 |
|
| Kathmandu, Friday March 28, 2003 Chaitra 14, 2059. |
|
Perpetual peace, not a plain
sailing
By C P GAJUREL
The joint declaration of a 22-point ‘code
of conduct’ by the delegates of the Maoist negotiating team and that of regime in a
joint press conference on March 13, 2003 has virtually done away with the misgiving of the
last one and a half months of whether the cease-fire and process of dialogue would begin
or not. It has got a wide range of appreciation. After being assured of the dialogue to be
opened, people have now started talking to facilitate the cease-fire and process of
negotiation for a lasting peace. Whether this process of negotiation will bring a lasting
peace to our country, is a matter of serious concern. This article will likewise be
confined to this question.
Beginning, not the end: Now it is obvious that
the dialogue will open. It is only a matter of time now. But will the dialogue continue
further remains a question. The CPN-Maoist has made clear many a time about the new
process that the political movement of Nepal will enter a new phase. We have a clear
vision about how the successive developments in Nepal should take place. We have suspended
the armed action and have entered into a different form of struggle, the struggle of
negotiation through which we have visualized that the society entering into a new process.
We communists never conceal our aim. It is the new democracy we want at this stage and
socialism and communism later.
But everybody should be clear that our party is
not going to make a precondition of new democracy, right now by imposing our will. It is
up to the people to decide what system they are longing for. Since masses make the
history, we should trust them in the system they want to choose. People are talking high
about democracy.
For them, it is the acid test whether they are
really for or against the real democracy. There should not be any scope of doubt that the
uninterrupted process of round table conference, interim government and constituent
assembly is necessary for the masses to choose the new system. We hope that these demands
would get wide appreciation from the regime and the parliamentary parties and others in
the same manner as that of the cease-fire and process of negotiation. But both the regime
and main parliamentary parties are standing opposite to the set of demands. The regime is
opposing the peace process. Similarly, major parliamentary parties, mainly the Nepali
Congress and UML, are expressing their opinion against the uninterrupted process.
Hence it is evident that the process of
achieving a peaceful solution is not that easy. No doubt the first round of dialogue will
start within days, but whether it would continue for long and yield desired results is
uncertain. If the situation does not take a new turn, nobody can predict when and how
another round of dialogue will take place.
Conflicting trends: Nepalese politics and the
People’s War have taken a new turn after the declaration of cease-fire. There is a
wide range of unanimity that the cease-fire should lead to a lasting peace. But minimum
unity expressed in the cease-fire and dialogue should be made visible. For now the only
process we have is the round table conference, interim government and constituent
assembly. Thus the necessity at this juncture is to build unity in finding a way out of
the current crisis. But the parliamentary parties are still blowing their own trumpets. NC
leaders have demanded the restoration of the dissolved parliament, which Deuba recommended
to dissolve the house, impose emergency and deploy the royal army. UML leaders are
preaching all party government resembling to that of the government once headed by
Lokendra Bahadur Chand, no matter who leads it.
Even a layman knows how worthless such
governments were and how they were instrumental for brewing the crisis. It is time for the
NC and UML to review their lines, which were repeatedly proven wrong and responsible for
the prevailing crisis. Instead of correcting their mistakes, they are reiterating their
demands at cost to the peace process. It is high time that the parliamentary parties
abandon their old and obsolete positions and welcome the new peace process. Only then they
can contribute to the process in order to find a way out of the current crisis. Otherwise
their appreciation for the ‘cease-fire and process of negotiation’ will prove
merely a lip service. If they still insist on the same irrelevant demands, it will cross
and confront the real issues and help to derail the peace process.
The parliamentary parties are talking about
rectifying the October 4 move. This was an attempt on the part of the palace to retake
power, impose direct rule, and turn the history backward. It can truly be considered
retrogression. This trend is manifested in different events. Thus the palace represents
the retrogressive trend.
The parliamentary parties are repeatedly
claiming that the fundamental articles and prelude of the present constitution are
unalterable, and thus they will not accept the demand for constituent assembly. First, the
constitution is the reflection of the political situation and the demand of the given
period of time is bound to be changed according to the change of situation. Thus no
constitution in the world is unalterable. Second, the events of the past 12 years clearly
reveal that this constitution has been lagging behind today’s situation and is unable
to resolve the current problem. The retrogression of October 4 was enacted which the
palace called it on the basis of article 127 of this constitution. If the Supreme Court is
accepted as the supreme body to give the final verdict regarding constitution, it has
defended most of the retrogressive steps taken by the government and the palace.
Thus, if the parliamentary parties are really in
mood of fighting against the retrogression they should support the effort to restore
peace. Standing for the prevailing constitution is nothing but maintaining the status quo,
which runs counter to any progress. It is the law of nature and human history that
progress triumphs over regression and status quo.
Some journalists and constitutional experts,
apart from some political parties, have harboured confusion that constituent assembly will
negate the positive aspects of the present constitution. It reflects that there is a big
gap in understanding the objective of constituent assembly. Our understanding regarding
the constituent assembly is not to negate any positive thing that it contains, rather to
update it keeping the situation in view.
Lasting peace: It is obvious that the first
round of dialogue is sure to take place within a few days. Our negotiating team is
prepared for that. But it is hard to spell out anything about the next round, because the
regime and parliamentary parties are not yet prepared to facilitate it. Our demands are
nothing but the uninterrupted process of facilitating the dialogue. These are neither
results nor solutions. When the process itself is blocked before the start of dialogue,
naturally it is bound to halt its motion. If the dialogue ceases to continue, despite all
our efforts, the ultimate result, as many people have already predicted, will be
disastrous. It is wise to think before anything like this happens.
(The author is CPN-Maoist politburo member)
Other Stories
|
