The peace process in Nepal which was ushered in
by the Jana Andolan II (Peoples’ Movement II)
after the autocratic king Gyanendra was forced to
handover political power to the political parties
in April 2006 seems to be on the verge of
collapse.
The Communist Party of Nepal-Maoists (CPN-M) had
signed the 12 Point Understanding with the Seven
Party Alliance in November 2005 and joined the
’peaceful struggle’ for democracy agreed to
abandon their armed struggle. They joined forces
with the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) to transform
Nepal into a federal republic. In September 2007
the Maoists pulled out of the interim government
blaming the Nepali Congress Party’s octogenarian
supremo, Mr. G. P. Koirala and the interim
government for the continuation of the political
crisis and the uncertainty about the status of
the monarchy.
The Maoists who had voluntarily laid down their
arms and put the members of their ’Peoples’ Army’
in UN monitored camps, had earlier participated
in the creation of an interim parliament, an
interim constitution and an interim government.
Their walk out of the ’Interim Government’ on the
ground that the interim parliament had to declare
Nepal as a republic and abolish the monarchy
before the election to the Constituent Assembly
was a serious blow to the peace efforts and the
up coming elections to the Constituent Assembly.
Every body was looking forward to the election of
the Constituent Assembly. By walking out of the
interim government in September 2007, the Maoists
effectively derailed the holding of the election
to Nepal’s first ’Constituent Assembly’ which was
due on the 22nd of November this year.
In addition to the demand for declaring Nepal a
republic before the election to the Constituent
Assembly the Maoists also insisted that the
election to the Assembly should be conducted on a
fully proportional basis that would provide an
opportunity to the divergent different ethnic
communities and national minorities an
opportunity to be represented in the Constituent
Assembly on the basis of their status in the
national population. The Maoists rejected the
agreed ’dual system’ of half first past the post
and half on the basis of the seats won by each
party in the first past the post system. The
Seven Party Alliance, particularly the Nepali
Congress rejected these demands of the Maoists.
Most of the political leaders, the intellectuals,
civil society actors and the news analysts of
Nepal have blamed the Maoists for stopping the
holding of the election to the Constituent
Assembly. Various constituents of the Seven Party
Alliance (SPA) also claimed that that the Maoists
took the desperate step of walking out of the
government as they were afraid that they would do
rather badly in the election. The non-Maoists
political parties claimed that after the
election of the Constituent Assembly all of
Nepal’s political problems would have been
resolved and the country would have moved on to
the path of political stability and progress. If
this reading is correct then the Maoists are
certainly to be blamed for the continuation of
the political impasse in Nepal. However, one
needs to ask whether the Constituent Assembly,
elected on the basis of the dual system with the
participation of the ’Royalist’ or the
’loyalists’ political parties could live up to
the expectations of the people as articulated on
the streets during the Jana Andolan II and
subsequent to that in Terai and other places.
The Seven Party Alliance opposed the demand of
the Maoists on the ground that it was the
prerogative of the elected Constituent Assembly
to formally remove the monarchy and declare the
country as a republic. They argued that it would
be illegal for the ’interim’ parliament to take
this decision before the election of the
Constituent Assembly. However, considering the
fact that the ’interim parliament’ has taken many
decisions including declaring the ’interim Prime
Minister’ as the de-facto head of state replacing
the monarch, this argument sounded a bit hollow.
Also, one can not deny that there is merit in the
argument of the Maoists that if the status of the
monarchy was left ambiguous and the political
parties loyal to the monarchy were allowed to
contest in the election to the Constituent
Assembly, there is the possibility that the king
and sections of Nepal’s feudal elite and the army
loyal to the monarch would try to influence the
electoral process to restore the monarchy.
The Maoists also pointed out that the people of
Nepal during the Jana Andolan II had clearly
indicated their preference for the removal of the
monarchy and establishment of a ’Federal
Republic’. They argued that there was no need to
fall back on constitutional niceties,
particularly those which would give the royalists
an opportunity to subvert the peoples’ mandate.
The fact that till October this year, Mr. Koirala
and several influential leaders of Nepali
Congress were continuing to talk about retaining
a form of ’constitutional monarchy’ and that it
was only after the Maoists walked out of the
interim government, that the Nepali Congress
adopted the resolution to establish a ’federal
republic in Nepal’, gives credence to the
position of the Maoists that the interim
government was not fully committed to the
’republic’.
Similarly the demand of the national minorities
and the ethnic communities to convert Nepal into
a federal polity also remains to be addressed.
The interim constitution is not clear about how
the demands for territorial autonomy and division
of power structures would be done. Though the
demands for devolution of political power
continue to be placed before the interim
government every day by the ethnic minorities and
the nationalities, the government has yet to come
up with any policy perspective.
The unrests in the hill areas by the Janajatis
(indigenous/ethnic communities) and the Madhesis
in Terai plains have exposed the weaknesses of
Nepal’s peace process. The Madhesis -
plainspeople who constitute one third of Nepal’s
population - have been protesting against the
discrimination that has virtually barred them
from public life. The demonstrations and clashes
which have been going on since the past six
months have left several dozen dead. The interim
government led by Koirala has offered to increase
electoral representation, affirmative action for
marginalized groups and federalism but has
dragged its feet over implementing dialogue.
Tension between the Janajatis and the Madhesis on
one side and the Bahun-Chetri hill elite on the
other has been building for several years. It has
been largely ignored by the political elites
dominated by the Pahadi Bahun and Chetri
communities. The Madhesh or the Terai plains that
stretch the length of the southern part of Nepal
and are home to half the total population,
including many non-Madhesis (both indigenous
ethnic groups and recent migrants from the
hills). With comparatively good infrastructure,
agriculture, industrial development and access to
India across the open border, the Terai is
crucial to the economy of Nepal. It is also an
area of great political importance, both as a
traditional base for the mainstream parties and
as the only road link between otherwise
inaccessible hill and mountain districts.
The Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) has emerged as
a powerful umbrella group though it lacks an
organizational base and clear agenda. It has
decided to enter the electoral fray but if it is
to challenge the established parties, it must
first deal with the traditional Madhesi political
parties like the Sadbhavana Party and other
Madhesi politicians competing for the same votes.
There has also been a proliferation of Madhesi
armed groups; some have expanded significantly in
numbers, and their strategy and attitudes will
affect the political process. As is evident the
from the continuing ’Bandhs’, strikes and violent
clashes the mood among Terai residents is
increasingly confrontational, with collapse of
trust between most Madhesis and the government.
The armed Madhesi groups, led by break away
leaders of the Maoists party have been attacking
the cadres and leaders of the Maoists all over
Madhesh.
Unresolved grievances and the hangover from the
Maoist insurgency, especially the lack of
reconciliation and the greater tolerance for
violence, make a volatile mix. The unrest has
also provided a fertile ground for subversion to
the diehard royalists and Hindu fundamentalists
in Nepal and from across the border in India, who
see it as a chance to disrupt the peace process.
The mainstream parties have changed their
rhetoric but are reluctant to take action that
would make for a more inclusive system.
Mainstream parties, particularly the Nepali
Congress who rely on their Terai electoral base
have failed to compete with Madhesi groups in
radicalism. They have also been ineffective at
communicating the positive steps they have taken,
such as reforming citizenship laws. Competition
within the governing coalition is hindering any
bold moves.
For the Maoists, the Terai violence was a wake-up
call. As much of it was directed against their
cadres, the Maoists characterized the Madhesi
movement as a regressive movement supported by
the Hindu fundamentalists from India and
sponsored by the royal palace. However, the
outbreak of the armed movement in Terai by rival
groups like the Loktrantik Jana Adhikar manch led
by former Maoists - Jaiprakash Goit and Jwala
Singh shattered the myth of dominance of the
Maoists. The Maoists hit back. What ensued was a
virtual battle between the Maoists, the armed
factions of the Madhesi groups and the Madhesi
Jana Adhikar manch. Several lives were lost on
both sides. Despite the pressure and attacks, the
Maoists continue to remain well organized,
politically coherent and determined to reassert
themselves.
The key political issues in Nepal are clear and
still offer room for a reasonable compromise. The
Seven Party Alliance need to demonstrate more
serious intent, such as ensuring political
participation of all excluded groups (not just
those whose protests have forced attention) and
undertaking to discuss and resolve grievances not
only with protest leaders but also with concerned
parliamentarians, local community representatives
and civil society representatives. The interim
government has made several agreements with the
leaders of the Jana Jatis organization demanding
’autonomy’ and ’equal rights’. Unfortunately
those promises are yet to be translated into
action. The Seven Party Alliance’s willingness to
make concessions on the basis of equal rights for
all citizens has to be demonstrated effectively.
Confidence in national and local government will
only come if there is decent governance, public
security based on local community consent and
improved delivery of services, redress for
heavy-handed suppression of protests, demands for
compensation, honoring of dead protestors and
follow-through on a commission of enquiry need to
be met. There is urgent need to revise the
electoral system to ensure fair representation of
Madhesis and all other marginalized groups,
including a fresh delineation of constituency
boundaries.
The political parties and the government in
Kathmandu need to increase the representation of
Madhesis and other agitating Jana Jatis in
parties and state bodies. This would pave the way
for longer-term measures to remove inequalities.
This requires a change in outlook and a delicate
political balancing act. The Kathmandu government
must do some things immediately in order to earn
the trust of the Madhesis and other marginalized
communities. There is no doubt that the election
of the constituent assembly is an urgent need.
However now that the elections have been
postponed, the time should be utilized in
re-designing the elections in a manner that will
give proper representation of the Madhesis and
other Jana Jatis in the Constituent Assembly. If
this does not happen, the fear of sections of the
Nepali people rejecting the assembly will always
remain.