Not always necessary
The government has made a sensible plea to all those on the warpath to take recourse to ‘dialogue and consensus while pressing their demands.’ The establishment’s apprehension is understandable and it has, therefore, cautioned the strikers against the possibility of mischief mongers making the country more anarchic. As it is, the fear of regressive forces taking advantage of the fluid situation and reversing the new political trend looms pretty large. Resorting to strikes and, thereby, holding the entire nation and the public to ransom can at best serve as a pressure tactic but nothing beyond in substantial terms.
In any democracy, negotiations hold the key to resolving all contentious issues. It should be
borne in mind that the government does not possess a magic wand, and, given the resource constraint, it cannot fulfil all the demands of all the groups.
The country is in a fluid state, with anti-democratic forces out to disrupt the smooth journey to constituent assembly and to a new democratic order. If pressure has to be built up against the government or any other group, it is in compelling it to fulfil the mandate of the Jana Andolan II and implement the agreements reached between the SPA government and the Maoists. All should focus on the principal goal and not waste their time and energy on petty or less pressing issues for some time at least. To ensure smooth movement to a new dispensation is the duty of all Nepalis. This does not mean that reasonable demands could not be put forth. But it is not always necessary to go on strike to drive home the point.