehension among political parties; as they assume that they will be sidelined in the political process and lose legitimacy. The Secretary-General of CPN-UML even accused the Maoists “for encouraging the king to exercise executive power and helping him to become an autocratic ruler.”
The rebels have an impression that the government is trying to isolate them through domestic and international alliances, in the name of joining the US-led global coalition against terrorism. They have expressed their concern over the growing influence of the security forces and foreign powers in decision-making.
On 7 December 2004, the CPN-Maoist leader, Prachanda, reiterated that his “party is ready to hold meaningful dialogue under UN facilitation or any appropriate international mediator, to find a way out of the present political deadlock.” The CPN-Maoist’s bottom-line for talk involves a roundtable conference, an interim government and the election of a CA to draft a new Constitution. The CA has attracted support from other political parties and middle class youths, who are dissatisfied with the incumbent political class. Both the government and the rebels, however, reject the opposition parties’ demand for the revival of Parliament. The prospect for the rebels to become decisive does not seem plausible; given the country’s strategic geography and its geo-political links abroad.
Though the Indian government cannot but throw its weight with the pro-democratic forces of the Himalayan Kingdom, at the same time it must ensure that the Maoists do not get the upper hand. India also has to keep in mind that its insurgents, particularly from the north-eastern states, do not get support in Nepal; as most of them follow communist ideology. Most of these outfits in India are operated from neighbouring countries, and as Bhutan and Bangladesh have already conducted flush-out operations successfully, they are looking out for a third nearby country to harbour their activities.
As a major chunk of the population in Nepal has already sided with the anti-monarchy Maoists, so India’s move has to be well thought of. Even the Nepalese Congress has announced its willingness to work with the Maoists if the latter give up arms. Moreover, the Janadhikar Suraksha Samiti Bharat–a prominent organisation of Nepalese politicians, who have sought refuge here, is increasing pressure on the Indian government to stop military support to the Royal Nepal Army. The organisation has also called for scrapping of the royal proclamation, including the “anti-people” steps taken on 1 February 2005, restoration of press freedom, and the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners there.
Now, if any third country takes advantage of the situation then that might prove to be an unhealthy proposition for India. Not only does India face the risk of the Maoists forging strong ties with the Chinese – irrespective of whether they be the rebels or the Communist Government of China, but it also has to remain vigilant that the cornered King does not seek military aid from a ‘superpower’. At any point if the King finds a supporting alliance, then that will be a win-win situation for him.
Since the Nepalese view India as a supporter of its cause for democracy, New Delhi can use its good offices to broker a historic and permanent peace accord between the warring sections. That would lead to a more amicable solution. The international community shares a common opinion on the resolution of the armed conflict in Nepal, and the consensus is emerging on a “political resolution” within the framework of constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy. The Swiss and Norwegians are willing to mediate in the conflict. The European Union has said “Nepal will be benefitted from international mediation” and advised the CPN-Maoists “to respond positively, without any precondition, to the government’s offer for peace negotiations. Failure to do so would indicate that the CPN-Maoists have no real intention of pursuing political objectives through legitimate means.”
Despite some success, Nepal’s foreign policy is thwarted by challenges. On 2 March 2005, the Nepalese government has sent Nepalese workers to work in Iraq. This gives an impression of a shift from its earlier policy. Nepal has also joined the folds of an economic grouping - Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Thailand Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) to exploit the country’s potential in the tourism sector. Besides that, Nepal has signed the South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) with India to foster further economic cooperation. So, let’s wait and watch how the future unfolds for the Himalayan Kingdom…
|
