Wednesday, November 8, 2006

Editorial

We remain firm in our presumption that conflicts that erupt or have erupted in a society, whether it be in Nepal or elsewhere, can never be eliminated once and for all but instead can surely be minimized or managed for a while. During this interregnum some others who feel betrayed by the previous agreements inked in between the two conflicting parties, the State and the insurgents, might surface once again and enter into the jungles like what the Maoists did several years ago with more vigor and energy to foil the previous agreements stating that those who inked the former deal have cheated the nation for selfish causes and that such pact could in no way be acceptable to them.

This is what we wrote some weeks back that dynamics of the conflicts change but the conflicts never come to an end. We have had also presumed in these columns some times back that the solution to each and every conflicts contain or possess the seeds of yet another conflict thus keeping the society conflict ridden. We here again visualize that with the pact that is very close to be signed in between the Maoists and the State in a day or two for what has been called to end the decade plus long conflict, a small segment of the Maoists or some group(s) who conclude or might conclude that the agreement arrived at freshly between the two conflicting parties went against their sectarian/tribal/ethic or national interests could once again assume the force and strength of what the Maoists have had in the past decades and once again the state might have to face the unfortunate.

It is not very surprising therefore that our declared presumption on conflict has further been strengthened by none less than Professor Johan Galtung, the founder of TRANSCEND, a global network of about 100 experts in conflict analysis and who has also served as Professor of Peace Studies at the University of Hawaii and other institutions, who says point blank that (sic) "I say there is a new group which will say that they have been betrayed and the likelihood is that the group will increase in time span".

Prof. Galtung further elaborates that the State which appears very sincere in finding a permanent solution to the Maoists conflict and vice versa might not get what they in effect wish for. According to him, "the general perception is that there will be a group who would say we have stopped insurgency on the promise that something will happen but nothing has happened and that those who signed the agreement are traitors which was the usual formulae". The conflict analyst of international repute adds that "it could be yet another generation, remember, the youthful group led by the Maoists and since this group is changing very quickly".

Thus what could be summed up from what Johan Galtung has said it appear that a small group either from the rebel side or from any other camp which would conclude that their interests have not been due taken note of at time of the negotiations might restart the same politics as had been exhibited by the Maoists some decades ago. This is indeed a frightening political scenario, if that happens unfortunately.

In order to add strength to his analysis, the eminent professor also by implication indicates in his statement wherein he says that whatever the Nepali establishment has been doing to bring the insurgents to the mainstream of Nepali politics was an incorrect method. He is of the opinion that instead of "removing the causes that caused the conflict to take this shape and dimension but instead dealing with the symptoms".

This should mean that the Nepali establishment has not been able to diagnose the real issues that gave birth to the insurgency but instead is trying to satisfy the ego of some of the top leaders of the rebels which he by implication hints might boomerang on both: the establishment and the insurgents.

This is not all; Professor Galtung very subtly hints that what he has found that there has been a lot of "love for the monarchy" which in an indirect manner suggests that this Professor would very much wish the continuation of the monarchical institution in whatever for the Nepali people decides.

What is more than interesting but yet puzzling is that this Professor possesses some sort of hatred against India . Look what he says of the Indian establishment: "As a scientist, if I predict India 's behavior, India does not like anything to happen that will put it in a bad light". And this is exactly what we have been witnessing of late of the Indian designs wherein one could find two faces sandwiched in one like what Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde have had in Stevenson's famous fiction.

This amply speaks as to how this eminent scholar from a far flung country takes India and her political behavior here. This also exemplifies the Indian image in the eyes of the internationally acclaimed scholars. Perhaps the developed West possess contempt and condemnation for India only for understandable reasons.

Galtung has spoken many a things which the powers-that-be must take into account. Whatever is for sure is that if this conflict gets resolved, yet another conflict will surface because we have still not diagnosed the causes for the eruption of conflicts as suggested by Professor Galtung.

Pundits of Political Science say that the establishment must keep in knowledge that a society at any particular time possesses four basic elements comprising of the status quoists, status quo ante, forward looking and the victims of the previous three. Naturally the victims of the previous three positions might converge together and revolt for what has been agreed upon by their opponents as in 50s, 90s and more freshly in 2002. Thus what becomes clear is that if there would be a revolt against the upcoming agreement in between the establishment and the Maoists, such an uprising might include those political animals that have been deliberately sidelined in the current scheme of things. No wonder in such an unfortunate eventuality if a small segment of the Maoists boys enter into the jungles again and later being backed by those who have not been provided due space in the entire process of maintaining peace in the country in the recent days. Let's not forget that Nepal is a country dominated by minorities with diverse interests and politics whose politics if ignored or sidelined by the current establishment then a situation might arise whereupon even the constellation of all the dominant political parties in today's politics might not be able to contain the uprising which is still, let's presume, in its embryonic form.

That's all.