Political alliance, a glimmer of hope insight

By SARITA GIRI

The present standoff between the government and the Maoist insurgents is undoubtedly a grim threat to democracy. The recent formation of alliance of political parties against the backdrop of this standoff, apparently for normalising the situation, though gives some hope, its success, however, depends upon how Girija Prasad Koirala, in his capacity as the chairperson of the ruling party, succeeds in making his party, including the parliament party, adopt the propositions of the alliance.

The signs so far are ominous. The government, since the declaration of emergency, is insisting the Maoists to surrender arms before any dialogue. However, the leaders of the alliance have suggested that having gained upper hand in the battle, as claimed by the government, the government should keep itself open for the dialogue without any condition. Ironically, the important senior ministers as well as the Prime Minister appear poles apart from this stand. This is yet another case of acute polarisation within the NC about an issue of critical nature.

Instances of polarisation within the NC on different issues have been quite customary. Moreover, observers have generally viewed such differences more as motivated by power struggle than serious policy concerns. More often than not, the change in government produced at the end of a conflicting state has fostered a kind of habit and attitude among the people that they are generally disinclined to weigh their differences. This can be called people’s apathy which politicians have generally used for their narrow gains. Very often the shortsightedness and opportunist responses of the CPN (UML) to situations created due to incessant conflicts within the NC has also not been judicious enough to help politics to redeem. The paucity of critical thinking driven by immediate power games and apathy of the people has done irreparable damages to the political process so far.

The present state of continuing mass killing for curbing the Maoist violence is a clear testimony of how things have gradually slipped out of political control, despite the overwhelming opinion in favour of political solution. Why and how has this critical situation been reached? Can we try to identify some of the loose ends of the process, presumably responsible for this situation? To begin with, when the Maoist violent campaign began, one section within the NC, probably without taking into account the varied dimensions of the problem, sought only for a political solution. During that period, Girijababu as the Prime Minister insisted that all apparatus of security, including the Royal Nepal Army, should be mobilised to tackle the Maoist terrorists. However, he failed in bringing the army into operation for known and unknown reasons and he had to step down. Seemingly, because of sharp differences prevailing primarily within the NC and secondly, due to stiff opposition from major parties, an apparently weak prime minister could not succeed in mobilising the army at that time. The failure might have bolstered insurgents’ morale and helped spread the terror campaign. Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, who succeeded Koirala with much sought peace agenda, declared the cease-fire unilaterally and invited the Maoists for the peace talks, despite their fresh violent attacks. By that time, the Maoists, besides their initial 40-point demand, had already made public demands for interim Government, Republicanism, and Constituent Assembly of the dialogue. The dialogue began around those issues and, in the course of dialogue, they dropped their two demands and insisted on the Constituent Assembly for the resolution of the conflict.

It seems ironic that the Prime Minister made it public during the peace talks that it was impossible for him to meet the demand for the Constituent Assembly as the parameters of the present Constitution does not allow for anything like that. However, he vaguely insisted on the success of the peace dialogue. It was quite puzzling for many observers as to how the peace process would succeed when any connecting thread between the demand of the rebels and the government’s position was not at all conceivable.

A few senior members of the government though, then spoke in favour of forming an interim government including the Maoists for going in for the fresh parliamentary elections. However, the government could not materialize even that. The UML also did not come forward for an interim government. Furthermore, the government apparently made no serious effort to garner required support to amend the Constitution for the interim government. Therefore, many observers were not surprised when the Maoists walked out of the peace talks and resumed violence.

The government and many others have, since then, criticized the Maoists for the failure of the peace talks. But they have not yet elaborated the points at which the dialogue actually broke down. What were the proposals of the government that were rejected by the Maoists? The Maoists have, reportedly, said that the government could not offer anything palpable in response to their last demand for the Constituent Assembly. The government, since then, is pursuing crude military methods to deal with the Maoists and that has put at stake, furthermore, the potency and credibility of political parties and leaders.

Against this setting, the objectives as stated by the parties’ alliance, firstly, to save the gains of the1990 mass movement and secondly, to seek a political solution to the problem marks a point of departure and suggests the beginning of new initiatives to rescue democratic politics. However, anything substantial can be achieved only by an inclusive, creative and constructive approach of major political parties. Presently, the peace rallies and mass meeting organised by the alliance are meant for mobilising people and instilling confidence. But the final aim should be to create a conducive environment for the peace talks. Perhaps this would not be possible until the Maoists give up violence, even unilaterally, and emergency is lifted. The genuine political process cannot begin in the absence of either of the two conditions.

The stand, taken by various political parties on Maoist violence campaign in the past, cannot absolve themselves from the responsibility of finding a political solution. Not only the incumbent Prime Minister but also almost all political parties, extending from far right to the far left, have argued for a political solution. Probably due to justifiable nature of the 40 point Moaist demand, covering wide arenas of socio-political and economic life, political parties could not denounce the movement. Mainstream parties have tenuously legitimised the violent campaign in the eyes of the deprived and alienated people. A few distinguished foreign dignitaries have even held the Maoist demand justifiable. However, violent politics and terrorism are two different concepts that should not be equated for parochial and perilous gains. Likewise, most sections of the society have urged for a political solution to the Maoist movement. This somewhat but inconvenient social psyche draws an urgent attention. One possible explanation for this could be the people at large keep the trust on the regime that should reform itself.

However, a sea change has occurred after the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. In Nepal, in the aftermath of those attacks, the intellectual and political debate, that had begun about the meanings of people’s sovereignty and people’s empowerment, has been made irrelevant for the time being. Violent politics and indifference has become the order of the day. The formation of the political parties’ alliance can prove its worth if it succeeds in restoring primacy of people’s politics over politico-military politics, which appears to be in building and which may reduce social base of politics furthermore for worse.

I saw, I loved and it ended

By SUVECHA PANT

Love at first sight, an age- old question that is still in controversy. Some believe it, some don’t. When this topic arises, which it usually does, an interesting incident always sticks to my mind. I still remember that the day as if it just happened yesterday. I was waiting for a friend at a restaurant, she was late and I was in quite a bad mood. I was just about to leave when something or rather someone caught my eye.

He came through the door, I can still picture the way he carried himself as he entered the restaurant. He looked towards the right and all I could do was ask him silently to come towards where I was sitting. A shiver went down my spine as he did just that. It was as if he could read my mind and for a moment, I thought we had some kind of connection.

He walked towards me and as he approached the table where I was sitting, I had a strange feeling that he would sit down. For a moment, it looked as if he would but then he walked straight past me. I was a bit dazed and turned around to find out he sat at a table just behind me. I stole secret glances at him. Before I knew it, I found myself approaching his table.

I asked him if I could sit with him. He said "yes". I don’t know how I got the gusts. Anyway, we started talking and before both of us, realised time just flew. We promised to meet again. In the next meeting, we got closer, and then there were more meetings. Soon we met each other everyday and then talked on the phone at least once a day. He knew everything about me, I knew everything about him. When we were together the whole world went in a standstill. When we were apart, all we did was count the moments until we would meet again.

Those days were filled with such sweet memories and for once life revolved around rose coloured glasses. Except for us, there was no one else. We talked about anything underneath the sun and still had more to say. Eventually, we reached a point where we both decided that we had to become one. Yes, we were going to get married. We decided to spend our lives with each other and devote our lives in an eternal knot. The marriage day arrived. Clad in my bridal gown I saw him waiting for me with those loving eyes.

Bang!. I suddenly found myself lying on the restaurant floor. I fell off my chair. I stood up and my crush was still in front of me. My friend still had arrived and I realised that I was dreaming. I shook my head and thought how stupid I could be sometimes. Then I focused on my crush to realise that he was gone.

I looked around and saw his hands around this woman. The woman had sindoor so she had to be his wife. My dreams are all shattered. The guy is married. All I can do if feel angry that men don’t wear anything to show that they are married. I think, if men had some kind of indication, then, I wouldn’t have built all those dreams. Back into reality, my friend stood me up, my crush ended in tragedy before anything could happen and I got this huge bruise from falling from the chair. What a day!

‘Nepal is committed to protect child rights’

Twelve years ago in 1990, the international community launched a historic campaign to inspire hope and ensure better conditions for children around the world. The campaign has heightened our collective consciousness and stirred us into redoubling our efforts in this respect. Much progress has been made ever since but much more remains to be done.

There are still 150 million malnourished and 120 million out of school children in this world. Eleven million still die before the age of five. While old problems persist, new ones like HIV/AIDS are taking their toll of children. Quite often, abuse at home and violence in conflict situations victimise children and traumatise them for life. Leaving children in such a predicament is morally unacceptable to all of us.

Mr President, children must be protected in war and in peace. Nepal is committed to do everything in its power to promote child development and to protect child rights, so that our children could rise to their full potential. We are one of the first few countries that joined the child rights convention and signed its two protocols. We have also adopted regional instruments under SAARC to enhance child welfare and to prevent child trafficking, besides declaring this as the Decade for the Rights of the Child.

Steps are under way to implement these commitments. We have adopted a children act and other laws to ensure child welfare and to ban child labour. Separate ministry of women and children co-ordinates activities preserving child rights and executing national action plan for the child development. Children receive free public education, immunisation and primary health care; and primary level girl students are entitled to free textbooks and those from remote areas receive scholarships as well. Special schools have been set up to address the needs of disabled children. The national human rights commission monitors human rights situation and special benches in courts decide juvenile cases.

Mr President, these measures have had a palpable impact on children’s conditions in the country. School enrolment and immunisation have increased and the rate of infant mortality has declined. Nearly 100,000 girls have benefited from the scholarship programme.

But sustaining and expanding these measures is a daunting challenge for Nepal, a least developed country, where the per capita income is barely 220 dollars, 38 percent people live in absolute poverty, and 50 percent population is under the age of 18. Paucity of public resources and poverty of families prevent adequate investment in children.

Non-governmental organisations, most of which are doing a laudable job, are also faced with constraints in their capacities and coverage.

To make matters worse, the Maoist terrorists seeking to destroy the fledgling democracy and freedoms, have been devastating our children and our country. They abduct and abuse children and forcibly recruit them as their fighters. They murder young children and their parents who refuse to yield to their extortion. They bomb schools and health posts and bridges. The government is compelled to respond to these Maoist atrocities.

At a time when we are fighting a war on poverty with all our resources and energy, we have been confronted with the war on terror. They have put severe strain on our resources. But we will have to win both wars if Nepal is to witness a durable peace, better opportunities for its children and improved standards of living for its people.

Thanks to the moral support of our friends and the admirable performance of our security forces, we are making a headway against the Maoists. Much of the infrastructure has been destroyed. We are determined to defeat the Maoists and we can do so with assistance from our friends to better equip our forces. But we prefer dialogue to resolve the problem and are prepared for it. Once betrayed, we want to make sure the Maoists renounce violence and lay down their arms before the fresh talks begin.

However, to protect democracy and freedoms, to deter extremists from exploiting people’s vulnerabilities again, and to give people hope and opportunities, Nepal must win the war on poverty and speed up sustainable development. But it will not be possible without longer and sustained partnerships with our development partners, particularly from the North, that should bring us increased development assistance and deeper debt relief to complement our resources, and improved market access for our products and services.

Needless to say, Mr President, poverty is the main obstacle for so many developing countries, particularly the least developed ones, to improving the state of children, promoting peace and securing sustainable development. While these nations will have to do their best to put their house in order, the international community must come to their help.

In an era of globalisation, humanity has become indivisible and must be treated as such. The Millennium Declaration offers a blueprint for a better world, a world that is also fit for children. We must take this historic opportunity provided by the special session to recommit ourselves to do our best in order to give children a better space to blossom. We should not let our children down.

Thank you Mr President.

(This text was read out by Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba on May 9, 2002 at the twenty-seventh Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Children)