5 Questions The Telegraph - Weekly (Nepal)

5 Q U E S T I O N S

Crack-down on media men not a right step

Professor Surya Lal Amatya, Kathmandu

TGQ1: Professor Amatya, how you take the government’s recent crack-down on the men belonging to the Fourth Estate? Does it bode well for the nation in the long run? Your exclusive comments please.

Prof. Amatya: It was not a right step of the government. The government has failed miserably in identifying the political agitators and the news reporters. The news reporters and photographers try to cover the political and other events in the country. When the police force intervenes and start arresting them, how could we expect the correct information? The government should allow the news reporters, photographers and Human Rights activists to move freely.

Measures adopted in agitation appear close to "soft terrorism"

-Birendra Bahadur Shrestha, Ex-President, Council of World Affairs

TGQ2: Should, Mr. Birendra, Chakka-jams, bundhs and burning tyres be made an effective tool to restore democratic rights? What measures should have replaced these tools to continue with the agitation that is going in? Your comments please.

Mr. Shrestha: No. Such activities shouldn’t be a means of political process. Any destructive means adopted can’t be a positive process for any sort of solution for change or to restore any sort of RIGHTS.

Fundamentally, such activities can be considered as "soft terrorism" and reveals their weaknesses and their past failures in promoting democratic norms and delivery of democratic "goods and services". The present agitation has alienated the common citizens and present agitation reflects as an agitation of "out of the power-structure" only. The agitation within the parties being called for to develop tactical strategies to face the challenges of elections and bring back the constitution in league.

UN’s role shouldnot be seen in narrow perspective

Prof. Rabindra Khanal, TU

TGQ 3. The Maoists prefer UN mediation. The Government rejects. The laymen get confused. What is your preference: The UN mediation or inviting competent and sensible Nepali facilitator? Your comment please.

Prof. Khanal: It is a well-accepted fact that the present conflict cannot be resolved by the use of force. A talk between the government and the insurgents is inevitable. But the conflicting parties have reached to such an odd situation that they cannot sit together and talk by themselves. They need someone, who is trusted by both the parties, as facilitator to initiate the talk but not as the mediator. There is a lot of difference between the role of the mediator and the facilitator. Even if the United Nations come into the scene, it should limit itself to the role of a facilitator.

The past experiences have shown that no Nepali citizens can become effective as facilitator. They have several limitations. Their social, economic and political backgrounds prevent them from becoming neutral in the negotiation no matter how competent they are. In this regard, the United Nations can be the best facilitator because of its non-involvement in the internal affairs of the country. The governments' stand that an invitation to the United Nations for this purpose is recognition to insurgency is invalid. The government should not make it a prestige issue and should not look at the United Nations' involvement in a narrow perspective. Seeking UN help in resolving our problems should not be a headache to our neighbors too as the government has foreseen. The UN offer to facilitate the negotiation between the government and the insurgents should be taken positively and request them to go into action as soon as possible.

Lack of commitment from the "key actors" is disconcerting

Prof. Anand Aditya, Security Analyst, Nepal

TGQ4: Should not the King, Mr. Aditya, act now? Don’t you think that it’s high time that the agitating political parties and the Monarch recioncile with each other and restore order in the country? Your exclusive opinions please.

Mr. Aditya: I feel that the need of the hour for the Nepali nation is to be able to put in as much serious thinking as possible. Given the gravity of the situation, which is of an unprecedented scale, the lack of commitment from the "key actors" is not only disconcerting, it is disturbing as well. The level of commitment does not seem to match the demand. So long as there is commitment, consensus, and cooperation by the three key actors and as long as the civil society does not come up with a robust plan to join in, I believe we will not be able to make it.

It is all a question of an out-and-out power politics

-P.Kharel, Senior Journalist, Nepal

TGQ5: The King has been the target of the five agitating political parties for his October 4 moves.

The King expresses his total commitment towards the strengthening and consolidation of democratic system and its ideals.

If this is so, why, Mr. Kharel, is the disorder continuing? Your remarks please.

Mr. Kharel: It is all a question of an out-and-out power politics. The Article 127 of the 1990 Constitution was invoked in October 2002 only when Prime Minister Sher bahadur Deuba recommended the dissolution of the House and calling for fresh polls. But Deuba reneged on his commitment to hold the polls which were originally the rationale behind the dissolution of the House.

The five parties led by Nepali Congress leader G. Koirala have opted for street agitation, enlisting also the participation of the NC’s affiliates.

Both the NC and the UML are bent on securing power which is the prime reasons for the on-going agitation.

Technically, the invocation of the Article 127 by King Gyanendra was constitutionally correct.

However, the credibility of the NC led five party movement would have obtained more credibility if the agitating constituents not sought to distance Deuba’s party and, instead, specifically called for the restoration of the Deuba government. If the October 2002 Royal action were "regression", the automatic should have been on "reviving" the Deuba cabinet. But if a Prime Minister were to be allowed to pledge fresh polls and dissolution of the House, only to defer (committed) polls without accountability, what would be the fate of the democratic practices? Therein is to be found the glaring discrepancies of the agitation.

The prevailing situation clearly calls for the King to end the stalemate through realistic adjustments with the agitating parties.

A meeting point is absolutely essential.