5 Questions The Telegraph - Weekly (Nepal)

5 Q U E S T I O N S

I don’t believe Nepal can ever turn into a Republican State or that we can have an assertive monarchy

--Professor Ananda Prasad Shrestha, Executive Director, Nepal Foundation for Advanced Studies, NEFAS, Kirtipur

Ananda Prasad Shrestha is a Professor of English at Kirtipur Campus, Tribhuban University, with a long association with T.U’s Centre For Nepal and Asian Studies, CNAS, and the reputed Nepal Foundation for Advanced Studies, NEFAS.

Among the few intellectual giants who speak-out on national problems on a purely academic and non-partisan stand at seminars and through his many articles in the media, including the telegraph weekly, Shrestha’s reading on current situation is of relevance in the search of an independent approach that this paper has been conducting for our readers.

Professor Shrestha hails from Palpa district-a district that has provided the country with a good number of technocrats, diplomats, political scientists, politicians, academicians, media men and the likes.

Last week at a NEFAS sponsored seminar, we approached this highly qualified scholar for a tête-à-têtes to which he agreed. Below the results: Chief editor.

TGQ1: You, Professor Shrestha, had long ago told me that Nepal possessed multi-party system sans democracy. Do you still stick to your previous declarations? Or has been there any modification in your stance? Your comments please

Professor Shrestha: My stand as to what I said earlier still stands. As a matter of fact I am even more convinced that what I told you earlier is the truth.

Take for example, what has happened in the last twelve years before the October 4, 2002 move by the King. What we saw then with a change of Prime Ministers almost every year on average amply illustrates my contention that we have a multi-party system but without an ounce of democracy. Therefore, looking back at the power-politics that was practiced by different leaders of different political parties illustrates clearly in no uncertain terms that this country though it fought and bled for democracy never achieved democracy in practical terms.

TGQ2: Maoists leader, Prachanda, prefers UN mediation. The Government rejects. Why it is so? What could have been the reason for the Maoists to demand the UN mediation and the government rejecting it? What about the India factor?

Prof. Shrestha: First of all it is heartening to note that the Maoists want to enter into negotiations by dialogue with the government. This in itself is a move that must be taken positively. Now the question of UN mediation is an issue that needs to be very carefully considered by both sides. First of all, I personally feel that in the case of UN mediation it would imply that there are to States within Nepal which is not true. Secondly, though UN mediation compared to third country mediation may be desirable, it will also be worthwhile to examine other parts of the world where UN mediation has worked and where it has not. Thirdly, Nepal’s case appears to be unique even when compared to that of Sri Lanka considering that the Maoists are not fighting for a separate homeland. Last but not the least, considering that Nepal is not only located between China to the North and India to the South, East and West but also strategically located between China’s soft under-belly-Tibet and India’s heartland, the Indo-Gangetic plains must make Nepal seriously rethink of any third country mediation. In this context, the UN does sound as a better proposition.

But having said that what we have not explored is our local and indigenous means of conflict resolution that was practiced from ancient times. Surely, we have our own means of diluting conflicts whether they be social, political or ethnic. It is these indigenous means that need to be brought to the fore in resolving the conflict between the government and the Maoists.

Once we have saturated these means then only the question of the UN mediation can be considered.

As far as the India factor is concerned, it hardly matters how and in which way we resolve this outstanding conflict. India may have its own interest in discouraging Nepal to bring in third party mediation for its own interests but there is also the China factor that Nepal needs to consider.

TGQ3: A vibrant democratic system demands the existence of an equally vibrant civil society. How you take the Nepali civil societies? Do you see its existence any way? If it is then how you assess their role in having acted in a situation wherein the country is in? Your remarks please!

Prof. Shrestha: First of all, Mr. Upadhyaya let me make it very clear that I am a firm believer in civil society and the contributions it can make to state governance and resolving a conflict that we are going through at the moment. But very sad to say that the Nepali civil society is far from being vibrant or for that matter effective in any way. Take for example, the intellectuals or for that matter the academics or even government bureaucrats and other civil servants. Civil society in the true sense is supposed to be non-political in the first place and the country’s dissenting voice. But in our case, our civil society is so transparently divided whether it be on political, ethnic or on caste lines that not much can be expected from it. Our experience of the last decade or so has made this very clear. Take even the case of the thousands of NGOs that have sprouted all over the country since 1990. According to reports they are even running more or less a parallel government from the funds that are coming in from donor countries through their respective INGOs. This is not to say that all NGOs and INGOs can be lumped together and accused of non-performance. Certainly, there are some NGOs/INGOs that have made a mark and contributed tremendously to the policy making process of the government and strengthening democracy in whatever little way possible.

We hear stories of NGOs closing and opening at a fast rate. We hear that policies of the government regarding NGOs/INGOs is somewhat weak and not in the national interest. We also hear of INGOs patronizing certain NGOs and we also hear of political parties with their cluster of favorite NGOs who dig into lucrative projects when their respective political parties come to power. In such a situation, not much effectiveness can be expected from the civil society sector.

TGQ4: Much is being talked of the King. Political parties and their affiliated students have been demanding Republican order in the country. How you take their demands that coincidently tallies with those of the Maoists?

Prof. Shrestha: Narendra Jee, first of all, I do not believe that Nepal can ever turn into a Republican State or that Nepal can have an assertive monarchy. The road for Nepal is in between and that is constitutional monarchy. But this does not mean that the constitution should make Jung Bahadurs’ out of Prime Ministers and that the King be left as a weak, passive thumb-twiddling observer. In the present context we also need a whistle-blower or a referee to rein in when malpractices occur in the name of democracy, people’s rule and human rights. Nepal’s experience of the last twelve years bears testimony to this fact. I personally believe that the political parties forced the King’s hand, which led to the October 4 move. It will be worthwhile for the political parties to remember this and come up with an apology to the general public. To think that only they are the harbingers of democracy and human rights and they alone can lead the Nepali people from the darkness of the dungeons to the sunshine of the valley is nothing but an insult to the intelligence.

TGQ5: Last year at a Telegraph media seminar you had said that the Thapa government had signed some sensitive agreements with India when the House stood dissolved. Why is it that whenever governments change in Nepal some kind of agreement or negotiations are signed with India? Is this a coincidence?

Prof. Shrestha: Yes I do remember mentioning this point at the Telegraph seminar some time ago. Though we are said to have very cordial relations with India, the question that you have put forth does not necessarily reflect that observation. Since the Thapa government came to power, it has signed some sensitive and controversial agreements with India and that too when the House is dissolved. This is strange as these agreements range from Nepal’s sensitive water-resources sector to dry-port. These agreements specially the Upper-Karnali and the Budhi-Gandaki are very sensitive ones and has time and again been pointed out by the water experts of Nepal. These agreements signed at such a time when the country is going through a constitutional crisis of sorts, does raise eyebrows and blood pressures.

At a time when the political parties are agitating on the streets and telling the Thapa government to resign and even raising slogans of a republican state, it is quite revealing that they have not to date raised any objection to the afore mentioned treaties that the Thapa government has signed with India. The question is if these treaties at a later stage have to be ratified by the House, will the political parties rise up to the occasion and take up a stand in the national interest?

This is yet to be seen.

Yes, it is interesting that whenever there is a political change or disturbance in Nepal some treaty or negotiation is entered into with India. Whether this is in regard to the Koshi Agreement or the Gandaki or the Tanakpur accord or for that matter the Mahakali Package have all been signed at such time of political crisis. This may be a coincidence or may be it is not. But somehow it is hard to believe that India has not used Nepal’s ill winds to her advantage.