उग्रवाम अधिकनायकवादको प्रयोग

युवराज घिमिर

एमालेले अवज्ञाकारी र अधिनायकवादी शैलीमा प्रस्तुत अध्यक्षमाथि अनुशासनात्मक कारबाही गर्न सकेन भने उसले अधिनायकवादलाई संस्थागत नीति स्वीकार गरेको अर्थ लाग्नेछ । र, त्यो आउँदो केही समयका लागि मुलुकमा प्रजातान्त्रिक र राष्ट्रवादी शक्तिहरूमाथि बढ्दो खतराको सूचक पनि हुनेछ ।

गठबन्धनको सरकार या सत्ता साझेदारीमा अक्सर नेतृत्वले नीति, आदर्श तथा मान्यतामा सम्झौता गर्नुपर्ने हुन्छ । त्यो मामिलामा नेपाल अपवाद हैन । छिमेकी भारतको हालैको उदाहरण हेर्दा पनि इमानदार मानिएका प्रधानमन्त्री मनमोहन सिंहको मन्त्रिपरिषद्मा अर्बौँको घोटाला गर्ने मन्त्रीहरूमाथि बाध्यात्मक परिस्थितिमा मात्र कारबाही भएको ताजा उदाहरण छ ।

नेपालमा ०६३ को प्रारम्भमा हिंसा र आतंकको राजनीति छोडी शान्ति, प्रजातन्त्र र पुननिर्माणको राजनीतिमा माओवादी प्रवेश गरेपछि निर्मित मन्त्रिपरिषद्लाई त्यसैले नै सम्भवतः गठबन्धन सरकार भनिएन । त्यसलाई सहमतिको सरकार मनियो । र ठूला दलले मुलुकमा शान्ति, प्रजातन्त्र तथा आर्थिक समृद्धिका लागि अनि संविधानसभाको निर्वाचन गरी त्यसमार्फत नयाँ संविधान बनाउने प्रक्रिया पूरा नभएसम्म सहमतिको राजनीतिलाई अगाडि बढाउने संकल्प गरेका हुन् । अर्थात् साझा कार्यक्रम र सहमतिका आधारमा राजनीति अगाडि बढाउने प्रण गरेकाले कुनै दल या नेतृत्वले नीति, सिद्धान्त र मान्यतामा सम्झौता गर्नुपर्ने स्थिति थिएन नेपालमा । 

तर, सहमतिको राजनीतिले गिरिजाप्रसाद कोइराला र प्रचण्डको जमिनदारी स्थापित गर्‍यो । आसेपासे नेताहरूले नियुक्ति, ठेक्कापट्टा र राज्यको ढुकुटी लुट्ने प्रथामा निर्बाध पहँुच पाउन थाले । मुलुकको रूपान्तरण भयो बिर्तामा । सत्ता मात्र हैन, देशलाई नै टुक्रयाएर आफ्नो आधिपत्य ती टुक्राहरूमा स्थापित गर्ने खेललाई सत्ताभित्र र बाहिरका दलहरूले समेत अगि बढाउन थाले । नेतृत्व लाचार रूपमा प्रस्तुत भइरह्यो, कोइरालादेखि प्रचण्ड, माधव नेपाल हुँदै झलनाथ खनालसम्म ।

नेपालको राजनीतिजस्तै, या यहाँको अखण्डताजस्तै त्यो कथित राजनीति अब टुत्रि“mदै छ, साँघुरिँदै छ । कथित सहमतिको राजनीति विखण्डित हुँदै छ । दलमाथि व्यक्तिगत नेतृत्व निणर्ायक रूपमा हाबी हुँदै छ । शोषित सात जोड एक पार्टीको छद्म 'लोकतन्त्र, संघीय र धर्म निरपेक्ष' मोर्चा चोइटिँदै अब झलनाथ खनाल र माओवादी मोर्चामा सीमित हुन आएको छ । मुलुकको कार्यकारी नेतृत्व अब एउटा लाचार कठपुतलीका हातमा आइपुगेको छ । 

अन्नतः साउन १६ गते खनालले माओवादीले प्रस्ताव गरेअनुसार मन्त्रिपरिषद्मा उक्त पार्टीका नयाँ टिमलाई हुलेरै छोडे । आफ्नै पार्टी एमालेको असहमति या विरोधलाई बेवास्ता गरे उनले । हो मन्त्रिपरिषद्मा सामान्यतया फेरबदल गर्ने कुरा प्रधानमन्त्रीको विशेषाधिकारको कुरा हो । उनले आफ्ना दलका नेता माधव नेपाल र केपी ओलीलाई त्यही जवाफ दिए । 

तर, बिचरा खनालले एक साताअघि माओवादी प्रवक्ता दीनानाथ शर्माले माओवादीका प्रस्तावित मन्त्रीहरू -१२ क्यबिनेट र १२ राज्यमन्त्री) को नाम तथा विभागसहित सार्वजनिक रूपमा घोषणा गर्दा त्यसको प्रतिरोध गर्न सकेनन् । सत्ताको नेतृत्वका लागि त्यहाँ लाचारी आवश्यक थियो । खनालले सत्ताका लागि प्रधानमन्त्रीको स्वाभिमान, दायित्व र विशेष अधिकार समर्पण गरिसकेका छन् माओवादीसमक्ष र खासगरी प्रचण्डसमक्ष । अहिलेको सत्ता र शान्ति तथा संविधान लेखन प्रक्रिया उत्तरदायित्व या जवाफदेहिता लिनु नपर्ने गरी प्रचण्डको पोल्टामा गइसकेको छ । 

संविधानसभाको संविधान समिति हैन प्रचण्ड नेतृत्वको उपसमितिले त्यो संविधानका मूलभूत मुद्दा निर्णय गर्नेतर्फ सक्रियता देखाएको छ । सत्ता आफ्नै, मुद्दा आफूले सल्टाउने अभिभारा लिएका प्रचण्डले कुनै पनि अवस्थामा आफ्नो 'दासत्व' ग्रहण गरेका प्रधानमन्त्री खनाल र कांग्रेसलगायत अन्य दललाई कुनै पनि अवस्थामा दोषी ठहर गर्ने प्रपञ्चमा लाग्नेछन् । प्रधानमन्त्री र प्रचण्डसँगै त्यसै खेमाका सभामुख सुवास नेम्वाङ विशेष अनुगमन समितिका अध्यक्ष बन्दा 'उग्रवाम' बाहुल्यको सत्ता नेपालको नियति बन्ने सम्भावना बढेको छ । नेपाली कांग्रेसले प्रजातान्त्रिक प्रतिपक्षका रूपमा आफूलाई स्थापित गर्न सकेको छैन । कांग्रेसले अब नेपालमा राष्ट्रियता तथा प्रजातन्त्रको बचाउ तथा संस्थागत विस्तारमा योगदान पुर्‍याउने अन्तिम अवसरलाई कसरी प्रयोग गर्छ, उसले केही दिनभित्रै निर्णय गर्नुपर्ने हुन्छ । सुशील कोइराला लाचारीका साथ खनाल-प्रचण्ड रणनीतिको कार्यान्वयनमा लाचार शिखण्डी बन्ने सम्भावना बढेको छ, तर राष्ट्रियता र प्रजातन्त्रविरोधी शक्तिमाथि चुनौती दिने अर्जुनको हैसियत आफ्नो पार्टीलाई दिनसक्ने क्षमता उनीसँग देखिँदैन ।

खनालले नैतिकता र जनताका नाममा साउन २८ गतेसम्म माओवादीले शान्तिप्रक्रियाका सम्बन्धमा ठोस कार्यक्रम नदिए राजीनामा गर्ने घोषणा गरेका छन् । तर, उनले माओवादीद्वारा तयार गरिएको भाषण पढिरहेका थिए भन्ने सबैले बुझेका छन् । अबको राजनीति संविधान लेखन र शान्तिप्रक्रिया सञ्चालनका सारथी प्रचण्ड बनिसकेका छन् । र, उनले प्रजातान्त्रिक संविधान या व्यवस्था स्विकार्ने छैनन् भनी मुलुकले बुझिसकेको छ । कमसेकम संवैधानिक समितिका अध्यक्ष नीलाम्बर आचार्य तथा मुलुकका राष्ट्रियता र प्रजातन्त्र पक्षधर शक्तिहरूले बुझ्नु जरुरी छ । उग्रवाम अधिनायकवादको प्रयोग श्रावण १६ गतेदेखि सुरु भएको छ, नेपालमा ।

एमाले संस्थागत रूपमा कांग्रेसजस्तै ढुलमुले छ । पार्टीले अवज्ञाकारी र अधिनायकवादी शैलीमा प्रस्तुत भएका अध्यक्षमाथि अनुशासनात्मक कारबाही गर्न सकेन भने उसले अधिनायकवादलाई संस्थागत नीति स्वीकार गरेको अर्थ लाग्नेछ । र, त्यो आउँदो केही समयका लागि मुलुकमा प्रजातान्त्रिक र राष्ट्रवादी शक्तिहरूमाथि बढ्दो खतराको सूचक पनि हुनेछ । 

मोलतोलको यस राजनीतिमा क्षणिक उपलब्धि उपेन्द्र यादवको मधेसी जनाधिकार फोरमले पनि हासिल गरेको छ । मधेसमा भएको सानो भए पनि एउटै दललाई आत्मतुष्टि दिनु रणनीतिक रूपमा जरुरी छ, उग्रवाम गठबन्धनलाई ।

अब आउने दिनमा नेपाली सेना, सुरक्षा निकाय र राज्यका अन्य संवेदनशील अंगमाथि नियन्त्रण जमाउने खेल सुरु हुनेछ । विधायिका संसद् र संविधानसभालाई यस गठबन्धनले आफ्नो लाभका लागि रबर स्ट्याम्पका रूपमा मात्र प्रयोग गर्नेछ । राष्ट्रपतिसमक्ष यो सरकारसँग नतमस्तक हुनेबाहेक अर्को विकल्प रहनेछैन । तर, मुलुक र जनताका लागि प्रश्न झन् कठोर बनेर आएको छ । तत्काल निर्णय नभएर यो अधिनायकवादी तथा जिम्मेवारीविहीन प्रयोग केही लम्बिनेछ । 

अब राष्ट्र तथा मुलुक विखण्डीकरणतर्फ जाने, अनि उसका अंगहरू भताभुंग हुने चरणमा तथा प्रजातन्त्रवादी शक्तिहरूलाई अभिभाकत्व प्रदान गर्न जनताले मात्र निणर्ायक भूमिका खेल्न सक्नेछन् । ०६३ को परिवर्तनमा लागेका आन्तरिक शक्तिहरूलाई अस्वीकार गर्दै बाह्य शक्तिहरूसँग नेपाली सार्वभौमसत्ता तथा राष्ट्रियता र प्रजातन्त्रको 'पमवर्क' संस्थागत गर्न नयाँ शक्तिले 'निगोसिएट' गर्नु आवश्यक र अपरिहार्य भएको छ ।

स्रोत  नयाँ पत्रिका दैनिक

A new deadline

By Yubaraj Ghimire

Five weeks have gone by since the term of Nepal’s Constituent Assembly was extended to complete the peace process and to bring out the first comprehensive draft of a new constitution. In the first fortnight of the extended tenure, a task force headed by Maoist leader Prachanda went to great lengths to iron out differences between the three major political parties, but the efforts have been frittered away in an  increasingly polarised political landscape.

The task force had suggested that Nepal adopt the French model of government, with an executive president directly elected by the people. But this has been rejected outright by the Nepali Congress, a votary of the Westminster model. Nilambar Acharya, chairman of the constitutional committee that is to prepare the draft based on agreements reached by political parties to be later adopted by the House, has warned that completing his job by the deadline of August 18 will be impossible if major issues are not settled at least by July 14.

Meanwhile, President Ram Baran Yadav, in his address to the House on government programme and policies on July 3, asked political parties to work relentlessly to deliver the constitution by the new deadline. He went on to promise that the government is committed to an ambitious development agenda and promoting the hydro-power sector. But in a country where political parties are now seen more as enemies of peace, stability and development, the president’s speech is likely to be treated as ceremonius lip service rather than as a promise to be taken seriously.

Here is one reason for such disillusionment. The government has not provided security to the India-aided Upper Karnali hydro-power project that was abandoned after the project office was destroyed two months ago. Foreign investors, especially from India, China and the US, are keen to put up the capital, provided there is a conducive atmosphere for it. But neither the government nor the political parties seem serious about this.

Popular anger and frustration are growing, especially since the House, which has been extended twice already, is unlikely to deliver the constitution on deadline. So much so that there are accusations that the big political parties are influenced by foreign funding. Almost taking cognizance of this mood in Nepal, the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID), a major donor in matters of peace process, democratisation and security, hinted that it would no longer fund non-governmental organisations  ssociated with political parties.

The DFID’s warning comes nearly two months after it stopped aid to the Nepali Federation of Indigenous Nationalities, which has been agitating for ethnicity-based provinces when a federal government comes to power under the new constitution. NGOs, with some notable exceptions, are being seen as fronts for political play. There are more than 50,000 NGOs in the country — said to be averaging 12 per village — and together their funds are considered to be bigger than the proposed national budget of 381 billion Nepali rupees for the financial year beginning mid-July. The biggest beneficiaries of external funding are believed to be NGOs with links to the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML), which heads the coalition government. The two other major parties — the Nepali Congress and the Maoists — too have NGOs with overt or covert affiliations. With no regulatory laws or mechanisms in place, even ministers and advisers to the government have in the recent past headed NGOs dealing with democratic rights, human rights, anti-corruption campaign, security sector and empowerment. Ironically, despite the donors raising the issue of corruption in government, the lack of transparency in financial dealings has made them hugely unpopular and controversial of late.

With the discontent becoming all pervasive, the three major political parties are contemplating forming local governments, an institution that ceased to exist in 2001. Local governments, they say, can be  formed on the basis of votes polled in the election to the Constituent Assembly held in April 2008. There is no need, they insist, to hold fresh elections.

Power by any means — at the national as well as at the local level — continues to be the motto of the parties. And they pursue that in the name of peace, constitution and economic prosperity.

(Courtesy: Indian Express)

Bullet and Ballet Can not go Together

By: Deepak Gajurel 

Accept the reality. Bullet and Ballet can not go together.
TV Talkshow: Himalaya Television: Jestha16, 2068 (May 30, 2011)

Kathmandu’s challenge

By: Yubaraj Ghimire

It was no surprise that the Constituent Assembly of Nepal was saved at the eleventh hour. While the assembly building — China’s gift to Nepal as a national convention centre — remained heavily fortified, and baton-wielding policemen patrolled the roads last week, protests brewed elsewhere. There were symbolic acts like feeding 601 oxen and performing the last rites for 601 people. Why 601? That is the strength of the assembly.

However, after the decision to extend the tenure of the House, politicians seem to be in a proactive mode. The leaders of the three major parties — the Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoists (UCPN-M), Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) — who had signed the agreement to give the assembly three more months seem to be working in cohesion, and at a pace not seen before. But will they be able to complete the peace process by August 14, and promulgate the new constitution thereafter?

Maoist chief Prachanda has initiated some measures like doing away with the dual security cover — of state security personnel and the People’s Liberation Army — for the party’s top brass. Over 130 Maoist combatants guarding their leaders will be sent to cantonments. The Maoists will also hand over the keys to their arms containers to an all-party special committee headed by the prime minister. But the UCPN-M’s senior vice-chairman, Mohan Baidya, has called Prachanda’s act a surrender. Given the crisis within the party and the Maoists’ history of faltering in the implementation of the peace process, Baidya’s dissension has generated a sense of scepticism. The breakthrough will come when the rehabilitation and integration of Maoist combatants takes place according to the recent agreement. If that goes smoothly, it will amount to the Maoists saying farewell to the arms.

Can the five-point programme be honoured and the deadline met? Political will can make that happen. It is also possible that Prachanda’s proposal could be challenged, especially by Baidya, and the peace process derailed. However, such a debacle will further discredit political parties, particularly the Maoists. The future course of Nepali politics and the fate of the peace process will be largely determined by Prachanda’s response to the emerging situation as Baidya’s camp takes a hardline.

Like the Nepalese, the international community too is keeping its fingers crossed. Interestingly, Nepal’s two giant neighbours — India and China — have not reacted to the latest extension of the House, although the EU, the Scandinavian countries and the UN have welcomed it. India watchers in Kathmandu say its “multichannel” diplomacy in Nepal outweighed ambassador Rakesh Sood’s “no term extension” hardline.

India, at the moment, appears happy with the consolidation of Madhesh-based parties which had stayed neutral at the time of voting after putting forward their demand that 10,000 people from the region, bordering India, be given entry to the Nepal army. Madhesh-based leaders have warned that otherwise they will launch a protest movement and, if necessary, block the lifeline to Kathmandu by calling bandhs.

India’s policy that was vigorously pursued by Jawaharlal Nehru and followed since has been to discourage any trouble in the Madhesh region as it will have a direct impact across the border. With Sood likely to leave next week, on completion of his extended tenure, the Maoists say building relations with India may again be possible. It is something that the new envoy, Jayant Prasad, has to define at the earliest. For the moment, India’s clout in Nepal seems to be shrinking, confined to a few districts in Madhesh.

Meanwhile, Yang Houlan, a security expert, will be arriving as the new ambassador from China. Beijing may not have spoken publicly on the new developments in Kathmandu, but it had apparently encouraged the ruling Left groups to have the House term extended. While India appears far more dependent on discredited Madheshi leaders as allies, China has moved fast, cultivating political, social and business groups. China has certainly strengthened its ties with the Maoists, but even if the UCPN-M suffers a split or abandons the peace process under pressure from the Baidya camp, it will not be without allies.

Nepal’s politicians — having failed to deliver what they had promised — are increasingly blaming the international community. “They raise our aspirations, support us initially, but then at the end want to make us slaves,” says Prithvi Subba Gurung, a former UML minister, who belongs to an indigenous group. His reaction comes in the wake of the British government stopping financial support to the National Federation of Indigenous People of Nepal. This was ostensibly done to discourage them from going on a strike. The group is turning hostile towards Britain and the Scandinavian countries, almost in the same way that Maoists are turning against India. And China is comfortably smiling.

These are early days and much depends on how the big parties get their act together. The early signs, though, do not augur well.

(Courtesy: Indian Express)

Home truths

By Yubaraj Ghimire

Nepal has been a failed lab for many political experiments since the 1990s. Now, the control of the state by the radical left is emerging as a distinct possibility. Its takeover will be difficult to contain if the tenure of the constituent assembly, which expires on May 28, gets extended.

Last week, Prime Minister Jhalanath Khanal, who is also the chairman of the CPN-UML, entrusted the home ministry to Maoist leader and Deputy Prime Minister Krishna Bahadur Mahara, overruling his own party’s directive. For Khanal, appeasing the Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (UCPN-M), the largest in the House, is important to ensure his survival.

The Armed Police Force (APF), the police and the intelligence come under the home ministry. That the Maoists are now in charge of that portfolio, when their army is still intact, has worried the other parties and even a large section of the CPN-UML. According to a leaked statement, the UCPN-M’s secretary, C.P. Gajurel, told cadres at a training programme that controlling the police and the APF is necessary to eventually “take on the Nepal army” — perhaps the biggest if not the sole hurdle — in its taking control of the state.

Extending the term of the constituent assembly, which has so far failed to deliver a constitution, is now solely the agenda of the radical left in general, and of Prachanda and Khanal in particular. Only then can the UCPN-M continue to enjoy being the No 1 party in the House. More than any other party, the UCPN-M needs the House to gain whatever legitimacy it can in the peace and democratic process.

The international community, which supported the entry of Maoists into Nepal’s democratic process about five years ago, is confused and remorseful of what now appears to have been wasted years. The European Union, mainly the UK and Denmark, mooted the idea of bringing Maoists into peace politics in March 2005. India, which wields considerable influence in Nepal, came into the picture nine months later, but took the lead by bringing Maoists and pro-democracy parties together through the much-talked-about 12-point agreement.

Unlike the UK and Denmark, India — given its location next door and various security-related interests — does not have the luxury of ignoring the current mess in Nepal. India, of late, seems convinced that the continuation of the constituent assembly will not be in the interest of democratic consolidation and has possibly outlived its utility.

A delegation of the European Parliament was in Nepal in May last year to lobby for the extension of the constituent assembly. India had endorsed it then. The constituent assembly is unlikely to fulfil its task even this time. The EU may not be able to lobby openly for another extension. India too is unlikely to watch the process unfold silently; it could in fact be very vocal in its opposition.

India’s External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna, during his recent visit to Nepal, said that India was in favour of a constitution being drafted within the designated timeframe. Meanwhile, there are fears in and outside Nepal that China has come to patronise Nepal’s radical left ruling coalition. China has kept away from directly or visibly dictating Nepal’s political course. However, it has given clear messages over a period of time, especially after the end of the monarchy, that its interests in Nepal are no less than India’s. Even so, more than Chinese involvement, the two crucial issues that will concern internal and external players will be the future of democracy and political stability.

The consolidation of the radical left and its control of the state apparatus have greatly minimised the participation of democratic groups, including the Nepali Congress and most of Terai-based parties, in government. Maoist ideologue Baburam Bhattarai has been advocating their entry to government, but it seems more of a tactic to secure their support to have the House tenure extended, than a genuine commitment to democracy.

Nepal could see new permutations in the near future. One possibility is that Khanal will be blamed for the crisis, and a section of the Maoists will propose that the Nepali Congress lead the new government on condition that the House continues to exist.

What Nepal’s political class should realise is that the constituent assembly has run its course. The parties, including the Maoists, should accept full responsibility for the time wasted and opportunities bungled.

They should chart out a new course for peace, democracy and reconciliation.

If they fail to do so, the radical left could be pitted against the rest. It may even lead to the restoration of the constitution of 1991 that was unceremoniously and unconstitutionally dismantled exactly five years ago. After all, a country cannot indefinitely remain without a constitution.

(Courtesy: Indian Express)

Nepal political deadlock and SM Krishna's Nepal visit

By Deepak Gajurel

The ground reality of Indian Minister for External Affairs SM Krishna's Nepal visit. Please click on the following link to listen or download a dawn to earth analysis based on realpolitik.

http://www.box.net/shared/vepnl9urvp

The Army Advances

By Yubaraj Ghimire

With Nepal’s constituent assembly unlikely to draft and deliver the constitution by the new deadline of May 28, and given the loss of credibility of the bickering political parties, the army is being seen by every major external player as the most important — if not the only — stabilising institution in the country. Clearly, countries near and far are keen to cooperate with it.

The Chinese army chief, Chen Bingde, was in Nepal a month ago to hold meetings with the president, the prime minister and the chief of the Nepal army. The army accepted 160 million yuan from Beijing for expansion and purchase of equipment for the military hospital in Kathmandu. Interestingly, Pakistan had earlier offered 1 billion Nepali rupees for the expansion of the military hospital, but the Nepal government declined it. Given its long and traditional relations with the Indian army on one hand, and the hostility between India and Pakistan on the other, the Nepal army was hesitant to accept the offer from Pakistan.

India’s army chief, General V.K. Singh, during his visit to Nepal about three months ago, confided to a small group of senior generals that he felt India’s new Nepal policy was not all that right. He did not explain the statement, but those present there read it in two ways. One, that the Indian establishment’s complete trust in the Maoists — who still treat Nepal’s army as their enemy — in 2006 was inappropriate. Two, that the overthrow of the monarchy, without mooting a credible, permanent and strong institution in its place, was counter-productive.

India is not the only country uncomfortable with China’s growing interest in Nepal — since China is perceived to be close to the Maoists, the biggest party today. The US, going by its recent Congressional report, seems as wary. General Chen’s efforts to develop closer ties with Nepal’s army will add to those concerns.

Chhatraman Singh, chief of the Nepal army, found that out when he went to Washington, DC less than a week after General Chen’s visit. Apart from the unusually warm welcome he received, the army chief was happy that the US did not raise the issue of human rights for the first time in many years, nor their violation by Nepal’s army.

The US’s deliberate omission and the usual promise of support as well as India’s External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna’s statement during his visit that the army’s professional and apolitical character must be maintained only signal the role the army will be playing in Nepal in the days to come. Perhaps the world outside has inferred that there will be more chaos and uncertainty in Nepal, and that the political process and parties are likely to be further discredited.

Political parties no longer indulge in cornering the army as an outfit loyal to the king. The army is neither branded as pro-king nor vilified as anti-democracy. The issue of “democratisation” of the Nepal army is no longer being raised, with no one having clarified or explained what that term means.

Although the perception of the army has undergone a major change at home and abroad, there are still concerns about differences at the top level and the role it should play in the future. With just about a month left for the extended deadline for drafting the constitution, Nepal’s political players are looking for an excuse to justify the failure of the constituent assembly. They are sure to face the people’s anger and non-cooperation. The four big parties, including the Maoists and the Nepali Congress, have fallen out, and a broad political consensus that almost all the parties swore by has evaporated.

However, chances of their coming together to give the House a further extension cannot be ruled out, given the fact that these parties will otherwise be dumped as a collective failure. The army may seek a larger recognition if that happens. It is likely to demand that it should not be treated on par with Maoist combatants, something which the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) promised, that the army will mainly decide on the conditions for integration of Maoist combatants in the security set-up and that political parties will abide by it if peace and political stability are achieved. The army in that context would have gained a lot, but the question that needs to be urgently answered is: what can a national army without credible political bosses or set-up, during an unduly prolonged transitional phase, do?

The army, despite regaining its lost image, cannot substitute for political parties. This is something political parties perhaps understand and one reason why they are not quite keen to get their act together.

(Courtesy: Indian Express)

Nepal Heading towards Devastation: Analysis

By Deepak Gajurel

Please click on the following link to listen to (or download MP3) an analysis on current political imbroglio in Nepal and possible scenario.

http://www.box.net/shared/y3yc6aatjk

Too close for comfort - Hindustan Times

Too close for comfort - Hindustan Times

Nepal’s Fitful Peace Process - ICG

International Crisis Group 

 

OVERVIEW

Nepal is entering a new phase in its fitful peace process, in which its so-called “logical conclusion” is in sight: the integration and rehabilitation of Maoist combatants and the introduction of a new constitution. The Maoists, the largest party, are back in government in a coalition led by the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist), UML party. Negotiations, although fraught, are on with the second-largest party, the Nepali Congress (NC), to join. Agreement is being reached on constitutional issues and discussions continue on integration. None of the actors are ramping up for serious confrontation and few want to be seen as responsible for the collapse of the constitution-writing process underway in the Constituent Assembly (CA). But success depends on parties in opposition keeping tactical threats to dissolve the CA to a minimum, the government keeping them engaged, and the parties in government stabilising their own precariously divided houses. It will also require the Maoists to take major steps to dismantle their army.

The fundamentally political nature of the transitional arms and armies arrangements became clear when the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) departed in January 2011, as did the resilience of the peace process and the Maoists’ continued buy-in. That is encouraging, as is the fresh momentum. But major challenges remain. The CA may need a short extension when its term expires on 28 May 2011 if the parties cannot quickly agree on integration or federalism. But the Madhesi parties and sections of the NC and UML are willing to argue against extension, largely as a bargaining posture, and to slow down negotiations to suggest that the CA is ineffective. All parties in government are in the throes of factional struggles; internal disagreements and threatened splits complicate the outlook. In their rush to get to the finish line, all parties risk doing the bare minimum to “complete” the process. After 21 months of fighting over access to power, including sixteen unsuccessful votes to select a prime minister, and limited progress in the year before that, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) has become a ragged document.

There has been no empirical survey on the state of landholdings and no land reform measures implemented yet. The Disappearance and Truth and Reconciliation Commissions have not yet been formed. Plans for what the CPA calls the “democratisation” of the Nepal Army are so far largely self-directed and more concerned with beautifying the bureaucracy surrounding the army, rather than making the institution more accountable and smaller. These long-term projects would be easy to push on to the back burner. But to do so would undermine implementation of the new constitution and the deep political reform envisaged in the CPA, and consolidation of lasting peace. State restructuring, though broadly agreed to be essential or unavoidable, plays out in public as a binary debate on the Maoists’ contested definition of federalism, rather than on what it is Nepalis want out of this change and how best to deliver that.

The immediate tasks, integration and getting the new constitution right, are critical to addressing these issues in the long term. This government has close to the two-thirds majority needed to pass the constitution or extend the CA. But the resistance of some in the NC and the Madhesi parties, encouraged by India, could make for another messy, last-minute action, in which substantive issues are compromised to defend power-sharing arrangements. Further, a constitution, or a plan for its deferral, that any of the larger parties does not sign off on would be contested from the start. Visible progress is needed to reassure the fractured polity and public that the task of transforming the state has not been abandoned and to counter the threat of localised violence in the lead up to the 28 May deadline. Ideally, extension of the CA would be short and accompanied by a non-negotiable timeline for resolution of the federalism question, and public disclosure of even a partial draft.

The NC and Madhesi parties from the country’s southern Tarai region should join the government to make decisions truly consensual and share the political gains of success. Until then, the ruling UML-Maoist coalition needs urgently to engage with these parties. The Maoists must finally make a good faith gesture on dismantling its People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The NC must go beyond its rhetorical dichotomy of democracy versus Maoist state capture and contribute constructively to negotiations.

The Maoists are undergoing a transformation, dramatically visible in divisive public spats between the leaders, as the party simultaneously acts as a revolutionary movement, a political party aggressively pushing the limits of democratic practice, and an expanding enterprise of financial interests and patronage. With the Maoists announcing, while in government, the creation of a new “volunteer” outfit, continuing extortion by the party’s various wings, monopoly over decision-making and intimidation in some districts, and ideological reiteration of “revolt”, they are a difficult partner to trust. This is their moment to acknowledge that capturing state power through armed force is no longer on their agenda, and to address the deep discontent within the leadership.

For the NC and UML, which have done little to rebuild their political organisations and regain political space after the 2008 CA elections, contributing positively to immediate and medium-term peace process goals could revitalise their bases. Their greatest challenges come from divisions within, rigidity towards the new political order, and the social changes at the grassroots. Their weak organisations and internal disputes, reservations about the extent of reform proposed by the peace process and poorly articulated party policies may further marginalise them.

Most Madhesi parties, whose participation in national politics in the last two years has been largely limited to making up the numbers for a variety of alliances, still look to New Delhi for assistance. Their political agenda is devalued by their opportunistic political alliances, but they retain the ability, with some assistance, to mobilise in order to give the government a hard time and push for a role in decision-making so their concerns are addressed.

With the departure of UNMIN, New Delhi again finds itself in a leadership role in international engagement with Nepal. The new coalition demonstrates the limits of its policy of isolating the Maoists and India must now re-assess whether it can continue to hold this position and whether dissolution of the CA, its preferred option, will have controllable consequences. Re-engagement with the Maoists will require the various sections of the Indian establishment to manoeuvre themselves out of the corner they have painted themselves into; having supported and encouraged Nepali actors in taking extreme anti-Maoist stances, they will have to backtrack, potentially leaving allies in Kathmandu to pay the political price. The rest of the international community needs to offer consultative, unstinting and transparent support to implementing long-term peace process commitments.

 

Kathmandu/Brussels, 7 April 2011 / Asia Briefing N°120 / 7 Apr 2011

 
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/south-asia/nepal/B120-nepals-fitful-peace-process.aspx