Nepal needs compromise
On May 8, the UCPN (Maoist) called off its indefinite national strike. With notable exceptions, analyses in the Nepali media overwhelmingly suggested that the end of the strike represented a defining defeat of a now irredeemably unpopular Maoist movement. A tactical retreat it certainly was, but the Kathmandu media has repeatedly and wrongly predicted a Maoist demise, just as it has underplayed Maoist popular support, most visibly during the 2006 election. The Maoists now have to rethink their tactics; but it would be rash to think that they do not have the capacity and support to bounce back, even in the short-term.
As it did during the conflict, and most recently prior to the fall of the Maoist government, Nepal’s media appears once again to have returned to a simplistic and one-dimensional portrayal of a nation united in its defence against Maoist authoritarianism. In this polarised environment, the Kathmandu elite, large sections of the media, politicians and some members of civil society appear willing to cast the Maoists as a unilateral threat to Nepal’s peace and democracy. Any action against the Maoists is portrayed as part of the defence of democracy, even if often it is simply party political struggle. Any dissent results in accusations of pro-Maoist bias and collusion with the Maoist authoritarian conspiracy.
The mainstream parties have systematically attempted to marginalise the Maoists since the signing of the CPA in November 2006. Since that time, the Maoists have increased their support. They are now far and away the biggest and most organised force in rural Nepal. While others have concentrated on petty politics in the Kathmandu Valley, the Maoists have built solid nationwide structures.
Independent rights monitoring
Such media myth-making is dangerous. It should be recalled that it is exactly this discourse that has helped the Nepal Army gain its current hold over the current administration which gives it effective political autonomy. This has manifested itself in the recent calls of the Nepali Congress to close the UN Human Rights offices in the region.
The Nepal government supports these calls. It has made little secret of its desire to end the mandate despite powerful evidence that the human rights situation is again deteriorating and national institutions could potentially collapse. An OHCHR press release, noting the restraint and discipline exercised by the demonstrators at the early stage of the strike, appears, once again, to have been distorted by the government to “prove” that the OHCHR and the UN are somehow pro-Maoist, an absurd assertion.
Given the centrality of human rights to the peace agreement, withdrawing international monitoring at this time of crisis would be a grave mistake. The context of polarised politics, a one-sided media, increasing lawlessness and weakness of relevant state institutions makes silencing dissent a much more feasible option, but one which will not improve stability in the medium-term, quite the contrary.
The absence of international monitoring increases the prospects of extremists from both sides using human rights violations as a means to end the peace process, as has happened in the past. During the strike, both sides began to claim the other was instigating violence. Without an authoritative, independent perspective that an international observation body provides, it increases the space for spoilers of all stripes.
History provides unpleasant parallels. Just as then Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba was willing to unpick the institutions of democracy in order to “defend democracy” during the conflict, it appears that now the current government is willing to unpick the institutions that underpin the peace process.
Time is running out
If the Maoists could not bring down the government from the street, they are threatening to do so from parliament. As the largest party in parliament, the Maoists can veto an extension of the constitution that runs out on May 28. On April 16, the Maoists announced that they would veto the extension if a new unity government headed by Dahal was not formed. Without progress, on May 28, time runs out and Nepal will enter uncharted and dangerous political territory.
All sides talk endlessly of consensus, but what is needed is compromise. Despite the withdrawal of the strike, the government parties continue to be unified only in denying the Maoists any share in government and their proper stake in the peace process. The prime minister appears to be adding to the list of conditions daily rather than seeking any meaningful compromise.
Meanwhile, in what can only be seen as a further provocative move, the Nepali media on May 17 reported that the government was preparing to set up an Army division made up of senior Nepal Army officials at the Ministry of Defence. Commentators have suggested that this is further evidence of attempts to corner the Maoists rather than an attempt to resolve the political crisis.
Since the strike, the Maoists have appeared more flexible. On May 13, Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal offered to put the People’s Liberation Army under the Special Committee headed by the Prime Minister. They also appear to be showing flexibility on the question of who will lead the government.
India’s role in Nepal’s peace
India is key to resolving the crisis. India, along with the Kathmandu elite and the Army, created the current Nepali government. India can undo it. India’s position must change as it did so positively to facilitate the 12-point agreement in November 2005 that led to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. Currently, it is colluding in moves that increase the prospect of a return to war and a human rights catastrophe. The Asian Centre urges the Indian government to get in line with the rest of the international community and support the formation of a national unity government in the spirit of the peace process that reflects the outcome of the CA election.
(The author is director of the Asian Centre for Human Rights)
Post Your Comment