Negotiating an end to internal war

By ANUP K PAHARI

The starting requirement for a peaceful resolution of conflicts in Nepal is for the monarchy, the political parties and the Maoists to come to a realisation that each can pursue and achieve its long term basic goals with far greater assurance within a peacefully negotiated political order than it can under conditions of civil war or the unpredictable and unstable circumstances that will result if the conflict is fought to its bitter end, if at all an end is possible.

The "alternatives" to negotiations: While it is too early to tell, there is reason to believe that the cease-fire and preparations for negotiations are born out of key parties in conflict realising this — that there can be no greater "victory" than a negotiated compromise. The case for the lack of alternatives to negotiations and a peaceful settlement is examined below from a number of important angles.

1) No military solution: At this point there cannot be a military solution to the crisis on either side. Both the Maoists and the security forces until recently each believed that victory was within reach with the investment of just a little more time, men and materials. There is, however, a basic distinction between tactical and strategic success that is often lost among combatants in the heat of war. Limited tactical success is possible for both sides, but not only are these are not strategic successes, the violent pursuit of tactical goals takes both sides further away from their strategic goals. Lack of concern for this distinction kept many internal wars raging at great cost for years after it was clear to non-partisan observers that the conflict was not winnable – El Salvador, Guatemala, and nearer to Nepal, the conflict in Sri Lanka are leading examples.

With assurances of military and economic assistance from abroad, the security side in Nepal may be tempted to put together a "Fujimori Solution." This would be a grave mistake. The Maoist insurgency is well advanced in comparison to the "Shining Path" in terms of both organisational and strategic goals. This is not a value judgment, but simply factual evaluation. It should be kept in mind that Fujimori’s success in diffusing Peru’s much weaker insurgency destroyed his own regime and political career. The costs of a "Fujimori Solution" in Nepal could be considerably higher than that, and the returns significantly less than those achieved in Peru. The same applies to the Maoists; if the LTTE – the "most successful" guerilla army in the world — has failed to achieve its aims, it is unlikely the Maoists ever will. A lengthy and expensive stalemate is the only outcome that is assured by pursuing the military option.

2) No revolutionary solution: First, the Maoists are wrong in believing that they can successfully carry out a revolution in present-day Nepal. Carrying out successful raids against isolated towns, and police and army out-posts is one thing, but taking over the entire country in the current national, regional and international climate is quite another matter. A call to dismantle Nepal’s constitutional multi-party electoral democratic system in favor of a "people’s republic" is a hard argument to sell both at home and abroad, and for solid historical reasons. Second, even if the Maoists somehow succeed in overthrowing the state, they are mistaken in believing that they can hold on to power in peace. A communist revolution is not sustainable in Nepal for many reasons most important of which is that 90 percent of Nepalis do not support a communist takeover (based on recent national polls). A regime that 90 percent of citizens oppose is not viable on political, strategic or moral grounds. The Maoists may have convinced themselves of such ideological positions as that the Khmer Rouge were victims of bad press, or that democracy never works for "the people." Nepalis, on the other hand, remain largely unconvinced of the merit in such assessments. Third, there is great historical folly in the belief that violent revolutions can be engineered to achieve a set of desired ends, and to avoid undesirable outcomes. The record shows that to achieve some limited intended ends such revolutions have generated major "collateral" fallout.

Lastly, underlying the Maoist commitment to a violent overthrow of the existing democratic constitutional order is the conviction that the interests of the poor and disenfranchised can never be addressed within a representative democratic system. Worldwide experience in the present century shows, on the contrary, that revolutionary states have achieved far less in terms of democracy, reforms and sustained economic growth as compared to states that experienced non-violent paths to social change. Choosing violence as a way to bring about positive socio-political outcomes has failed universally from Central America to Africa to Asia and Europe throughout this century. There is no reason to expect that Nepal’s encounter with political violence and revolutions will yield a different and more positive result.

3) No monarchical solution: The Nepali monarchy is a venerable institution dating back to 1769 which makes it older than most of the reining monarchies in the world. Monarchies in the era of democracy are faced with the choice between power and longevity, with the degree of active power exercised inversely related to longevity. Successful monarchies in history are those that endure over time rather than those that command the most power only to be consumed in political fury. Whatever their origins, all twenty first century monarchies will be required to make their accommodations with democracy, if they have not done so already. Making this accommodation means deriving legitimacy not from control over coercive apparatuses or fading religious symbolism, but from becoming a real symbol of national unity and remaining within the constitution and, thereby, above political controversy. In short, by embodying the principle that "the King can do no wrong." Such a role is incompatible with activist monarchy.

Some short-term royalists may be tempted to argue that the current all-time low popularity of political parties and leadership is tantamount to a public rejection of democracy itself. It would be a monumental error to try and craft a Royal "alternative" to democracy based on that mistaken reading. In the context of present-day Nepal, doing its part in guiding and keeping the nation on track as a just peace and democracy are renegotiated will confer on the monarchy the only dividend that really matters – longevity with legitimacy. Attempts to revive an activist monarchy jeopardise its very foundations in Nepal.

4) No return to "business as usual" for political parties: Despite their recent failings, no other political entity or mechanism is as entrenched or as widely accepted as the political parties for articulating the common Nepali’s need and right to have a voice in the affairs of the state and government. Standing in sharp contrast to the importance that Nepalis attach to parties, there is near universal consensus that in the twelve years since 1990, political parties freely abused that public trust. Nepalis overwhelmingly support democracy. But they did not bargain for democracy to translate into ten governments in twelve years; nor for state institutions and resources to be deployed for private and electoral gains; nor for obfuscation and opacity in the internal workings political parties; nor for a wholesale politicisation of civic life and export of the parochial culture of political parties to all vital social and public institutions

The wish of key party leaders notwithstanding, the current impasse is not solved by a return to "business as usual" politics, as if the toll taken by seven years of bloody conflict could be restored by simple political maneuvers. Instead, political parties in Nepal’s present context must use their considerable institutional and political weight to serve as the anchors for bringing extreme constituencies into the democratic mainstream. In the absence of a negotiated settlement to the insurgency, the country is liable to move either to the extreme right or to the extreme left. In either scenario, political parties have the most to loose and therefore they should have the greatest vested interest in seeing that moderation and democracy prevail in Nepal and in guiding the current state of conflict and polarised politics towards a peaceful resolution.

(To be concluded)

(The author is a sociologist based in the US)

Line cutters

By SUVECHA PANT

I had just parked my bike and was heading towards the shopping complex, when a conversation caught my attention. A man in his late thirties asked the security guard for his car keys. The man seemed to be educated and wore expensive attire. The security guard, who was busy pulling out my bike, has put the set of car keys inside his mouth. The man asked for the keys, and when the security guard gave it to him, he was horrified! ‘Ke jath ho, khalti ma rakhna huni ho ki hoina’ (what caste are you? Is it safe to put the keys in my pocket?), he told the security guard. And, in front of him, the guy unhooked the park of the key chain that had been in the security guards mouth and gave it to him. ‘La lah, malai aba ke kaam’ (keep it, I don’t need it), he said and left.

After that incident, I began thinking. For instance, it was a month ago during Guru Purnima. My sister and I had gone to the local temple to wear the sacred thread (dhago) from the priest. Like every year, there was a small queue of people waiting for their turn. While we were waiting, a woman who seemed educated and from a well off family rudely cut the line and literally ordered the priest to tie the dhago on her grandchild’s hand. Now, the man who’s turn it was could not speak for he was dumb and he pushed the hand of the child away. In a jumbled of what seemed like words he asked the priest to tie the thread on his hand.

His point seemed logical to all those patiently waiting in line behind. But the women began swearing at him for her grandson went home in anger. Now, the dumb man was a servant at her house and his only fault was that his was poor. A reason that seemed to be enough for the woman to abuse him. I felt sorry for the man, after all he was a human like all of us and wanted fairness.

Yet another example that comes to mind is how women and men love to cut lines at temples. Each temple one goes to, especially during the festival seasons where the queues are extra large, there are always people who rudely cut the line. Like, a few months ago while going to Dakshin Kali, an old man cut the line and stood in front of us. Now, he was an old man so my parents and people behind us didn’t say anything. But, then as the line proceeded forward, his wife, son, daughters, daughter in law, grandchildren all joined him. Can any one tolerate now ? So everyone began shouting. However, they just did not bulge. That was that. But, just as we approached the temple, imagine the dismay when the same people began complaining on how queues in temples were made longer because of line cutters!

So, no matter if we in the modern century or how educated we are, there are some little things in life that will never change.

Increasing burden of external debt

By GUNAKAR BHATTA

Nepal opened up for the outside world after the establishment of democracy in 1951. As a result of the open political environment, international communities and foreign governments began to provide assistance for the socio-economic development of Nepal since the mid-fifties. Since Nepal launched the first Five Year Plan 1956-61, a substantial portion of the development expenditure averaging 55 percent per annum, has been financed through foreign aid. Currently, foreign assistance remains 5-6 percent of annul GDP, and finances nearly 30 percent of the government expenditure. Despite these facts and the paramount role of foreign aid in the development endeavours, Nepal needs to be worried about the changing composition of the foreign aid, which has been defined by more debt portion and less grants in recent years

Nepal’s outstanding external debt, which was only Rs 18 billion at the end of the Fiscal year (FY) 1979/80 reached Rs 37 billion at the end of the FY 1989/90 and surmounted to Rs 215 billion at the end of the FY 2001/02. These figures clearly indicate that Nepal’s external debt burden increased by one hundred and twelve times during the period of the last twenty years, with a significant increase since 1990/91. Undoubtedly, the foreign assistance increased after the restoration of multiparty democracy in 1990. It was because of the keen interest shown by the multilateral agencies and foreign governments in the development activities of Nepal, particularly in an environment of open politics and liberalized economy. Consequently, the flow of foreign loan, which was nearly Rs 0.7 billion in FY 1980/81 rose to Rs 4.3 billion in 1990/91 and Rs 11.8 billion in 2000/01. This is a significant increase in the flow of foreign debt over the period of the last twenty years While talking about the external debt servicing of the country, it has been increased by two hundred and seventy times during FY 1979/80-2000/01. This debt servicing, which was only Rs 23 million in FY 1979/80 has amounted to Rs 6.2 billion in FY 2000/01.

By looking at the expanded size of the external debt and debt servicing over the period of the last twenty years, there is little room for doubt regarding the increased debt burden of the country. Along with the increasing amount of external debt stock, flow of such debt and debt servicing, the question of debt sustainability arises naturally. Moreover, the debt sustainability becomes important when the economy of the country witnesses recession due to the fragile external sector business, volatile internal politics and deteriorated peace and security situation.

When we also attempt to examine the inter-linkages of external debt with national resources, no encouraging trends could be seen. The external debt stood at only 8 percent of the gross national products in the FY 1979/80, and it has now come to the level of 50 percent. This ratio clearly indicates the highly increased burden of external debt over the national resources, a rising threat to the debt sustainability if the trend continues. Similarly, the share of the export earnings for external debt servicing has risen significantly. The external debt servicing ratio as a percentage of goods and services was only 0.8 percent in FY 1979/80 and has substantially come to the level of 6 percent during the years of nineties. These figures also demonstrate the increased crowding out effects of the export earnings in the national economy.

There is no doubt that the increasing burden of the external debt ultimately hampers the socioeconomic development of the country because of the significant portion of the debt servicing in the government expenditure. This has become evident in several middle income countries facing severe debt crisis, particularly in Latin America during the eighties. As a result of this, the IMF and the World Bank launched the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative to bring the debt of low income countries, most of which are in Sub-Saharan Africa, to sustainable levels.

Nepal, one of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) of the world, is far behind in the level of social and human development. The Human Development Report (HDR) 2002 placed Nepal in 142nd rank out of the 173 countries of the world included in the Report. Also analysing the external debt servicing of the last few years, it has drained 13 percent of the government revenue, which is almost 14 percent of the regular expenditure and 8 percent of the total government expenditure of a fiscal year. These figures of debt servicing also reflect that it has drained resources significantly curtailing the investment from the socio-economic development and infrastructure building. Similarly, the per capita external debt burden at the end of the FY 2000/01 remains Rs 8600, which is 50 percent of the per capita GDP.

Given the multifaceted challenges and problems that can emerge from the increasing burden of the external debt, the challenges to the government, as elsewhere in most of the LDCs, are to ensure efficiency in delivery of services and increased productivity of public investments. Though some efforts have already been directed towards this direction, a lot has to be done to revamp the economy to a higher sustainable growth path. In the long-run, external borrowing should be made to supplement but not replace domestic savings. In the present situation, proper macroeconomic management of the economy as a whole is also important since it determines the volume and servicing of external debt, among others The available external finance should be consistent with the policy framework as envisaged in the Foreign Aid Policy 2002 and credibility should be maintained. In addition, investors’ confidence in both local and foreign investments is to be spurred with a strong political will. Despite the fluid political situation and weak economic performance, effective implementation of the commitments to rebuilding the creditability is a key challenge for Nepal. This is also the only available option for the maximum utilisation of the available foreign loans and grants. Otherwise, the increasing burden of the external debt strongly signals that Nepal is heading towards external debt indebtedness.

Need for secular education

PURAN P BISTA

Falis S Nariman, disciple of Jesuit Order in India, addressed the World Congress of Jesuits in Kolkata on January 22, 2003. He said "Pope Clement XIV was forced to issue a decree banning it -- the Society was abolished. In 1814 Pope Pius VII re-established the Jesuit Order". The Spanish, French and Portuguese governments wanted to make the Society of Jesus (Jesuit Order) a religious society but it failed once the values for education were realized by the Pope VII. Since then , the Jesuit Order has been preparing the students for the future of this planet and does not attempt to preach Christianity. There are 40 higher learning colleges and 150 schools in India which impart education to Indian students irrespective of caste, creed and religion.

This shows that Christian schools are tied up with the society and their mission is to prepare every pupil for the future. Therefore, a Christian school is considered a social, religious and educational institution. It teaches moral values, honesty, and discipline. A brute cannot understand these values.

The World Congress of the Jesuit Order was held in Kolkata after a series of anti-conversion violence in India. An American priest in India’s Kerala state, which has almost thirty percent of Christian population, was attacked while returning from a local church after the sermon. Earlier, an Australian with his two sons was burnt alive while asleep in Orissa. There were a few such anti-Christian incidents in Gujarat state. Now Murli Manohar Joshi wants to introduce Hindu dogmas in Indian schools.

Nepal is not very far from India. This country may appear as intolerant as Modi’s Gujarat or Patnayak’s Orissa. There have been a few reports of forced conversion in the past one year. And it is believed that there are as many as one hundred Catholic and Protestant churches spread across this country. A few Hindu organizations have already raised their voice against such forced conversion. Hindu fundamentalists in India are more radical and they have learnt no tolerance. Of course, there are always political leaders behind such religious violence. But we cannot undermine such incidents, saying that they are politically motivated. There are brutes and idiots who have learnt no tolerance in society.

Hinduism is no doubt rich both in content and form. It preaches tolerance in theory and accommodates values of other religions. Dayanand Saraswati, Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Swami Vivekananda are a few persons who tried to reform Hinduism in India. But there has never been any attempt to do so in this country. The main reason is, schools are considered industries which manufacture products and parents have no role in the schools their children attend. Besides, a school has been separated from social and religious institution, so every product of Nepali school lacks moral values. But there are six schools run by the Jesuit Order in this country. Their contribution is immense and one should not attempt to measure such an institute that prepares the children for tomorrow. After all, any education institute cannot be considered an industry that manufactures products as the owners of private schools in this country believe. A school must become a social, educational and religious organization that teaches moral values, tolerance and decency.

Religious institutions in western countries underwent major reforms in order to meet the peoples’ aspirations. This has happened since Martin Luther translated the Bible from Latin to German language. Schools or any higher learning institutions are considered an educational and social organ rather than a religious institute that preaches Christianity. Of course, the prayers and reading of the Bible do find a place in these institutions. However, I have not come across direct conversion of religion. Learning about other religions does not harm us. It rather helps us to understand the world properly.

The advent of Christianity in India also created awareness among Hindus and the western educated Indians began to reform the Hindu religion in the eighteenth century. Today, the schools run by Hindu society in different cities are as competent as Christians’. So a section of Hindu brutes have begun to de-recognise the service provided by the Christian community in different states. There are many educational institutions set up in line with Christian learning centers where they teach moral values and tolerance based on Vedanta. But this is lacking in this country. We have no education institutions which teach western education with eastern values. We still practice irreverent values preached by our forefathers.

Religion plays a key role in understanding the spirit of society. We cannot simply give it up even if many of us say that we don’t believe in it. The fact is that we have made no effort to reform our religion as the Christians did.

The schools set up after the restoration of democracy produced products that do not suit our society. Mere learning about the history of Nepal or physics and chemistry or mathematics will not help the country develop. Every school graduating student knows English language but lacks moral values. Hence the meaningful love among the students who attend private and public schools is completely absent.

The lack of meaningful education is at the root of our problems. We do have a religion that preaches tolerance but does not prepare students for the future. The reasons are: Neither has the government been able to introduce courses on moral values in educational institutions nor has it been able to outline how a school, which is both religious or social institution in our society, should function in order to prepare the children for the future of this country. If we have institutions which impart "secular" values as the Jesuit Order imparts, I think, we will establish a new social, religious and educational order that will help this country prosper. The present system of education lacking in moral values will hardly bring any change in our society. Rather it encourages a few to expand their manufacturing plants to other areas.

On talks and reticence

Bikash Sangraula

There are three sides to any story: his side, my side and the truth. And when there are three sides in a conflict, as in present-day Nepal, truth lies in the fourth side, that is the people. Does that seem like idle talk? Even if it does, the truth is that when all else fails, the time is ripe for chitchat. When families face the sinister threat of falling apart, elders say ‘talk’. Ditto for crises of slighter or graver natures.

Nepal realised this the hard way. But then, the best time to start doing right is at the beginning. The next best time is now. The truce declared recently between the Maoists and the government in Nepal shows bilateral inclinations towards talks. Though the statements of cease-fire issued from the two sides came after intensive and prolonged backyard deliberations that went on for half a dozen weeks, there still seems to be a sense of uncertainty among the people regarding whether or not the temporary truce heralds long-term peace. While many observers are positive that sunny days are only a ‘talk-distance’ away, others are taking this merely as another silence before another storm.

The importance of talks in human affairs is undeniable. Israel and Palestine are going through yet another black patch in history. The most illustrious symptom of that: they are no longer in speaking terms. Iraq faces a chronic case of reticence. Saddam Hussein is known the world over for his characteristic mistrust of the oral means of communication. Bullet, he tacitly opines, is a more efficient and reliable means of communication. Only too natural that he lacks sympathisers.

Ambition is okay as long as it yields constructive results. Eastern philosophy has been criticized for inculcating attitudes profoundly lacking in ambition. Many agree with this criticism. But then, they fail to applaud eastern philosophy for being essentially ‘talk-oriented’. Admitting failure is not as terrible as it might seem, and what can be a more consoling statement than that during times when failure has become a defining characteristic of human endeavour? When ambitions fail, talks become indispensable.

In 1492 AD, the extremely successful conqueror of nations, Queen Isabelle of Spain, faced a major defeat. The defeat was philosophical rather than military in nature. She had finally conquered the known world, but her ambition showed no signs of satiation. Till then, she had playfully avoided passes from Christopher Columbus, while he perennially hoped to find his way into her good books. What did Isabelle do to ease the pain of her failure at the hands of ambition? She invited Columbus for a talk. That not only eased her innards, but also opened up a whole new possibility of fruitful ambition. Aided by her money and ships, Columbus discovered for her the unknown world.

Throughout history, if conflicts have indeed been resolved, then they have been done through talks. Of course some were settled with total annihilation of one party, and that might mean any of the parties. But that, frankly speaking, is not a resolution. It is ‘murdering’ the problem, or annihilation of the disagreeing in the hope that the disagreement also gets annihilated. But then, there is not one example in history where that has been successful in the long term.

Till a recent yesterday, there were three poles in the Nepali political scenario. When two poles recently showed signs of starting chitchat, the third pole immediately feared the extremely ticklish predicament of becoming irrelevant. While a government, much criticized on grounds of democratic legitimacy, is showing clear signs of getting a major breakthrough in terms of sorting out the Maoist problem, the democratic forces are fast running the danger of being labelled as the ‘real’ problems of the country. With the new political script being written and to unfold soon, the next few weeks promise to be delightfully interesting for political observers.

The temptation of absolute power is a terribly irresistible one. But then, nurturing such dreams is tantamount to hopelessly hoping against history. For that, in present day Nepal, two of the quarrelling camps would have to be annihilated. One has been sidelined. Let’s hope that is temporary. Then, the court has only two players now. The democratic forces are spectators who hope, by squeezing the last quantum of credibility that they still presumably command, to question the legitimacy of the game and its players.

One of the toughest challenges in conflict resolution is dealing with the blame part. If one can let that to itself, conflict resolution would have been a piece of cake. But then, settlements of political or military conflicts hardly overlook that. In Nepal, after seven years of devastating bloodshed, conflict resolution has become increasingly difficult. Issues ranging from compensating the families of casualties to addressing the development needs of the nation are sure to make the round-table chitchat a very grave one. That is if the conflicting parties indeed come to the negotiating table. In peaceful settlements after considerable damages, the relatively vanquished is usually held solely responsible for the sorry state of things, taking history as evidence. When the Second World War concluded, Germany was held unanimously by the victors as solely responsible for the war and its costs in terms of human lives, money and even time. That might be anyone’s lot here.

Nepal is facing one such situation where the realisation that talks are indispensable to conflict resolution has struck everyone as obvious. We might soon see the commencement of peace dialogues. The stage is set. The cast is ready. Who capitalises on it is a question of tomorrow. Whether or not the Maoists really come to the round-table is the burning question today.

‘I don’t believe in round table discussions’

Dilip Dhakal

Sher Bahadur Deuba is the first Prime Minister to be ousted after the restoration of democracy by the King, who dubbed him "incompetent" for failing to conduct general elections slated for November 2002. Deuba, a protagonist of peaceful settlement of the Maoist conflict became the Prime Minister of Nepal for the second term in July 2001 as a precondition of the Maoists to begin peace talks. After three rounds of talks, in November the Maoists said that the talks have failed and launched attacks on army and police posts thereby breaking the ceasefire. Disappointed Deuba declared emergency in the country to crush the insurgency. After six months of emergency, in May 2002 the Nepali Congress party opposed the proposal of its own Prime Minister in parliament to extend the emergency. The intra-party squabbling within the Nepali Congress culminated in the split of one of the country’s oldest political parties. Disgruntled Deuba, who was tossed from the mother party, formed the new party— the Nepali Congress (Democratic). This week fifty-seven-year-old Deuba, in a conversation with The Kathmandu Post showed ‘skepticism’ about the Maoist commitment to the peace process. Nevertheless, he is willing to go together with other political parties in pursuit of sustained peace. Excerpts from the conversation:

How do you see the recent political developments?

After the king dismissed a democratically elected prime minister in an unconstitutional and undemocratic way, all the parliamentary parties, though they have their own differing viewpoints as regards to what course of action should have been followed in the aftermath, have protested the royal move. This has created a rift between the parliamentary parties and the king. Also it has created a situation of uncertainty and we feel that democracy is at stake.

The declaration of ceasefire is a new dimension in the political scenario. Coming days will decide how things develop.

The way the declaration of ceasefire has come, it has sidelined the role of major political parties in the country. How do you see this?

Now above all peace is the most important thing. I am a person who has always stood for sustained peace. That’s why I had started a dialogue with the Maoists. We had three rounds of dialogue and accepted many of their demands. It is true that we couldn’t agree on their demand for a constituent assembly. I think that if they accept the constitutional monarchy then there is no need of a constituent assembly. There was no deadlock, though, we could not agree on their demand for a constituent assembly. We had promised to sit for fourth round of dialogue after the Maoist negotiators discuss about our position with their top brass. But they suddenly broke off the negotiation. So I don’t want such things to happen again. I pray for a sustained peace.

Do you think the Maoists this time have come for talks in good faith?

There are various things associated with the Maoists’ agreement to sit for talks. The first thing is that they have suffered huge losses. Secondly, there is a growing international pressure against them. Third thing is that the army and police have imported new arms and artilleries while the Maoists are running out of their logistics. It is clear that they will suffer further losses if they decide to continue fighting. So they might have decided to bring their struggle to a logical conclusion. But what is equally possible is this could be their yet another strategy to regroup, free their comrades from state prisons and collect donations for attacks in the future. This cannot be ruled out.

Why do you think the current truce could be a strategy of the Maoists to rearm and regroup to resume violence?

From my reading of events, I don’t think that they have abandoned their principle and major demands. But at a time when there is a rift between the political parties and the monarch they might have thought that this is the right time to haggle for more concessions. This also could have led them to talk of talks.

Do you think the sidelined political parties will agree on whatever deal is made between the government and the Maoists?

I have asked all political parties to make a common position and decide whether to take part in the round table talks or participate in an all party government.

You said in Hetauda the other day that you would not participate in round table talks, but the very next day you said in Janakpur that you would participate. Why this verbal somersault?

What I had said is that I don’t believe in round table discussions. I don’t think they will give up their demand for a constituent assembly. Because if they had to abandon the demand for a constituent assembly, why would they kill so many people?

Is it the growing international pressure or the acute shortage of logistics that has brought the Maoists to the dialogue table?

Despite pressure it is not easy thing to abandon such a demand. It is good if they did so but I don’t think they will give up that demand. In our talks with them, the constituent assembly always remained a bone of contention. And besides this, their other demands are secondary. There is no need of round table talks in both conditions—if they give up their demand for a constituent assembly or if the king agrees to a constituent
assembly.

So where do you stand?

It is not important where I stand. The important thing is sustained peace. So I want all democratic parties to take a common stand for that.

Madhav Nepal’s party wants a government under article 128. Girijababu’s party wants the reinstatement of the dissolved parliament. Sher Bahadur’s party wants the reinstatement of his government. These conflicting views of different political parties have given the king a good excuse to go his own way. To avoid this we need to have an all party constitutional government. I have spoken yesterday.

Your government was tagged incompetent. How much competent do you see the present government?

This is not the people’s government. Rather this is the King’s government and you have seen nothing significant has happened. I don’t want to speak more on this.

It is said that on May 22, 2002, you had gone to the king to resign when your party disagreed over your proposal to prolong the emergency. But the king suggested you to dissolve the parliament. Your party leaders say that it was not your fault. What’s that?

This is all rumour. I tabled the proposal to prolong the emergency in the parliament by taking permission from the party president. All political parties had agreed to prolong the emergency. The police and the army were also positive. But later, the party withheld the proposal of its own government rather than supporting it.

What do you think should be done to make the environment conducive for talks, when you see their chances of regrouping rearming and collecting donations like in the past?

Yes, the chances of all that happening cannot be ruled out. So the government should be cautious.

How much optimistic are you for a positive outcome of the talks?

I do not say whether I am optimistic for a positive outcome, because I do not know with what intention they have agreed to talk. But I am always for a peaceful settlement of the problem.

What is your say regarding the RPP’s party line that the King should have an influential role at times of crises?

I disagree with that. A constitutional monarch should not hold any executive rights. How do you expect an influential role from someone who himself has fallen into controversy?