The Emotional Structure Of The Conflict

A truck driver once asked me to explain to him as to why there was no peace in the Middle East. I proceeded to explain. He did not let me talk for long. Apparently he prided himself in keeping up with the news.

"So why do we not give a small chunk of Arizona to the Palestinians, and be done with it!" he said.

Makes perfect logical sense. Why not! 2+2 is 4. Be done with it. Palestinians want land, let's give them land, and a better living. But the logic does not penetrate the emotional forces at work in a conflict situation like the Israel-Palestine scenario. Peace making is primarily managing the many disparate emotions on the ground.

The same can be said of the triangular conflict in Nepal. All three parties to the conflict, mainly the two guns, feel like people who offer logical solutions and roadmaps are just being naive. They fear their relative power might diminish in the process. The two guns are constantly angling for an inch or two of political territory.

It is perhaps like a complicated marriage situation, or a marriage gone awry situation. The two parties to the conflict see a reality that might be near impossible for an outsider to see.

As they say, you do not have to agree with them, but it helps to try to understand. Why do they do what they do? What are the forces at work? What options do they see before the choices they make?

From a distance the slow speed of progress on the part of each party to the conflict catches attention. It is like watching bullock cart motion.

The parties to the conflict do not have the luxury to look at developments with the detachment someone like me can, from a distance.

On the other hand, only a detached, neutral observer can best facilitate the peace process, seek common ground. The skills associated are as much of emotion management as anything else.

I believe I am going to read up into the Mid-East conflict to try and get a feel for some of the emotional forces at work in the Nepali context. Right now I am into a book that takes the alternate view that no, it was not Arafat's fault that peace was not achieved in 2000.

I think the mistake western peace makers make in the context of Mid-East is to put the two parties on equal footing. The Palestinians are much weaker. That asymmetry has to be taken into account.

In The News

• 600 kidnapped students found in Nepal CBC News, Canada
• Rebels Kidnap 500 Students in Nepal ABC News
• `Gyanendra has assured that democracy will return to Nepal' Hindu, India
• Students defy ban order in Nepal Hindu, India
• Bargain between guns and democracy in Nepal Scoop.co.nz (press release)
• Nepal rebels 'beat aid workers' BBC News, UK
• Nepal police break up pro-democracy rally Reuters
• 'Maoist war funded by drugs in Nepal' Times of India, India
• Donors suspend work after Nepal Maoist attack:-Webindia123, India
• Police Arrest Dozens of Demonstrators in Nepal Voice of America

Phone Talk With Hridayesh Tripathy

Finally I was able to track him down. He has been busy between Delhi and the border districts, on the Indian side from Banke, Bardiya to Morang. He has been in Delhi, and might be for another week before he goes for another round of border area reach-out program.

I just got off the phone.

He said the king has been moving in his own way. He is in his own "mood." The Maoists have welcomed the recent unity of the seven parties. The king on the other hand might be working to put forth a constitution of his own. His people might be doing the homework.

We have been for a Constituent Assembly to make changes to the state structure for quite a while. The Congress people might finally be coming around to the idea.

The idea of reviving the parliament in the new common minimum program that is to be the backbone of the proposed movement was something we had to put in so as to keep the Congress happy. They were stuck on it. And so we gave in.

Who will revive the parliament? It will not be the Supreme Court. And the Pratinidhi Sabha can not go into a Constituent Assembly. There is no such provision. The move to a Constituent Assembly will have to be a political decision.

The Maoists on their own can not reach the goal of a republic. They can not even reach the goal of a Constituent Assembly, on their own. And they are aware of their persona non grata status among the global players. So they have started to talk some sense.

Baburam Bhattarai has been restored his status in the party. This is a new development. He and Mahara are now a committee that will talk to the other parties. Baburam has been for a "bourgeoise republic." That is a sensible position for a revolutionary party, it steers them away from senseless violence. The Maoists have changed their line. But communication with them is one way traffic. They call when they have to. We don't have the option to call them.

The fear among the population in the country has been dissipating. The public has been gearing for a movement. The people are realizing, no democracy, no peace.

The last time we launched a major movement was when Thapa was Prime Minister. And the king was able to split us. But all parties have learned their lessons. This time we will be more careful. We have improved.

It will not be a good idea to have an all-party government under Article 127. Such a government will have to work the king's agenda, not its own.

I asked Hridayeshji about the possibility of a Kisunji style interim government of 1990. He said that would be a different matter. That interim government had the powers of both a legislative and an executive.

It is for the king to worry about the future continuation of the monarchy. He needs to play his cards right and honest. This is not the time to be playing games and getting adversarial with the parties. This is not an opportune time for royal adventurism.

At this point, he gave me his email address. He can be reached at t_hridayesh@yahoo.co.in

He said he has been travelling all along the border areas. He mentioned Banke, Bardiya. He had plans for Morang. He has mostly been in Gorakhpur, he said.

India's resuming arms supplies has had a negative physchological impact on the Nepali democrats. People are a little discouraged. The king and the monarchists have scored a major propaganda victory with the Indian step. But the left leaders in Delhi are very clear on their stand against any major military supplies. That is heartening.

I inquired about his family. He said there are people who are adversarial to him because of his struggle for Madhesi rights, his anti-corruption campaign, and for his quest for democracy. But their interaction should be with me, he said, friendly and otherwise, not with my family.