US ambassador James Moriarty’s recent statements have caused concern amongst Nepalis who are hoping for a lasting peace through the ongoing negotiations between the government and the Maoists. While holding forth an impressive aid amount for peace, democracy and development, he has tried to obstruct the Maoists’ entry into an interim government till they lay down their arms. This is an unrealistic and even disastrous stand for Nepal’s future and thus needs to be reversed.

The ambassador unveils aid for peace, democracy and development all of which are impossible or in danger unless the Maoists can be permanently brought into the political mainstream. The successful people’s revolution with the peaceful support of the Maoists had demanded elections to a constituent assembly (CA) through the agency of an inclusive interim government with the Maoists in it.

This was imperative because the grassroots reality is that there can be no elections without Maoist support. And without CA polls as soon as possible there is every danger of the king coming back to power with the army’s help. The army, barring the name change, remains what it was yesterday: a loyal and committed royalist force. It is only the show of people power in the streets that has held it back so far, but the people can’t come out on the streets forever. Any delay in quickly getting a CA in place can be deadly.

The Maoists would never agree to the elections without their presence in an interim government. They also could not wait indefinitely in limbo for the security forces to suddenly pounce on them taking into custody the top leadership. So the Maoists at some point, if prevented from joining the government, will have to go underground and back to the jungle and the conflict would restart. How then would the aid for peace be utilised? If it could be used at all it would surely have to be transformed into military aid for more helicopters, gunships, arms and ammunitions. A vicious cycle will be let loose. More aid. More arms. More conflict, more killings and more aid for more arms and killings. Deliberately pushing the Maoists back to conflict will ultimately give them, in the next few years, victory for a communist totalitarian unitary government. The support of the masses for the Maoists is surely not lost on the ambassador who has toured the country recently, or is this what has frightened him?

Some politicians, the same who gave up their constituencies and fled to Kathmandu at the start of the insurgency, are also vehemently demanding that the Maoists lay down their arms immediately before joining the government. They must realise that Nepal Army and the king are not going to go down without one last-ditch effort to regain supremacy. The only deterrent to this would be and is the Maoist army, not as well-equipped but motivated against a ruthless dictatorship.

Yes, at this point the Russian 1917 revolution could be replayed. But then preventing this scenario is in our hands and the solution simple: allow the Maoists to immediately join an interim government. Otherwise, the first casualties will be the same politicians demanding surrender of arms.

The Maoists are vehemently pursuing their peaceful intent, going door-to-door convincing all not to doubt their sincerity. They have committed themselves to remain glued to the negotiation table and not to go back to the jungle. They have promised to lay down their arms at once when UN monitoring team comes in. Not a single bullet has recently been fired. We must believe them at some point, but waiting indefinitely for the UN teams to come and manage their arms before they join an interim government would delay CA polls, with all its dangers.

The Maoists with their arms in an interim government will be much less a danger than an injured king licking his wounds and waiting. Nepal has shown the world a revolution like nothing before. Such abrupt yet sincere transition from a gun-wielding guerrilla force to committed peace campaigners and negotiators is a new experience in the present age.

Emperor Ashok after the Kalinga War, in which in a single day 100,000 were slaughtered, had a similar transition, but this was centuries ago. Since we do not understand the disease nor the recovery process with our limited and narrow political vision, we should not prescribe any treatment. We should but watch without bias making sure we do nothing to obstruct the recovery process. Most importantly, we must realise this is neither Russia or China. This is Nepal and any conclusions must be drawn by looking at the problem with Nepali eyes and minds, which feel and see hope, where there was none before. No one has the right to deny us peace, democracy and development while at the same time ostensibly seeming to help strengthen the same.

Maybe Nepal needs a Sherlock Holmes more than ever to counter these designs.

Dr Dixit is chairman, Civil Society for Peace and Development