Aditya Man Shrestha

The state of emergency came and went away within the promised period of three months. It intended to give a shock treatment to the country in crisis and it did. Dr. Mohammad Mohsin, as the then information minister, had timely informed us about it to keep the country mentally prepared for it. Instead of thanking him for his yeoman’s service, he was taken for a beating for saying what he foresaw. Hats off to him.

The basic question, however, remains if the state of emergency brought about the desired changes. The positive changes, going by the government claims, are on two fronts – expeditious work in the government offices and improvement of law and order situation in the Kathmandu Valley. That can be accepted without question. On the negative side, there are too many – suspension of fundamental rights, jailing of political and civic leaders and harassment of journalists. By far the biggest blow came on the media that was the prized achievement of the 12-year democratic exercise. The Maoists, subsequently, lost the media war but the government lost its credibility due to its suppressive manner.

The answer is, therefore, clear. The fundamental state of hostility between the state and the rebels has not changed. The basic distrust between the King and the political parties has become worse. The king, who was in command informally since October 2002, has taken direct charge since February 1, 2005. The army is engaged in battles against the Maoists as before. It says it is winning. But peace is not yet restored. The only fresh dimension is the opening of an added conflict frontier with the international community. The state of emergency could be a device to drive a point home in a conflict situation but it is not a solution in itself. That is quite evident.

If this were not the solution, then, what is? The solution, of course, lies in the sensible stand that our recognised political forces have taken. The way out is to agree to one of them and move forward. For example, the King’s commitment to multiparty democracy and promise to hand over power to a duly elected government could be accepted by the political parties to enter into a fresh reconciliation. In that case, one does not have to wait for three years that the King has asked for. Similarly, the demand of most of the political parties for the restoration of the dissolved House of Representatives to restart the democratic and constitutional process sounds fairly moderate. The King could positively respond to it to resolve the conflicts with the political parties and the international community. In the same vein, even the Maoist demand for a constituent assembly sounds sensible. If accepted by the constitution-abiding forces, it could lead to immediate ceasefire and much avowed peace. Agreeing to any one of them would, at least, kickstart a new process towards conflict resolution.

Instead of heeding to the sensible ideas, we are, on the contrary, sticking to

such stands and actions that appear insensible. The royal takeover looks like paving the way towards an absolute monarchy with few democratic trappings, notwithstanding the royal pledges to the contrary. The political parties are raising a voice

for absolute democracy implying that

the institution of monarchy should be reduced to a cipher. The Maoists are all out for a People’s Republic that looks so far-fetched, and the establishment of a totalitarian society even more so. It is unthinkable how a king can rule single-handed for a long time in conflict-ridden Nepal. It is equally implausible how the political leaders can govern a country with impunity and impertinence in the name of democracy as they did. It is precisely due to these insensible and extreme views that the multi-pronged conflicts are continuing.

Despite the unreasonable reckonings, there is no reason why our political actors should bow down to each other. The King can ignore the political parties because they have lost popular support and, meanwhile, deal with the Maoists militarily. Similarly, the political parties believe that democracy is an undeniable system that they are sure to achieve sooner or later. The Maoists trust they have become a big political force not only in the Nepali context but also as the fastest growing insurgency in the world. None of them faces imminent extinction and is, therefore, willing to compromise. It is for the same reason that they should be willing to reconcile with each other for the sake of the suffering people.

Without restoration of peace and normalcy, none of the political forces, howsoever strong or weak, is out of danger of facing a bigger and unmanageable crisis. To stop this eventuality, it is necessary to give them a sensible and honorable landing. Could there be no win-win formula to accommodate their views that protect the vital interests of the people? There are several options available provided our political actors are willing to be sensible and ready to listen to reason.

Shrestha is the co-coordinator of Volunteer Mediators Group for Peace