The already alarming political situation in the country is taking a turn for the worse. Any hope of reconciliation between the palace and the political parties is fading fast, with the new curbs on civil liberties and arrest of dozens of political leaders and functionaries ahead of today’s mass rally planned by the seven-party alliance. An indefinite night curfew has been imposed in the Kathmandu Valley as well as in several towns following the Maoist attacks on Thankot and Dadhikot police stations. Means of communication such as the internet and the mobile phone service seem to be showing signs of going the way they did with the imposition of a state of emergency on February 1 last year. Home Minister Kamal Thapa’s stern warning on Wednesday to the political parties to break off their ‘ties’ with the Maoists or face ‘tough legal action’ indicates that the government is in an aggressive mood.

This, warns Thapa, may lead to an ‘unpleasant’ situation, including that the parties’ existence would be ‘at risk’. Claiming that the parties’ street protests were ‘helping’ rebels attain their ‘desired goals’, he blamed the parties for the latest Maoist attacks in the Valley. According to him, the Maoists were ‘encouraged to enter the Valley with sophisticated arms because of their understanding with the seven-party alliance’. He advised the political parties to start a dialogue with the King rather than with the Maoists. Dialogue and reconciliation are indeed the best things to seek rather than conflict. But the question is, on whose terms is it to be achieved? Parties feel they have been deceived more than once; therefore, the initiative, a credible one at that, should come from the government. At a time when the political forces and public opinion are tending to regard even the gains of the 1990 Constitution inadequate, severe curbs even on the existing rights hardly provide sufficient grounds for compromise.

Moreover, laying the blame at the parties’ door for deteriorating security is unfair, besides being a sad commentary on the performance of a government which claims that for the past one year the security situation has been improving, leading it to hold the civic polls. Whatever the consequences of the fresh crackdown, it may well raise serious questions about the government’s justification for coming to power: to restore peace and democracy. As in the past, such steps may prove counter-productive to the government, as they are unlikely to make the political parties change their positions. The chances of restoring peace and of winning public support appear to be even less so.