 |
|
| Kathmandu, Friday August 08, 2003 Shrawan 23, 2060. |
|
Contradictions, confusion and
calmness!
By BINOD P BISTA
The present scenario in Nepal is anything but
confusion that has pervaded through the length and breadth of the country like a wildfire.
When violence erupted and reached its peak during the seven year long insurgency, the
Nepalese had a relatively better idea of the situation concerning the differences between
the government and the Maoist insurgents. Most people believing in the multiparty
parliamentary system, and the Nepali constitution (1990), had pinned high hopes in the
democratic system, thinking that it would provide better future for themselves and their
children. The public believed in the system, expecting that it would produce good
governance and, at the same time, carry with it a self-correcting mechanism to make it
work. However, on retrospect, it appears that the people, especially the civil society,
may have overestimated the strength of democracy to correct leaders as well as
bureaucracies to produce a well off society, similar to the impression held by many that
the market forces would correct everything, including social disparities.
With major parties’ leaders openly
admitting that they needed to conduct self-critical appraisals of some of the essentials
that produced negative results during Nepal’s recent experience with democratic
exercise, in spite of near universal acclaim that the late King Birendra followed the
constitution of Nepal fully in letter and spirit, deserves serious reviews and
corrections, as required. Obviously, things did not go well as expected. Erosion of value,
lack of trust and open-ended deception, both at the local and national levels, became near
normal affairs. Common folks hoped for the best for things to turn around.
Those who had felt the pinch during the
democratic exercise, aggravated further by the unscrupulous acts of those in power, had
tried in vain to attract the attention of the rulers to the anomalies, both structural and
otherwise. Some members of this group took an extreme line preferring armed struggles to
dialogues, whereas others dissociated themselves from the mainstream choosing silent
agony. Overall, the situation led to the creation of a class within a highly publicised
formation of a classless society under the democratic governance. Notwithstanding the
degeneration of trust, flaring up of violence, and lawlessness gripping the country as a
whole, there was still some amount of clarity and subsequent actions that checked the
rapid descent of Nepal to a failed state. The situation now appears to be getting totally
out of hand.
It would normally be expected that, after a
ceasefire agreement between the warring parties, the conflict should die out over a period
of time, unless the ceasefire is unilateral or forced from outside. Examples are plenty,
and all around us. Nepal’s case of ceasefire between the Maoists and the government
could not have come at a more opportune moment as all previous efforts had failed
miserably, though justifications at hindsight came from all sides. The Nepalese themselves
are as bewildered as the Nepal watchers. Nobody appears to be comfortable at this moment
and there is every reason to be in this state of hopelessness. Unless the objective is
civil war, Nepal appears to have lost her direction.
Today’s state of desolation is a result of
an all out confusion at all levels. Starting from top, conflicting signals are being
passed almost routinely. On the one hand there seems to be a call for continuity of
dialogue between the government and the Maoists, whereas on the other, the legitimacy of
the government to hold such talks is gravely challenged. Furthermore, while the decision
of the present monarch on 4th October is seen as a regressive action against democratic
forces, but at the same time the very institution is being coaxed to make fresh decision
of reinstatement of the dissolved parliament, which would not only defy the ruling of the
Supreme Court but also give the king extra-constitutional powers which runs against the
very norm of the constitutional monarchy. The current status of talks, with its ups and
downs, does not instill enough confidence in the Nepali public and its well-wishers
abroad.
The peace talks process in Nepal seems to have
followed the arbitration mode adopted in most business disputes. What might be lacking
though could be the Empire Facilitator to make it complete! In the name of flexibility,
more damage might have already occurred in terms of largely wasted time than acceleration.
Informed intellectuals, in their bids to
contribute to the general well-being of the Nepali society as a whole, appear to be taking
a pacifying stance. However, their approach is questionable as they have provided the
right examples at the wrong time. They say that the world is in a mess. Peace agreements
are hard to come by and they are still more difficult to implement, so Nepal should not
worry. But, as in most exercises, the core aspect of the ground reality might be missing.
Nepal, at its present state of political, economic and social development, can hardly
negotiate any serious jolt much less absorb it. The fundamentals are not simply there. To
top it, the crisis of confidence is looming larger by the day.
While these events are unfolding, some groups,
intent on gaining good ground on their long held demands for correction against
discrimination and deprivation, might be raising larger issues which, even during smooth
periods of governance, would take maximum efforts and resources beyond the state’s
reach.
Nepal portrays a scene of colossal
contradictions today. Many important activities are taking place routinely. The only
difference between Nepal and most other countries lies in the purpose of such activities.
National level activities have direct or indirect working relationships between and among
separate activities with the overriding objective of national development for benefiting
the people at large. Unfortunately, in Nepal’s case, the end objective of current
activities is not made clear to the public. It is hard to find the rationale for
converging actions being carried out divergently: the five political parties’
movement against regressive action of October 4, 2002; Peace negotiations between the
present government and the Maoists; and host of other issues have detracted the attention
and lowered the level of danger of the single most important issue of the day. That issue,
obviously, is to resolve the problems with the Maoists through dialogue for not only
safeguarding and upholding the mandate received from the people’s movement of 1990
but also for taking concrete steps toward national development.
The major problem that Nepal is facing now is
absolute lack of trust. Nobody trusts anybody. If the government as well as the parties
are firm in their statements that Nepalese can resolve their own conflict peacefully by
themselves, they better find a person or a group on whom they can place their full trust.
Otherwise, they may better look for a third party of their choice with the sole objective
of settling the national crisis at hand. It would be too naive to assume that the
hard-earned peace will last forever, and wait for the major players to come out of their
hibernation. By then, every one might be looking straight on the face of death.
Other Stories
|
