I n d e p t h    A n a l y s i s
Crisis to peak this week

Kathmandu: Prime Minister Surya Bahadur Thapa’s Televised message to the nation was mainly addressed to the five agitating parties who threaten demonstrations Thursday. They have not responded to his appeal and they continue to muster cadre among the student body as evinced in the disruptions of the Tribhuban University examinations.

The ability of the T.U to contain the disruptions in limited Campuses reflects poorly on the agitating parties no doubt. But the continuity of the agitation is a certainty and so the Thapa administration will have been left with no choice other than to use the administrative machinery to contain the agitation.

It is predictable that the streets will see the agitating parties. However, much smaller numbers than previously claimed will be accounted to government restrictions which has already come into force since Tuesday. This lack of numbers is likely to be exploited by the Maoists in Kathmandu who will want to ride the agitation wave for violence inviting administrative wrath. In so many ways perhaps the agitation is thus calculated. There is perhaps hope that such administrative wrath will invite the public support sourly courted by the agitating parties.

These indications suggest that the crisis accumulating in the country will take its peak this week. With the streets taken over by the agitators, the violence spearheaded in Kathmandu by the Maoists will be given convenient cover by the congress and the Left and the administrative reaction expected will be cashed in upon by the Maoists and the agitators. Clearly, a crisis is expected. How it will be defused is any body’s guess.

Who is to be primarily blamed for the abrupt failure of talks?

Kathmandu: A mere ten line statement of Comrade Prachanda released last week on Wednesday amply hinted that the country will have to again embrace a sort of war and the people will be forced to watch and listen to the sad and hair-raising events of killing of the innocent civilians, the rebels and the men from the security system.

Highly informed diplomats posted in Kathmandu had whispered to this scribe as back as July 23, to be more precise, that the Maoists will attend the talks but would quit the talks on one pretext or the other.

Exactly this is what has happened.

However, our own analysts have tried to analyze the entire happenings as follows:

Is it the government’s adamancy on not yielding to the rebels’ demand for a constituent assembly that caused the talks to break?

Or was it the Maoists ploy to lure the establishment in the process of the talks and in the meanwhile enrich itself with   armed weaponry in case the talks failed for which they were tentatively sure?

Are the facilitators appointed for the facilitation of the talks to be blamed who acted more like spokesperson of one camp and tried hard to make it prevail at time of the talks?

Is it the double-standards of the so-called facilitators that caused the talks to fail so miserably?

Or is it the non-participation of the agitating five parties to the government-Maoists talks that made the Maoists suspicious regarding the legitimacy of the agreements of their talks with the other camp given the absence of any legal and legitimate parliamentary bodies in the country?

Or is it that the Girija-Madhav combine wished or even seduced the Maoists Supremo to boycott the talks so that a sort of pressure could be built on the Thapa government to which they claim it to be solely “unconstitutional and undemocratic” which ultimately would feel more comfortable in quitting from the Chair and finally the chair would be theirs?

Our analysts also see reasons to believe that apart from these possibilities for the abrupt failure of the talks, some alien forces too must have a role in the whole affair. However, our analysts fail to understand as to which force on earth it could be that would wish “ political benefit” for her if the talks in Kathmandu failed.

One more possibility for the possible failure of the talks remains.

Is it that the Maoists would have stayed in the talks had they met with the King and sought his individual comments on their demands for a constituent assembly?

Could some sort of linkage be established in between Maoists polit bureao member Chandra Prakash Gajurel’s supposed visit to Europe and the Nepali monarch’s trip to London?

It was an altogether a different matter that Mr. Gajurel was taken into Indian custody at Chennai from where he was about to fly to Frankfurt and then possibly to London.

But why Gajurel this time was arrested by the Indian authorities? However, what is for sure is that the Maoists leaders more often than not do visit London for if one were to recall, comrade Prachanda too had attended a conference in London and upon his return had issued a statement which clearly stated that he had been in London. But what makes the Maoists leaders to visit London frequently. Not surprising therefore that the rumor that instead of Mr. Gajurel, it is now yet another high placed Maoists authority Comrade Kiran is already in London be not true? But what is the guarantee that comrade Kiran has gone there or been sent to see the King so that an opening to the failed talks emerge? Guess works only. This matter will ever remain in dark for the King will neither speak about this wild presumption nor the Maoists will make it public for understandable political reasons.

Our analysts wish to link all these but fail to understand as to why the Maoists’ high command repeatedly wish to meet the King in person and have a tete-a-tete with the monarch?

Be that as it may, now that the talks have failed and a sort of prohibitory orders clamped in the valley in order to defuse the proposed agitation of the five parties in which the government suspects that the Maoists rebels might add to their strength and making the whole demonstrations of the agitating five a chaotic one.

Nevertheless, our analysts wish to reiterate that had the political parties now in agitation participated in the talks, it would have not only a soothing impact on the parties attending the talks but in all likelihood would have also found some sort of “political alternative” to the Maoists one point agenda of the constituent assembly which would have been binding on both the parties at the talks. Clearly, the participation of the parliamentary parties itself would have assured the Maoists that since they have participated and hence the agreements arrived at would be binding on all: the Maoists, the parliamentary parties and thereby to the King as well. The King in that case would have felt more pressure on him.

But things went upside down because of the non-participation of the parliamentary parties who remained engaged in showing down the government to satisfy their personal and political ego or whatsoever.

Of the many causes, our analysts agree that the political parties must shoulder the allegation that their non-participation could have been one important factor for the failure of the talks whose corollary would be that they must now accept that they committed Himalayan blunders and betrayed peace.

The general people, including the Maoists, will ever remember this betrayal.

Lack of conflict management skills marred the success of the Govt-Maoist parleys

Kathmandu: A large section of the country’s intellectuals strongly believe that the Government-Maoist talks failed solely due to the ineffective and excessively partisanised political behavior of the self-proclaimed “facilitators” engaged in the talks.

The Thapa government’s sheer inability in finding suitable qualified and neutral sort of “facilitators” instead of the “four duffers” seated as “facilitators” could have been one cause among the many for the failure of the talks that had begun itself with a reluctant mood. It was clear that the Maoists attended the talks this round only at the pressure of the members of the civil society and the peace loving silent majority.

The self-proclaimed and self-appointed facilitators contaminated the talks not only at time of the talks but even much ahead of the talks.

The four “non-entity” began making contradictory and highly objectionable lectures on their own as if they were the ones on whom the entire success of the talks depended. The fact was that the outcome did not in any way depended on their political maneuvering capabilities.

Among the four facilitators, one is a personality who commands respect and honor only in Kathmandu’s urban area. The rest of the population do not take him in high esteem which is what is demanded at time of such grave talks. This particular facilitator more often than not spoke the voice of one particular camp prior and at time of the talks  as if he had been appointed as their spokesperson. The people took it very seriously and hence had already concluded that making lectures on any political issue was different than making logical interpretations on the issues of conflict management.

The other one is basically a congressman excessively harassed by congress president Koirala some years ago which forced him to quit the party for good. He is indeed a qualified personality in the sense that he is the one who was very much present at time of the framing of the 1990 constitution.

However, this does not mean that a constitutional expert should be equally competent enough matters of conflict resolutions. In effect, conflict resolution is a long process that demands experience and knowledge on the said subject. The fact is that this personality knows little about the nitty-gritty of the methods generally employed both seen and unseen in finding suitable measures in order to replace conflict with peace. Moreover, this constitutional expert, knowingly or even unknowingly, advocated the views of one particular camp to the utter dismay of the population. He in the process lost his credibility as he appeared to have aligned himself on one side.

The third one is a personality who began his political career as a communist. He then turned a Panchayati leader and worked as minister in the then Panchayati government. He was then awarded a diplomatic assignment at the United Nations and stayed there for quite a long period. Back home, he was made foreign minister.

Working at the UN and heading the foreign ministry in no way assures in one self the skills and the political acumen that is required at time of conflict resolution or for that matter conflict managing process. The Nepali people never knew that he mediated in any such affair within and without when he was posted at the UN and Shital Nivas. The Nepali media, however, elevated his ranks because he preferred to talk on any topic under the sun. After the collapse of the Panchayati system, he wished to align himself with the congress. The party suspected his political credentials and an annoyed, as he was then, opted to remain an independent personality, which he continues perhaps, till today.

Thanks the Nepali media that he was considered as an expert on Bhutanese refugee issue. He talked and talked but with no results. But in the process he became a sort of negotiator and here again the media played its role. The fact is that who appointed him as one of the facilitator, neither the government nor the people know.

The fourth is the one who is basically a bureaucrat. When and how he managed to act like a mediator or for that matter as a facilitator on such complex issues of the sort of conflict resolution now body knows. His long stint in the bureaucracy indeed might have given him the expertise on how to address the grievances of the bureaucrats. Handling bureaucracy and managing conflicts of the sort of the one wherein he got himself engaged are two diametrically matters.

However, what was nice of him was that he preferred to speak less and managed to keep him on a low profile compared to the rest of the “empty vessel, sounds much” colleagues.

All said, however, the fact is also that these people in their own right have become “media friendly” personalities. The media of late have begun suspecting the credentials of the facilitators and rep[orts have it that the establishment only the other day dashed into the house of one of the facilitators for reasons yet undisclosed. If this is so then what could be concluded is that the facilitators too have come under scrutiny.

Not surprising therefore, the government though did not appointed them as facilitators prior to the talks, did send them a letter hinting that they no more remained facilitators. One of the facilitator who was apparently hurt by this government decision said that it was unfortunate that the talks failed and wished the now stalled peace process to resume at the earliest.

However, this write up in no way should mean that they were not honored personalities of the nation. Yes they are, by all means but what is also true is that none possessed the expertise of handling of such a delicate and susceptible issue as it was.

Western democracies provides face saving formula

Kathmandu: Prime Minister Thaps’s conspiratorial politics or modesty, give any name to it, forced the agitating five parties to effect certain changes in their already scheduled program of creating havoc in Kathmandu that is to begin from tomorrow.

It’s now a win-win situation for both the government and the political parties. It is a win for the government in the sense that had the political parties not effected certain reforms in their plans and diverted the mass to districts other than Kathmandu would have meant a challenging task for the state in containing the threat of the possible penetration of the rebels in the demonstrations sponsored by the political parties. This means that the procession that is to commence Thursday against the government will have less impact on the overall situation in the valley and that the security personnel could to a greater extent now could handle the situation comfortably.

Similarly, it is also a half way victory for the political parties for the fresh issuance of the governments’ prohibitory orders could have disastrous effect on their demonstration with chances of massive arrests of the men involved in the said demonstrations. Had the political parties not heeded to the establishment’s request for a calm-down approach, chances were bright that the rebels could have penetrated into the mass and created violence and the total responsibility of the emerging chaotic situation would have to be shouldered by the political parties sponsoring the agitation. The parties in effect concluded that they preferred not to be blamed by the lay men that they were the real culprits of restoration of peace in the country. The other thing could be that the big-5 also wished their demonstrations to remain in their own control.

Analysts say that the political parties could have sought for the support of the Maoists for their demonstrations had the talks been continuing with the Maoists. The abrupt failure of the talks and the manner the rebels began hitting at the security men and the civilians alike forced them to change their decisions.

In so many ways than one, the failure of the talks had its profound impact on the government’s strategy and the political parties’ desire to seek other modest methods to press the government.

Should this mean that the failure of the talks forced the State to impose prohibitory orders and thus made easier the task of the government to contain the would be threats of the five party agitation?

Nevertheless, the failure of the talks must have come as a blow to the government and its political acumen tested by all and sundry. Add to this, close on the heels of the talk’s failure the government had to prepare itself for yet another confrontation with the parliamentary parties. However, the imposition of prohibitory orders in the valley and in so many districts apparently has helped the government to keep things under control.

Nevertheless, though the parties have said that they would not make Kathmandu a hot-bed for the moment, but they have concurrently advised their student cadres to go on in for a sort of dis-obedience for the government’s prohibitory orders.

Appears a face saving formula indeed.

It is a face saving formula in the sense that the political parties are against the State but their moves now declared were all modest ones. After all, the political parties too have to respond to their cadres.

However, what should also be clear to all is that the face saving formula appears to have been provided by the Kathmandu based powerful democracies of the West.

The United States, the United Kingdom and others in effect pressed the political parties to understand the gravity of the prevailing situation given the failure of the talks with the Maoists and the spurt of violence that was on in the country after the failure of the talks. The Ambassadors of the UK and the US approached the leaders of the agitating five and warned them all that should the security situation worsened in the country due to their demonstrations would mean that they were opposed to the peace process and that they will be dubbed as enemies of peace.

This worked to a greater extent and hence the changes in the plans of the agitation that is to begin from Thursday.

The big-5 got the point and preferred to gulp the bitter pill at least for the time being.

The pressure thus put by the western democracies on the big-5 which apparently hinted that they should refrain from any activities that vitiate the already tensed situation in the country also meant that the developed west in one way or the other considered the big-5 to have neglected the entire peace process with their non-participation at the talks despite the attending parties’ appeal for their active participation.

Now that the big-5 have changed their stance, what could be fairly concluded is that the parties would wait for the King’s return so that some sort of “reconciliatory” approach is initiated in order to bridge the gap in between them and the King.

Indications to this effect gets reflected from the fresh utterances of Madhav Nepal who has begun hinting that he and his colleagues were all too ready for a tete-a-tete with the monarch upon his return.

If this is so then things appear to be heading in the right direction. The King also must not miss this opportunity. It’s time that the political parties and the King mend their differences in the larger interest of the country.

Mr. Kabir is new B’desh Ambassador

Kathmandu: Mr. M Humayun Kabir is the Ambassador designate of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh to the court of Nepal.

Mr. Kabir will present his credentials to the Nepali court upon King Gyanendra’s return from London.

The new Ambassador succeeds Ambassador Cyril Sikder . The post of the Bangladesh Ambassador in Nepal remained vacant for a good number of months, to recall.

A career diplomat, Mr. Kabir is a political scientist in his own right. He graduated from Dhaka University and secured First Class First Position as back as in 1976.

Ambassador Kabir did his Bachelor of Law course yet again from the same university.

He has also rendered his service as a teacher at the Department of Political Science and Law at the Dhaka university prior to his joining the Bangladesh Foreign service in 1981.

Ambassador Kabir has served as diplomat in various places such as New York, Washington D.C; Kolkata and had a smaller stint even in Kathmandu for a month during the eleventh SAARC Summit held in Nepal.

He has represented his country in various International conferences and organizations including the UNGA and NAM, among others.

Ambassador Kabir prior to his Kathmandu assignment was serving as Director General, SAARC Division, in the foreign ministry.

He speaks English, Hindi and French languages with proper fluency.

Mr. Kabir participated in the Liberation War of Bangladesh in 1971 as a freedom fighter.

The Nepal-SAARC Journalists’ Forum congratulates Ambassador Kabir and assures him of the Forum’s support in his endeavor of enhancing Nepal-B’desh friendly ties.

National | 5 Question  | Editorial | 2nd Impression | International | Past