Four of five recent developments have to be considered to explain the need for national reconciliation in Nepal. The first is the amendment to the statute of the Nepali Congress that dropped the provision of “Constitutional Monarchy” from it in its eleventh national convention. Whether that was a seriously well-considered decision or just a bargaining chip is yet to be seen.

The second is the resolution of the Nepal Communist Party (CPN-UML) to move toward a republic. CPN-UML General Secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal has often made public speeches calling the people to be ready for the country without monarchy. Again, it is yet to be seen whether CPN-UML can present itself to run the country as a republic or not.

The third development is the declaration of the unilateral ceasefire by Nepal Communist Party (Maoist) “for three long months” one can say. Previous ceasefires during the Dashain holidays were much shorter. The government mouthpiece Gorkhapatra (September 6) made headline news that the Maoists declared the ceasefire as urged by India, insinuating the Maoists’ connection with India. Some of the responsible public figures are still going around repeating this alleged connection in their press meetings. Whatever the truth, one wonders about the diplomatic finesse of such statements.

The fourth development is cancellation of King Gyanendra’s visit to the United Nations. King Gyanendra’s visit to the United Nations, which was cancelled for several known and unknown national and international reasons, was guessed and discussed widely in the Nepali press. The fifth development is the ongoing demonstrations by the seven parties called the “constitutional forces” and some professional groups and civil society members. One may choose not to call these demonstrations “a new development” at all. They have become daily affairs in the streets of the Kathmandu Valley. If their intensity grows as in 1990, then they may result in a crucial factor for a political turn so they cannot be totally ignored.

All these developments have serious internal and external dimensions of Nepali politics. Evidently, ambassadors of world powers have also made statements on these developments claiming that they cannot let Nepal go further downhill because of the geopolitical implications of Nepal being a ‘failed state.’ The latest one such statement was the call from former US Ambassador Julia Chang Bloch via digital video-conferencing on ‘Nepal and the International Community’ organised by US embassy in Kathmandu and the US State Department. She advised King Gyanendra to restore democracy and reconcile with the parties.

The international concern is understandable as Nepal is heavily dependent on foreign aid and goodwill not only for its social and economic development but also for its very survival. No government in Nepal can run the country in isolation from the international community let alone its own people. The international community of this country’s well-wishers whose co-operation is so vital to run this country can simply ask all the forces involved in Nepal’s triangular conflict, “Can you run the country alone?” or “Are you a viable or credible substitute for the other two sides, or even one of them?” Obviously, the answer is ‘No.’ All the three sides have proven to be indispensable.

Realisation of this fact, necessary flexibility and readiness for a negotiated settlement are discernible even in the recent interview of CPN (Maoist) top leader Prachanda published in an Indian newspaper, and widely commented upon by the local newspapers in Nepal. A number of political and civil society leaders are reported to have felt the need for the government to respond to the positive gestures substantiated by the accompanying ceasefire by the party. The government has not responded positively to these developments. In view of the public opinion, any delay or vacillation on the part of the government is likely to alienate it further from the people at home and the international community. Also, one tends to wonder whether the government is determined to crush the rebellion by force, but that is most unlikely.

Then one could also ask why did the Nepali Congress remove the provision of “constitutional monarchy” from its statute? Was it a well-thought-out decision? Can the party so fragmented and stuck in the quagmire of internal strife really run the country alone? What are the possible national and international implications of not having monarchy in any form? NC spokesperson Ram S Mahat in a television programme clarified, however, that it is ready to accept monarchy if the parliament is restored and the people’s sovereignty is accepted.

Thus it is obvious that there is no alternative to a national reconciliation that can pave the way for democracy, civil liberties and full respect for human rights to the full satisfaction of everyone involved in the conflict directly or indirectly. The need is only to sit down at the negotiating table.

Dr Acharya is former PR to UN