A negotiated settlement without active engagement of the political parties and the civil society is difficult to achieve

Dr. Bishnu Raj Uprety, Expert on Conflict Management, NEPAL

He is the one who has studied conflict and its resolution processes in depth. In other words Mr Uprety appears to be the single expert who has obtained a doctoral degree in the discipline of conflict management. Un fortunately his vast knowledge an expertise remains yet to be honored and untilized by a conflict ridden country- Nepal.

Mr Uprety is a prolific writer on issues related with conflict , which our readers, if recall, had the opportunity to go through his exclusive views in our previous issues.

During his 24 years of professional work Bishnu Raj Upreti has been involved in both research and development focusing to resource governance, resource scarcity and conflict, community empowerment, monitoring and evaluation of programmes and projects, institutional analysis, conflict analysis and management, social policy analysis, academic and action research, surveys and baseline preparation, training and human resource development, liaison and co-ordination, production of reports, briefing papers and resources materials at different levels with communities, international and national non governmental organisations, government organisations, donors and private sectors. Bishnu is equipped different participatory methodologies (Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment, PRA, AI, Participatory Learning and Action, Stakeholders Analysis, anthropological techniques, etc.) and planning tools (such as Log Frame, Process Oriented Project Planning and Implementation, etc.). He has experiences of working in multi-disciplinary, multinational, multi-cultural and diverse geographical settings. Bishnu was also involved in teaching and co-supervising MSc and PhD students during his PhD and post doc research.

Last week we approached this suave scholar of internation repute for a chit chat to which he agreed. Below the results-ED

TGQ1: How do you as an expert of conflict resolution define the conflict that has paralyzed the country? What you consider to be the root cause of conflict in Nepal? Do you think the prevalence of systematic inequality is fueling the conflict? Or has it acquired a serious political dimension in addition to that?

The conflict, which paralyses the nation, is a complex result of political, ideological, socio-economic, cultural and international dimensions. The armed rebellion is not the sole outcome of the failure of the 12 years of democracy. It is the manifestation of failure of 235 years of modern history of Nepal. The root causes of the conflict are systematic inequalities, severe discriminations (related to caste, gender and geography), injustice, poverty, centralised political systems and exclusionary governance practices in Nepal. In addition to these structural causes, this conflict has acquired serious political weaknesses in terms of failure of political leadership in controlling corruption, providing minimum basic need related services to the poorest and marginalized sections of the society and governing the nation with clear vision, values, ethics and commitment. Likewise, the ambitions of the King to be visible, audible, assertive and proactive monarch to rule the country and his actions of the 4 October 2004 and the performance of subsequent government thereafter has added further complications in the already deteriorated conflict situation in Nepal.

 TGQ2: How do you analyze the Maoists forty point demands and the agitating party’s eighteen-point demands and the government’s stance for the peace talks? How significant are they in bringing stability back in the nation?

When the Maoists submitted forty point demands to the government in 1996, the then Prime Minister took it very lightly and went to India ignoring the deadline given by the Maoists. The Maoists submitted their 40 points demands into three categories, i.e., demands related to nationalism, the public and its well-being and the peoples living. Some of these demands (e.g., from 21st to 40th demands) were directly related to the living of people, which is the responsibility of the government to fulfill. Some demands were related to international relations. These demands were very important for the interests of Nepal and Nepalese people. Therefore, the government must have taken positively and start to address them. Few demands were related to the power and privileges of the royal palace and therefore it was difficult for the government to address them immediately. Even some demands were related to release some of their arrested cadres. In summary, most of the forty points demands of the Maoists were of national concern and have to be addressed by the state. However, the then government and political parties were not ready to address these national concerns. As a consequence, Nepal is now facing the unprecedented crisis.

Regarding the eighteen point demands of the five agitating parties, few demands related to the power and privileges are similar to the one raised by the Maoists in their 40 points demands. Even other demands of the agitating parties were similar to the demands made by the Maoists 7 years ago. In that respects the five agitating parties were 7 years behind the Maoists to realize the same issue.

Regarding the government stance for peace talks, it is very unfortunate situation. In the previous talks neither the government, nor the Maoists nor the political parties were serious and committed to the peace. All three major actors utilized both the talks (2001 and 2003) for their strategic and tactical benefits, instead to sincerely work for negotiated settlement. There were several procedural, structural and substantive weaknesses in the both negotiation process. Considering the intentions and the current approach of the government to settle the armed conflict through military means (unified command), there is very little hope that the government is willing to bring stability back in the nation. If they want peace, the current approach of the government, the Maoists and the parliamentary parties must change and opt for accommodative approach.

TGQ 3: How much India’s role in the government-Maoists peace process is important?

What would be India’s stance on Maoists mainstreaming considering their first four demands relating to the future of Nepal –India relation?

India's role is extremely important to settle Maoists conflict thorough negotiation. Without getting India in confidence it is very hard to properly settle this conflict. There are evidences that India is deeply engaged in this conflict. The Maoists are using Indian territories for their training, shelters, bringing arms and weapons. India resists involvement of the third party mediation of this conflict. The India has also strong influence in the Nepalese politics, political parties, other power centers and the government. If India supports peaceful settlement, it can exert enough positive pressure to the major conflict actors of Nepal. However, so far the intention of India is not supportive, as it is also opposing involvement of the third party and itself is supplying arms and equipments to the Nepalese government. However, because of the emergence of COMPOSA and expansion of the Indian Maoists in Easter and Southern India, its worries and concerns related to the instability within India could force to resolve the Maoist conflict in Nepal.

Among the forty points demands of the Maoists, three were directly related to India. They were a) the all unequal stipulations and agreements of 1950 Treaty between India and Nepal should be removed, b) HMG should admit that the anti-nationalist Tanakpur agreement was wrong, and the Mahakali Treaty, incorporating same, should be nullified, and c) The entire Nepal-Indian border should be controlled and systematized. Cars with Indian number plates, which are plying the roads of Nepal, should not be allowed. However, India wants to maintain all these provisions and the Nepalese government is not raising the voice strongly and firmly to address these issues.

Nepal-India relations have historical, cultural, political, economic and strategic dimensions and we cannot ignore this reality. Though India don't want to change the existing mode of relation with Nepal, growth and expansion of the Maoist in Nepal will equally affect the Indian Maoist movement, which is going on in several states of India. Therefore, India will get advantage by settling Maoists conflict in Nepal.

TGQ 4: Given the current political chaos, what adverse effects this disorder would bring to the state of democracy and the future talks with the rebels? Or do you view it as some difficult steps towards achieving everlasting stability?

Full functioning of democratic institutions like parliament, periodic election, people's representative government, proper functioning of political parties, etc. are essential to flourish democracy. But now there are no elected representatives in local and national bodies, no parliament, no election, the government is nominated, political parties are sidelined form the mainstream politics, and the country is ruled by the ordinance under the active leadership of the King. The conflict between the King and the parliamentary parties is escalating. The country is without Prime Minister for three weeks. There are intense fights between the rebels and the security forces, human right violations, insecurity and irregularities are sharply growing. The current chaotic situation is systematically weakening the democracy and democratic institutions. It is understood that the palace as well as the Maoists have made some efforts to have ceasefire and negotiation, it is extremely difficult to achieve negotiated settlement of the conflict without active engagement of the political parties and the civil society, in addition to the palace and the king. Fundamental of the negotiation and peace talk is the developing trust, establishing dialogue, understanding differences and establish regular communication and dialogue. But now there is severe mistrust between the king and parliamentary parties, the Maoists and the government, which is severely hindering the settlement of the conflict.

There are no other better ways than peace talks to settle the armed rebellion. Sooner or later, the conflicting parties have to engage in dialogue for the negotiated settlement. Therefore, it would be wise to establish dialogue, build trust and start informal negotiation.

TGQ 5: At a time when the talk of foreign, UN included, mediation is under intense debate, where would be your position in this debate? Do you possess exclusive roadmap for peaceful transformation of the current Maoists crisis, which could be accepted by both the rival parties and represent voices of the people as well?

United Nations is one of the most widely engaged organisations in mediating conflict and peace keeping around the world. In this context, it is relevant to quote General Secretary of Kofi Anan. Once he said, "The World cannot stand aside when gross and systematic violation of human rights are taking place with grave humanitarian consequences". Nevertheless, if both parties agree, the UN could play important role. In Asia, the UN has been involved in Cambodia, Myanmar, East Timor, etc. In any mediation, the UN involvement is based on a set of shared values and principles, and commitment to the peace process. The intention of the UN to assist Nepal is based on these principles.

The Maoists are looking for the external guarantors. Repeated expressions of the Maoists to engage UN in negotiated settlement is a clear reflection of their desire to have guarantee from neutral international force. Their willingness to invite the UN, in my opinion, should not be understood only they want international recognition. Why the Maoists want international recognition? Perhaps, this may force Maoists to comply with international provisions and to settle the armed conflict politically.

The UN is one of the best options, when Nepal seeks external mediation. General Secretary of the UN is deeply concerned about the deteriorating situation of Nepal and offered his willingness to assist Nepal. Civil society, Nepalese diplomats and intelligentsia, major political parties (UML, NCP and others) largely, agreed to involve the UN in mediating conflict and the Maoists agreed. Therefore, this is a best option.

The unprecedented crisis this country is facing now cannot be addressed by the existing constitution as well as the current approach. It requires entirely new approach, which include a holistic 'conflict settlement package'. This package contain

a)      Formation of powerful all party government to be led by from within the five political parties

b)      The government constitute National Peace Commission (NPC)

c)      The NPC prepares all ground work for ceasefire

d)      The government and the rebels announce ceasefire

e)      NPC organise national peace conference representing the Maoists, the palace, political parties, civil society

f)       National Peace Conference (or round table conference) identifies issues of negotiation and state reform

g)      Formation of broad-based interim government including Maoists to execute the issues agreed in the National peace conference

h)      Constitution making (through Constituent Assembly election or any other appropriate means) by the interim government.

i)        Execution of the constitution and the implementation of the state reform agenda

Headline | Opinion | Dateline | National |  Editorial | Letter | 2nd Impression | Views | International | Past