I n d e p t h    A n a l y s i s
Street stir will demand talks

Kathmandu: Public clamor for the restoration of peace and holding of talks are contradictory. Government is wise to this and this week saw a semblance of unity in government, which was projecting their stance unitedly that it will only hold talks that will bring peace. If there were any moves towards this, this week saw steps towards the establishment of peace secretariat. The public are hardly aware that no office as yet has any record, official or otherwise of the contents of talks previously held between the Maoists and government. If any thing, our loaded civic society bases its demands for talks on statements by government and media portrayed in the already loaded media.

This curious phenomenon of lack of records even after three sets of talks with the Maoists held by three separate governments – the first Deuba Ministry followed by Lokendra Bahadur Chand's talks and lastly the S.B. Thapa government, having no records to show itself is equally curiously covered up in the media clamor for talks. The fact of the matter is that Maoists have so far merely dealt with governments having ensured the isolation of systematic actors from the talks. Meanwhile, governments thus isolated in the talks have been redundant. As yet it is the Maoists who chose the contents and the moment the talks are dissolved.

In a real sense thus, this week saw the Maoists strategy appear to be working hard to include the Maoist demand for UN mediation. Evidently, this new criteria for talks set by the Maoists is to ignore the government call for talks at the very outset. The government standpoint has been that it is open for talks, that the talks should be decisive, and both parties should have prior commitments for optimal flexibility. Evidently our civic society and media would want this from one end only, that of government.

This week conformity of the government point of view from UML government Minister's broden well for the government standpoints. This is unfortunately distinct still from the UML party standpoint which is immediately evidently at all costs. This, moreover, is closer to the Nepali Congress standpoint which now says that it will initiate talks bunking a government role in the peace process outright. There is no denying therefore the speculation that at one phase in the imminent future the talks will be ground for the UML leadership to pull-out of government remains well founded still. Already there is reason to believe in rumors that such scenario will see Madhav Nepal's UML take to the streets this time separately from the planned agitation of the Girija Congress and its four party allies. It is this context assembly becomes relevant adoption of the possibility of a constituent assembly becomes relevant.

NC's preference for CA is guided more by sense of revenge!

Kathmandu: The Nepali Congress under Girija Prasad Koirala has suddenly changed its old clothes.

Today's Nepali Congress is a new party, which has rejected all of its former ideologies, which used to guide the party in its conduct of national affairs.

A dramatic shift is there in the congress now.

The party the other day brought about a major change in its policies vis-à-vis the monarchy. To recall, the NC was a party that had been advocating all along its inception till last week that she would go in for the continuation of constitutional monarchy under all circumstances come what may. However, the NC has taken a fresh decision which indicated that the party could go in search of other political options available if those newly approved decisions bode well for the country and peace restored.

But then yet the NC has not totally abandoned its line of the constitutional monarchy for unexplained reasons. Analysts see meaning in the NC's new thinking which apparently has created reverberations in the political circle.

The NC in its new decisions has kept the options of constituent assembly open. The party is liberal for a embracing a referendum if the nation so desired to solve the acute political crisis as demanded by the Maoists as well.

Matured political analysts say that with the congress' puzzling decision any party or any political paraphernalia that has benefited then it is singularly the Maoists only for the congress decision in favor of the constituent assembly has come at a time when the Maoists had become desperate and had begun feeling that the government under Deuba in no way would heed to their demand for a constituent assembly. However, thanks Koirala that the Maoists have become able in securing what in effect they had been demanding from the "old regime".

With this changed political scenario, now those supporting or were close to Maoists demand for a constituent assembly are the Maoists in the first place followed by Koirala's congress and tentatively Madhav Nepal's UML which, if one were to recall, still believes that the party's final goal is to land nepal into a republican state. The fact is that the last manifesto of the UML reiterates that the party's final objective is to make Nepal a republican state and that for the time being only the party has favored constitutional monarchy. Perhaps this explains the UML's mood and intent in the long run.

For the Maoists, Koirala's sudden decision in favor of the constituent assembly must have come as a bumper prize for the Maoists who must now see in Koirala the figure of a messiah who has supported their cause at time of crisis.

However, analysts remain puzzled over the new stance taken by the NC the other day. Except congress ideologue Narhari Acharya, most of the NC leaders were not so vocal in favor of the constituent assembly. To recall, Koirala as the president of the party too was not that serious when he used to challenge the King through his off-the-cuff remarks in the past that if the King did not correct his past constitutional blunders he and his party would be forced to devise schemes that forced the King to come to terms. However, the King visibly ignored Koirala's remarks and preferred to go his way to which he apparently considered to be constitutional ones thus adding more to Koirala's mental agonies.

Now that the NC has already decided to go the constituent assembly way, let's examine as to which factors forced the congress to take this decisions.

Firstly, analysts say that the NC decision is guided more by a sense of revenge with the King than it is, as is being alleged or presumed, prompted to support the Maoists. It should have been by default.

Secondly, Koirala has managed this decision upon his return from India wherein he was accorded this time a red-carpet welcome. Analysts say that NC's fresh decision could have some seeds which he brought upon listening to his Indian mentors or else he would have not abruptly jumped onto a decision that the party had so far rejected. However, no substantial proof is available to conclude that NC leader arrived at this decision on the influence of leaders across the border.

Thirdly, a section of analysts conclude that NC's preference for a constituent assembly will die a premature death if the King made Koirala the nation's next prime minister. No one can guarantee the weightage contained in this whimsical theory but then looking at Koirala's lust for power and chair which he has exhibited in the not so distant past, analysts opine that if the King hinted Koirala then he might change his decision leaving all of his party men to keep on guessing as to what charisma changed their leaders' heart so suddenly.

Not very surprising therefore that the lone crusader in the NC, Ms. Shailaja Acharya-a close relative of the president Koirala, who preferred to pen her note of dissent by saying that congress by taking the decision in favor of constituent assembly has axed its own feet. In her opinion, by effecting ample of changes in the 1990 constitution itself, most of the Maoists demands could have been met, which in turn would have not damaged the NC credentials.

The Maoists quarter have yet to respond to the NC's fresh decision that by implication supported their own preference for a constituent assembly.

As the luck would have it, most of the NC leaders who have favored constituent assembly were on the hit list of the CIAA. A mere conjecture or…… A serious matter that demands debate indeed!

Maoists in constant touch with Koirala, Madhav and Deuba's emissaries!

Kathmandu: NC president dismisses the theory that he met top-rung Maoist leaders during his Delhi sojourn. However, informed sources here confirm Koirala's meeting with the rebels at one Mani Limbu's residence in Delhi through the kind courtesy of Sujata Jost-Koirala.

Koirala upon his return to Kathmandu has repeatedly hinted that he and only him could sort out the Maoists issue immaterial whether the King or his government supported him or not in his "pious mission". This expression does indicate that Koirala is all set to proceed solo and bag success leaving his rivals to guess as to what charisma made the Maoists to act on the advices of Koirala and seek his support in settling their overly stretched imbroglio with the old-regime.

Likewise, Madhav Nepal, the strongman of the UML too appears desperate in moving in this regard all alone. In the process, Mr. Nepal is pressing the Deuba establishment to the extent that he would prefer a unilateral ceasefire being announced by the government much ahead of the Maoists reciprocating to the government's gesture.

Only the other day, Madhav Nepal is reported to have pressed Deuba for unilateral ceasefire and assured the prime minister that the Maoists would follow the suit.

However, Deuba apparently rejected Madhav's plea on the grounds that he have had tragic experiences with the Maoists in this regard and that he would proceed carefully so far as the announcement of ceasefire were concerned.

The fact is that Madhav Nepal appears more than interested for the announcement of a ceasefire by the government than what his own party-ministers should have done. In effect, his own party-ministers have been saying that without doing proper homeworks, there was no meaning of the announcement of the ceasefire and that too unilaterally.

This means that Madhav Nepal reiteration and for that matter his desperation is being challenged by his own party comrades in government.

What is not known so far is what compels Madhav Nepal to press the government for the announcement of ceasefire?

To bag unilateral success? Or to exhibit that he is more concerned for the Maoists and to their issues?

To sum up, all put together what comes to the fore is that both Koirala and Madhav Nepal in one way or the other were in a sort of race to exhibit their loyalty to the Maoists and the Maoists have reasons to be happy that they have been able to swing the congress and the UML politics their way.

Nevertheless, the government, high placed sources confide, too is in the same race but it doesn't want to exhibit its penchant for the talks. The fact is that the government channels are well working to the extent that analysts believe that so far two separate rounds of talks have already been taken place in between the two warring rivals. However, both prefer to remain tight-lipped for their own obvious reasons.

No less interesting is the policy of quiet diplomacy acquired of late by the European Union members in this regard. High placed hint that some of the EU members have taken up the challenge and are working hard in order to manage secret level meetings in between the leaders of the Maoists and the government. However, what is not known so far as to which countries have taken up the issue? Norway? Switzerland? Denmark? Finland? Or even Germany or France? Could be any one of them mentioned above.

This means that not only the European countries were eager to sort out this issue for good but the government too is trying hard to arrive at an amicable solution on a permanent basis.

That the Maoists too were desperate for the talks gets reflected from the recent utterances of one of the student leaders affiliated to Maoists, Mr. Lekh Nath Neupane, who is on record to have said that "they would begin programs to gherao headquarters along with all the students and parents from September if their talks with the government fails or the situation remained static".

A close look at this statement does reveal: firstly, that the Maoists will await for the possible talks with the government till September which means that they are ready for the talks any time from now; secondly, the statement does hint that they wish the talks not to go to the dogs which also hints that they too would wish the talks to yield positive results this time; thirdly, they can't wait for the talks to happen ad infinitum.

All put together what again comes to the fore is that a slight push to both the warring sides could bring both to the talks. However, the Maoists appear to have acquired a strategy to step up their violent activities and that too to press the government for the talks.

In the meanwhile, India has expressed its concern over the Maoists reiteration that they will hit those companies that have Indian investment. This means that the Maoists will have to face a wrath if they attack Indian investments. But in what form the Indian authorities will exhibit their wrath will have to be watched if the rebels act as per their declaration.

AVIVA cosmetic products launched

Kathmandu: With a bold claim of capturing 50 percent of cosmetic market in the Kingdom within a year or so, the AVIVA International, an Indian Cosmetic manufacturer, officially launched its products in Kathmandu.

This was stated on the occasion of launching of their products at the Hotel Radisson premises last week.

The AVIVA Chief, Dr. Bali stated that the products are of the international standard and stressed that no hazardous chemicals have been used in the manufacture of the cosmetic products.

He further added that AVIVA products were all vegetarian and hence nothing to panic.

Mr. Bali, a Medical doctor, assured the attending media men that being a doctor himself, proper care had been taken while manufacturing the cosmetic items.

R.K.Bhagat, the CEO of the RMA Marketing is entrusted to market the AVIVA products in Nepal.

Gautam to clarify UN's would be role in Nepal issue

Kathmandu: The government led by Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba has little time to decide on whether to accept the United Nations mediation efforts for arriving at a solution to the Maoists conflict.

So far, the government has been hinting that the country did not need the UN mediation and that if need be it would seek the UN support in this regard.

But then the fact is that a good number of civil society organizations including a host of political parties have favored the UN mediation in one form or the other to sort out the Maoists issue for good.

To the extent that the UN's role is now being favored by Koirala and Madhav's party is already on record to have even incorporated the UN possible role in its long drawn nine-point roadmap.

However, the government is providing little attention to those political overtures that favor UN role in Nepali issue.

Be that as it may, the Secretary General of the UN system, Kofi Annan, is shortly sending his top emissary, fortunately a Nepali citizen indeed, Mr. Kul Chandra Gautam to take stock of the Nepal situation vis-à-vis the Maoists-Government conflict.

It is widely believed that Mr. Gautam will explain the role that the UN would like to play in Nepali affairs at a program to be organized by Nepal Council of World Affairs.

Koirala says that the UN has a role to play but should limit its role to that of an observer. The UML prefers the UN role but has yet to spell out what sort of role it would like to provide the UN at time of the talks?

The RPP and the NSP apparently hint that UN role was not needed at least for the moment.

The Maoists are candid in demanding UN's role at time of the talks and forward the reason that since they don't trust the government and hence the need of an international guarantor.

The international community based in Kathmandu too is divided on this issue. While the US will prefer the talks to proceed without UN assistance, the Europeans would prefer the UN role for so many good reasons. UN or no UN is perhaps one factor that also has widened the rift in between the US and the members of the EU in Kathmandu.

The UN has time and again stated that it might attend to the talks provided both the parties in conflict exhibit their common preference.

In this scenario, analysts hope that until Mr. Gautam clarifies the UN position and the kind of the role she wants to play, things will continue under intense debate.

Opinion | Dateline | National |  5 Question  | Editorial | Letter | 2nd Impression | Views | International | Tête-à-tête with Amandine | Past