Failure of our system

This is in response to the numerous articles that I read almost everyday in your newspaper and
others about Maoist insurgency in Nepal. From my readings, I have started to gather the
impression that a typical day of an average Nepali begins with the fear of aggression and violence
and ends with a fictitious assurance by some public official who claims that the violence will soon
end, and that they are working towards it. There is no denying that the growing insurgency of
Maoists in Nepal has indeed captured the public psyche and is increasingly undermining the
security of our nation and its people. These unbridled acts of violence for political ends both appal
and outrage us. However, despite the much-acclaimed counter-terrorist efforts undertaken by our
government officials, insurgency in Nepal does not seem to be a controllable phenomenon.

This calls into question whether our policy and organizational mechanisms are adequately fused
to combat terrorism in Nepal, whether it be one that is perpetrated by a sub-group or by an
individual. Under the current rhetoric, terrorism is broadly defined as politically motivated violence,
perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents. With that
characterization, available policy options to fight terrorism ranges from diplomacy, international
assistance, constructive engagement and covert action to physical security enhancement and
military force. However, the potential shortfall of this traditional approach is its focus on groups
and group members excluding individual (non-group organized) terrorist activities. Perhaps, the
lack of adequate definition is the reason for the growing acknowledgement about the possibility of
people being deceptively slaughtered under the banner of Maoist attacks.

Notwithstanding the possible lack of credibility of our government officials in other arenas, I
would, however, be hesitant to blame them for the increasing threats of terrorism in Nepal. In their
desire to combat terrorism in a modern political context, government officials often face
conflicting goals and courses of action: (1) providing security from terrorist acts, i.e. limiting the
freedom of individual terrorists, terrorist groups versus (2) maximizing individual freedoms,
democracy, and human rights. This dilemma is further exacerbated by global trend towards
deregulation, open borders, and expanded commerce especially with our neighbours—India and
China.

So what would be an effective policy option for Nepal so that we can moderate the forces that
threaten the security of our people and at the same time does not impinge on our recently
restored democracy and relegate us to compromise on individual freedom? I think that we need to
start by acknowledging that the minorities in our nation are discontented-whether they be
individuals or groups. They are unhappy that any two other members are assumed to know better
than they do, and any 51% to know better than the other 49%. Hence, there needs to be more
sincere efforts directed towards understanding the concerns of these displeased individuals
which, in turn cannot be solved merely by having a dialogue with Maoist leaders. Democracy is
about having an equal voice and having one’s voice heard and these voices transcend group
boundaries. We need to create a political platform where individual voices can be heard and
respected-having a dialogue with the Maoist leaders cannot be the end and might only
superficially cover-up of a deeply rooted problem in our so called democratic culture. Until such a
platform is created, the most effective way to combat the insurgency would be to gather as much
intelligence as possible and thus disrupt terrorist plans and organizations before they act. This is
not the time to convolute ourselves by indulging ourselves into endless debates about whether we
should involve the military and whether or not we should have a dialogue with the Maoists.

Ours is a long fought democracy and I would hate to have it being referred to as an illustration of
the saying "democracy is merely the scoundrel’s last attempt to maintain the divine right of kings
by converting it into the divine right of the elected."

Bandita Sijapati
New York, NY 10003