Post-mortem of a finger is supposed to reveal the cause of death, but not the mystery of life. The Maoists announced a unilateral ceasefire on September 3 for a period of three months. All political parties have taken it as a positive step towards peace building. All professional organisations and civil society have welcomed it. But the government has not yet reciprocated. In fact, after the declaration of truce, the government not only tried to evade its response, but was also reluctant to acknowledge the announcement. The Gorakhapatra, the mouthpiece of the government, carried the news on September 6 that the truce has been declared at the behest of India. Some even subscribe to this view on the basis of the statement promptly issued by the government of India welcoming the announcement.

The present ceasefire is the fifth during the last four years. Out of these, four ceasefires were announced covering the period of Dashain. The first truce was operative for four months while the second one continued for six months. The third and the fourth ones were announced only for nine days covering the period of Dashain. The fifth one too coincides with it. With the first ceasefire the Maoists got legitimacy by participating in public meetings organised throughout the country in combat fatigues. With second one it succeeded in gauging the influences of the army on the King with regard to dealing with the insurgency.

Generally, any ceasefire is declared after a protracted negotiation between the conflicting parties directly or through brokers. Of course, sometimes one side also declares truce strategically either to strengthen its military might or to get legitimacy or to put moral pressure on the other side to follow suit or to genuinely reduce the hardships of the people who bear the brunt of conflict.

The current truce has to go a long way to kick-start the peace-building process. First, the other side has to reciprocate. Secondly, both conflicting sides have to participate in the dialogue. Thirdly, till agreements are reached, peace has to be maintained by both sides. Fourthly, sincere efforts have to be made to settle the core issues of discord through direct negotiations or through peace-brokers. Unless both sides take real interest through compulsion or persuasion in the cessation of the conflict, nothing tangible can happen as one can lead a horse to the water but cannot make him drink.

Looking at the history of Maoist insurgency, it can be observed that when the Maoists entered the forest taking arms against the government there was a common perception that the insurgency was directed towards the government and that could be crushed with police force. It remained a bi-polar conflict apparently. But it was not so. The refusal to execute the orders of the government by the army and its demand for all-party consensus for military involvement in controlling insurgency was the hidden facets of the conflict. The tri-polar conflict started surfacing gradually with the steps taken by the King when he dismissed the elected government on October 4, 2002, and assumed the power of the head of the government by constituting a cabinet under his own chairmanship on February 1 this year. The parties who were the real actors after 1990 people’s movement were pushed to the third pole making the conflict triangular.

With recent developments such as antagonistic parties forming a seven-party alliance and the Maoists indicating their interest in forming a working plan to cooperate with the alliance for establishing democratic republic through election to constituent assembly may bring the tri-polar conflict to a bi-polar one, paving the way for a comparatively easy dissolution of the current impasse. A few days ago the civil society formed a monitoring group to observe whether the Maoists are maintaining the ceasefire in the true sense of the term to enable the parties to reach every part of the country to organise their activities without any hindrance.

Keeping in view the steps taken and public speeches made by the authorities, it is apparent that the government is in no mood to listen to the advice given to it. It seems to be immune to moral and external pressure exerted on it by the international community. It is obvious that in any negotiation all the conflicting parties have to forgo some of their claims to settle the thorny issue. It seems impossible that the King will surrender the powers. He has already assumed the power of an absolute monarch which he will not cede voluntarily.

Instead of blaming others, we should blame ourselves for the present state of affairs. In this age, it is impossible for a King to rule a country which is multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, and multi-lingual. All the three conflicting parties should sit together to evaluate the cost and usefulness of monarchy and think of installing a true democracy where all communities can be assured that Nepal is theirs and only theirs.

Professor Mishra is former Election Commissioner