Nepal's monarch is competent enough to prescribe for himself what role best suits him

Prof.Dr Ram Kumar Dahal, T.U, Kirtipur

Dr. Ram Kumar Dahal is a Nepalese political scientist of international fame. Professor Dahal commands respect and honor in the comity of Nepali academicians. Dr. Dahal at the moment is teaching political science to the Degree level students at the Central Department of Political Science, Tribhuvan University.

He has several books to his credit and has presented his views in various national and international level seminars. Two years back, Dr. Dahal presented a though provoking paper on good governance and media's role at a seminar sponsored by this newspaper which was well received and appreciated by the seminar participants which included some high ranking Kathmandu based diplomats.

He is modest like silk. He is a highly qualified political scientist of this nation but is yet to be honored by the concerned sector. He is a voracious reader, which is why he is keeping himself well abreast with the contemporary national and international happenings.

To recall, Professor Dahal had appeared in these columns some three years back. Last week we again decided to approach this distinguished scholar to share his feelings and provide comments on the existing Nepali situation. A suave Dr. Dahal could not deny our request. The results below-Chief editor.

TGQ1: I suppose Dr. Dahal you have been particularly watching the contemporary Nepali politics since the advent of this new order. What went wrong? Who is to be blamed for the current disorder and the discredited image of the country? Your exclusive comments please!

Dr. Dahal: Before answering your question, it will be appropriate under current situation to differentiate between a Maoist and critique of the government. The Maoist is the supporter of the CPN (Maoist) and the critique of the government is the one who criticizes the mal-deeds of the government. In this sense, all critiques of the government are not Maoists as most people generally believe. The critiques thus should not be charged or labeled as Maoists as the Panchayati leaders used to silence the opposition by labeling them as anti-national elements. Now let me come to your first question. It is however, difficult to answer regarding who is to be blamed for the current disorder and the discredited image of the country. This can be better answered with the help of historical references. Most people in Nepal feel that as the Maoists had raised the arms against State mechanism-Army-Police force-Government officials, leaders and individuals their properties, governmental infrastructures including transportation and communication networks, they are to be blamed for this but the government can also be blamed for various reasons. When the Maoists became active in some few western hill districts, the post 1990 governments undermined the problem or failed to recognize it as a political force. The problem would not have been so acute if it would have been managed in its initial phase. But the government recognized it only when it went out of control. However, raising arms and killing innocent people both by the government and by the Maoists is not good.

The Army Chief in a TV interview had stated that it will be appropriate to find out the causes that led to the growth of the Maoists problem and further indicated that bad governance and the irresponsible behavior of the leaders are some of the responsible factors for it.

The monopolization of the economic resources by few or those in power, the rampant corruption at political and administrative levels, the undemocratic, un-parliamentary and inhumane activities of some of the leaders were some of the responsible factors for this. As the Nepali democratic exercise has failed to cross the barriers of caste, family, kinship, language, ethnicity, religion and a number of factors contributed to flourish these elements.

TGQ2: The nation is engaged in a sort of civil war. The nation is in effect bleeding.

The Maoists have hinted that they were ready for talks. The government under Deuba says no to talks. As a political scientist, what possible factors could have prompted the Maoists insurgency to send signal for talks and by the same token what factors could have encouraged the other side to say no to talks? Do you see in the whole affair any extra-territorial connection?

Prof. Dahal: Today's Nepal is facing a sort of declared or undeclared civil war between the government and the Maoists forces. This situation has to be ended very immediately in order to respect the right to life of the Nepalese citizens. The Maoists high-command has now expressed its readiness to hold talks with the government and has sent letters to parliamentary parties for appealing such talks. As asked by you, let me point out some of the possible factors that have prompted the Maoists to become ready for holding talks with the government. First, the Maoists leaders and their strategists might have felt that the international environment since Bin Laden's launching of terrorist activities within the United State and the latter's strong commitment to take action against terrorist of the world, is not in their favor. US Secretary of State Colin Powell's visit to Nepal and his assurances to Nepalese leaders to provide military assistance to fight against terrorists and US government's further assurances during Deuba's visit to the US this week, might have made them alert. Secondly, they might have known that the regional environment might not be in their favor. As India, the core elite power in South Asia, Nepal south door immediate neighbor has declared them terrorists and had assured Nepal not to permit them to operate within Indian soil might have shocked them. S Padmanavan's visit to Nepal and his assurances of military assistance might have pressurized them to change their strategy. Some internal factors might be seen responsible for this. Thirdly, the Kathmandu based urbanites, independent educational elite who once were their supporters of creative and constructive works (anti-alcoholic campaign, and social reforms) are gradually becoming the critics of the Maoists due to their criminal activities. Fourthly, the liberal Maoists might have been in favor of stopping the brutal killings inside the country. Fifthly, the Maoists might have read the mind of the general people who are now tired of brutal killings.

The government would have to hold talks with these Maoists because after all State should behave like a guardian despite the current support the Nepali establishment has been able to muster from the international community. The government would commit another mistake if it loses this opportunity to hold talks with them. It might have to follow the Sri Lankan model while dealing with them. Terrorists of the bygone past have remained in high party profiles. So it would not be undemocratic to hold talks with the Maoists.

TGQ3: We are told, the constitutional monarch is under tremendous pressure from a sizeable segment of the national population to intervene into the current scheme of things. Firstly, is that possible? Secondly, will the King's move be taken in a good taste by national and international actors? And thirdly should the King remain a silent spectator? As a political scientist how would you prefer to interpret these queries?

Prof. Dahal: Monarchy is one of the oldest and most trusted institutions in Nepal. The Nepalese people know it very well that the constitutional monarchy is competent enough to prescribe for himself what role best suits him.

TGQ4: Nepalese leaders have become suddenly alert and been voicing that Deuba's certain political overtures force them to conclude that Nepal has already become a play ground for foreign elements. Do you subscribe to this completely new theory? Or is it merely a ploy to discredit Deuba's political image whatever he has at the moment? Your comments please.

Prof. Dahal: Nepal according to some political parties has become a playground for foreign elements. They might have stated that due to some unprecedented events e.g. US Secretary of State Powell's visit to Nepal; Deuba's visit to US and the UK and their assurances for support to Nepal and the visits of the Indian dignitaries including that of Padmanavan and their assurances to provide military assistance to Nepal's anti-Maoists campaign. Without some concrete evidences, no foreign powers can be blamed.

TGQ5: Nepal's civil society is politically biased and so are the HR groups. I suppose teachers in the University too were not immune to this phenomenon. Corruption has become practically legal. Political parties and leaders have lost their credibility in the eyes of their own voters. Talks of governance and civil society and decentralization could only be heard at seminars. Some even say that the whole nation is running on an adhoc basis. Under such circumstances, how you see the fate of this donor-driven nation? Will the donors support this nation ad-infinitum? Your comments please!

Dr. Dahal: The civil society, the HR groups and the media are also not playing the role of effective watch-dog of democracy. When Cancer affects the whole body, we can't expect the head or any parts of the body to be free from it. Similarly, when the whole environment is polluted and polarized and virus affected, these institutions can't operate independently.

Let me tell you a few words about the role of the donor community in Nepal which however is not unaware of the rampant corruption going on in the country. But they have failed to put strong pressure on the government to stop it. They have not dared to say that if corruption would not be controlled, they will no longer aid Nepal. They should also realize that development will not occur only by politicizing or manipulating data. If the donor community likes to see their development aid followed by real economic development, they have to be very assertive in pressurizing government to use the aid amount properly.

What to talk about decentralization when the whole country since a long time has been habituated to rule by blowing a simple whistle from the Singh Durbar Secretariat. Similarly, what to talk about good governance when the country has not yet developed even single norms of governance. The quality of governance depends largely on the quality of the leadership. But Nepal suffers serious crisis of leadership though there were some charismatic leaders like B.P.Koirala and Madan Bhandari in the past.

In conclusion, let me add two points: the Nepalese army is one of the oldest and disciplined and the only non-politicized institution in Nepal. In international field, it has raised Nepal's prestige in the past and even in today's disturbed world by providing service in the troubled areas of the world under UN banner. When we fight in elections, they have to restore peace. When situation goes out of the control of the police force, they are to be invited to maintain internal peace. These days the government has mobilized the army. Under current situation it would not be wise to drag this institution into political controversy.

An appropriate conflict-management mechanism should be constitutionally or legally guaranteed to resolve the possible conflicts in future. The present day Nepal is facing a number of issues in the areas of language politics, ethno-politics, and regional politics, gender politics that may challenge the Nepalese welfare state from any corner. So in order to manage to such possible conflicts in future, conflict management mechanism becomes a must.

Headline | National | Editorial | 2nd Impression | International | Past