Confrontation is only going to ruin the economy and social harmony, and lead the country

towards anarchy.

The Maoist declaration of unilateral ceasefire was hailed by the people, the political parties, the civil society as well as the international community as a sign of hope to stop the fratricidal war in the nation. The government showed its reluctance to welcome it and reciprocate by declaring ceasefire and expressed doubt about the Maoists’ sincerity. Events of forceful abduction and stray cases of violence have strengthened the logic of the ruling side. This further raises the question whether the Maoist leaders are able to control their armed cadres to obey the party line. However, the government must be aware that it is obliged not to use force against anyone only on grounds of doubt. The Geneva Convention and several other human rights agreements signed by Nepal demands total submission to the commitments made and there would be no impunity if the agreements are violated. This leaves us in a situation of critical ceasefire and demands from both sides in conflict care in not violating rights.

The political parties’ decision to talk to the Maoists and their appeal to put aside the arms and join the mainstream political platform was also widely welcomed by the people, the civil society and the international community. On this issue, the government side was unenthusiastic and some of the government supporters went to the extent of describing such dialogue as promoting anti-national activity. Some think that this was a gimmick to scare the government. However, there does not seem to be any progress on that front and still the kidnapping of political party workers by the Maoist cadres has not completely ceased. This does not raise any hope of reconciliation between the Maoists and other parties. The NC deviation from its original ideological stand on constitutional monarchy has proved that the NC’s old leadership has lost control over its cadres and they have been used by Left-oriented NC cadres.

This is not a new case in world history. We must remember India’s lesson. The experience of Congress Socialist Party and the Communist Party of India are examples of how communist penetration works to convert a moderate party into a militant one and how the cadres of such a party erode and embrace communist philosophy. This also happened in Nepal when Nepal Praja Parishad had been totally eroded as a result of its united front with the communist party in 1952. The NC leadership wanted to use the republican platform as a pressure to the monarchists and landed adopting Left ideology. Pretty soon the confrontation within shall emerge as it happens eventually. Not only did the adoption of NC’s new idea threaten its own identity, it also increases the confrontation with the monarchists.

The CPN (UML) which under the leadership of Madan Bhandari had realistically started converting the party into a social democratic party has again dumped “Janata Ko Janbad” as conceived by Bhandari and taken up the original communist position. However, this is not such a bewildering event as communists at the core of their heart can never be in favour of monarchy. But this also adds to a wider confrontation. The whole country is for peace and reconciliation but all those who can help to build peace and promote reconciliation have taken a path of confrontation. Perhaps each of them is quite sure of its own influence on the people and logistic strengths that lead them towards promoting confrontation. In the long run, such a scenario is only going to ruin the economy and social harmony and lead the country towards a long and enduring anarchy.

Unless the civil society approaches the three political forces with equal respect and no hatred, recognising the importance, influence and strength of each they cannot play any credible role. The so-called civil society which has taken up the banner of hatred against a respected institution is bound to promote confrontation. Civil society has a duty to remain impartial. Those who have a politicised and partial opinion can hardly be called civil society. The present crisis is a political one which should be solved politically through dialogue and with mutual understanding. To stick to one’s idea and insist that that had to be accepted by all is neither a democratic way to solve any problem nor a practical way. The patience to listen to the stand of others and discuss the pros and cons of various stands is the only way to reconciliation. A common platform to discuss opinions and to try to arrive at a common base with the view to embark upon a path of permanent and lasting peace is the only medium relevant to the present needs. When all the political forces are confronting each other and their differences are growing, it is the duty of the civil society to take the initiative to provide a common platform for the three political forces and also the representatives of the women, ethnic groups and Dalits to propose a new structure for the state where each and every Nepali has a stake, feels secure and gets equal opportunity.

Upadhyay is a former foreign minister