Fate of ceasefire in absence of ground rules

< By DR BIPIN ADHIKARI <

With every passing day, the pool of people questioning the fate of ceasefire recently declared by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and His Majesty’s illegitimate government is getting bigger. Dialogue is said to be underway between parties unknown to the polity, without any initial agreement on what they are going to talk, and under what sort of ground rules. No matter how complex the conflict is, no matter how much harm has been done, as a positive note, we can argue that peace can prevail only if those who are brokering it are sufficiently honest and have tested ways to ensure the participation of all political forces in the country. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case.

The approach of HMG so far known to the general public is not adequate to ensure cessation of hostilities of this magnitude. The first and foremost issue, something the whole nation has started to despair about, is that the government is not a legitimate creation. It is not accountable to the people in any sense. It does not have the right to take any oath on behalf of the people. It can serve the peace process well if it resigns as soon as possible, requesting the King to restore the legitimate government of Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba. The Deuba government alone can give continuity to the constitutional order that the King withheld under his perceived royal authority.

Even if the legitimacy criterion is overlooked in view of the nature of political crisis, and the need to solve it, nobody can excuse the government for the lack of transparency. In terms of practical details, a government which itself is illegitimate, and cannot ensure transparency of procedures, cannot lay down the all accepted norms of ceasefire or details of operative rules for military, police and militia forces, passage to freedom of movement, the measures to restore normalcy, and the nature of ceasefire monitoring missions. Good faith alone is not adequate to act on behalf of the people; one needs constitutional methods, that the government desperately lacks. In this background, genuine reconciliation between the two parties is a long way off. The behaviour of the parties to the conflict also shows that both sides still someway intend to remain committed to violence.

A ceasefire is only the point of departure. It must move ahead with a broad-based national consensus. Peace cannot be negotiated on a durable basis if there is no involvement of all organised political forces whose opinion counts in the political process. Conflicts are enacted and sustained by organised forces. They can be ended by organised forces. Exclusion of any organised force from the process means the negotiated settlement is not owned by everybody. A consolidated negotiation is important for the Maoists as well because the post conflict peace building requires good diagnosis of all the relevant social, political and practical problems and a realistic programme of work if it is to prevent the recurrence of conflict. If the issues remain intact, conflicts might also remain intact.

A hundred percent effort is required to unite all political forces in their approach to ceasefire and alternative political solutions. Nobody should forget that public attitudes in a case like this are shaped by political leaders, and if they do not present an attitude with an ability to attain success amidst the ordinary people, the prospect of any compromise will be doomed. It takes courage and perseverance and very steady nerves to seek an end to the violence in this situation. To say the least, there must be a genuine willingness to listen to and understand the others’ point of view and enter into principled compromise. As the government is without political back up, it is bound to suffer from the lack of courage, perseverance and steady nerves.

The ongoing conflict has international dimensions as well. In the absence of unity of all organised political forces, and given the nature of the geopolitical situation of the country, it might well be likely that whenever there is the slightest glimmer of progress, assassinations and bombings would occur, with the direct and deliberate effect of attempts to prevent the negotiations from continuing. There is no doubt that those who are left out in the process will challenge the prospect of peace, if there is indeed any such possibility under the present volatile situation. If either sides succumb to the temptation to retaliate, that would give the enemies of this country what they want, escalating violence and obstruction to the peace process. It is more than clear that HMG has become an instrument to undo the democratic heights the political set up had achieved during the last twelve year, notwithstanding the increase in corruption and abuse of authority.

Seeking a rapid resolution to end violence may set the stage for intensified conflict in the future. Similarly, adopting a longer term response that focuses on altering underlying societal conditions, however, runs the risk of perceived failure and the prolonging of suffering or loss of life as the conflict drags on. When focusing on immediate issues, people end up paying less attention to underlying systemic causes of abuse and the long-term structural remedies needed to correct them. Efforts can be made only through an integrated approach of all political forces to help navigate these decisions in such a way that they are mentally reinforcing.

Human rights norms and actions were devised not to prevent armed conflicts but are of prime relevance due to their inherent values. But this is an important theme, which can give a lot of inputs to the peace process. Human rights standards provide a basis for separating legitimate negotiating demands (for example, equality) from illegitimate ones (for example, domination). Because they are universal and thus transcend the parties in conflict, human rights standards provide an important touchstone for what is just. However, not all conflict resolution initiatives use human rights as a basis for measuring justice.

Of course, the success is not always guaranteed, especially in the short run. However, experience shows that wherever a good human rights approach is pursued in a serious and well-thought-out manner, human rights can make a meaningful contribution to the prevention of armed conflict.

It is important to recognise that by itself the peace agreement, even if it is signed, will not have a guaranteed footing or assist in political stability or reconciliation. It will endure only if it is fair and balanced. It will succeed if it is based on democratic and peaceful considerations, and if total disarmament of all rebels is pursued. The need for mutual respect and tolerance between parties is exclusively necessary. It should explicitly repudiate the use or threat of violence for any political purpose. It should be a disciplined and tightly focused effort. An agreement makes peace possible, but it takes many years of effort in good faith to realise things that have been agreed. There must also be a recognition that implementation of such an agreement is even more important and difficult than getting such an agreement.

There is a temptation to celebrate an act of agreement and then shift attention elsewhere. This has often been seen around the world. Implementing the agreement is a longer and a much more painstaking step than having a mere agreement. And if a conflict is important enough for us to get involved in trying to get an agreement, then we must remain involved until the agreement is fully implemented. Unfortunately, despite the repeated calls of the National Human Rights Commission and the remaining civil society, the government is trying to ignore even the necessity of having a ceasefire agreement signed. Again, a government, which need not go to the people to exist in power, cannot feel the cost of arrogance to the ailing motherland.

(The author is a lawyer)

Street wisdom

By DAMARU LAL BHANDARI

Among other things, drivers are indeed known as repository of compelling anecdotes from daily life unfolding both on and off the streets. That serves purpose when one is riding a taxi and wants to divert attention from what is in one’s mind. In fact, one assuredly always depend on them to come up with anecdotes which are both inspirational and ridiculous and brighten up the mood instantaneouly.

Hence picking up conversation with them can be an interesting indulgence. A jolly fellow, who mixed the conversation with the choicest abuses, recently confided with yours truly that cows and dogs on streets were more predictable than some people. I am sure most people would share this view. That is if they have seen pedestrians enjoying preference over vehicles and not necessarily at the zebra crossings mind you.

In fact, the view that dogs and cows are more predictable than the members of the punk brigade holds good in case of those people who either do not have sense or do not just bother whether any vehicle was speeding up. It is understandable in the case of those who have not yet acclimatised to the city ways just because they live in the rural outback, though.

Only the other day yours truly happened to hail a taxi later in the evening. As said earlier on, one soon knows the hardship faced by the drivers since many pedestrians are used to cross the road much like cows, dogs and bulls do. A couple of people could be seen loitering in the middle of the road impervious to the blaring of the horns. They surely took the cake home the way they shunned the traffic rules. One could certainly tell that members of the bovine and canine population certainly obey rules after having a good look at them in the middle of the road.

The incident was enough to vindicate the rustic opinion of the driver in question who vehemently claimed that dogs, cows and bulls often make a point to look to the left and right before indeed crossing the road. But not so if he or she belongs to a different brigade. He or she is likely to give a long stare to the driver should the latter happened to blow a horn and give a scornful look.

As it later turned out to merriment, he had a quintessential anecdote to relate. In fact, this took him back to the time when not all the people of the Kathmandu valley had seen automobiles in the first place. To wit, very few Ranas owned them at all and, as he nostalgically related, people of the town used to have plenty of fun and excitement whenever they saw vehicles driven past the town.

In what is assuredly hurled at people who do not give a damn to vehicles on the road, he ruefully blurted out, "There was a time pedestrians used to scamper away and climb the nearest tree along the local Tudikhel whenever they used to see vehicle racing towards them in panic. But imagine the distance their descendants have travelled."

Meanwhile, this, incidentally, reminds one of the grim reality that not much may be expected from the system in place until and unless there is desired degree of realisation among the members of the population that they must obey traffic rules to begin with.

Perhaps we are not cut out to make rules and obey them without exception. Hence the current political imbroglio which does not show signs of any improvement just yet. But the proverbial cake surely goes to what the old driver said when asked to comment on political turbulence by the by. "What else could be the underlying problem than the fact that those into politics are still on the tree," he blurted out scornfully.

UML’s lust : For power or survival ?

< By VIJAY B KUNWAR <

The history of Communist movement in Nepal has crossed the mark of over half a century. The Communists of Nepal, as in the rest of the world, were also inspired foremost by the blood-boiling inscriptions in blank verse on record in the Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848). This Bible of Communism calling the "workers of all countries to unite" was written by great philosopher Karl Marx and his life long bosom friend Frederick Engels, a friend in deed as well as in need to Marx. Realisation of distant dreams with the revolutionary overthrow of the Tsar’s empire by the Bolshevik party under Vladimir Lenin, historically known as the October Revolution of 1917, Russia was the first Communistic regime to be followed throughout Europe with similar upheavals and establishment of regimented states. By the middle of the twentieth century, in the Asian part of the globe, Mao Tse-Tung and his Peoples’ Liberation Army emerged victor first by fighting the Opium War, then to evacuate the occupation of the "imperialists" and finally against the Kuomintang regime led by Chiang Kai-shek. The Kuomintang, though a tactical partner of the PLA in the war against the "Japanese imperialists", was later overthrown as it represented the century-long dynasties and feudalism deep-rooted in the soils of China.

The period pre- and post-World War II gave birth to a new world order in the trademark of worldwide-socialism, created dozens of revolutionary communist regimes and established the dictatorship of the proletariat, a vision dreamt of by Karl Marx almost a century ago. It was an irony that most of the East European Communist regimes were a direct creation of the Soviet Union that championed the cause of all workers around the globe posing itself as their Messiah for and invaded ruthlessly to instate protege and sometimes puppet governments, all in the name of Marxism-Leninism and universal socialism.

Marx and Engels, Lenin and Stalin and lately Mao became the idols of all Communists, notwithstanding the bitter criticism and differences in universal Communistic ideals and operational guidelines meant to be followed by all Communists worldwide. These early revolutionaries disobeyed or dismantled the Hegelian and all other forms of idealism and materialism, initiated an era based on dialectical materialism, negated the existence of any religion and beliefs, initiated cultural revolutions and rather invented their own dogmatic symbols that were placed above all deities hitherto established by the social values and institutions of the traditional societies. The trend-setters became the leaders of all Communists; as Mao Tse-tung, the Chairman of the Communist Party of China was to be addressed as "Chairman Mao" by the whole world of the Communists. But in the meantime, with differences sharpening, the world Communists divided into two blocks; between the living legends Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung; Stalin issuing diktats to be followed by the Communists world over and the Chinese Communist Party, as well.

Communists of Nepal, though theoretically oriented by the thought provoking fundamentals of Marx- Engels and Lenin- Stalin were influenced directly by the rewritten fundamentals by Mao fitting into the socio-political settings of the peasant dominated economy of China. The uprising of the Chinese peasantry under the political and military leadership of the Communist Party of China and its great helmsman Chairman Mao was an impetus to the Nepali young Communists who analysed Nepali society more or less bearing similar parities in the form of semi-feudalistic structures and the peasantry based socio-political economy of the country. As many other parties born during the Rana regime, the Communist Party of Nepal was also established in 1950 in the foreign soils (India), while the movement against the Rana rulers was taking its heights.

After the Rana regime was changed in 1950, Communists of Nepal, though in limited numbers, did not enjoy open space in the relatively liberal politics of Nepal, as other parties did. But in the first-ever parliamentary elections held in 1960, they managed to represent in the parliament with four seats only in the 109 strong lower house. But in the too-primitive-yet days of open political exercise, this presence in the House was a historical advent for the Communists who, upto then, was very awkwardly referred to as alien and unwelcome elements. But the first ever parliament was dissolved within one and a half years of the elections, and the government led by BP Koirala and his party Nepali Congress was dismissed; all parties being banned from any sort of political activity until 1990. But before this period the Parties in confinement and most of their leaders under political custody in Nepal jails or exiled into different cities of India, were nevertheless exercising for the restoration of the multiparty democracy. Nepali Communists by then had had many pitfalls and contradictions among themselves. Disintegration among the Communists was so common during those days that there were some common practical jokes of "one leader one party" - totalling the number of the Communist parties to about a dozen. As a result, the leftist movement was less effective and with one extremist exception, remained all time in a low key.

After the third convention, a faction of it, and having a totally different political line of thinking as well as action than that of Pushpa Lal, the guru of Nepali Communists formed a separate nucleus, took up arms and chopped off a couple of "heads" of feudalistic "landlords" who were, for them the biggest exploiting tyrants of the peasants in Jhapa in eastern Nepal. The act of annihilation known as "Jhapa uprising" in the blood stained footsteps of the Naxalite movement of West Bengal in the early seventies led by Charu Majumdar. This movement criticised by most of the Communists themselves as "extremism" spurred nationwide reign of terror. Contradiction as well as polarisation among the Nepali Communists became inevitable with the line of annihilation. A sharp and antagonistic polarisation between the line represented by the Jhapali rebels under Coordination Centre and the Fourth Conventionist line represented by Mohan Bikram Singh and Nirmal Lama. The Fourth Conventionists labeled the Jhapali rebellion as an ultra-left "Jyamirepanthi" extremism (a copy cat of Naxalbari) which was physico-psychologically inspired by Kanu Sanyal, another Naxalite big-wig, the Jyamirepanthi line being masterminded by CP Mainali, now out of the mainstream party line-up.

(To be concluded)