| History of Conflict
in Nepal
By Gokul Pokhrel
- Until the restoration of multiparty democracy
in 1990, internal conflicts in the scale as we see today were
quite unknown to Nepalese people. During the last four decades
while many countries of South and South East Asia passed through
a phase of turbulence and conflicts, Nepal stood an exception
and enjoyed a long era of peace and stability unparalled in
history. Many political pundits looked at the peace as something
Nepal took advantage of the strained relations between China
and India, skillfully playing one against the other. But it
was more an uneasy calm created by circumstances. Disturbing
symptoms were already there when in 1975, at the height of
partyless Panchayat era, late King Birendra proposed to declare
Nepal a Zone of Peace (ZOP), He felt that the existing guarantees
of independence devolving from separate treaties with two
big neighbours and enhanced profile in international arena
were not enough to sustain the rising tide of Nepalese nationalism.
Despite support from 105 nations including all big powers,
the ZOP was aborted due to lack of support from one big neighbour
which was not convinced about the threat perceptions Nepal
felt at that time.
- The upsurge in Nepalese nationalism without
liberal democratic governance could not last long and had
to be overthrown through a popular revolt in 1990. The installation
of multiparty democratic system was welcome as a panacea to
all the malaise Nepal was facing at that time - strained relations
with India, alienation with party-led popular forces and all
those values that come along with liberal democratic dispensation.
All the paper works following the adoption of new Constitution
in November 1990 were excellent as these were not only at
par with prevailing international standards but also in close
harmony with the political system in India. With improved
relations with her close neighbours, people had reasons to
be euphoric about the emergence of a long peaceful and prosperous
era undisturbed by external influences. The so-called theory
of equidistance vis-a-vis the two neighbours was discarded
for apparently good reasons and it was hoped this rationale
should work fine. The iceberg of discontent was discernible
only in 1995 when a dissatisfied faction decided to dissociate
from the political mainstream and take up arms against the
democratically installed regime. It is now nine years of the
most brutal conflict between ballot and bullet which shows
no end of the tunnel of peace. A total of 13000 precious lives
have been lost and a peaceful country has been plunged into
a chasm of instability, dislocation of democratic institutions
and a chaos.
- The genesis of the armed conflict has much
to do with the deviations that had crept in the functioning
of the democratically installed governments, their faulty
economic planning and policies that ostracized a large segment
of rural population and minorities from the mainstream of
economic and social development. While political leaders were
basking in the fruits of new found democracy that favoured
more to the enrichment of the power elites, the insurgents
used the very weakness of the political parties to enhance
their cause in the remote villages. Their radical slogans
of social and economic transformation, backed by strong disciplinarian
approach on gun-point has found roots in the heart and minds
of rural masses. During the past five years, public support
to democratic forces eroded regressively through in-fighting,
factionalism and mis-governance, the Maoists have gained in
strength. The ensuing instability and chaos has led to the
emergence of Royal Palace and the Army in the political scene
setting in a triangular power struggle. A compromise of interest
among any two of the three protagonists is enough to sway
power balance toward either way. It is difficult to say at
this stage to what extent external power lobbies have hand
in destabilising the country including support to the rebels,
but political leaders are warning the people of external influences
ca at work in the country. The gruesome massacre at Royal
Palace on 1st June 1901 and Maoist leaders claiming affinity
with the late king on many issues pertaining to nationalism
were not merely casual references.
- It is clear that the rebels are using latest
guerrilla warfare techniques available in the world today
in the repertoire of revolutionary uprising. It is an aberration
of globalisation of insurgencies as well. While the extreme
Maoist ideology is indigenously grown with roots in remote
villages, it cannot be denied that they are supported by various
clandestine revolutionary groups of neighbouring countries
and elsewhere. Over the years, the Maoists have mustered enormous
money, muscle and gun-power and backed by a strong ideological
thrust, they are capable of threatening the very foundation
of civic life and state security apparatus. Large scale abduction
of minors, their forcible recruitment as conscripts, closure
of schools and brutal killings terrorising inhabitants of
the surrounding form a part of their ideological war. The
exodus of people from the villages to safer areas in the cities
and across the frontiers in India is enormous.
- As direct consequence of mounting insurgency
and counter-insurgency operations, media men are now becoming
very vulnerable. The gruesome murder of Gyanendra Khadka last
year and of Dikendra Thapa of Dailekh in the second week of
August, 2004 by the insurgents are a reminder that the Maoists
are not going to tolerate freedom of expression that goes
counter to their dictates. Human Rights groups and Federation
of Nepalese Journalists (FNJ) estimate that about a dozen
journalists, mostly operating in the remote districts, are
abducted by the insurgents. While there were complaints of
mistreatment to reporters by security personnel on suspicion
that they were critical of their operation, the latest Maoist
outrage seems to have surpassed the atrocities meted out by
others in proportion.
- In addition to military tactics of assault
and attacks, the insurgents are active with their political
frontal organisations which are strong enough to spread fear,
insecurity and threat to the extent of disrupting civil order.
Now, everybody seems convinced that the conflict cannot be
resolved through military means alone. It is only though dialogue
and negotiations between the contending parties that peace
can be restored. While the Maoists have demanded the involvement
of the United Nations in mediating peace talks, the government
is lukewarm to this option and prefers direct talks. This
may be so to avoid giving legitimacy to the political entity
of the Maoists on the one hand and not giving pretext to internationalise
the conflict. Another difficulty lies in the acceptance of
this course is that the United Nations and other major powers
regard the insurgents as terrorists by the very means they
are deploying and it might appear compromising with the stated
policy of having no deal with terrorism. But at the face of
escalating Maoist pressure, the present regime has little
option of either asking more military help from its close
neighbours or expedite the process of peace talks by striking
compromises in a manner acceptable to the rebels also.
- At this time of impasse, while educated
elite shudder at the prospect of the return
of Polpot style regime of repression and slavery, the oppressed
masses see Maoist doctrine as an instrument of deliverance
from exploitation, inequalities and suppression. In fact,
the country is experiencing immense political vacuum at the
face of ineffectiveness of prevalent political structures.
The options lie not only forging strong unity among the democratic
forces within the country but also creating a congenial environment
of mutual trust externally also. In view of the geopolitical
realities of Nepal, lasting solution to peace and stability
is possible only through thaw in relations between India and
China on the one hand and between China and the United States
on the other because we should not forget that the United
States regards China as a strategically rival power to contain
with. An improvement in global security perspectives in relation
to South Asia can be an essential element in the quest of
lasting peace and conflict resolution vis-a-vis constructive
dialogue with the rebels. We have jettisoned the rationale
of ZOP for good reasons but its appeal in different form cannot
be easily wiped out in present context.
The emergence of an undaunted media
having the skills and capacity to present issues impartially
and objectively can prove an asset in strengthening the cause
of peace and negotiations. But in order to enable media play
its role fearlessly, both the parties should be persuaded to
practise high degree of tolerance, providing access to sources
of information and creating an environment of trust and confidence.
Should not this logic be made one of the agenda of peace dialogue?
|
