Aditya Man Shrestha

People keep on asking when we shall have peace in Nepal. Nobody has a clear answer. However, few straight questions rather than their answers can give a better understanding of the critical situation.How can, to begin with, there be peace when there are so many points of conflicts? There is social injustice, economic inequality, widespread corruption that has given rise to the present state of conflict and war. There is monopoly of power in few communities, discrimination against ethnic groups, suppression of women, and humiliation of the dalits that lie in the backdrop of current spate of bloodshed. How could there be any reconciliation between the few rich getting richer and the many poor getting poorer? There is indeed thousand and one reason why the Nepali society remains divided, disharmonised and distraught.

How can there not be peace when there are so many points of accord among those political groups engaged in conflict? Look at the state (as represented by the King, the government and the security forces), the Maoist rebels and the political parties. Going by their public statements and policy documents, they all champion democracy, equality, justice, rule of law and, above all, people’s welfare. All of them agree to give special treatment to the oppressed, discriminated and marginalised. In other words, there is no difference in their opinion as far as the social and economic reforms is concerned. When there is so much harmony on the national goals, there is every possibility of an accord among the contending parties for peace.

If so, what are the chances of peace agreement in this background? To be frank, very little because the state, the rebels and the political parties have their own strategies that remain polarized. The state wants to prevail over the political parties by nourishing on their past mistakes and consequent lack of popular support to their movement against “regression”. It wants to cut the Maoists to size by pampering the security forces and over emphasizing the counter-insurgency strength. The political parties want a sustained campaign of resistance against the state on its symbolic strength of democracy and perpetrate a moral defeat to the rebels by advocating and pursuing the road of non-violence. The Maoists, on their part, are trying to prevail over the state by waging a prolonged war of attrition rather than make a showdown in a face-to-face confrontation. They want to overpower other parties by displacing them from the rural areas and by distancing them from state forces and the people.

None of three political forces is following the natural geometrical rule that establishes any two angles, in a triangular fight, emerge stronger than the remaining third angle. We see no willingness on any of them to align with a second force against the third one. Constitutionally speaking, the king and the political parties are natural allies because they are together since 1991 under the same political umbrella. They can easily adjust to each other but they have not. It is not because there is fundamental ideological or policy difference but because of distrust at personal level. The King, otherwise, can remain a constitutional monarch by handing over power to the political parties with a commitment from them not to repeat the mistakes of bad governance of the past. The political parties could agree to join the government without hassles on a minimum program of holding the elections for restoration of democratic process and until such times in running the administration. That would definitely ease the process of negotiations with the rebels.

The political parties can also feel natural closeness with the Maoists except for the use of violence. They are after all political actors who believe in political organisations, working with and amid the people, winning their support to climb up the state power. The line of demarcation that existed between them on the issue of republicanism seems to be slowly fading. An alliance between the state and the rebels against the political parties is something that does not sound credible at this stage.

Despite the grim prospects, there are, nevertheless, some strong points that enhance the chances of peace agreement. By far the strongest factor is the belief that none can prevail over the other militarily, morally or internationally. Accordingly, the state might suppress the rebels for sometime but can never eliminate them for all times. Similarly, the political parties could be marginalised and humiliated for sometimes but they cannot be forgotten for all times. Democratic thoughts and practices have also taken some roots in the Nepali society.

The Maoists cannot deal a crushing defeat to the security forces in the near future nor can they think of establishing people’s republic when there is some strong support for liberal democracy at home and abroad. The political parties are not in a position to dictate terms to other two political forces. Hence, a logical conclusion emerges that all of them have got to compromise on their respective stands and come to a negotiated settlement. The other strong positive factor towards peace is the public and international pressure building up on all the political forces for making peace. Time is not far when they have to listen and heed the internal and external pleas for peace.

Shrestha is the coordinator of Volunteer Mediators Group