 |
|
| Kathmandu, Monday March 31, 2003 Chaitra 17, 2059. |
|
Delayed
peace talks
The government and the
Maoists have blamed each other for delay-ing the peace talks. Minister Narayan Singh Pun
has attributed the delay to the new demands made by the Maoists which, among others,
include the release of their central leaders, and the withdrawal of court cases -
something which the government is not prepared at least before the so-called
"good-will" peace talks. On the other hand, the Maoists say that the government
for backing out from its earlier commitments and that there are conflicting views within
the government, which has created the hurdle in the peace process. It would appear that
the Maoists are not happy about the influence the Royal Nepal Army is probably exercising
not only in the government decision-making, but also in the manner they are keeping a
vigil on their activities. This is strange because the Maoists themselves proudly claim
that the basis of their present legitimacy is their own military might acquired and
developed in the course of their "People’s War". In a latest statement, the
Maoist supremo Prachanda himself reprimanded the government negotiator for displaying a
shallow conduct and resorting to one-sided publicity about the dialogue agenda. He also
revealed that the Maoists had agreed to the cease-fire only after the government formally
wrote to them agreeing to negotiate on their three demands, namely: the round-table
conference, the constituent assembly and the interim government.
Confirms
suspicion: This new development indicates several things. Firstly, the early
post-cease-fire phase marked by "you scratch my back and I scratch your back"
phenomenon between the two sides seems to have ended. Remember the days when the Maoists
were showering praise on Mr Pun for his role in breaking the long stalemate and the
latter’s justification on the merit of the Maoist insurgency. The government seems to
be realising the limit to its policy of appeasement. Just a few days ago, the Royal Nepal
Army issued a statement detailing instances of the violation of the code of conduct by the
Maoists. The confirmation of the large-scale violation is coming from independent sources
also. Reports compiled by a prominent newspaper says cases of abduction and extortion,
holding of mass meetings under the shadow of guns, besides threatening people, are common
in 46 of the 75 districts in the country. The report says the Maoists have threatened and
abducted people, particularly, families of security personnel, extorted money and
organised mass meetings with arms. Secondly, the new revelation confirms the generally
held suspicion about the lack of transparency in the peace process to date. There is a
general belief that there is more than what meets the eyes and that various deals have
been reached behind the scene, notwithstanding the repeated denials from the government
side.
The Maoists were
readying for talks for some time, as evidenced from their letters to political parties in
mid -May last year in which they offered not only to arrive at a negotiated settlement
through talks, but also requested positive response to the letters immediately. The
letters, however, were not responded presumably because the government was not ready for
talks at that time. The royal action of October 4 and the subsequent legitimacy crisis
faced by the Lokendra Bahadur Chand government changed the political scenario, which
strengthened the bargaining position of the Maoists. In the face of all-round criticism
and the belligerent mood of the major political parties against the royal move, they found
the new regime not only ready for talks, but in its eagerness to establish legitimacy, too
willing to agree to their extra demands. Hence, the commitments were fulfilled and
unfulfilled. The Maoists have smartly exploited the soft spot of the present government to
their full advantage.
Niceties: Certain
questions, however, remain. If the Maoists are sincerely committed to finding a negotiated
settlement as soon as possible, why are they insisting on the fulfillment of demands like
the release of detainees, and withdrawal of court cases, repealing of anti-terrorist laws,
etc even before the start of the peace talks? Such issues normally form part of the agenda
for talks, and can easily be addressed in the subsequent peace package. The insistence on
these demands early on would mean one of the two things. By forcing the government to
agree to these demands, the Maoists would like to sit for talks with high morale and
strengthened position, which will give them advantage while negotiating the political
demands. Or, the Maoists are using the cease-fire period to consolidate their position as
they did when Sher Bahadur Deuba was in power, and they are keeping the option of backing
out from the negotiating table for renewed violence, if the peace deal does not go
according to their terms.
On the government side,
one fails to understand why they promised to release the detainees prior to the peace
talks. If they were really convinced about the justification for the early release, then
why wait until the "goodwill talks" which is presumably only a formality. There
is no time now to waste in such niceties. What the country needs now is serious and
substantive talks as soon as possible. The country is not interested in just "sitting
for talks", but in "sitting to arrive at a lasting settlement". The high
publicity, and on and off the scene bargains will make sense only in the context of final
settlement leading to sustained and permanent peace.
Expediency
convergence: A question is often asked at the national level as to why the
Maoists are ready to sit for negotiation with an unconstitutional Chand government - a
creation of the Royal action, which most people consider it outside the constitutional
boundary. This point is particularly made because the avowed mission of the Maoist
movement is a republican state. In the wake of the royal massacre in 2001, did not they
say that a "republican state" was born in Nepal? Furthermore, is it not that the
Maoists condemned the October 4 action as being retrogressive, but stressed the imperative
of joining hands between the Maoists and the political parties? CPN-UML leader Madhav
Kumar Nepal even called the relationship between the government and the Maoists as
"illegitimate" and "mysterious".
He wondered why the
Maoists are showing soft corner towards a government, which is not recognised by political
parties. In my mind the answer is very simple - expediency, a word very familiar in the
game of politics. It is always easy to strike a better deal with a weak government than
with a strong one. Furthermore, there is convergence of interests between the two sides on
one issue, albeit for different reasons. The present establishment is hell-bent on proving
that the present constitution is unworkable. The Prime Minister and prominent ministers
are publicly saying that there can be no going back to the political order of the last
twelve years, which makes their abhorrence to the present constitution very clear. In
their scheme of things, which was probably being cooked for some time, parliament was the
main obstacle. With the dissolution of the House of Representatives, the stumbling block
was removed. On the Maoist side, the strategic objective of their movement is to destroy
the constitution. The foundation of the present constitution is the successful
People’s Movement of 1990, which the Maoists consider incomplete. The legitimacy of
their violent movement can only be fully established by the replacement of the present
constitution by a new one, which they say would "reflect the dynamics of current
power balance", where the Maoists represent an important force. It is for this
purpose that they are insisting on constituent assembly to write a new constitution,
although the end product, in terms of the content, could be the same even through suitable
amendments to the present constitution.
(The author is
former finance minister)
Other Stories
|
