A Fiasco of second Attempt Peace Talks

Prem Sharma, PhD, T.U

It was impossible to materialize the second round peace talk between the government of old system and the self designated new regime of the Maoist insurgency. There were imminent reasons, which ascertained overtly and covertly. Among them, the first reason could be attributed to the status or legitimacy of the present government as observed by various stakeholders of the governance- political parties, civil societies, the insurgency and the outsiders. Secondly, the insurgent has assessed the domestic political scenario as deteriorating due to the uncooperative role of the political parties towards the palace and the strength of the RPP which rarely represents and regards popular movement. Panch buckets mostly overlook the popular upheaval. Thirdly, the agitation of the political parties at their determinant position could be a converging point for the Maoist for attaining their goal. Fourth, the insurgent might have supposed that they have collected lot of weapons and experiences during this seven-month cease-fire. Thus, the truce call off by the insurgent was identical and it is for pressure building.

If one retrospect the failure reasons of first attempt made by the Deuba government, the departures are not much difference. The government is neither technically sound nor popular. It is an unavoidable fact that the presence of political parties and institutions of pluralistic society shares vital role while bringing national consensus on national issue. The peace impasse must be validated and measured from participation of triangular forces- monarchy, Maoist and major political parties. In the absence of one of them, no peace comes into existence or one of them must be vanished. It is a necessary evil of the participation of triangular forces to materialize the peace talk to date.

The task does not move ahead for lasting peace in the present citeres peribus. The status quo of the three forces must be changed for further looking way out otherwise undesirably there is going to be a greater bloodbath and involvement of third force. By then there will be simply two rival forces in the country. Thus, the role of political parties has become determinant where to camp their stir. Or the palace should do its best for nationally immerse.

Besides these realities being responsible for the making peace dialogue unsuccess, the following manifested ground realities cannot be put aside without due considerations, any talk becomes a fiasco.

First, the Maoist movement is one of the outcomes of social discrimination, weakest governance and the movement of extra fundamentalists against mindless heads. It may create further chaos or felo de se. The insurgency has to weaken the two forces- parliamentary parties and the institution of monarchy, which may not be easy in the cost of the lives of innocent people and their own adolescent cadres.

Secondly, though the existence of the political parties is in doldrums, their presence is inevitable under the framework of parliamentary political system. People have closely observed the performances characteristics, attitudes rather motives and their capacity in various forms of governments during the last decade. They hardly sacrify for them. Despite this reality, there is no choice.

Thirdly, the institution of monarchy is another necessary evil of the Nepalese political culture till date. The destitute people regard this institution as a salvation since the evolution of this state. The security establishment, nobles of the court, the unethical business establishment (Mafia), and capital bulls who control and try to foil the stronger civilian institution, basically elected government, are the iron curtain to the constitutional monarchy as well as people's authority. There is no illusion about it. This should be managed and kept under the control of popular government. For the larger interest and longer existence of monarchy, it brings perennial conflicts unless the one disappears. For the coexistence of any institution in the realm of natural setting of governance, the concerned stakeholders of Nepalese politics should have the knowledge of it. The time is off the Gandhism, Maoism, military dictatorism, active monarchism, and other global hegemonism. The globe is under 21st century for social justice, humanism, equity and pluralism. Neither the terrorist nor the American hegemony can rule forever and win the hearts of the people across the earth. The age is probably of mutual understanding, cooperation, co-existence, welfare of the society, mutual trust and benefits sharing along the path of human civilization. Thus, the role of monarchy should be symbolism, for facilitators and further advancement. Its ceremonial presence should not be unpalatable even to the republican, Maoist. The suscepticism of political parties and insurgency toward the role of monarch should be wore off and come straight forward for the coexistence and mutual understanding among Nepalese for an endurable peace and prosperity.

Having observed the above position of the triangular stakeholders, the peace building process can not go alone without direct participation of them for power sharing. The current position of each resembles as that of snake, frog and scorpion. All are in the existence crises. Legitimacy of peace dialogue and its transformation to lasting peace has caught into mess. The political parties are off the ground and people. The role of the facilitators designated for peace talk, looked just like that of a postal man. It is imperative to trust and authorize them some power to enforce and comply any agenda and agreements of the peace talk. Even other monitoring institutions recognized by all concerned could be set of to facilitate the motion. Without an effective monitoring mechanism, any code of conduct cannot work. It was observed that there was an absence of mutual trust and sincerity of one's word. Except the insurgent, no camp was fully prepared with clear agenda to deal and solve the  problem. This notion does not materialize the peace process. The present establishment does not posses the sovereignty and legitimacy of the popular mandate. The voice of the insurgent to make political parties involve and direct or open statement of the monarch do have some rational bearing for lasting peace. Unless this reality is duly recognized, there is no chance for the success of peace dialogue. The immaturity, uncooperation, selfness, pathy of the people, the tendency of overlooking national issues tends to invite felo de se to any camp/parties.

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