Mar 27, 2009

Is Nepal Heading Towards a Failed State?

By Deepak Gajurel International research organizations have concluded that Nepal's situation has been deteriorating and this nation is at the verge of being a failed state. Current political, economic and social indicators do not suggest hopeful situation for Nepal. An analysis on Nepal's present status was done by Political Scientist Deepak Gajurel. The analysis is based on internationally established norms and indicators which was broadcast live over Gorkha FM-93 Mhz on Chaitra 13, 2065. Please clink on the link below to listen or download the audio file in MP3 sound format. The audio file's size is 2.85 mb. Background information on failed state: The term failed state is often used by political commentators and journalists to describe a state perceived as having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government. In order to make this definition more precise, the following attributes, proposed by the Fund for Peace, are often used to characterize a failed state: loss of physical control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein, erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions, an inability to provide reasonable public services, and an inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community. Common characteristics of a failing state include a central government so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory; non-provision of public services; widespread corruption and criminality; refugees and involuntary movement of populations; and sharp economic decline [1]. The level of government control required to avoid being considered a failed state varies considerably amongst authorities.[2] Furthermore, the declaration that a state has "failed" is generally controversial and, when made authoritatively, may carry significant geopolitical consequences.[2] Definition A state could be said to "succeed" if it maintains, in the words of Max Weber, a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within its borders. When this is broken (e.g., through the dominant presence of warlords, paramilitary groups, or terrorism), the very existence of the state becomes dubious, and the state becomes a failed state. The difficulty of determining whether a government maintains "a monopoly on the legitimate use of force" (which includes the problems of the definition of "legitimate") means it is not clear precisely when a state can be said to have "failed." This problem of legitimacy can be solved by understanding what Weber intended by it. Weber clearly explains that only the state has the means of production necessary for physical violence (politics as vocation). This means that the state does not require legitimacy for achieving monopoly on the means of violence (de facto) but will need one if it needs to use it (de jure). The term is also used in the sense of a state that has been rendered ineffective (i.e., has nominal military/police control over its territory only in the sense of having no armed opposition groups directly challenging state authority; in short, the "no news is good news" approach) and is not able to enforce its laws uniformly because of high crime rates, extreme political corruption, an extensive informal market, impenetrable bureaucracy, judicial ineffectiveness, military interference in politics, cultural situations in which traditional leaders wield more power than the state over a certain area but do not compete with the state, or a number of other factors. [edit] Crisis States Research Centre The Crisis States Research Centre defines a “failed state” as a condition of “state collapse” – e.g. a state that can no longer perform its basic security and development functions and that has no effective control over its territory and borders. A failed state is one that can no longer reproduce the conditions for its own existence. This term is used in very contradictory ways in the policy community (for instance, there is a tendency to label a “poorly performing” state as “failed” – a tendency the Crisis States Research Centre rejects). The opposite of a “failed state” is an “enduring state” and the absolute dividing line between these two conditions is difficult to ascertain at the margins. Even in a failed state, some elements of the state, such as local state organisations, might continue to exist. Failed States Index Failed States according to Foreign Policy, 2005-2007 Since 2005 the United States think-tank, the Fund for Peace and the magazine Foreign Policy, publishes an annual index called the Failed States Index. The list only assesses sovereign states (determined by membership in the United Nations.)[3] Several territories are excluded until their political status and UN membership is ratified in international law. For example, Taiwan, the Palestinian Territories, Northern Cyprus, Kosovo, and Western Sahara are not included in the list, even though some are recognized as sovereign states by some nations. Ranking is based on the total scores of the 12 indicators (see below.) For each indicator, the ratings are placed on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest intensity (most stable) and 10 being the highest intensity (least stable). The total score is the sum of the 12 indicators and is on a scale of 0-120. Indicators of state vulnerability The index's ranks are based on twelve indicators of state vulnerability - four social, two economic and six political.[4] The indicators are not designed to forecast when states may experience violence or collapse. Instead, they are meant to measure a state's vulnerability to collapse or conflict. All countries in the red, orange, or yellow categories display some features that make parts of their societies and institutions vulnerable to failure. Some in the yellow zone may be failing at a faster rate than those in the more dangerous orange or red zones, and therefore could experience violence sooner. Conversely, some in the red zone, though critical, may exhibit some positive signs of recovery or be deteriorating slowly, giving them time to adopt mitigating strategies.[3] Social indicators Demographic pressures: including the pressures deriving from high population density relative to food supply and other life-sustaining resources. The pressure from a population's settlement patterns and physical settings, including border disputes, ownership or occupancy of land, access to transportation outlets, control of religious or historical sites, and proximity to environmental hazards.[5] Massive movement of refugees and internally displaced peoples: forced uprooting of large communities as a result of random or targeted violence and/or repression, causing food shortages, disease, lack of clean water, land competition, and turmoil that can spiral into larger humanitarian and security problems, both within and between countries.[6] Legacy of vengeance-seeking group grievance: based on recent or past injustices, which could date back centuries. Including atrocities committed with impunity against communal groups and/or specific groups singled out by state authorities, or by dominant groups, for persecution or repression. Institutionalized political exclusion. Public scapegoating of groups believed to have acquired wealth, status or power as evidenced in the emergence of "hate" radio, pamphleteering and stereotypical or nationalistic political rhetoric.[7] Chronic and sustained human flight: both the "brain drain" of professionals, intellectuals and political dissidents and voluntary emigration of "the middle class." Growth of exile/expat communities are also used as part of this indicator.[8] Economic indicators Uneven economic development along group lines: determined by group-based inequality, or perceived inequality, in education, jobs, and economic status. Also measured by group-based poverty levels, infant mortality rates, education levels.[9] Sharp and/or severe economic decline: measured by a progressive economic decline of the society as a whole (using: per capita income, GNP, debt, child mortality rates, poverty levels, business failures.) A sudden drop in commodity prices, trade revenue, foreign investment or debt payments. Collapse or devaluation of the national currency and a growth of hidden economies, including the drug trade, smuggling, and capital flight. Failure of the state to pay salaries of government employees and armed forces or to meet other financial obligations to its citizens, such as pension payments.[10] Political indicators Criminalization and/or delegitimisation of the state: endemic corruption or profiteering by ruling elites and resistance to transparency, accountability and political representation. Includes any widespread loss of popular confidence in state institutions and processes.[11] Progressive deterioration of public services: a disappearance of basic state functions that serve the people, including failure to protect citizens from terrorism and violence and to provide essential services, such as health, education, sanitation, public transportation. Also using the state apparatus for agencies that serve the ruling elites, such as the security forces, presidential staff, central bank, diplomatic service, customs and collection agencies.[12] Widespread violation of human rights: an emergence of authoritarian, dictatorial or military rule in which constitutional and democratic institutions and processes are suspended or manipulated. Outbreaks of politically inspired (as opposed to criminal) violence against innocent civilians. A rising number of political prisoners or dissidents who are denied due process consistent with international norms and practices. Any widespread abuse of legal, political and social rights, including those of individuals, groups or cultural institutions (e.g., harassment of the press, politicization of the judiciary, internal use of military for political ends, public repression of political opponents, religious or cultural persecution.)[13] Security apparatus as ‘state within a state’: an emergence of elite or praetorian guards that operate with impunity. Emergence of state-sponsored or state-supported private militias that terrorize political opponents, suspected "enemies," or civilians seen to be sympathetic to the opposition. An "army within an army" that serves the interests of the dominant military or political clique. Emergence of rival militias, guerilla forces or private armies in an armed struggle or protracted violent campaigns against state security forces.[14] Rise of factionalised elites: a fragmentation of ruling elites and state institutions along group lines. Use of aggressive nationalistic rhetoric by ruling elites, especially destructive forms of communal irredentism (e.g., "Greater Serbia") or communal solidarity (e.g., "ethnic cleansing", "defending the faith").[15] Intervention of other states or external factors: military or Para-military engagement in the internal affairs of the state at risk by outside armies, states, identity groups or entities that affect the internal balance of power or resolution of the conflict. Intervention by donors, especially if there is a tendency towards over-dependence on foreign aid or peacekeeping missions.[16]

Mar 13, 2009

Nepal in a Political Deadlock: Is there any Way Out?

Ruling Maoist leaders have created an uproar that 'a conspiracy is under way in India to restore Monarchy' in Nepal. Girija Prasad Koirala is in India, so are some UML leaders. Former King Gyanendra too is in India since last two weeks. Koirala is scheduled to meet Indian prime minister, Sonia Gandhi, BJP top leaders and others. This has created skepticism that some kind of regime change in Nepal is being planned in New Delhi. What would be the reality? Is Nepal's political scenario going to change? In the past, India had been doing 'what it wanted' in Nepal. But the situation has changed now and India's power has been checked in Kathmandu by China and the United States. Can India do 'anything' it desires in Nepal? In the domestic front, the nation is crippled by continued 'struggles' by various forces. The ruling parties are signaling to amend the Interim Constitution to meet the demands of Tharus. On the other hand, Madheshis are threatening the government not to undermine 'Madhesh' or face another Madhesh Aandolan. You go with one, there is another against it. The rulers and leaders have deliberately engulfed the nation into political chaos. There seems no way out. What would be the political picture of Nepal in the days to come? Can the leaders find easy way out? Who is responsible for this situation? An in-depth analysis is done in a radio talk-show by Deepak Gajurel, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Tribhuvan University. The program was broadcast live over Gorkha FM (93 Mhz) on Fagun 29, 2065. Please click the following link to listen/download the talk show. Feedback would be appreciated.

Mar 8, 2009

India's Involvement in Nepali Politics: Are Nepali Political Parties Steered by India?

By Deepak Gajurel Indian foreign minister, also acting Prime Minister, Pranav Mukharjee, in an interview with Al Zajeera Television, announced that India officially 'persuaded' Maoists and Nepali political parties to sign 12 point agreement in New Delhi. It is the first time an Indian high ranking official publicly accepted that India has a key role in Nepal's internal political affairs. Since the signing of 12 point agreement, India has had rejected its any direct involvement in Nepal's peace process. What does this disclosure from Indian side mean for Nepali current peace process? Why did New Delhi choose this time for revealing this fact? Does it mean that India's Nepal policy and strategy heading towards failure? What would be the consequences of India's policy failure in Nepal? Is the current peace process going to derail? Is India pressurizing Maoists and 'Parliamentary' parties to work in accordance with India's will? If yes, what are the possible factors behind India's concerns? Before the signing of Delhi agreement, was India bargaining with the King as well as with the Maoists/seven parties simultaneously? The parties of 12 point agreement (Maoists and seven parties) seems to have derailed from the 'consensus.' What would be consenquences? Where Nepal is heading? I have analyze whole gamut of the issues to dig out answers to these questions in a radio talk show. The program was broadcast live over Gorkha FM on Magh 17, 2065. Please click on the link below to listen/download the program. I would appreciate if you could find time to provide me feedback on the same. Deepak Gajurel Assistant Professor Tribhuvan University

Mar 7, 2009

China's Security Concerns in Nepal

By Deepak Gajurel Since the establishment of Nepal-China diplomatic relations in 1955, China, for the first time, sent its Special Envoy to Nepal. China has proposed a new Peace and Friendship Treaty with Nepal. A big hue and cry was seen in Kathmandu on China's unconventional 'open' diplomatic moves in recent days. Beijing's recent moves have created huge political and academic interpretations in Nepal. Taking part in a radio talk show, I have analyzed China's major concerns and Beijing's possible future strategies in and from Nepal. The talk show was broadcast live over Gorkha FM on Fagun 16, 2065. Please click on the link below to listen or download the program in MP3 format. I would appreciate if you could find time to listen the analysis and provide me your feedback.

US and Nepal; Sri Lanka-Meaning for Nepal

By Deepak Gajurel United States has been showing serious interests in Nepal since the political change three years back. US officials are frequently visiting Nepal which is getting utmost attention among Nepal intelligentsia and diplomats in Kathmandu. US Under Secretary of States Boucher's recent visit to Kathmandu made an issue for academic and diplomatic discussions. As an Assistant Professor of Political Science with Tribhuvan University, with special interests on international power equation and Nepal's relations with friendly nations, I have analyzed the US concerns in Nepal in a live radio talk show. What Washington wants in Nepal? Is Nepal engulfed into regional and international power struggle? What should be the strategy of Nepal to serve its national interests? I have tried to explore answers to these questions in the radio interview. The talk show was broadcast over Gorkha FM on Fagun 2, 2065. The program also includes recent development in Sri Lanka and its possible meaning for Nepal. Please click on the link below to listen or download the audio file (MP3)

Mar 5, 2009

मुलुक फेरि भीडन्त तर्फ उन्मुख

दीपक गजुरेल मुलुकको राजनीति कता जाँदैछ ? अव के हुने हो ? राजनीतिक शक्तिहरु बीच चलिराखेको अहिलेको द्वन्द्वको परिणाम के हुने हो ? राष्ट्रले राजनीतिक स्थायित्व कहिले र कसरी पाउने हो ? यी प्रश्नहरु अहिले आम नागरिकका मनमा गम्भीर रुपले उठेका छन् । राजाको शासन विरुद्ध आन्दोलनको नेतृत्व गरेका राजनीतिक शक्तीहरु दिशाबिहीन अबस्थामा पुगेको देखिन्छ । मुलुकमा प्रजातन्त्र र स्थायित्व दिने तथा नागरिकको शासन स्थापित गर्ने लक्ष्यका साथ एक जुट भएका दल तथा शक्तिहरु अहिले विभाजित भएका छन् । परिणामस्वरुप, राजनीतिक मात्र होइन, आर्थिक, सामाजिक, शैक्षिक, कूटनीतिक लगायतका सबै क्षेत्र अस्तव्यस्त बन्नपुगेका छन् । आम नागरिकले एक पछि अर्को गर्दै अनेकौँ दु:ख कष्ट खेप्नु परेको छ । सहमतिका साथ राष्ट्रलाई सही दिशा दिने प्रतिबद्धता व्यक्त गर्नेहरुवाट नागरिक निराश बन्दै गएका छन् । सहमतिको अन्त्य : विश्व समुदायले स्थापित गरेका प्रजातान्त्रिक मूल्य–मान्यता, कानुनको शासन जस्ता प्रकृया प्रति आस्था राख्ने एक थरी राजनीतिक दल छन् । अर्का थरी छन्, बन्दूकको बलमा सत्ता कब्जा गर्ने सिद्धान्त र रणनीति बोकेका । यी दुईले एक अर्का संग मिलेर नेपालमा राजनीतिक स्थायित्व दिन्छौँ भनेका थिए तीन वर्ष अघि । त्यसबेलाको प्रतिबद्धतामा बहुदलीय प्रतिष्प्रर्धात्मक शासन प्रणाली स्थापना गर्ने सहमति भएको थियो । संसदवादी र माओवादी मिलेर आन्दोलनको नेतृत्व गरे, देशमा राजनीतिक परिवर्तन भयो र राजतन्त्र अन्त्य भएर मुलुकमा गणतन्त्र आयो । अव नयाँ संबिधान बनाएर राष्ट्रलाई दिने जिम्मेवारी पूरा गर्न बाँकी छ । तर स्थितिले कोल्टे फेरेको छ । मिलेर जाने सहमति गरेका शक्तिहरु बीच सहमतिको संस्कार अन्त्य भएको छ । राष्ट्रिय सहमति कायम गरी सबै नेपाली नागरिकमा स्वामित्वको भावना विकसित हुने खालको संबिधान बनाउनु पर्ने बेलामा जनताको नेतृत्व गर्नेहरु नै आपसी द्वन्द्वमा अल्झेका छन् । नियमित संसदीय कार्यप्रणालीमा जस्तो गरी सत्तापक्ष र प्रतिपक्षको भूमिका देखाउने बेला होइन यो । संबिधान बनाउन ठोस रुपले काम गर्नुको साटो राजनीतिक दलहरु भीडन्तमा लाग्नु मुलुकका लागि दुर्भाग्य हो । २०६२ साल मंसिरमा भारतले गराइदिएको सम्झौताका पक्षहरु बीच अहिले देखापरेको द्वन्द्व यसबेलाको आवश्यकताका हिसाबले अनावश्यक लाग्न सक्छ तर यो अस्वभाविक चाहिँ होइन । 'मिलेर राजनीति गर्ने विषयमा सहमतिका साथ जाने गुञ्जाइस नै थिएन र छैन यिनीहरु बीच । किनभने संसदवादी भनिने दलहरु र माओवादीबीच आधारभूत सिद्धान्त, रणनीति र शैलीमा नै विपरित ध्रुवीय भिन्नता छ । विचार र कर्मको स्वतन्त्रता सहितको खुला तथा उदार प्रजातान्त्रिक प्रणालीलाई अङ्गिकार गर्ने पक्ष र आफू बाहेक सबै 'जनताका शत्रु' हुन्‍ भनेर अरुको अस्तित्व नै स्वीकार नगर्नेे नीतिका अनुयायी एकै ठाउँमा बस्ने र राष्ट्रका लागि संगै काम गर्ने कुरा स्वेर कल्पना मात्र हो । यस आधारभूत मान्यताका आधारमा विश्लेषण गर्दा संसदवादी दल र माओवादी एक अर्काका शत्रुका रुपमा खडा हुनु स्वभाविक तथा प्राकृतिक हो । यो अस्वभाविकतालाई केही समय ढाकछोप गरिएको थियो । अहिले यो वास्तविकता सतहमा आएको मात्र हो । राष्ट्रलाई ढाँटियो: प्रणव मुखर्जीले 'मनाएर' १२ बुँदे सहमतिमा हस्ताक्षर गर्ने दुबै पक्ष अहिले एक अर्का प्रति धारे हात गर्दैछन्‍ । संसदवादी दलहरुले सहमति तोडेको सपाट आरोप माओवादीको छ भने, सहमतिको पालना माओवादीले 'शुरु देखि नै नगरेको' आरोप संसदवादीको छ । 'आतङ्ककारीलाई मूलधारको शान्तिपूर्ण राजनीतिमा सफलतापूर्वक ल्याएँ' भनेर दावी गर्ने संसदवादी खेमाका नेता गिरिजाप्रसाद अहिले माओवादी 'अधिनायकवादी बनेको' र 'सहमतिहरु पालना नगरेको' आरोप लाउँदैछन्‍ । उनी प्रधानमन्त्री हुँदा 'आतङ्ककारी' लाई शान्तिपूर्ण राजनीतिमा ल्याउन सफलता प्राप्त गरेको भए अहिले किन यस्तो भएको ? सम्बन्धितले जवाफ दिनुपर्छ । माओवादीले १२ बुँदे दिल्ली सम्झौता र त्यसपछि भए गरेका कुनै पनि सहमति पालना गरेको छैन भन्ने आरोप राष्ट्रलाई ढाँट्‍ने र चालबाजी गर्ने रणानीति मात्र हो । संसदवादी नेताले भने जसरी यदि माओवादीले आरम्भ देखि नै सहमतिहरु उलङ्घन गरेका हुन्‍ भने शान्तिपूर्ण राजनीतिक प्रकृयामा उनीहरुलाई यसरी अघि बढ्‍न किन दिइयो ? पुन स्थापित प्रतिनिधिसभामा मनोनित गरेर सत्ता सञ्चालनमा लाने बेलामा माओवादी शान्तिपूर्ण मूलधारमा आइसकेका थिए कि ? यदि थिएनन्‍ भने त्यसैबेला राष्ट्रलाई यथार्थ जानकारी किन दिइएन ? उनीहरुलाई संबिधानसभाको चुनावमा सहभागी गराउनु अघि जनतालाई सूचित किन गरिएन, यिनले सहमति कार्यान्वयन गरेका छैनन्‍ र शान्तिपूर्ण प्रकृया अपनाएका छैनन्‍ भनेर ? सरकारको नेतृत्व हस्तान्तरण गरिसक्दा समेत 'आतङ्ककारीलाई शान्तिपूर्ण प्रजातान्त्रिक प्रकृयामा ल्याएँ' भनेर दावी गर्नेले यसबेला 'शुरु देखि नै सहमतिको संस्कृति नअपनाएको' आरोप लगाउनु भनेको राष्ट्रलाई ढाँट्‍नु हो, जनता तिमी भेँडा हौ भन्नु हो । यस सन्दर्भमा माओवादी धेरैहद सम्म इमान्दार देखिन्छ, राजनीतिक रुपमा । सर्वहारावर्गको अधिनायकत्वको स्थापना बन्दूकको नालवाट गर्ने उद्‍घोषकासाथ सशस्त्र संघर्षमा गएको माओवादीले अहिले पनि त्यो लक्ष्य त्यागेको छैन । १२ बुँदे सम्झौता अघि देखि नै सैद्धान्तिक तथा व्यवहारिक रुपमा माओवादीले जे भन्दै आएको थियो, व्यवहारमा ठीक त्यही गर्दै आएको छ, आरम्भदेखि आज सम्म । हाम्रो युद्ध सकिएको छैन, विद्रोह गर्छौँ, सत्ता कब्जा गर्छौँ, हामीलाई बाधा पुर्‍याउनेको ढाड भाँचिदिन्छौँ जस्ता भाषाण मात्र आइराखेका छैनन्‍ माओवादीवाट । उनीहरुको आधिकारिक पार्टी दस्ताबेजहरुमा नै कम्यूनिष्ट पार्टीको सर्वसत्तावाद स्थापना गर्ने लक्ष्य स्पष्ट उल्लेख छ । आफ्नो पछि नलाग्ने वा विरोध गर्नेलाई 'ठेगान' लाउने शैली लिखित, मौखिक र व्यवहारिक सबै तहमा उसैबेला देखि जारी छ । कब्जा गरिएका सम्पति फिर्ता गर्दैनौँ भन्ने जनाउ संबिधान सभाको चुनाव भन्दा धेरै अघि देखि नै आएको हो । बिगतका यी तथ्यवाट के स्पष्ट हुन्छ भने, संसदवादी भनिने कुनै पनि नेता वा पार्टीलाई माओवादीमाथि सहमति अनुरुप चलेनन्‍ भन्ने आरोप लगाउने अधिकार छैन । अहिले माओवादी शैलीको विरुद्ध खडा हुनेहरुले राष्ट्र तथा जनतालाई ढाँटेका हुन्‍, राष्ट्र विरुद्ध जालसाजी गरेका हुन्‍ । फेरि भीडन्त ? 'माओवादीले सहमतिको वाटो छाड्‍यो' भन्ने संसदवादीहरु र 'संसदवादीहरु सहमतिमा हिँड्‍न चाहेनन्‍' भन्ने माओवादी अव आ–आफ्नै वाटो लागेका छन्‍ । अध्यादेश प्रकरण, सेना समायोजन, सेनामा भर्ती, कब्जा गरिएका सम्पति फिर्ता लगायतका विषय त सतहमा देखिने तपसिलका मतभिन्नता मात्र हुन्‍ । माओवादीले १२ बुँदे दिल्ली सम्झौता र त्यसपछिका सहमतिहरुलाई उपेक्षा गर्दै बलमिच्याइँद्वारा आफैँ सर्वेेसर्बा हुन खोज्दैछ भन्ने कुरा प्रति आम नागरिकमा, कमसेकम बौद्धिक जगतमा, लगभग सहमति देखिन्छ । अर्कातिर, माओवादीको शक्तिलाई उपयोग गरेर राज्य सत्तामा आफ्नो हालिमुहाली कायम गर्ने अभिष्ट पूरा नहुने अबस्था संसदवादी प्रमुख दलहरुले देख्न थालेका छन्‍ । आफ्नो निहित स्वार्थ पूरा हुने सम्भावना घट्‍दै गएको देख्ने, मुलुक र जनताका भाग्य निर्माता बन्न पुगेका यी दुई ध्रुवीय शक्तिहरु अवका दिनमा संगै हिँड्‍ने सम्भावना सकिएको छ । संसदवादी दलहरुले २०४७ सालको संबिधान अनुसार शासन चलाउँदाको बखत माओवादीले त्यही व्यबस्थाका विरुद्ध बन्दूक उठाएको हो । आफ्नो सिद्धान्त र व्यवहारवाट डेग नचलेको माओवादी र जनतालाई भ्रममा राख्ने तथा राष्ट्रलाई ढाँट्‍ने संसदवादीहरु सैद्धान्तिक अनि मौखिक हिसाबले आमने–सामने भीडन्तमा छन्‍ यसबेला । पछाडि फर्कन नसक्ने बिन्दुमा पुगिसकेका छन्‍ यी दुबै । २०६१ सालमा राजाले सम्पूर्ण सत्ता हातमा लिनु अघि संसदवादी पक्ष र माओवादी जुन स्थितिमा थिए अहिले फेरि त्यही अबस्थामा पुगेका छन्‍, हतियार चल्न मात्र बाँकी छ । र त्यसको सम्भावना बढ्‍दै गएको छ । कुन बहानामा, कुन बेला र कसरी बिष्फोट हुने हो भन्ने त्रास बढ्‍दै गएको छ । एक दशकको भयानक हिँसा, राष्ट्र र नागरिकलाई भोगाइएका अकल्पनीय पीडा, राजाको निरंकुशता र अराजकतावाट 'शान्ति प्रकृया' ले मुक्ति देला भन्ने नेपाली जनताको आशा निराशामा परिणत हुँदैछ । त्यस्तो भयावह अबस्थालाई मुलुकले अब कसरी थेग्ने हो, स्थिति कहाली लाग्दो छ । गजुरेल त्रिभूवन विश्वविद्यालयमा राजनीति शास्त्रका उपप्राध्यापक हुन् । नयाँ पत्रिका दैनिकमा प्रकाशित, फागुन १४, २०६५