२०% एउटा घातक संख्या हो

२०% संसदीय दल अथवा केंद्रीय समिति। अर्थात २० जना सांसद भएको पार्टी मा चार जना फुटन पायो। चार जना पनि नचाहिने। पार्टी हरु फुटेको फुटै हुने भयो। नेपाल मा अब वास्तव मा बहुदल आउन लाग्यो। 

भनिन्छ नेपाली कांग्रेस ले आठ लाख लाई सदस्य बनाएको छ। त्यस मध्ये चार लाख गगन थापा ले ल्याएका नया अनुहार हरु। पार्टी फुटाउनु फाइदा हो। देउबा रामचंद्र हरु लाई महाधिवेशन मा हराउनु मा मजा छ कि पार्टी फुटाउनु मा मजा छ? लगे हाथ कांग्रेस पनि फुटिहाले भो। 

वर्षमान फेरि बुढो हुने बेला सम्म पर्खेर बस्ने? कि पार्टी फुटाउने? 

नया शक्ति जसपा भित्र बाट प्रस्फुटित हुने बेला भनेको यही हो? दलित मुक्ति का लागि जनता लिंकनवादी पार्टी। 

विवेक भएका हरु आ आफ्नो विवेक बोकेर साझा रविन्द्र को जिम्मा लगाए हुँदैन? चांस मा डांस। 

एमाले का एक राउंड निस्किए। अझै पार्टी एकता का लागि प्रयास गर्न बसेका हरु एक पटक फेरि पार्टी फुटाउने कि? वामदेव गौतम को नेतृत्व मा एउटा नेकपा (वाम) पनि। 

ठुलो पार्टी हरु लाई यसो पाँच सात जना चाहियो भने किनबेच गर्न सजिलो हुने भो। सानो पार्टी फुटायो, फुटेको लाई आफ्नोमा गाभ्यो। 

एउटा पार्टी एक पटक मात्र फुट्नु जरूरी छैन। एउटा कांग्रेस एकै पटक पाँच वटा कांग्रेस पनि त बन्न सक्छ। देउबा कांग्रेस। कोइराला कांग्रेस। गगन कांग्रेस। निधि कांग्रेस। कांग्रेस समाजवादी। २०% त समाजवादी होलान कांग्रेस पार्टी भित्र पनि। नया सरकार बन्थ्यो। 

गनगन कांग्रेस। एमसीसी पास गराउन एक नेपाली कांग्रेस (जेफर्सनवादी) चाहियो। प्रदीप गिरी को लोहिया कांग्रेस। 

हुन त अल्पमत मा पुगे पनि, पार्टी ले निकाले पनि डेढ़ वर्ष देउबा नै हो प्रधान मंत्री। कि आफै ले राजीनामा दिन पर्यो। दिन्न भने पछि कसैको केही लाग्दैन। नेपाल को संविधान ले दुई वर्ष अविश्वास को प्रस्ताव ल्याउन नपाउने भनेको छ। 

माधव निस्के पछि बाँकी एमाले एक ढिक्का राख्न बड़ा गारहो हुन्छ। बुगीम्यान नै गयो। अब ओली ले कसलाई औँला ठड्याउने? ओली को आफ्नो रापताप सेलाइसक्यो। एउटा नेकपा (मार्क्सवादी) अर्को नेकपा (लेनिनवादी) गरे एमाले ५०-५० गर्न पायो। एउटा नेकपा (ज्योति बसु) पनि चाहिने। भारत मा बाँकी रहेन। 

उत्तर कोरिया को किम को ट्रेन चढ्ने प्लेन नचढने सोंच हो। एउटा नेकपा (किम) पनि चाहिने पुर्व पश्चिम रेलमार्ग बनाउने। 

माओ पार्टी भित्र पनि एउटा देंग स्याउ पिंग अर्को सी जिनपिंग सोंच उम्रेर नया नया पार्टी खोले हुने। नेकपा माओवादी (देंग स्याउ पिंग) ले आर्थिक क्रांति गरि पो हाल्थ्यो कि? 

जनताले नेता होइन नेताले जनता छान्ने समय आयो। चुनाव ताका जनता ले कसलाई भोट दियो अब खासै मतलब नहुने भो। 

नेपाली राजनीति मार्क्सवादी सोंच अथवा लोकतंत्रवादी सोंच होइन इंडियन टीवी को सोप ओपेरा सोंच बाट चलन थाल्यो। जनता लाई विकास सुशासन होइन नाटक दिने। 

साना पार्टी हरु एक दुई पटक फुटेर राष्ट्रिय पार्टी स्टेटस गुमाए चुनाव चिन्ह नै गायब हुन्छ अर्थात पुरानो चुनाव चिन्ह मा नया ले दर्ता गरिसकेको हुन्छ। अनि त चुनाव को समय मा जनता रिसाउन पनि पायेन। हामी घडी छाप त हो तर पछिल्लो चुनाव को घड़ी छाप होइन। पुल किन बनेन नसोध्नुस। 

२०% वाला प्रावधान ले साना पार्टी का केंद्रीय समिति का सदस्य को भाउ बढ्ने भो। सांकेतिक भाषा को भाउ होइन साँच्चिको भाउ। अब त नजर राखिरहनु पर्ने भो। 

देउबा समस्या होइन। देउबा बाट यो भन्दा फरक आशा गर्ने हरु समस्या हुन। Fool me five times. 

राजेन्द्र महतो ले बहुलराष्ट्रिय भने, देउबा ले बहुलपार्टीय सुने। 

Morning shows the day. The afternoon shows the day. 3 PM shows the day. Evening shows the day. Nighttime shows the day.  

बुढ़ा हरु को कोतपर्व ले देश हैरान

Star Formation 

विकासका रणनीतिहरूमा सबै दलहरूबीच आधारभूत सहमति
भूमिगत राजनीतिदेखि पहिलो महिला मुख्यमन्त्रीसम्म नेपाल समूहबाट छुटिएपछि मुख्यमन्त्री बनिन् अष्टलक्ष्मी शाक्य
फेरि उही अध्यादेशको आत्मघाती बाटो



फुटेका एमाले र जसपाका प्रदेश सांसद र स्थानीय तहका जनप्रतिनिधिले २१ दिनभित्र दल रोज्न पाउने
माधव नेपाल र महन्थ ठाकुरका नयाँ दलले पनि राष्ट्रिय मान्यता पाउने
ठाकुर-महतो समूहका मनमोहन चौधरी उपेन्द्र समूहतिर

पार्टी ले पाँच पाँच वर्षमा महाधिवेशन गर्नै पर्ने

संविधान मा राजनीतिक पार्टी ले पाँच पाँच वर्षमा महाधिवेशन गर्नै पर्ने प्रावधान छ। त्यो बध्यात्मक हो। गर्नैपर्छ। माओ पार्टी ले महाधिवेशन नगरेको नौ वर्ष भो भनिंदैछ। एमाले को पाँच वर्ष कटिसक्यो। कांग्रेस साढ़े पाँच बर्ष भयो जस्तो लाग्छ। भने पछि माओ पार्टी, एमाले र कांग्रेस का सबै सांसद अब निर्दलीय भए कि तिनको संसद पद नै गयो? हुनुपर्ने के हो? निर्वाचन आयोग ले आफ्नो कर्तव्य निर्वाह गर्नैपर्छ। 

पाँच पाँच वर्षमा महाधिवेशन गर्नै पर्ने प्रावधान त सुझाव होइन। गरे राम्रो नगरे फरक नपर्ने भनेको त होइन। पाँच वर्ष भित्र पार्टी महाधिवेशन नगरे पार्टी को दर्ता खारेज भो। होइन र?

पार्टी को सदस्यता गुमे सांसद पद चट हुने भने जस्तो लाग्छ संविधान मा। 

दलीय चुनाव पनि निर्वाचन आयोग ले गर्ने व्यवस्था

सत्ता मा पुगेर जति सुकै असफल भए पनि, जति सुकै भ्रष्टाचार गरे पनि, अझ बढ़ी भ्रष्टाचार गर्ने नै माइ का लाल बन्ने परिपाटी छ। त्यो चक्रव्युह तोड्ने तरिका हो पार्टी को आतंरिक निर्वाचन पनि देशको निर्वाचन आयोग ले नै गराउने। 

सरकारी तलब खाने प्रत्येक व्यक्ति ले आफ्नो र आफ्नो परिवार को सम्पत्ति विवरण वार्षिक बुझाउनु पर्ने। बरु निर्वाचित प्रत्येक तहको नेता ले पनि तलब खाने व्यवस्था सस्तो हो। पार्टी भित्र पनि चुनाव लड्नु अगाडि त्यसै गरी आफ्नो र आफ्नो परिवार को सम्पत्ति विवरण वार्षिक बुझाउनु पर्ने। त्यस्तो कानुन बनाउनु पर्छ। 

पार्टी को सदस्यता लिन चाहने प्रत्येक व्यक्ति ले लिन पाउने। पार्टी ऑफिस मा गएर होइन। सरकारी ऑफिस मा। एक व्यक्ति ले भने एक भन्दा बढ़ी पार्टी को सदस्यता लिन नपाउने। प्रत्येक सदस्य पार्टी को आतंरिक चुनाव को मतदाता हुने। पाँच वर्ष पछि इच्छा लागे अर्कै पार्टी को सदस्यता लिन पाउने। बरु पार्टी सदस्य संख्या को समानुपातिक पार्टी ले पैसा पाउने सरकार बाट। एउटा चाहिं पार्टी सदस्य संख्या को आधारमा। अर्को आम चुनावमा भोट बटुलेको आधारमा। पैसा को अरु कुनै श्रोत हुनु गैर कानुनी हुने। 

कुनै पनि पद का लागि उम्मेदवार को हुने भन्ने कुरा पार्टी अध्यक्ष अथवा केंद्रीय नेता ले निर्णय नगर्ने। साधारण पार्टी सदस्य ले निर्णय गर्ने। अर्थात उम्मीदवार बन्न पहिला पार्टी भित्र को प्राइमरी इलेक्शन जित्नु पर्ने भो। अनि बल्ल उम्मेदवार बन्न पाइयो। जस्तै मेयर को उम्मेदवार बन्नु छ भने त्यो नगरपालिका भरिका पार्टी सदस्य हरु को बहुमत प्राप्त गर्नुपर्ने। 

प्रत्येक पाँच वर्ष एकै साल निर्वाचन आयोग ले प्रत्येक पार्टी को भित्र को निर्वाचन गर्ने। पार्टी अध्यक्ष बन्न कुनै पनि व्यक्ति ले आफ्ना सम्पुर्ण पार्टी सदस्य को बहुमत भोट बटुल्न सक्नुपर्यो। 

प्रत्येक पाँच वर्ष त्यस पछि को वर्ष स्थानीय र प्रदेश निर्वाचन। त्यस पछि को वर्ष केंद्र स्तर को निर्वाचन। 

राष्ट्रिय पार्टी बन्न या त आम निर्वाचनमा  ३%मत बटुल्नु पर्ने होइन भने देश भरि पार्टी सदस्यता लिने जमात भित्र ३% पुर्याउनु पर्ने। त्यति नगर्दा पनि दल दर्ता गर्न पाउने, चुनाव चिन्ह पनि पाउने, र बटुलेको भोट को समानुपातिक पैसा पनि पाउने पार्टी चलाउन। 

होइन भने नेपाल का पार्टी हरु बंद तलाउ छन। कहिले पनि नेतृत्व परिवर्तन नै नहुने। 

संविधान मस्यौदा मा छुटेको एउटा महत्त्वपूर्ण कुरा: राजनीतिक पार्टी बारे

संविधान मस्यौदा मा नहुनुपर्ने कुरा धेरै छन। पार्टी मेनिफेस्टो मा हुनुपर्ने कुरा हरु छन। पार्टी ले सत्ता मा पुगेर पनि गर्न नसकेका काम हरु लाई मस्यौदा मा ठुँसियेको दर्दनाक स्थिति छ। पालै पिलो काँग्रेस, एमाले, माओवादी सत्ता मा पुगेका छन। जनता लाई आवास, रोजगार दिनु थियो भने त्यति बेला दिनु थियो। आफुले गर्न नसक्ने अनि संविधान मा लेखि दिए पछि कसले आएर गर्दिने? बरु गर्न सक्ने हरु आए भने तिनको हात खुट्टा बांधिदिने किसिमको लेखाइ छ मस्यौदा मा।

तर एउटा हुनै पर्ने कुरा छ जुन संविधान मा छैन। त्यो हो राजनीतिक पार्टी सम्बन्धी। देशको विकास मा नंबर एक तगारो हो देशका राजनीतिक पार्टी हरुको ढुलमुल अवस्था।

• राजनीतिक पार्टी हरुको आय व्यय पुर्ण पारदर्शी राख्नु पर्ने ऑनलाइन 
• चुनाव मा वोट पाएको समानुपातिक पार्टी हरुले सरकार बाट पैसा पाउने, त्यस बाहेक अरु कतै बाट पैसा लिन नपाउने 
• पार्टी हरु को आतंरिक संरचना मा पनि ४९% आरक्षण को व्यवस्था 
• पार्टी को कुनै पनि पद को कमसेकम ४ वर्ष मा एक पटक निर्वाचन हुनुपर्ने 
• मनोनित पद १/३ भन्दा बढ़ी हुन नपाउने 

संविधान मस्यौदा मा छुटेको एउटा महत्त्वपूर्ण कुरा: राजनीतिक पार्टी बारे। यति गर्दिए कति आनन्द हुन्थ्यो? होइन भने राजनीतिक पार्टी हरुको व्यवहार नवराजा हरुको जस्तो छ। अब हामी संविधान माथि भन्ने छ। चार जनाले हस्ताक्षर गरेर ६०१ लाई निस्तेज पार्न सकिन्छ भन्ने सोंच।

राजनीतिक पार्टी ले पार्टी चलाउन सरकार बाट पैसा पाउने

Anga Raj Timilsina: "......नेपालमा चारैतिर भ्रस्टाचार ब्याप्त छ। छुट्याइएको रकमको धेरै हिस्सा भ्रस्टचारमा जान्छ। तसर्थ, क्यान्सर जस्तो यो रोगको निधान नारा वा सतहीरुपले प्रधानमन्त्री, सरकार वा नेताले उच्चाहरण गरेर मात्र हुदैन। एकातिर अख्तियार र अरु निकायलाई कसरी बलियो बनाउने भन्नेमा ध्यान दिनु पर्ने छ भने अर्कोतिर यी निकायले निस्पक्षरुपले कार्बाही गर्न कसरी जबाबदेही बनाउने भन्ने सोच्न जरुरी छ। तर, पार्टीका मुख्य नेताहरु जबसम्म पार्टी चलाउने पैसा भस्टचारबाट उठाउछन, तबसम्म यो रोगलाई सम्बोधन गर्न गार्हो पर्ने देखिन्छ। नयाँ सम्बिधानमा "थ्रेसहोल्ड" भन्दा माथी जनमत ल्याउने पार्टीलाई सरकारी बजेट बाटै पार्टी चलाउने पैसाको प्राबधान राख्न अत्याबश्यक छ।......."

प्रत्यक्ष निर्वाचित प्रधान मंत्री/राष्ट्रपति र यो एउटा गर्न पाए नेपाल अझ दुई चार पुस्ता हेटी भएर बस्दैनथ्यो कि?

प्रत्येक राजनीतिक पार्टी ले पार्टी चलाउन सरकार बाट पैसा पाउने, चुनावमा वोट ल्याएको समानुपातिक, त्यो बाहेक अरु कतै बाट पैसा लिन नपाउने। आय व्यय ऑनलाइन सार्वजनिक गर्नु पर्ने।

यति गर्न सके पार्टी अध्यक्ष को चुनाव मा बढ़ी मान्छे लड़थे कि? किनभने पार्टी चलाउने पैसा त पार्टी को हो भन्ने हुन्थ्यो।

१% थ्रेसहोल्ड

राष्ट्रिय पार्टी बन्न १% वोट ल्याए पुग्ने गरेको राम्रो। कुनै अर्थतंत्र मा नया कम्पनी हरु खोल्न नपाउने भन्दियो भने त्यो अर्थतंत्र ध्वस्त हुन्छ। नया कम्पनी हरु खोल्न गार्हो पार्दिने हो भने अर्थतंत्र कमजोर हुन्छ। त्यस्तै देशको राजनीतिमा नया नया पार्टी खोलिएको राम्रो। थ्रेसहोल्ड नै नभएको पनि नराम्रो हो। देशमा अस्थिरता आउँछ। तर १% भन्दा बढ़ी भयो भने नया नया पार्टी लाई गार्हो भइ दिन्छ।

अहिलेको प्रस्तावित ३% मानने हो भने १६ बुँदे मा हस्ताक्षर गरेका पार्टी हरु मात्र भित्र छिरछन। १% हुँदा ११ पार्टी लाई ठाउँ हुन्छ। मेरो व्यक्तिगत राजनीति का लागि त ३% नै राम्रो। म मधेसी पार्टी हरु एक भएको हेर्न चाहेको मान्छे। ३% ले तिनलाई करै लाग्छ एक हुन। एक होउ वा लोप होउ भने जस्तो।

१% पनि धेरै हो। १% थ्रेसहोल्ड भनेको तपाइँ को पार्टी ले त्यो ल्याउँदैन भने समानुपातिक मा तपाइँको वोट जति सबै खेर गयो। तपाइँ को कोही पनि आउने भएन, तपाइँ को कुनै कैंडिडेट झुक्किएर प्रत्यक्ष निर्वाचन मा जिते उ स्वतंत्र उम्मेदवार हुने भयो --- उसले चुनाव जिते पछि कुनै ठुलो पार्टी को सदस्यता लिन चाहे पाउने।

८ वता राज्य हुने देशमा ८-१० वता पार्टी भएको राम्रै हो।

किन कोल्टे फेर्‍यो एमाओवादीले?

भूकम्पले लामो समयदेखि विद्यमान राजनीतिक गतिरोध भत्काई दियो ..... नेताहरु भन्छन्- काबु बाहिरको परिस्थिति सृजना नभएमा असारको अन्तिम साता देशले नयाँ संविधान प्राप्त गर्नेछ। त्यही अनुरुप संविधान निर्माणको नियमित प्रक्रिया छोट्याउन सभामुखले गृहकार्य थालिसकेका छन्। ..... भट्टराईले ‘सत प्रतिशत सहमति’ सम्भव नरहेको तर्क गरे। ..... तत्कालीन अवस्थामा सत्तापक्ष र विपक्षी मोर्चाकाबीच अविश्वासको खाडल ठूलो थियो। दोश्रो संविधानसभा चुनावको ‘आश्चर्यजनक’ परिणामले तत्कालीन शक्ति सन्तुलनको अवस्था भत्काइदियो। विपक्षी दल आफ्ना एजेण्डा छोडेर सहमतिमा नआए मतदान प्रक्रियाबाटै संविधान जारी गर्ने धम्कि कांग्रेस-एमालेले दिए। माओवादीले आफूले जन्माएको संविधानसभाबाट आफैं किनारा लाग्नु परेको महशुस गर्यो । यसैकारण प्रक्रियाबाट संविधान जारी गर्ने कोशिस भए आन्दोलन र ध्वंसको बाटोमा जाने निर्णय लियो। यसैले जन्मायो संविधानसभामा माघ ५ गतेको तोडफोड। ..... एमाओवादीले मोर्चा विघटन गरी सम्झौता गरे पार्टी झन् किनारा लाग्ने भट्टराई र पार्टी अध्यक्ष पुष्पकमल दाहालको विचार थियो। तर, एमाओवादी पार्टी भित्र भने अधिकतम लचकता कायम गरी सहमति गर्नु पर्ने दबाब थियो। नेता नारायणकाजी श्रेष्ठले आन्दोलनमा जानु घातक हुने फरक विचार पार्टीका औपचारिक बैठकमा राखेका थिए। माघ ५ गतेअघि उनले कांग्रेसका नेताहरुसँग संघीय प्रदेशको संख्या, नाम र सीमांकनका सवालमा आफ्नो पार्टी लचक भएको बताए। ....... तर, यही कुरा भारतसँग नजिक ठानिएका कांग्रेस नेता कृष्णप्रसाद सिटौला र अमरेशकुमार सिंहले एमाओवादी अध्यक्ष दाहाललाई सुनाइदिए । जनयुद्धपछि पार्टी प्रवेश गरेका र पार्टीमा ‘बाहिरिया’को रुपमा बुझिने श्रेष्ठको चर्को आलोचना भयो। तत्कालीन अवस्थामा भट्टराई निकट एक नेताले पंिक्तकारसँग भनेका थिए – नारायणकाजी अब पार्टीमा टिक्दैनन्। ........ माघ ५ को घटनापिछ संवादहीनको अवस्थामा पुगेको राजनीति ...... दाहाल निकट मानिने महरा र बस्नेत भने भट्टराई सहमतिभन्दा आन्दोलनतर्फ उन्मुख भएको भनी उनको विरोधमा नै उत्रिए। ...... राजनीतिक खेलमा फ्याकिँने कार्ड सकिँदै गएपछि पार्टी संविधान निर्माणमा लचक हुनु पर्ने आवाज बलियो हुँदै गएको थियो। ...... विपत्तिका कारण हाम्रो देशको अवस्थालाई पनि नांगो रूपमा देखियो। नेपालको भू-राजनीतिक अवस्था पनि प्रष्ट भयो। यसले राष्ट्रिय सरकारको खाँचो देखायो। ...... तेश्रो, भूकम्पले नेताका व्यक्तिगत राजनीतिक आकांक्षा पुरा गर्ने अवसर प्रदान गर्यो। चुनावी पराजयसँगै राजनीतिक बजारमा मूल्य घटेका भट्टराईलाई भूकम्पपश्चात् हुने पुनर्निर्माणका माध्यमबाट राजनीतिमा मूल्य बढाउन चाहे। सरकारमा जानु नै पर्ने भयो। यसका निम्ति प्रधानमन्त्रीका दावेदार एमाले नेता केपी ओली र उनका गुटका नेता बिष्णु पौडेलसँग भट्टराईको हिमचिम बढ्यो। ...... नेपाली कांग्रेसले महाधिवेशनअघि सरकार छोड्न चाँहदैन् भन्ने भट्टराईको बुझाइ थियो। त्यसैले वर्तमान सरकारबाट एमालेले समर्थन फिर्ता लिई नेतृत्व परवर्तनका लागि कांग्रेसलाई दबाबमा राख्ने योजना बन्यो। संविधान निर्माण गरी ओलीको नेतृत्वमा ‘राष्ट्रिय सरकार’ गठन गर्ने दोस्रो योजना बन्यो। प्रधानमन्त्री हुन हतार भएका ओली ...... गठबन्धन फूटाउने माओवादीको खेल ... राष्ट्रवादका मुद्धामा संशकित दाहाल पनि ओली र भट्टराईसँग सहज महशुस गर्दैनथे। कोइराला कम्तिमापनि भारतसँग कुनै सम्झौता नगरेको र राष्ट्रवादी नेता भएको प्रचण्डको बुझाई छ ..... भूकम्पले एमाओवादीलाई पनि 'फेस-सेभिङ' को मौका दिएको छ। ...... पहिचानको मुद्धाले आफूलाई सिध्याउन लागेको र पार्टी बाहिरका मान्छे ती मुद्धाका कारण नेता बनेको भन्दै पार्टीमा आलोचना हुँदै आएको थियो। हुन पनि पहिचानको मुद्धाले अन्य पार्टीलाई जन्म दियो, माओवादीको आकार मुख्यतः यहि कारणले घट्यो। भूकम्पले 'विपत राष्ट्रवाद'ले जन्मायो। जसले माओवादीलाई पहिचानसहितको संघीयताको मुद्धामा लचक भई सहमतिमा आउन सहयोग गर्यो।

संघीयताविरुद्ध 'नोट अफ डिसेन्ट' -प्रज्ज्वल चापागाईं

अघिल्लो संविधान सभामा भएका ६०१ जना सभासद मध्ये मैले चिनेका, सुनेका र थाहा पाएका झण्डै १४५ सभासदको काठमाडौँमा घर थियो। त्यस बाहेक लगभग थप ३६० सभासदले काठमाडौँ खाल्डोमा घर घडेरी जोडेको हुनुपर्छ। तर यो कुरालाई प्रमाणित गर्न पाइनँ। ...... संघीयता नेपाली जनताको माग हो जस्तो मलाई कहिल्यै लागेन। यो केटाकेटी आए गुलेली खेलाए मट्याग्रांको सत्यनास भने झैं अहिलेसम्म आफूलाई पढे लेखेका र सचेत ठान्ने केही नेपाली कान नछामी कागको पछि कुदेका छन्। ...... विश्वमा २०४ मुलुकहरु मध्ये अहिलेसम्म २८ वटा देशमा मात्र संघीयता छ। संघीय प्रणालीमा गएका यी मुलुकहरु मध्ये १२ वटा मुलुकले मात्र सफलता हासिल गरेका छन्। बाँकी १६ वटा मुलुक आन्तरिक द्वन्द्व, घरेलु युद्ध र जटिल समस्यामा दिन प्रतिदिन फसिरहेका छन्। ..... संघीयतामा जाने निर्णयले हाम्रो देश र नेपालीले भविष्यमा ब्यहोर्न पर्ने सम्भावित बेथिति, द्वन्द्व, विखण्डन र दुःखको कल्पना गर्दा कहाली लाग्छ।...... म अतिवादी कित्तामा उभिएर होइन, नेपालको मिश्रित समाज, साधन स्रोत, जनसंख्या, आकार, नेपाली चेतना स्तर र तीनतिर खुला सीमालाई विश्लेषण गर्दा संघीयता हामी नेपालीको लागि बाँदरको हातमा नरिवल हुने निश्चित छ। ...... नेपालमा विकेन्द्रीकरणलाई जोड दिँदै ल्याइएको स्थानीय निकाय स्वायत्त शासन ऐन-२०५६ ले केन्द्रीय अधिकारलाई जिल्ला र गाविसमा प्रत्यायोजन गर्ने प्रावधान राखेको छ। त्यसलाई साँचिक्कै कार्यान्वयन गर्ने हो भने अहिले उठेका धेरै बुँदाहरु समाधान हुन्छन्। ..... अघिल्लो संविधान सभाको संविधान नै तयार नगरी निधन भएपछि काठमाडौँमा त्यतिबेला गजबको माहोल तयार भएको थियो। संविधानका बिभिन्न पक्षमा बहस र पैरवी गर्न र पहिचानको मुद्दामा लगानी गर्ने युएसएआइडी, डिएफआइडी, युएनडिपी, ह्यगो, नोराड, एसएनभी, डेनिस चर्च, कारितास, आइडिया लगायतका संस्था र कैयौं कुटनीतिक नियोगका अधिकारीहरुको ओठमुख सुकेको थियो। त्यत्रो खर्बौं लगानी गर्दा पनि स्थिर र मिश्रित नेपाली समाजको चुरो नहल्लिएपछि ती सबै अधिकारीहरु जिल्ल परेका थिए। ....... नेपालमा संघीयता चाहिँदैन। यो नेपाली माग होइन। नेपालमा कथं संघीयता आइहाले पनि टिक्दैन। कथं टिके पनि चल्दैन। झन धेरै विग्रह र नश्लवादी सोचका कारण नेपाल गृहयुद्धमा पनि फस्न सक्छ। रौतहटका राजनीतिकर्मी राजदेव यादवले २०६६ साल साउनमा भनेको सम्झन्छु,'मधेसमे प्रहरी प्रशासन आ नेता मधेसीया होई त। विकास कथी ढेला होई? यी त सब मिल बाँटके खा ली।' ..... हुन पनि पछिल्ला वर्षहरुमा रौतहटका कैयौं गाउँ र ईलाकामा सकेसम्म मधेसी प्रहरी वा कर्मचारी नपठाउन आएका अनुरोधहरु पनि मननीय छन्। ..... सार्वजनिक मञ्च संविधान सभाको दुई तिहाई बहुमतले नयाँ संविधान ल्याए बिद्रोह हुन्छ र पचासौं वर्ष जनयूद्ध गर्छौं भनेर कुर्लने। अचम्म लाग्छ यस्तो नटवरलाल प्रवृति देख्दा। ...... प्रष्टै छ संघीयताका योजनाकारहरु नेपाललाई बिखण्डन गर्न चाहान्छन। राजनीतिमा रात रहे अग्राख पलाउँछ। संविधान सभाले नयाँ संविधान अघि यो एउटा नेपालीको नोट अफ डिसेन्ट हो। बेलैमा संविधान सभालाई चेतना भया।

सोनामले अध्यक्ष घलेको बदनाम गरेपछि एनआरएन अमेरिकामा हङगामा
What I saw in Nepal

My first few days in Kathmandu sequestered in a friend's apartment while another friend organized walks for me to see the relief efforts, I realized that part of my job was not to ask questions or to find out how we could help more from the US. My work was simply to be. To be a witness.To listen to stories.To tell my own. To remind each person in front of me of their strength in times past, and the tenderness of their own hearts even now. To say nothing most of the time.To watch.To wait. ....... I saw real trauma in my beloveds and real upsets, the kind that made me want to bring everyone home with me for naps and soup and stories and bed. But underneath that, I saw fierce determination. The kind you can only have when you are young and you do not know how hard things can get or how complicated. When I alluded to this, my friends said, "Tomorrow we will take you to Bibeksheel." ....... People all over the world know best how to put their house in order when it falls down. This is a shock to the Western psyche, but everywhere I have been I have found it to be true. People may be weakened, impoverished, discouraged, gutted even, but at the end of the day, everyone knows exactly what to do.......... It took me many years to understand this, after many experiences of never being needed for the thing I thought I was most needed for, and for being needed for something else that seemed hard or problematic to me or so simplistic it seemed my presence was a moot point overall. I learned this after insisting on a particular way (mine) over another (theirs). I learned this after being humored and subverted and defied and defeated, all my good intentions laid bare, revealing all that I ever really had to give, a curious heart, finally all the way open, and hands ripped clean of any and all agenda, except the desire to listen. Really listen. ....... I saw instead something completely separate from me, having nothing to do with me, created without any western input, for the sake of a nation and a future that most in my circle would never witness, never see and never fully understand. ........ I was, by virtue of friendship and friendship alone, the lucky recipient of a front row seat at the evolution of a nation, making in this particular moment a fantastic leap, the way that scientists can document after millennia of perceptible micromovement. At Bibeksheel I saw the future leaders of Nepal moving with elegance and precision that marks only the most organized and devoted youth movements. I saw collaboration without ego, courage without hesitation and the nuts and bolts of a grassroots relief effort led by true peer leadership. Remote villages were served within days of the first quake, the local hospitals were fortified with volunteers within hours of the second. No one needed anything except the cooperation of the whole, and they had it. I stood back, in awe, amazed. I took a few pictures, but mostly my heart took notes. ........ For all my goodwill, I understood Nepal is not my country. For all my compassion, this Earthquake is not my Earthquake. For all my alliances, there are others here thriving, with the push and pull of real machinery, the kind that makes a country truly work, all my western opinions and strategies for inserting myself aside.

विवेकशील पार्टी को बाटो जपानको हो

राष्ट्रिय विपदीको बेला अहिले ५-६ महिना, १-२ वर्ष घुष सुष नखाम, भ्रष्टाचार नगरम, माफिया बाट अलग बसम भनेर देशको political class ले नभनेको अवस्थामा विवेकशील पार्टी ले यो political class लाई पुर्ण रुपले मटियामेट गर्ने र अहिल्यै गरिहाल्ने किसिमको आक्रामक भाषा बोल्नुपर्ने हुन्छ। हेटी र जापान बीच कुन बाटो रोज्ने? नेपाली जनतालाई स्पष्ट option दिने। केपी-बामे-सुशील-रामचन्द्र-रामशरण को बाटो हेटी को हो। विवेकशील पार्टी को बाटो जपानको हो।

Related articles

• Exemplary Relief And Reconstruction Through Digital Sharing

पहाड़ी मीडिया को जातीय रूप

सीके राउत को कुन विचार सँग तपाइँ सहमत हुनु हुन्न?
भौतिक कारवाही को चेतावनी गैर कानुनी काम गरेको प्रमाण हो
सीके राउत दक्ष जनशक्ति अंतर्गत पर्दैन?
अदालतको महा मानहानी
Hulaki Rajmarga
Media Coverage
खसवादी पार्टी (काँग्रेस/एमाले) ढालने महाभुकम्प?
बाढ़ी, आगलागी, पहिरो, कोशी र महाभुकम्प

नेपाली मीडियालाई राउतको चुनौती

काठमाडौं, १५ जेष्ठ । मधेशको मुद्दालाई गौण पारी जनताको दिमाग अन्यत्र भट्काउन कथित नेपाली राष्ट्रिय मीडिया र बुद्धिजीवीहरू पटक–पटक आफ्नो चरित्रहत्या गर्ने खोजेको तथा अर्थहीन सस्ता विवादहरूमा मुछेको आरोप डा. सीके राउतले लगाएका छन् । डा. राउतको विषयमा गलत हल्ला फैलिरहोस्, मान्छेहरू उनीविरूद्ध भड्किरहून् र जनतालाई साँचो कुरा थाहा नहोस् भन्ने नियत नेपाल सरकारको देखिएको डा. राउतले दाबी गरेका छन् । उनले समस्त जनतालाई साँचो कुरा बताई विवाद अन्त गर्नका लागि अन्तर्वार्ता दिन ईटहरीस्थित एरिना टेलिभिजन जाँदा स्टूडियोबाटै पक्राउ पर्नु र केही बोल्न नदिनुले यस कुराको पुष्टि गरेको बताएका छन् । हल्ला फैलाउने राष्ट्रिय मीडियाहरूले प्रतिवादका लागि किन समय दिन सक्दैनन् भने गलत हल्ला फैलिरहोस्, मेरो चरित्रहत्या भइराखोस्, मान्छेहरू टाढिओस् भन्ने नियत मीडियाहरूको भएको उनले बताएका छन् । उनले मधेशवाणीलाई भने, ‘अहिले भूकम्पको नाममा मधेशको जंगल मास्ने र पहाडीहरूलाई मधेशमा भारी संख्यामा बसाउने ठूलो षडयन्त्र हुँदैछ, त्यसका बारेमा अरू संसदवादी नेताहरूले त बोलेनन् तर हामीले कडा प्रतिवाद गर्यौं । मधेशी जनताले विस्तारै आसन्न पहाडी आप्रवासनको समस्याबाट अवगत हुन थाले, सचेत हुन थाले, त्यसबारेमा कुरा गर्न थाले । यस्तो बेलामा मधेशी जनताको ध्यान अन्यत्रै मोड्नु आवश्यक थियो । त्यहीं भएर नेपालीहरूले यो षड्यन्त्र रचे, हुँदै न भएको विवाद ल्याएर सबैको ध्यान मधेशको आसन्न मुख्य समस्याबाट मोड्ने, मेरो चरित्रहत्या गरेर म विरूद्ध जनता भड्काउने काम गरे । अहिले नै हेर्नुस् केही दिन अगाडिसम्म मधेशीहरू पहाडीहरूको आप्रवासनले निम्त्याउन सक्ने समस्याको बारेमा सोच्दै थिए, तर यो नचाहिँदो विवाद ल्याइदिएर सबैजना यस्ता सस्ता कुरामा अल्झिन पुगेका छन् कि डा. सी. के. राउतले यस्तो भने, उस्तो भने भनेर । अनि थाहै नदिई, भित्र–भित्रै नेपाल सरकार पहाडीहरूलाई मधेशमा बसाइरहेका छन्, मधेशको वन फँडानी गरेर काठ लगिराखेका छन् । जनताको ध्यान त अन्यत्रै पारि दिएको छ । सरकारको यो रणनीतिलाई खासमा मोडस अपरेन्डी (mयमगक यउभचबलमष्) भनिन्छ । जसरी जादूगरले हात एकातिर चलाएर मान्छेको ध्यान एकत्रित पारेको हुन्छ, तर काम भने अर्कै तिर चालै नपाउने गरी गरिसकेको हुन्छ, त्यसरी नै नेपाली शासकले अहिले पनि गर्न खोजेका छन् । हल्ला–खल्ला गरेर विवाद सिर्जना गरी जनताको ध्यान अकोतिर सस्तो कुरामा मोडिदिने र भित्र–भित्रै आफ्नो षड्यन्त्रलाई सफल बनाउने, पहाडी आप्रवासनलाई तीव्र बनाउने काम भइरहेको छ । न भए हामीले अरू महत्वपूर्ण कुराहरू गर्छौं, कार्यक्रमहरू गर्छौं, सभा समम्मेलन गर्छौं, २९ गते मात्रै मधेशभरि भूकम्पपीडितका लागि आमउपवास ग¥यौं, तर कतै कुनै राष्ट्रिय मीडियाले एक लाइन लेखेनन् । यही १२ गते नै ईटहरीमा त्यत्रो ठूलो घटना भयो, हजारौं पहाडी जम्मा भएर दंगा फैलाउने काम गरे, ५ जना साथीलगायत मलाई गिरफ्तार गरियो तर कान्तिपुरले एक लाईनसम्म लेख्ने जमर्को गरेन, तर अनावश्यक हल्ला फैलाउने काममा जहिले पनि मीडिया र सरकार लाग्छन् । अब जनता नै सचेत भएर अगाडी बढ्नुपर्छ । यस्ता भ्रममा नपरेर मधेशको मुख्य जल्दाबल्दा मुद्दालाई हेर्नु पर्छ, र अहिले तत्काल त्यो हो । लाखौं पहाडीको आप्रवासनले निम्त्याउने समस्याहरू, वन फँडानी, मधेशमा बजेटको कमी, प्रहरी दमन आदि ।’

यो भन्दा अगाडि गतवर्ष भदौ २८ गते डा. राउतलाई पक्रेर राज्यविप्लवको मुद्दा लगाएपछि पनि नेपाली मिडिया र कथित बुद्धिजीवीहरूले राज्य विप्लवको मुद्दा, स्वतन्त्र मधेशको आवश्यकता आदि माथि प्रश्न उठाउनु र बहस गर्नु भन्दा पनि अनावश्यक सस्ता कुरामा बहस सीमित पारी जनतालाई मधेशको वास्तविक मुद्दा बुझ्नु भन्दा टाढा राखेको उनको आरोप छ ।

डा. राउतले कथित नेपाली राष्ट्रिय मीडियाहरूलाई राष्ट्रिय प्रसारणमा आएर बहस गर्न चुनौती दिदैं भनेका छन्, “हिम्मत भए उनीहरूले राष्ट्रिय प्रसारणमा आएर बहस गर्नुप¥यो कि मैले कहाँ गलत भनेको छु, मेरो मुद्दा कहाँ गलत छ । त्यसलाई टीभीमा मात्र हैन, टुँडिखेल र सार्वजनिक स्थलहरूमा स्क्रीन राखेर पनि देखाउनुप¥यो, सबैले प्रत्यक्ष हेरून् कि म कहाँ गलत छु । यसरी एकोहोरो भएर जे पायो त्यही लेख्ने, जे पायो त्यही प्रचार गर्ने, अनि अन्तर्वार्ता दिन जाँदा पनि सत्य उजागर हुन्छ भनेर डराएर प्रहरीद्वारा समाउन लगाउने, भन्ने कुराले नै प्रष्ट गर्छ कि मधेशको मुद्दामा कति दम छ । राज्यलाई नांगिने डर छ’ उनले थपे ।

Related articles

• Exemplary Relief And Reconstruction Through Digital Sharing

म भारतीय होइन भने के हो? चाइनीज हो?

नागरिकता र जातीयता अलग अलग कुरा हुन। खस जातीयता हो, राष्ट्रियता होइन। खस जातीयतालाई नै राष्ट्रियता भन्दिने प्रचलन उपनिवेशीता हो। त्यस सोंचको डेट एक्सपायर भैसक्यो। नेपाली भाषा खस हरुको जातीय भाषा हो। दौरा सुरुवाल खस हरुको जातीय पोषाक हो। मैले जिन्दगीमा एक पटक लगाएको छैन। कहिले लगाउँदैन पनि।

सिक्किम, दार्जिलिंग, भुटान, आसाम, बर्मा का खस लाई नेपालको खस ले "नेपाली" भनिराखेको हुन्छ।  त्यो नागरिकता भनेको होइन त। त्यो त जातीयता भनेको हो। नागरिकता र जातीयता फरक फरक कुरा हुन।

फिजी मा छ। नागरिकता फिजी को, जातीयता भारतीय भएका मानिस त्यहाँ आधा जति छन। नेपालका मधेसी भनेका त्यस्तै हुन। मधेस मधेसीको भन्ने प्रमाण रामायण मा छ। त्यो भन्दा पुरानो प्रमाण के चाहियो? नेपालका एक करोड़ मान्छे भारतमा गएर बस्दिने अनि दुई चार लाख बिहार उत्तर प्रदेश का मानिस नेपाल आएर सान्तिनो काम गर्छन भने त्यसका लागि नेपालका मधेसीले क्षमायाचना को mindset नराख्ने हो। बिहार र उत्तर प्रदेश भारतमा गरीब राज्य होलान तर दुबै नेपालभन्दा आर्थिक रुपले धेरै अगाडि छन। तर ओपन बोर्डर को करामत, तैपनि दुई चार लाख मानिस काम खोज्दै आइ पुग्छन्। समस्या के पर्यो?

अमेरिका मा छ। अमेरिका मा जन्मेको हुन्छ, कहिले भारत गएको पनि हुँदैन, आफुलाई भारतीय भनिराखेको हुन्छ। भारतीय नभएको संसारमा कुनै देश नै छैन।

म भारतीय होइन भने के हो? चाइनीज हो?

Related articles

• Exemplary Relief And Reconstruction Through Digital Sharing

भिट्ठामोड

भारतबाट रोडको बाटो जनकपुर आउँदा भारतको अन्तिम शहर भिट्ठामोड हो। त्यहाँको बोर्डर क्रस गर्ने ठाउँमा एक दिन एउटा मान्छे साईकलमा आएको देखियो। त्यो साइकलको पछाडिको सीटमा परालको ठुलो चांग थियो। जाबो पराल भनेर चेक गरिएन। भोलि पल्ट त्यही दृश्य देखियो। पराल त हो भनेर चेक गरिएन। तर त्यही दृश्य लगातार ८-१० दिन देखेपछि प्रहरीलाई शंका लाग्यो। अर्को दिन जब त्यो मान्छे त्यसै गरी साइकलमा आयो, पछाडिको सीटमा पराल थियो, प्रहरीले चेक गर्यो। परालभित्र केही छ कि भन्ने शंका। पराल खोतल खातल गरे, केही पनि भेटिएन। भोलि पल्ट फेरि त्यही दृश्य, फेरि चेक गरियो, केही छैन त। केही हप्तापछि त्यो मान्छे आउन छोड़्यो। त्यहाँ खटेका जति सबै प्रहरीलाई बड़ो अनौठो लाग्यो। बड़ो रहस्यमय।

एक दिन हम जाएगा त्यही बाटो हुँदै नेपाल पस्ने क्रममा रहेछ। सबैले मिलेर उसलाई सोधे। हम जाएगाले भन्यो, "तपाईंहरुले कस्तो नबुझेको? उसलाई २०-३० वटा साइकल टैक्स नतिरि छिराउनु थियो, छिरायो।"

अहिलेको संविधान निर्माण भिट्ठामोड जस्तो छ। संघीयताको बहस वास्तवमा पराल हो। हुनुपर्ने सबैभन्दा महत्वपुर्ण power devolution भनेको काठमाण्डुबाट संघीय राज्यहरुलाई होइन। हुनुपर्ने सबैभन्दा महत्वपुर्ण power devolution भनेको राजनीतिक पार्टी र तिनका नेताबाट आम जनतालाई हो। त्यसबारे सबै पार्टी मौन देखिन्छन्।

Samanupatik Nautanki

English: Nitish Kumar (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

(written for Vishwa Sandesh)

I have been astounded by the process through which the political parties in Nepal have allotted the seats that fell in their laps through the proportional representation formula.

My impression is the way it is supposed to work is a political party submits a list of candidates, and if it wins 10 seats for proportional representation, the first 10 names on the list get selected automatically. There is no room to play around with the list after the votes have been counted.

In Nepal’s case, since there is a major emphasis on inclusion, there should have been provisions like every third name on the list should be that of a female, every tenth name should be that of a dalit, every sixth name should be Madhesi, every fifth name should be that of a Janajati. For the regional parties like the Madhesi parties are, there would be emphasis also on the Muslims.

Instead the party presidents ended up having near total sway leading to major intra-party dissatisfactions.

There has been much talk of an inclusive democracy over the past few years. I believe 49% of all new entrants into the civil service will be coming through some sort of an inclusive formula. That is a decent arrangement whose pace might be quickened through a dramatic downsizing of the bureaucracy.

When you eliminate certain federal ministries and reduce the size of others, that creates room for the bureaucratic apparatus that needs to be set up at the state level. If the drama that has played out over the past few weeks ends up doing a repeat when the state level ministries are set up, it will not be fruitful. Meritocracy has to be the buzzword. Let the best candidates fill up the slots. That is what would be in the best interests of the people.

Federalism should not mean the regional political lords stuff up the to be built regional bureaucracies with their political cronies. That would be a disaster in the making.

A bright future for Nepal entails that the political parties play a smaller role in national life, and the party presidents have a smaller power base inside their political parties. The onus has to be on empowering the individual, the emphasis has to be on the private sector and the associated wealth creation and job creation.

The way the political party bosses were allowed to allocate their party’s PR seats is a bad sign. This is a sign the party bosses might again be more interested in forming and pulling down governments than in constitution writing.

I wonder how the proportional representation thing will play out in the constitution that will get written. First of all one hopes Nepal sure does not end up with 600 MPs. That is more than what India and America have. For a small country that Nepal is 200 MPs would be more than enough. Add to that another 100 for the upper house and maybe that is what the politicos have in mind. Perhaps those 100 would be by the PR formula. But the lists will have to be finalized before the votes are cast, otherwise you end up with a sham PR system.

A political party builds and submits its list, to the Election Commission and to the public. The list has to meet the inclusion requirements for the DaMaJaMa. If a party might win 20 PR seats, the first 20 names on the list get selected automatically.

Party bosses allocating PR seats after the fact is not too different from when the king used to appoint the anchaladhish, the zonal commissioners.

Proportional representation is a good thought. It is a great way to make every vote count. And the inclusion formula is a great one. Nepal has seen too much social disparity over the centuries.

That same way of thinking has to percolate all the way to the local levels. Nitish in Bihar has done a good job of including women at the panchayat level. He has engaged in some good social engineering. I think Nepal should learn.

Despite the uninspiring drama of the past few weeks, I hope the elected leaders in Nepal deliver a new constitution before 2014 is out.

The political process is by definition a messy process. No party boss in Nepal is a Nitish Kumar, and that is the sad reality. But peace and constitution is not too much to ask for at this point.

A system is only as good as the people who run it. But there is also something called a political culture shift. And Nitish south of the border is proof one person can make a huge difference. For the longest time Bihar stayed the epitome of hopelessness. But it is now on its feet and running.

Once Nepal has a constitution and regular federal, state and local elections perhaps the process will throw up some worthy leaders who will work to give the country double digit growth rates. One hopes.

Related articles

• Nepal still making up its mind
• The Madhes and the Future of Nepal
• Nepal: The Crisis over Proportional Representation and the RPP Divide
• Two more parties choose names for PR seats
• Nepal: Surge Of Optimism - Analysis
• Proportional Representation is Not a Panacea

Finally A Janajati Party

Image via Wikipedia

Republica: Lekhi launching new party Sunday: Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (Nefin) President Raj Kumar Lekhi is all set to announce a new political party called Nepali Citizens Party (NCP) .... a seven-member central committee with representatives from indigenous groups, Muslim comunity, Dalits, women and other backward classes of society. ..... the new party will form its organization in about 35 district in the first phase. ...... Bijay Danuwar, Nagendra Rajbanshi, Chandra Kumar Chaudhari, Tajmohammed Miya, Chandrakala Gurung, and Raj Kumar Regmi. ...... Danuwar is an ex-secretary of Nefin while Miya is the chairman of Nepal Muslim Federation. Similarly, Rajbanshi is Nefin vice chairman and Chaudhari is the chairman of the Tharu Welfare Council. Likewise Gurung is ex-chairman of the National Indigenous Women´s Federation and Regmi is the chairman of Society of Parliamentary Affairs Journalists. ..... Nefin, an umbrella organization of indigenous nationalities, had elected Lekhi as president last year.

This was long overdue. There was a need for a national political party that was lead primarily by the Janajatis. The Janajati organization NEFIN had been banging its head against the wall as a pressure group. That was a dead end. Now some meaningful progress can be made, one hopes.

I am happy for this development.

I hope the party works hard to get Dalits and Muslims into its fold. Those are two clear underrepresented groups.

Related articles

• Political turmoil looms over Nepal's peaks (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Constituent Assembly: The Day the Deadline Expires (com.np)
• Nepal's women have a voice in politics but no one is listening (guardian.co.uk)
• Nepal Maoists storm Indian hydropower office (redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com)

A Roadmap For The Maoists

Image via Wikipedia

The politicians in Nepal suffer from an inferiority complex across the board that makes them believe a political thought has to be thought somewhere else first before it can be tried in Nepal. Nepal is too backward a country to be the originator of new political thoughts and new political experiments. Marx has to first think it in Europe, Mao has to first apply it in China, some Socialist has to first talk about it in India. The Maoists are as guilty as anyone else.

Back in 2005 I appealed to the Maoists to act less dogmatic, and more thinking. They responded well. But this year they have been in an ideological rut.

Prachanda, Order Your Cadres To Live
After Ganapathy, A Ceasefire
For The First Time In A Decade, Permanent Peace Feels Possible
Militarists Attempting A Doramba Repeat To End Ceasefire
Prachanda, Extend The Ceasefire By Three Months

Prachanda, through his intransigence, and lack of creativity and imagination, has been able to bring about a political coalition in Nepal that is not in the best interests of his party, short term or long. What would be a roadmap the Maoists might want to follow?

Needed: An Ideological Leap

The Maoists went for a unilateral ceasefire in 2005, and that paved way for all the good things that happened afterwards. But their transition from Power Flows Through The Barrel Of A Gun to Power Flows Through The Ballot Box is not complete. They might no longer kill and torture, but they still beat people up. They need to get over that hangover. And they can't as long as they keep talking of an eventual revolution. When they talk of an eventual revolution, their talk of leading a government as a minority party sounds like a ploy to somehow garner a majority on their own, which would be a stepping stone to doing away with multi-party democracy altogether. That flawed line of thinking comes from the Maoists not willing to engage in a fusion of the two major ideologies of the past century. The result of such a fusion would be a multi-party democracy of state-funded parties. That state can be created through the current constituent assembly. And once such a state is created, there is no more revolution, there are only elections.

The Maoists have to come out saying their end goal is to turn Nepal into a multi-party democracy of state funded parties. After such a creation there would be no more revolution, only elections. This they can do unilaterally. The ideological leap they can make on their own.

The step before that big step would be to pass a law that would require all political parties to make and keep their book keeping public. The people have a right to know. The Maoists themselves might be opposed to such a move because then they have to tell everyone how much money they have. Over the years the Maoists have exhibited mafia tendencies to extort money to sustain a certain living standard for their leaders. That thought has also made it possible for the regressionists to bring a lot of money into play into their political operations. The Maoists thought they moved from Power Flows Through The Barrel Of A Gun to Power Flows Through Sacks Of Money. That might have made short term material sense, but it makes no sense for a party that started out dreaming of a classless society.

Give One More Year To This Constituent Assembly

The Maoists should agree to give one more year to this constituent assembly. And it is because the work on the constitution is not done yet. If they don't cooperate, the assembly will expire, and the president might have to turn the current government into a caretaker government to hold elections to a new constituent assembly. So instead of a government that answers to a parliament where the Maoists are the biggest party, you will have a government that no longer has a parliament to answer to. That is an undesirable outcome at a few different levels.

The Maoists declaring a new constitution from the streets would be a stupid move and Prachanda's third big mistake. (Prachanda's Second Big Mistake?) For one, it would not come into effect. It would be just a document, dead upon arrival.

Try And Form A New Coalition Government

If Prachanda does not make the mistake of not giving one more year to the constituent assembly, and he does not make the mistake of declaring a constitution from the streets, then the MJF will likely come back into the fold of the 10 party coalition led by the Maoists. That coalition had almost 280 votes. All the Maoists would need to do after that is work with the Madhesi parties on their Ek Madhesh Ek Pradesh agenda, and they would have a happy majority government. Maybe they don't need a national unity government. They just need to push the UML and the Congress out of power. These are two parties that were opposed to the very idea of a constituent assembly for the longest time.

But for the Maoists to do business with the Madhesi parties, they will have to make these other moves first. Declare you end goal is a multi-party democracy of state funded parties, that after that there will be no more revolution, only elections. Agree to extend the term of the assembly by a year. Then work to build a coalition that includes the Madhesi parties.

Ek Madhesh, Ek Pradesh

The Maoists were originally an Ek Madhesh, Dui Pradesh party. West of Rapti river was Tharuhat. Rapti to Mechi was Madhes. After the Madhesi revolution, their anti-Madhesi Pahadi Bahun chauvinism got the better of them and they broke that Madhes state on their map into five different states, all of them lead by Pahadi Bahuns inside the party structure. Chitwan was now no longer part of the Madhes. After they cooled down a little, they had their original Madhes state as two states minus Chitwan. The least they could do is go back to their original map of two states in the Terai with Chitwan being part of the Madhes state. And they should be willing to consider Ek Madhesh, Ek Pradesh. Why not? On the other hand, the Madhesi parties should be open to the idea of Ek Madhes Do Pradesh. Why not? Chitwan is part of the Terai and has to be part of the Madhes state.

The Maoists Have Won
The Maoists: Thinking Or Dogmatic?
An Appeal To The Maoists
Prachanda's Second Big Mistake?
The Peace Process Is At Its Most Fragile
Nepal Seeing Major Political Crisis
A 10 Party Government In Baburam Bhattarai's Leadership
Adhikaar: International Women's Day

Related articles by Zemanta

• After Maoist Protests, Nepal Faces a Murky Future (time.com)
• Maoists converge on Nepal capital (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Maoists call off strike in Nepal (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Nepal Maoists' strike continues (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Maoists rally in Kathmandu (cnn.com)
• Maoists threaten strike to force out Nepal PM (cnn.com)
• Nepal steps up security for Maoist protest (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Testing times (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Nepal's Maoist supporters march on Kathmandu (telegraph.co.uk)
• Crisis looms in Nepal as political divide sharpens (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Nepal heading for major political crisis (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Nepal Maoists rally in Kathmandu (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Striking at Nepal's Democracy (online.wsj.com)
• What next for Nepal? | Jagannath Lamichhane (guardian.co.uk)
• After Maoist Protests, Nepal Faces a Murky Future (time.com)

Ian Martin's Talk At The New School

Ian Martin: James Bond Of The UN Peacemaking Ambitions

Ian Martin 

The Peace Process in Nepal: is it failing?


Ian Martin


New School, New York


6 November 2009


I am grateful to Ashok Gurung for asking me to speak here at the New School. As you know, Ashok, it was many weeks ago that you asked me to do this, and to propose a title for my talk. Alas, I didn’t know then just how appropriate this title was going to prove by tonight. In recent days there have been calls for the revision of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, accusations and counter-accusations that it is being broken by Maoist agitation or threats of mobilization of the Army, and calling into question even of the 12-point Understanding, which was the very foundation of the peace process. It is indeed timely to ask whether the peace process is failing; if so, why; and what is required to save it.


For over three and a half years, I spoke in Nepal and on Nepal on behalf of the United Nations – first representing the High Commissioner for Human Rights, up to and during the Jana Andolan, and then representing the Secretary-General. I no longer speak for the UN on Nepal, and tonight I want to make very clear that I am speaking only for myself. Some may question my right to speak critically of events in Nepal, but I do so solely as a friend of Nepal, and as someone who deeply wants to see Nepal go forward in peace, respect for human rights, and socio-economic progress for all its diverse peoples.


In another sense, too, I want to speak tonight in a different voice. In Kathmandu, one tries to follow the details of every twist and turn of the complex politics of Nepal, and whatever is reported in the daily media - and in the positions I held, I was very often expected to comment upon it. It is easy to fail to see the wood for the trees, and hard to maintain a focus on the deeper realities of the situation. Here in New York, one looks through the other end of the telescope. And sitting as I am briefly in the UN’s Department of Political Affairs, which follows and sometimes mediates conflicts around t

Image via Wikipedia

he world, one has more of a comparative perspective. So this evening I want to try to address what I regard as the larger underlying issues of the peace process in Nepal, which I believe is the way to address the question of what needs to be done to get it back on track.


The fundamentals of the peace process were negotiated in the 12-point Understanding, agreed in Delhi in November 2005 between the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) – which from now on I will refer to just as the Maoists – and the Seven-Party Alliance – the alliance of political parties represented in the Parliament elected in 1999 and dissolved in 2002 – whose leading negotiators were from Girija Prasad Koirala’s Nepali Congress. It was an unusual basis for a peace process, because it was not an agreement between the rebels and those in control of the state and its army, but an alliance to end control of the state by what it called “autocratic monarchy”. But as the literature expects peace processes to do, it came out of a stalemate on the battlefield: the recognition of the Maoists that they would never be able to capture the state by force of arms, and the failure of the then Royal Nepalese Army to achieve victory over the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) even when fully unleashed, latterly by King Gyanendra.


The bargain that was then struck between the two sides was crucial, and needs to be remembered today. The Maoists committed themselves to the values and norms of multi-party democracy, human rights and rule of law. The parliamentary parties accepted what had been the Maoists’ agenda of election of a constituent assembly and “progressive restructuring of the state”. The combatants on both sides of the armed conflict – “the armed Maoist force and the royal army” – would be kept under UN or other international supervision in the course of the election. The 12-point Understanding became the basis on which the people of Nepal could unite – under the leadership of civil society, as much as of the political parties – to express their demand for peace and change.


Once the Jana Andolan had compelled the King to step aside, a fuller peace process began to be negotiated. The Seven-Party Alliance was now in the stronger position. The old Parliament wa

Image via Wikipedia

s reinstated as the basis for a Nepali Congress-led government, contrary to the Maoists’ proposal of a national political conference as the basis for an interim government. The new government had command of the Nepalese Army, and the strong backing of the Indian and US governments in insisting on not only cantonment of the Maoist army, as agreed in the 12-point Understanding, but also what came to be called “weapons separation”, before the Maoists could join an interim parliament and government. The Maoists agreed to storage of their weapons under UN surveillance, but not to surrendering ultimate control.


The fuller peace agreement which was then negotiated was enshrined in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, and then in the Interim Constitution. Since then numerous agreements have for the most part repeated commitments to implement them, although they have also led to revisions in the Interim Constitution. Five aspects of the peace agreements have been unchanging and are fundamental, and it is the extent to which they have been respected or not respected which I want to examine this evening.


The first fundamental is the commitment to power-sharing and consensus. From the 12-point Understanding on, the major parliamentary parties and the Maoists committed themselves to work together in an interim legislature and government. The Interim Constitution required the Government to conduct itself “consistently with the aspirations of the united people’s movement, political consensus and culture of mutual cooperation”. This requirement was to prevail not just until the election of the constituent assembly, but until a new constitution had been adopted. Before the election was held, the parties committed themselves, whatever the result, to continue to work together in a new interim government to steer Nepal through the process of drafting the new constitution. The assumption was that it would comprise all major parties in accordance with their respective strength at the ballot box.


The second fundamental is the commitment of the Maoists to the transformation of their movement, to conform to democratic multi-party norms and to respect the rule of law. This was to include allowing those from the other political parties whom they had displaced to return home, recover land and property unjustly seized, and carry on political activities. First made in the 12-point Understanding, this commitment has been regularly reiterated, and once the Young Communist League had been established, has included a promise to end its paramilitary functioning.


The third fundamental is the commitment to transformation in the security sector: to the “integration and rehabilitation” of former Maoist combatants, and to an action plan for “democratization” of the Nepalese Army, determining its appropriate size, developing its national and inclusive character, and training it in the norms and values of democracy and human rights.


The fourth fundamental is the commitment to political, economic and social transformation. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement set out a radical and ambitious agenda, which included land reform and anti-corruption measures, as well as a general goal of economic security for backward communities. The Interim Constitution reflected in its preamble the commitment of the Seven-Party Alliance as well as the Maoists to “progressive restructuring of the state”, in order to resolve the existing problems of the country relating to class, caste, region and gender.


The fifth and last fundamental is the commitment to address the needs of victims of the conflict, and to build the rule of law by ending impunity. Repeated commitments have been made to investigate the fate of the disappeared, compensate victims of the conflict, enable displaced persons to return, establish a comprehensive truth commission, and – less frequently and more reluctantly - take action against those responsible for major human rights violations.


Such commitments are common to peace processes, and one can perhaps say that they are requirements of a successful peace process: transitional power-sharing; democratic transformation; security sector reform; addressing root causes of the conflict; and ending impunity. So what has so far been the history of the fulfillment of each of these commitments in Nepal?


The history of power-sharing has been an unhappy one from the outset. The UML as well as the Maoists were forthright in protesting the lack of collective decision-making within the Nepali Congress-led governments, and the same complaint applied to the Maoist-led government after the election. Common minimum programmes have been negotiated among coalition parties, and then seemingly forgotten. Throughout successive governments, each party has tended to treat the ministries it controlled as its own fiefdom and a source of jobs and rewards for its own supporters, rather than advancing proposals for consensus decision-making in the public interest. This has had particularly adverse consequences for the peace process in that the Ministry of Peace and Reconstruction has been from its creation a partisan ministry, rather than a consensus mechanism of peace implementation. Maoist unhappiness at Nepali Congress control of the Peace Ministry led to a promise in the 23-point Agreement of December 2007 to create a multi-party High Level Peace Commission alongside the Ministry, but it was never created, and the Maoists were no more interested in creating it once they took control of the Peace Ministry than had been the Nepali Congress.


The most serious breakdown in power-sharing and consensus decision-making, of course, came in the aftermath of the Constituent Assembly election. The outcome of the election had been, and continues to be, difficult for many in the non-Maoist parties to accept. The Maoists had to concede the creation of a Presidency before the vote to implement the republic went ahead, but they resisted the claim to the post made by the Nepali Congress as second largest party. The election of outgoing Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala as President while Maoist Chairman Prachanda became Prime Minister would have kept in play the uneasy partnership that had been the main pillar of the peace process, but the Maoists feared that it would lead to the Presidency becoming a strong alternative power centre. Once Mr Koirala was denied the Presidency and the Nepali Congress was refused the Defence Ministry, the voices in the party which preferred to remain in opposition to a Maoist-led government prevailed.


In the manoeuvring over posts, the Maoists also alienated the UML, and by the time the new coalition government was formed, relationships among the parties were irrevocably soured. The Maoists’ main coalition partner, the UML, was also its main protagonist at the local level, where their youth groups clashed, sometimes with fatal consequences. Although two of the three Madhesi parties joined the government and the third initially supported it, the big three parties never brought Madhesi representatives into their main negotiations. The Seven-Party Alliance, once the Maoists had joined it, had provided a forum where at critical moments a degree of consensus around the peace process could be re-established: but after the election no such body was in operation.


Power-sharing and consensus-building have failed at two further levels. The political parties have, to this day, been unable to rise above their partisan interests and agree on a formula to re-establish multi-party local government bodies, despite the fact that these are vital to the development agenda. Plans to establish local peace committees were not a substitute, and have been only belatedly and partly implemented. The Constituent Assembly itself, although unwieldy as a decision-making body, is remarkably representative, and has seen some promising alliances of women and marginalized groups across party lines. It could have been a forum for real debate and consensus-building, instead of which all major parties have used it as a forum for confrontation, with Madeshi parties, the Nepali Congress, the UML and today the Maoists all at different times engaging in blockages and boycotts, instead of democratic debate.


Today some in Nepal argue that there is nothing uncommon in international democratic practice about a government based on a simple majority of the elected body. True enough, but before normal political competition can begin in Nepal, there is a peace process to complete, a constitution to agree upon as the framework for future competition. That is why we urged all parties to work together in government after the election. And from a peace process perspective, it is patently obvious that a peace process based on power-sharing cannot be expected to succeed if not just one major party, but one side to the peace process is not part of the power-sharing – especially if it happens to have emerged from an election as the largest single party. This is not just a matter of one political party feeling aggrieved, but about maintaining a viable peace process, which I believe is why the Secretary-General has expressed his agreement with all those in Nepal who say that a national unity government is desirable now, as it has always been.


The second fundamental aspect of the peace process is the commitment of the Maoists to the transformation of their movement, to conform to democratic multi-party norms and to respect the rule of law. Maoist leaders argue that this commitment is sincere, and ask for recognition that the transformation of a movement based on armed struggle is bound to take time. So it is, of course. But they must expect to be judged by what they do, as well as what they say, in private as well as in public. They created their Young Communist League, not solely as a movement of law-abiding youth activists based in their own communities, but as a paramilitary formation in quasi-barracks under former commanders from the People’s Liberation Army. They used it in the contest for the Constituent Assembly election to deny other parties the space in some localities for free and fair campaigning. During that campaign, their rhetoric played on fears of possible return to armed struggle to encourage voters to see the election of Maoists as the way to secure the peace. Public statements before and since the election have threatened “revolt”. What is known of internal debate has often suggested two lines, with the commitment to peaceful democratic practice uncertain in the long-term. The Shaktikor videotape revealed a highly disturbing private discourse, as do statements or interviews by Maoist leaders which talk of final insurrection to capture state power. It is time for one line, not two: the line expressed in the 12-point Understanding, of unambiguous and lasting commitment to multi-party democracy.


Some people saw the attempted replacement of the Chief of Army Staff as the last step in a creeping capture of the state. I see it in more complex terms, coming as it did after a series of highly political statements and interventions by the Chief which would have led to action in any country with democratic control of its armed forces. But democratic control does not mean partisan control. On the wider charge of state capture, the Maoists need to show a convincing commitment to independent state institutions, especially an independent judiciary. But so do other parties: some aspects of alleged Maoist state capture seem not so very different from the way in which each party in government has sought to have its supporters in the institutions of the state.


The third fundamental aspect of the peace process, the future of the armies which fought the war, is the hardest to assess, because it was not fully negotiated: the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Interim Constitution only set out processes towards solutions, not the expected outcome. But despite suggestions to the contrary, the integration and rehabilitation of Maoist combatants to be determined by the special committee was intended and understood to mean integration of some Maoist combatants into state security forces, including the Nepalese Army. The action plan for democratization of the Nepalese Army was intended and understood to provide for a degree of downsizing and for recruitment which was more inclusive of under-represented groups, as well as to replace control by the Palace with control by the government. And the prohibition on any new recruitment by either army which began in the ceasefire code of conduct meant just that: no new recruitment, not recruitment to fill vacancies in an army swollen by wartime. The agreements did not address the future of the paramilitary Armed Police Force, or of the Maoist militia.


The Maoists were the first to break the ban on new recruitment. As the cantonments were being established in late 2006, they swelled the numbers there by bringing in young people, many of them minors, attracted by promises of salary payments and future recruitment into the security forces. Together with no planning and poor government performance, this contributed to abysmal living conditions in the cantonments. It also gave rise to long arguments over payments, as non-Maoist ministers resented being expected to fund the living costs and pay salaries for numbers of Maoist personnel they knew to be grossly inflated, and to do so by handing over lump sums which they knew would be used for wider party purposes, including sustaining the YCL.


Meanwhile, the Nepalese Army maintained that its formal acceptance of the authority of the interim governments and of the transition to a republic, distasteful as it was to many of its officers, meant that it was now democratized. In fact, accountability to the Palace having come to an end, the Army was more autonomous than ever, with no effective control by an acutely underdeveloped Ministry of Defence. Although the Comprehensive Peace Agreement required the Interim Council of Ministers to prepare and implement the action plan for the Nepalese Army, the Army has argued publicly that any downsizing should only be considered by a government elected under the new constitution, and openly rejected the Government’s stated commitment to recruitment of Madhesis. It went ahead with new recruitment to fill vacancies without prior notification to the Joint Monitoring Coordination Committee, which is responsible for monitoring the Agreement on Monitoring the Management of Arms and Armies, where the prohibition of new recruitment had been reiterated, and where the Nepalese parties had given final authority for reporting on compliance to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General.


From very early on, the United Nations, wanting to prepare the ground for UNMIN’s exit, pressed the parties to commence the processes they themselves had agreed. The special committee was established in mid-2007, headed by the Nepali Congress Peace Minister: it met once, but never met again until it was reconstituted after the election. Neither the Maoist nor the non-Maoist parties made any effort to commence serious discussion on integration and rehabilitation. The Maoists did sometimes demand action on integration, especially when they were reflecting the frustration of those in the cantonments about the uncertainty of their future. But ultimately their leaders preferred to leave it until after the election: the continued existence of their army strengthened their hand while the election was being held and beyond, while settling its future was bound to be a difficult issue inside the party and the PLA. The other parties assumed that their position would be strengthened and that of the Maoists weakened after the election, when the issue of the armies would be easier to solve on their chosen terms.


After the election, it was late October 2008 before the Government announced the re-establishment of the special committee, only for it to give rise to objections from the Nepali Congress regarding lack of consultation, composition and terms of reference. Thus it was January before the new special committee held its first meeting. During the long period in which no serious negotiation or technical analysis of options had been taking place, public statements by political and military voices had demonstrated the clash of divergent opinions. The Maoists dragged their feet on the discharge of those disqualified by UNMIN’s verification, which should have been immediate. The Nepalese Army’s active lobbying against any integration of Maoist combatants into its ranks became a major element of the crisis which led to the downfall of the Maoist-led government, and today any progress is hostage to the overall absence of political cooperation.


Three years after Maoist combatants were cantoned and restrictions were placed on the Nepalese Army, pending what was to be a June 2007 election, both armies are understandably restless. It is remarkable, in terms of any international comparison, that there have been so few serious breaches of agreements, and fortunately for the political leaders, UNMIN is available to be blamed when they do occur, rather than their own failure to address the issues that could lead beyond temporary arrangements. But it is laying up further problems for the future to increase rather than reduce the numbers of personnel for which the state has a responsibility, without any plan for the future of Nepal’s security sector: an army of wartime proportions and a paramilitary raised to fight the Maoist insurgency, whose numbers are being increased, alongside commitments to Maoist former combatants and undertakings to increase recruitment of under-represented groups.


I shall say less about the fourth fundamental aspect of the peace process, the commitment to political, economic and social transformation, but not because I think it less important. Those who talk of the Maoists “joining the mainstream” overlook the fact that while the former insurgents committed themselves to multiparty democracy, and must be held to that commitment, they did not abandon their commitment to fundamental change: indeed, the other political parties undertook to make such a commitment themselves. In so far as this referred to the end of the monarchy, it has been accomplished. In so far as it refers to restructuring the state, it is largely a matter for the new constitution, and requires a restoration of political cooperation if consensus is to be reached in the Constituent Assembly, where even a two-thirds majority requires Maoist support. But three years since the Comprehensive Peace Agreement is long enough to lament the inability of politicians in Kathmandu, or for the most part locally, to cooperate so as to bring some dividends of peace and beginnings of change to the poor and marginalized majority of Nepal’s people. No effort has been made to forge a common vision for the “New Nepal” that is so often spoken about.


The fifth fundamental aspect of the peace process, the commitment to address the needs of victims of the conflict, and to build the rule of law by ending impunity, sadly can also be quickly addressed. Each side of the former conflict is concerned for its own victims, but little concerned for those it made victims, or for those who were simply caught in the middle of a ruthless war. Processes for compensation have been inadequate, and a process for addressing post-conflict issues of land and property has been non-existent. Three and a half years after the first commitment, in the Ceasefire Code of Conduct, to investigate the fate of the disappeared, a commission of investigation has yet to be established. Not a single person has been properly brought to justice for a major human rights violation committed during the armed conflict or since. The Nepalese Army protects from the courts those involved in the killing of Maina Sunawar, the Maoists protect from the courts those involved in the killing of Ram Hari Shrestha, and the Nepali Congress is uninterested in accountability for the killings of YCL cadres by the security detail of one of its election candidates. Major reports by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on mass disappearances and systematic torture by the Nepalese Army in Maharajgunj barracks and in Bardiya district make no impact on Kathmandu opinion.


This summary of the non-implementation of key commitments of the peace process might be different if there had been serious mechanisms to monitor implementation. In the Ceasefire Code of Conduct, the two sides said that they would arrange for monitoring by national and international monitoring teams: the short-lived Ceasefire Code of Conduct Monitoring Committee, which included individuals of some independence, ended with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, and undertakings to replace it came to nothing. The agreement of 8 November 2006 which preceded the CPA required a High-Level Joint Monitoring Committee to be formed to monitor implementation, and the CPA itself provided for a National Peace and Rehabilitation Commission. The August 2007 agreement with the Madhesi People’s Rights Forum required a United Monitoring Mechanism to periodically review implementation. The 23-point Agreement of December 2007 required formation – within a month – of both a High Level Committee for Monitoring the Effective Implementation of the CPA and other Agreements, and a High Level Peace Commission. The post-election agreement of June 2008 required the formation of several commissions including a National Peace and Rehabilitation Commission – again within a month! The Common Minimum Programme of the Maoist-led government repeated this commitment, and said that the National Peace and Rehabilitation Commission would monitor the compliance and implementation of past agreements and understandings. This was again reiterated in the Common Minimum Programme of the present government, which also made a fresh commitment to a committee to monitor the implementation of agreements with the Madhesis. Yet despite these repeated commitments, there has been to this day no effective mechanism for monitoring implementation of the peace process, except for the Agreement on Monitoring the Management of Arms and Armies, under which UNMIN regularly convenes the Joint Monitoring Coordination Committee, which has now held over one hundred meetings.


Independent monitoring is an area where Nepal’s civil society might have played an important role. But despite the leading role which civil society, marginalized groups and women played in the Jana Andolan, peace process negotiations have been limited to a small group of political leaders, mostly from higher castes, and all of them men. Even if uninvited by the political parties, civil society actors might have mounted independent scrutiny of their fulfillment of their commitments; instead, much of civil society has reverted to partisan perspectives. The agreements with Madhesi and Janajati groups must be now regarded as part of the peace process, and sincerity in their implementation is also crucial for building consensus around a new constitution.


If this is the state of Nepal’s peace process, is it bound to fail? You may by now be surprised to hear me say that I believe that while it is in danger of failing, it is not yet bound to fail. My suggestions for the way forward correspond to my analysis of its fundamentals.


First, the commitment to power-sharing and consensus-building must be re-established. It should be reflected in a national unity government, including both sides to the original peace process and all major political forces, in accordance with commitments before the election and with the election outcome. Effective mechanisms should at last be established to implement and monitor implementation of peace process commitments and commitments to inclusion, and should include strong representation of women and marginalized groups, and independent civil society voices. Power-sharing and consensus-building should similarly be applied in local government. At the national level, priority should be given to building consensus around a new constitution. The Constituent Assembly should be a place of vigorous debate, and should never be impeded in its functioning either as interim legislature or as constitution-making body, or restricted in its right to discuss major national issues. The parties should cooperate together, and with civil society, in a mechanism to ensure continuous implementation of peace process commitments and resolve the most difficult issues for the new constitution.


Second, the Maoist leadership must be consistent, in public and private, in words and deeds, in its immediate and long-term commitment to democratic multi-party norms. The YCL – and other youth movements – must be instructed in these norms and in full respect for the rule of law. The sincerity of the leadership is to be judged by the action it takes when its cadres act outside these norms, and by what it says to its comrades as well as to the international community.


Third, hard discussions should take place towards an overall plan for the security sector. “Civilian supremacy” has become a Maoist slogan, but democratic control of the armed forces is a universal principle and the common interest of all political parties. Within such a plan, the size of the Nepalese Army and the role of the Armed Police Force should be decided, inclusive recruitment policies designed, and integration of former Maoist combatants into politically-neutral security forces carried out, along with rehabilitation of those who do not want or qualify for integration.


Fourth, a common minimum programme for socio-economic advancement of the poor and excluded should be agreed upon - and implemented. While restructuring the state is to be agreed upon in the new constitution, and political parties will compete in future on the basis of their respective programmes, they have agreed to embark together on real change.


Fifth, there should be equitable compensation for all categories of victims of the conflict, real efforts to investigate disappearances, and justice for the worst abuses by either side. All political parties should support impartial law enforcement, instead of protecting their own loyalists from the law.


Can this happen? At this moment I do not know, and it may seem unlikely. But I believe that this is along the lines of what the overwhelming majority of Nepal’s long-suffering people would want to see happen, and I believe that it is the interests of those concerned for stability in Nepal, including India. When I went back to the 12-point Understanding, I was struck by one of its least-often quoted commitments: that both the Maoists and the parliamentary parties would engage in “soul-searching” and not repeat their mistakes of the past. I hope that this commitment can be implemented in time to maintain the peace and pursue the change which both sides promised the people of Nepal.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Protesters Clash With Police in Nepal (nytimes.com)
• Former communist rebels shut down offices in Nepal (ctv.ca)
• Analysis: Obama's China trip shows power shifting (sfgate.com)
• Why Violence Erupted on the China-Burma Border (time.com)