Of late, the most talked-about topic, especially in the political circuit, is for the peace process to reach a logical conclusion. There are politicians who even claim to have almost achieved it. Regrettably, the common people are still in the dark as to the definition of “logical

conclusion”. In logic, it is understood that the conclusion follows automatically when a major premise is once accepted. For example, if one affirms, “All CA members are graduates” and further affirms, “X is a CA member”, then it has to be concluded that X is a graduate. There cannot be another logical conclusion. If any other conclusion is drawn, it would be fallacious. The conclusion drawn in this way may not be true if the major premise, that is, “All Constitutional Assembly members are graduates” is false.

The logical conclusion that one wants to draw must be based on a realistic premise. First of all, we must understand what peace process actually is before moving ahead. Without defining the peace process, it will be fallacious to draw any conclusion. It has to be ascertained as to when the peace process started. Was it a peace process at all? Is it actually a means to some end? As has been witnessed, peace process appears to be a mere power capturing process. Had the then king not usurped all power from the elected government, the political parties could have been working hands in glove with the Maoists. Had the 1990

people’s movement not transformed absolute monarchy into constitutional monarchy, monarchy would not have been tempted to seize the power back. Moreover, had the Deuba government accepted or at least negotiated with the Maoists in 1997 (after the Maoists had

taken up arms), perhaps, the situation could have been different.

The people’s war or insurgency was the main reason why the peaceful atmosphere in the country was distrubed. The situation started changing for the better when the seven political parties and the Maoists reached an understanding with the signing of the 12-point agreement. More than 13,000 people had already lost their lives by then. The April 2006 movement ended when the king ceded all state powers and restored the parliament that had been dissolved earlier. With the declaration of ceasefire by the Maoists and the reciprocation by the newly formed government, there was a gradual return of peace.

The peace process kick-started after the Maoists declared a ceasefire on 26 April 2006, which was formalised by the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) on November 21, 2006. It was, however, amidst forced donations, seizure of land and other properties, abduction and killing that the interim legislature was formed. It was followed by the promulgation of the interim constitution, formation of the interim government, holding of the Constitution Assembly elections and eventually the formation of the Maoist-led coalition

government. The Constituent Assembly functioned merely as a legislative body since its first meeting on May 15. Only on November 17 did the Constitution Assembly pass the rules of procedure for drafting the constitution.

For the present, the politics of consensus has been overlooked. A major partner in the peace process is in the opposition. Several contentious issues have been left unattended for want of consensus. For the Maoists, the most serious issue in the peace process is the integration and rehabilitation of their combatants. The other equally vital issues include return of the land, houses and properties seized during the insurgency to the rightful owners, rehabilitation of the internally displaced and making public the list of abducted persons.

Prime Minister Prachanda’s assurance to provide compensation to the victims for their loss of houses and land seized by the Maoists if not returned by December 15 may open the Pandora’s Box. The forceful seizure may escalate and jeopardise the fragile peace process. So, what would bring the peace process to its logical conclusion? Will it come to an end after the demands raised by all stakeholders are addressed and the constitution drafted within the stipulated time? Or will it have to wait till the next general election or still later?

It may be difficult to meet the demands of all till Constitutional Asssembly passes the new constitution. A new elected legislature might be required for the government to realise all its goals. However, as the CPN-Maoist has not fully accepted the present system of democratic republicanism, its final adherence to the system cannot be taken for granted. The issue has to be settled first within the party to set its final goal. If the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat is their goal, the new constitution may not fulfil it. The Maoists may have to resort to their traditional method of waging war again. And if that is their goal, there might never be a logical conclusion of the peace process.

Prof Mishra is former election commissioner