Will the King listen?
By Bhim Rawal
– One cannot definitely predict whether or not Kul Chandra Gautam’s penetrating article on the current political situation of Nepal that appeared in The Kathmandu Post entitled “Is Nepal a failed state?” has been taken seriously by the Narayanhiti Royal Palace and Singha Durbar. Cronies inside the Palace and Singh Durbar might not have required mettle to gauge the essence of the article too. Myopic people also might turn their deaf ears towards harsh realities of life.
However, Gautam’s article has brought several serious dimensions of the prevailing conflict and crisis in Nepal on the surface. No sensible person could ignore the analysis and predictions made by Gautam in his analytical article. In his article, Gautam has not only collated facts of present political situation as a sincere Nepali but he has also profoundly put forth some suggestions on the basis of his experiences earned during his long UN career. Carefully analysing and elaborating the situation existed in the countryside, depicting the behavior of the security forces and the Maoists and the plight of the people, Gautam has drawn an analogy between Nepal and pre-1974 Cambodia.
However, Gautam’s article has brought several serious dimensions of the prevailing conflict and crisis in Nepal on the surface. No sensible person could ignore the analysis and predictions made by Gautam in his analytical article. In his article, Gautam has not only collated facts of present political situation as a sincere Nepali but he has also profoundly put forth some suggestions on the basis of his experiences earned during his long UN career. Carefully analysing and elaborating the situation existed in the countryside, depicting the behavior of the security forces and the Maoists and the plight of the people, Gautam has drawn an analogy between Nepal and pre-1974 Cambodia.
This kind of deteriorated situation of Nepal is termed as “a failed state syndrome”. This term may irk those rulers of Nepal who still either underestimate the present crisis or are captivated by their own arrogance. However, one can never figure out the destination without a framework that defines the present objective realities. As I have studied Cambodia during my one year stay there under the UNTAC (United Nation’s Transitional Authority in Cambodia) operation, I see Gautam’s analogy between present Nepal and pre-1974 Cambodia merit serious attention.
It might be a simplistic approach to bracket specific definition and time for any crisis-ridden country to be declared a failed state. Nevertheless, some indicators associated with the state functioning and results emanating from the deepening conflict reveal the future course. The interrelations of national political actors, state functioning, nature of daily happenings and the growing sufferings of people definitely denote “failed state syndrome”. Though it is a heart-rending term for every patriotic Nepali.
Some additional aspects of the present national crisis are even more ominous. The Nepali society have been heading towards division and mistrust, thereby impregnating disharmony, on line of caste, community, religion, region, language and culture. Such divisive politics has gained momentum after the initiation of the Maoist “People’s War”. Being susceptible to the Maoist propagation, some of the leaders and activists of the mainstream political parties are also prone to politicking on the basis of the above-mentioned narrow interests. It may be very difficult to seek proper remedy of this kind of problem running under current in the Nepali politics. It may have serious and far-reaching implications on the integrity and unity of the country.
No one can deny the fact that the dilemma and double crosses in higher Nepali political echelons, as Gautam has pointed out, are intertwined with constant power bickering. Similarly, the existing crisis of confidence and level of differences between not only the Maoists and the constitutional forces but also among the constitutional forces i.e., the King and the major political parties themselves, have been creating imperatives for “external mediation”.
Such mediation, from the point of neutrality and impartiality, could be practically provided by the United Nations. The UN role can not be seen as a negative outside interference since Nepal is itself a member of the UN system. In fact, the current situation has been gradually providing grounds for undesirable outside intervention. The supply of arms and ammunitions, military equipment and helicopters by India, the US and the UK has already started the process of outside military involvement in Nepal. It might expand more explicitly in future if the present crisis continues unabated.
In this regard, an article by C Raja Mohan entitled “India’s options in Nepal” that appeared in The Hindu on April 14 could be an eye opener. He has suggested that “New Delhi can no longer afford to remain a bystander in Nepal, where the crisis is maturing into a bloody confrontation.” He has emphasised on the necessity of rethinking on the Indian policy towards Nepal as the crisis is deepening. Furthermore, he has also accepted that “ King’s self-defeating policy” has been “threatening the future of both the monarchy and the state itself”. The writer has emphatically advised that the Indian government should be ready for quicker actions even before the impending general elections in India. What kinds of inferences can be drawn from such expressions?
The intervention of an individual country or group of certain countries may not only turn the situation from bad to worse but it may also further gulp national wealth and resources. No one can justify the rationale for a dominant role of an individual power country or group of countries instead of positive role of the neutral world body-the UN- in Nepal when the situation goes beyond the control of national political actors. The role of the UN in Nepal to bring peace and normalcy may not be considered otherwise in any way by both China and India while these countries want to see a stable Nepal and especially India itself has been facing challenges posed by domestic Maoists.
On the aforesaid backdrop, the recommendations made by Gautam for the conflict resolution seem logical and objective. It is true that the time is running out to prevent catastrophic effect of the existing violent conflict and to save people from possible untold sufferings. If the deterioration of the present situation is allowed to continue, Nepal either may have to face direct military intervention of individual power country or group of countries or the UN itself may come over to rescue the country from crisis. Doubtlessly, the government’s delayed tactics will only lead to prolongation of the conflict as Gautam has pointed out. Thus the fears expressed by Gautam are well founded. Gautam’s analysis and apprehensions should also be viewed on the context of public statements recently made by Kofi Annan- UN Secretary General and Lalkrishna Advani- Deputy Prime Minister of India, with regard to the crisis and conflict in Nepal. Moreover, the repeatedly expressed concerns by the USA, UK, European Union and various international human rights organisations also provide much grain to ponder over.
The whole scenario of the past eight years of Nepali politics also should be deeply scrutinised while divulging into the question of conflict resolution. It is a bitter truth that the government of the Nepali Congress, the coalition government led by Nepali Congress and participated in by the National Democratic Party (RPP) and Nepal Sadbhawana Party and the nominated governments under the King’s direct rule have failed to resolve the conflict and to tackle the national crisis. Now the only alternative left is to deal with the Maoists by constituting an all-party government comprised of parliamentary parties.
The formation of an all-party government with all executive powers may be competent both either to initiate dialogue with the Maoists or to consider UN’s role carefully judging time and procedure. If any sort of interference from outside powers and organisation is to check honestly in the national interest the King has to readily accept democratic and constitutional way recognising the sovereignty of the people. National unity and consensus must be given utmost priority in practice. Claimed state capabilities should be substantiated by actions. Notwithstanding, the recent events suggest incapability of the government not only to dealing with the Maoists but also in realising national consensus by forming an all-party government.
(The writer is former minister)
Source: www.kantipuronline.com