Seminar on Breaking Deadlocks in the Resolution of Conflict

Organized by Centre for Studies on Governance and Democracy

24 November 2005

If the Nepali Congress, Nepali Congress-Democratic and Communist Party of Nepal-UML representatives wanted to flag the recent agreement they had entered into with the Maoists in New Delhi as something of a breakthrough in the conflict, others were not so enchanted by it. A Rastriya Prajatantra representative even wanted to know what role his party would have in this post-agreement situation. A Nepali Congress representative replied that the RPP needed to join the agitating seven and shun the forthcoming municipal elections for it to be able to join the bandwagon. The call by international actors and domestic analysts for a coming together of the various political actors to resolve the conflict was not a topic picked up for discussion by anyone. Rather, each side thought that it was towards a resolution, even if it meant that some were excluded in the process, that they were moving towards and that everyone else should join their process for their own sake.

The discussion sessions went down to business immediately after the Director Rakbhandari provided a brief background leading to the seminar and welcomed all the participants to the theme of the discussion. Since the papers were writted earlier than the recent agreement between the parties and the Maoists, the presenters took some time off the paper presentation to discuss the new developments.

Excerpts of the proceedings of the seminar

Achyut Raj Rajbhandari: In spite of efforts towards resolution, conflicts are deepening in the country and have been in a state of deadlock at present. Awareness programmes like this seminar and interactions have brought a lot of people together in the resolution efforts, but a resolution is still elusive.

The actors in the conflict have been raising walls around them aggravating the conflicts, and this is natural. It is the civil society actors who are supposed to help resolve it. But they too appear to be taking sides in the conflict at the moment increasing the gulf between the conflicting parties instead. This tendency is not good. Both impartiality and structured efforts are necessary for a resolution. Only then can the gulf be narrowed between conflicting parties. What I mean to say is that the civil society's role is not satisfactory at the moment.

It is in this context that the CSDG started making efforts two months ago to hold this discussion. In the meantime, developments have been moving fast and they might not be found in the papers being presented today.

SESSION I
Coordinator of the session, Man Bahadur Biswakarma
Presenter: Bhim Rawal
Comment: Suprava Ghimire

Before highlighting the points of his paper during the presentation Bhim Rawal had this to say on the Maoist-parties pact concluded recently:

While talking of the Maoist-parties agreement, the parties will have to think about the role of the security agencies even if they come out with what they want. The actors of the society will have to play a constructive role at times of conflict. It is their policies that will determine the change in the society. The conflicts in the society must be managed because weaknesses regarding their management have brought us into this state. The paper talks about the constitutional provisions and whether the doors that were opened were utilized properly.

Comment by Suprava Ghimire: Dilendra Badu was supposed to comment on the paper on behalf of our party, but vice president Sushil Koirala assigned me to do the job instead at the last moment.

The introductory part of the paper should have given a cursory history of the country which would have provided a view of the roots of the conflict. A proper view of the history of monarchy and party politics would allow a comparison to be made. Criticizing the parties without a comparison with the monarchy does not give the right perspective.

The Royal Nepalese Army's role in history would also have made things clear. B.P Koirala had written about the army in an article, where he says that the army was not democratized after it unified the country has been a mistake. He said this in 1971. Since the army has always aligned itself with those in power- whether during the Rana rule or the King's rule. In 2007, the army sided with the King and this meant that de facto power rested on him. BP's thesis should have been included in the paper. The RNA is fighting well abroad, but in dealing with internal problems it has not come out too successfully. This too should have been included.

It is true that the security component must be included in resolving a conflict. Today, we are talking about holding elections without resolving the conflict. Will elections not aggravate conflict at such times? This should have been answered by the paper.

The paper does not include the softening of one of the conflicting parties [Maoists] as it is only a recent development.

Recurrent attacks on democratic institutions played an integral part in the emergence of the conflict. This should have been forcefully presented. Why did Nepali Congress or Communist Party of Nepal- UML abandon constitutional monarchy after adopting it for so many years?

I agree that there cannot be peace without democracy.

The society is feudal and we represent it. Still, we are talking about complete democracy which is a time consuming process. Ten or 12 years is simply not enough for that. Self assessment and introspection is good, but may not give us the true perspective. If there are wrongs committed, democracy is a self correcting system.

I agree that the problem needs to be resolved soon and it may invite foreign intervention if things get out of hand. Calling on world cooperation for democracy in Nepal, through magnanimity, is a little less forceful than it should be to build enough pressure for change.

FLOOR

Vijay Karna: The paper appears to show that Nepal's security forces are not secular. This includes the parties and other organizations as well. The security force structure has to be able to provide security to the whole nation.

All the communities were not able to participate in the drafting of the Constitution that we have.

Good governance cannot take place through understanding at the higher levels, but at the popular level.

Surendra Pandey: The propaganda is that the democratic system does not last in Nepal. In Indonesia and Pakistan too conflicts have emerged when there is democracy there. And the propaganda has been bolstered by that. This is wrong.

The King's ambition to rule has been the problem and this should be included in the paper because it appears to say instead that a compromise is the only premise of crisis resolution.

Also, the army was difficult to mobilize by the parties but not so for the King. Why? Because the army is not loyal to democracy.

Autocracy does not hold for long, even in the Soviet Union it did not. It has to find a democratic landing. Bloodletting will not last.

Yes, we could not develop an inclusive model after 1990 and we need to look for it now.

Chuda Shrestha: Colin Powell believed that only experts can run a system. We have had examples in the distant past about people being promoted from one police or army post to another without any knowledge of how the security agencies operate. In India, there are a number of examples. In Nepal I was penalized because of such lack of interest on the part of people higher up in the system who seem to have no information on what they are doing.

Roshan Karki: The paper appears to be focused on managing security agencies rather than managing conflict. We have seen that civil society and parties can come together. But the security agencies have been distanced to such an extent that we must work hard now to bring them closer. At times we see the security agencies being pitted against political parties as if they were rivals. Both are now suspicious of each other. We should see how they can be brought together.

We blame the army for their loyalty to the King. In spite of the fact that the army is made up of the people, why have the parties not been able to claim their loyalty?

There is a proposal about the Nepalese army and the Maoist army being decommissioned under the UN and how do you look at it?

Gopal Pokhrel: There are five components to the resolution of the conflict-- nationalism, democracy, the 1991 Constitution which recognizes popular sovereignty, peaceful resolution of the Maoist conflict and constitutional monarchy. If the political actors come out with an understanding on these points we can come to a resolution. Even if foreigners have to be invited for that, especially if the Nepalese do not wake up to the urgent call, we will need to do so.

Chetana Lopchan: The number of conflict victims is rising. In Janakpur, we are trying to provide free education to children of conflict victims. This should happen more. We saw that in Kathmandu, they were even demonstrating to attract attention. This means that their grievances must be addressed. Also, the surrendering Maoists have said that they had joined that outfit as the state ignored their needs. Hence the state must include more people. Prompt service and attitude by security personnel [police] would reduce the number of grievances.

Karna Bahadur Thapa: The political parties had ignored the silent force while fighting for democracy. The army personnel were also for democracy, but they focused only on their own family members and depended on Indian leaders like Chandra Sekhar to give them direction. You need a security doctrine for national security. What made the parties not to develop one?

You need security experts and think tanks to provide information and knowledge on national security. As long as mediocres are at the helm, civilian control of the security forces is not easy to come by. Begging to be given the post of a commander is not going to work. You need to develop the capacity.

The operational style has remained the same in the RNA throughout, whether before the Maoist attack in Dang or after. It is only the foreign perspective that is changing.

Sabitri Thapa Gurung: There are two aspects to the conflict-one is inequities among class, castes and among various groups and the other one is the tri-polar macro level conflict. At the moment, the macro conflict appears to be attracting all the attention while the other one is being ignored. This is not good. The conflict is the result of our historical inequities ever since the country was united. Political parties are also responsible for that. We do not have intra-party democracy ourselves but go on lambasting the King for familial rule. And, until we resolve these paradoxes, the conflict will not be resolved.

Bharat Pokhrel: Three years ago, the peace dialogue between the Maoists and the government [formed by the parties] was deadlocked when the Maoists raised the issue of constituent assembly. Now they have accepted the idea. Did the parties make a mistake for the past three years [by not accepting the constituent assembly]?

All the three variables you point out are independent-- parties, monarchy and Maoists. A solution is not possible until you have a dependent variable. What is the base of your model?

Shastra Dutta Panta: Resolution of the conflict is a must and it does not matter who brings it about. And we should not limit the number actors from showing an interest in it.

The army is relied upon by the whole government machinery and the army rests on the support of the people. But some sections of the media and politicians are bent on destroying their morale. This will be destructive and the state should focus on this aspect.

We need a pivotal national policy to bind all the parties and other organizations of the society and the state together for the national cause. It is because of an absence of this that we are facing chaos today.

Inviting foreign intervention has been a part of the problem and not a solution.

Parsuram Khapung: CSDG Director Rajbhandari sought impartiality in resolution efforts in the beginning of this seminar, but the paper writer, commentator, discussants are all party members who have their own axe to grind. No matter how impartial they want to be, they will be prejudiced. This militates against the initial direction the seminar was shown.

You need to find the reasons for the conflict before looking for a resolution. Secondly, the new developments to need discussing. A 12-point agreement has been signed between parties and Maoists. The parties have excluded other parties in their agreement with Maoists. If the RPP wants to go to the village, they cannot because an attack by Maoists on RPP workers is not covered by that agreement. In other words, the seven parties have tried to exclude all the rest. Also, I believe that the state too needs to be included for a resolution, otherwise there cannot be one.

Lal Babu Yadav: This is the right time to develop a long-term strategy for the future. The root cause of the conflict, you point out- is it actually the problem or the solution. If we do not answer that, we are going to see the repetition of the conflict in the future as well.

Who will restore the parliament? Is such a solution political or constitutional? Political solutions do not have any end or limit, [therefore they must be bound by the Constitution].

Who will declare the election for a constituent assembly? And, how will it be legitimate? Just because the UN disarms you does not mean the disarmament holds. We have seen it in many parts of the world. The Constituent assembly is an issue that people raise it time and again and forget it after some time. This has been the trend ever since 2007.

I believe that the role of the military in sustaining a democracy should be a research subject in this South Asian region.

Bidur KC: Who is more responsible for distancing themselves from the constitutional issues?

There are also weaknesses in the parties.

Visualization of partnership between the security agencies and the political parties is not a clear concept.

If the security agencies are mobilized for national interest, they should be supported by all.

Raj Bahadur Gurung: The discussions so far on the resolution of the deadlock shows that we are missing something-- the main reason for the conflict. You talk of conflict resolution and then talk only of state structures. Is the whole exercise geared solely towards gaining access to state power?

Govinda Dhakal: The paper should have been titled "The Role of Political Parties..." We have taken the state as a private property and run it as we run our private affairs.

You need the police and the army desperately when you come to power and criticized once you are out of power. They are independent and autonomous agencies. Why lambaste them? We are all feudal. How did we help in bringing about change in this feudal attitude?

The civil society stakeholders are anti-state, you say. You are right.

Hom Raj Dahal: I request the RPP to come out with a clear stance on the municipal elections and the agitation and then we can include it in the parties-Maoist agreement. Mass meetings are being prevented by the police and the army today. It is the right of the parties to therefore go against the security agencies. I agree that the rulers are treating the state as their private property.

Gehendra Malla: Security forces had put masks on to attack party officials at the UML offices on 1 February. Regarding Holeri, they lied to the prime minister.

Today, security spending is rising vary fast and robbing away development resources. The donor community should start thinking about putting together development resources when things come back to normalcy tomorrow.

The army has come out against the popular aspiration during crisis times like the 1990 movement. They also did not want to remain within the barracks as per the agreement with the Maoists by the then government.

Girija Koirala had proposed army restructuring as part of a comprehensive security policy in 1993, but the King did not accept it.

Rawal's reply
I did not focus on the partisan lines that are being toed. That does not mean I dm ignorant about them. My own party has made decisions and I could have easily presented them here in my paper. But I have tried to take the academic path here. However, I have discussed the role of the three parties in the crisis and its resolution. And, I have raised several questions that I would have liked you to discuss.

I do not agree with some of you that the compromise path should not be taken. All conflicts have ended in a compromise.

I do not agree that the constitution did not come out though popular effort. We need to look at it from the circumstances of the time. It is a good constitution, but I do not oppose efforts to bring out a better one.

As a political science and law student, I do not agree that we do not have the constitution operating today. Yet, clauses have been violated, but we still have the constitution. Had there not been one, where would the parties be today?

I agree with most of the concerns raised today and I have my own views regarding the issues. But my focus was academic rather than political here.

The partnership that I propose between the parties and the security agencies is to do with development and not otherwise, Please do not misconstrue it as otherwise.

We will need the army even when there is no King, and even when we have the republic so many of us demand. We will need a national security policy even then. So I cannot visualize a situation without it even in the future, as some might like to.

Coordinator Biswakarma's remarks: We will have to accept that we have made mistakes in the past 12-15 years. This happens in a democracy. But critics had always been marginalized in our democracy. These weaknesses led anti-democratic forces to carry out their activities. And the palace is one anti-democratic force.

SESSION II
Coordinator: Bharat Mohan Adhikari
Presenter: Nilamber Acharya
Comment: Minendra Rijal

Nilamber Acharya went on to present his paper after making this point about the recent deal between the agitating parties and the Maoists:

We did not try to address the basis on which the Maoist ideology rose in the past. The Maoist-party agreement tries to address that through Clause 4 which says that they have accepted competitive politics and they have said that they will structure their party along those lines.

Comment by Minendra Rijal: I do not have much to disagree with in this paper. It is said that the security agencies are treated as enemy by the parties. I agree, but I also want to ask about the loyalty of the security agency. Are they loyal to an individual or are they for the people? As long as this question is not answered, that allegation will always remain. The same goes about the loyalty of the bureaucracy.

I disagree with Nilamber Acharya in that I am for the constituent assembly and not mere changes in the present constitution. Let me elaborate. While in government we found that Nepal Television had taped a programme on a discussion on the constitutional assembly held by the Ganeshman Foundation. NTV refused to air it. I tried to have the programme aired, but in vain. Then I knew that we were not actually running the show even while in government. Nilamber Acharya was then talking about parliament restoration; we were for bringing the Maoists to the mainstream through dialogue while forming the government. We failed. We do not want to make similar attempts again.

Article 3 is the main provision of the Constitution and we need to have a situation that will allow us to enjoy it. Article 127 and similar provisions are not the articles we want to live under. The seven parties want the parliament restored, interim government formed, constituent assembly elected and then a new constitution drafted. The Maoists have differed somewhat on this agenda.

Why should the King not agree to go according to the popular will? If he has a following they will be elected and the Maoists too can be elected if they have a following. Only such consent will allow the monarchy to last, otherwise not.

Today, why criticize the agreement between the parties and the Maoists? This is because, the basis of legitimacy of this autocracy is the violence in the country. Another criticism is about foreign intervention. If we do not take help in resolving the crisis it benefits only those who want the crisis prolonged.

The ultra-leftist violent movement did start early on in the Nepalese democratic history, but we need to accept that our weaknesses provided fertility for their proliferation. They rose out of the neglect we showed towards rampant inequities existing in the country. This also allowed the King to come to the forefront. We have not yet embarked on the road to restructure the society to make it more equal.

FLOOR

Gopal Pokhrel: Is it not high time we search our souls? The Constitution does have provisions to remove prime ministers. And, none of those reasons were given for Deuba's removal. Why have you missed out on such a strong point and kept beating around the bush with other demands?

The biggest crisis we face today is the state's legitimacy crisis. You appear to be silent on that as well.

You will have to overcome your petty desires for people to participate in your agitation.
Also, you need to address the aspiration of the younger generation.

You cannot compare the 2015 constitution and the 1990 one. The 1991 one is totally different. It was the party weaknesses that brought their own downfall.

Surendra Pandey: Security agencies will stay even if the monarchy goes. The army will have to be loyal to the national interest and democracy. The army will have to come out of its feudal traditions. We will have to change the role of the army to play a supportive role in the path we show the country for the future. The royal palace massacre shows the weaknesses the army itself has had as security was utterly lacking there.

Bharat Pokhrel: The paper talks about a seven member committee to coordinate a prospective dialogue between the Maoists and parties. Can a political problem be resolved by apolitical people?

The parties and the Maoists have said in their agreement that they are against feudalism, not against the King.

You talk of two big parties, what about NC-Democratic? What is the measuring rod for the bigness of a party?

Chuda Shrestha: Agitations have continued, despite agreements, throughout the world. The reason is that they missed out on the core issue. Peacebuilding and reconciliation are the main components of a successful resolution process. Here, we have not talked of compromise nor included the voiceless in our own attempt.

Karna Bahadur Thapa: Since the paper writer was also an ambassador to Sri Lanka, let me quote a few differences between the Nepalese and the Lankan conflict here. During the Indo-Lankan agreement, the JVP and the government fought in the south and the LTTE and the government in the north. In Sri Lanka, they killed the top leaders; in Nepal the Maoists are killing the common people. Today, Delhi says it will make an airport in Lanka if only India is allowed to land its planes there. It is with such a power that we are trying to make a deal with.

You get paid from there [India] and work for them all the time. What were the factors leading to Deuba's sacking? Why do you not highlight that?

Srawan Sharma: What do you mean by ideology? There should be co-existence. The King's address of 1 February is quite similar to Fujimori's of Peru.

The equity argument is related with the political structure and without support from the structure, the inequities cannot be perpetuated. [In other words, inequities were perpetuated with state support] There were innocent people killed during Prithvi Narayan Shah's time, a person who is praised as someone working with popular consent.

Sastra Dutta Panta: The paper is not academic, but just an individual's opinion or a party's programme. It is not based on the popular aspiration. The first paper was better regarding this aspect.

I only see two forces- constitutional and anti-constitutional.

Nationalist forces are not all monarchists. This is wrong. You too are a nationalist force and without the nation you would not be writing papers.

Also if you want to invite Delhi to resolve your problems, you are incapable of leading yourself.

Representing the people means representing the 25 million people, not the only 205 MPs that you often refer to.

Manoj Rijal: The party-Maoist agreement has not been included in the paper in spite of that fact that it is a hot topic of the day. If you addressed any points in the agreement, I did not find it in the paper.

Binod KC: The problems that you identified are well done, but the solution not so. Parties too appear to be talking of agitation and armed resurrection if they face problems in their campaign. Why so, even now?

Pradip Thapaliya: It is not true that the King did not agree to constitutional amendment. But for that you do not need the King's assent.

You talk of reformist and revolutionary options, is the party-Maoist agreement a bridging of the two?

Talking of implementation of the Mallik Commission report, are you including post-February incidents as well?

Lal Babu Yadav: In England's constitutional monarchy, the king had to abandon his throne for a commoner lady, in Nepal Deuba was sacked.

Was Girija Koirala's request to the King constitutional to ask for dissolution of the parliament?

Was Gandhi's talk with Churchill wrong? Is Norway's involvement in Lanka wrong?

BP Koirala talked of his regrets regarding the transfer of the military to the palace from Singha Durbar. Did the party talk about that [regret] in the past 12 years?

Gehendra Malla: The parties have come to an agreement with Maoists and they have done a commendable job.

If the 2007 Delhi run was justifiable, why not now? India is naturally concerned because of the impact of the Maoist problem on its northern borders.

Parliament's tenure can extend when there is a crisis. Why not do it today?

Vijay Karna: The Constitution says it is a multicultural state but it is being turned into a unitary one. I think the Maoists are right in their analysis of things.

Nilamber's Reply

NC and UML should take the prime responsibility for the past 12 years. I have a tabulated that elsewhere. I hope that the breakaway factions will still unite. I still believe that the main brunt has been faced by these two parties.

I have concluded that the number of negotiation rounds in Nepal is hardly outnumbered by other countries. Just look at the negotiations we have entered into after 2007- between and among parties. Dialogues took place yesterday as well and we need it today too.

In Lanka, experience shows that they have run into difficulty because the major forces were differing with each other, outside mediation is secondary.

Regarding India, we need to have a friendly neighbour policy but not expect India to look after our national interest. The feudal definition of nationalism should be demolished and a new one adopted.

Convince the Maoists that their ideology should accept other's existence.

If presenting reality is non-academic I would like to remain non-academic.

The Mallik commission issue is related with punishing anti-democratic aspirations.

There are also unwritten precedences that may be undemocratic, apart from the written constitution operating at the same time, even during democratic rule.

Coordinator Bharat Mohan Adhilari's remarks: The papers are attempts to seek ways out of the national crisis.

I agree that there were weaknesses in the 12 years. But we need to understand that we have accepted those weaknesses and committed ourselves not to repeat them.

I agree that the Nepalese should resolve their own problems, not foreigners. There are a lot of inequities across the nation and the parties have addressed that in their future programmes.

We were unsuccessful during coalition with Deuba's government to experiment on seeking peace and we failed.

There is no argument about the Maoist promise to lay down their arms in some international presence, why be concerned about that?

The 12-point party-Maoist agreement is not everything, and a lot more is needed to be done in the implementation aspect. Now the King should consent to it. There is no argument on that. Why should the King not agree to it? Otherwise, the nation has taken a determined path.

I agree that we had a lack of understanding regarding the army. The army has to accept sovereignty of the people. We need to understand that we need the army in the future as well. But they need to be under civilian control.