Nepal - Government-Maoist differences widen once again

by Zaglul Ahmed Chowdhury

The government and the radical leftists Maoists are once again showing signs of drifting apart in Nepal threatening the peace process in jeopardy as the ultras are now seeking to launch their own programmes about the future of the country. Their leader Pushpa Kumar Dhayal, better known as “Prachanda”, has dropped enough indications to suggest that their differences with the government are widening and consequently the election process and other main pogrammes are now hanging in the balance.

Earlier, serious differences between the government and the radical leftists on the fate of monarchy in Nepal narrowed down to some extent following the passage of a proposal by parliament asking the government to initiate legal preparations to declare the country a Republic. The decision by the parliament had come as a great sigh of relief for the Himalayan nation that is witnessing disconcerting developments for the last few weeks mainly over the monarchy issue between two main players of country’ political spectrum. This had smoothened the bitterness although did not resolve the problems. But that positive development now once again seems to have disappeared raising the specter of uncertainty over future “Road Map” about the “New Nepal”.

The “Maoists”, who worked closely with the seven-party political alliance in the anti-King agitation last year, had called for a referendum in Nepal to determine the fate of monarchy. The demand came close on the heels of scrapping of the national elections, which were scheduled this November but had to be called off as the radicals refused to take part charging the government with failure to abolish monarchy in the country. The seven-party government was keen to go ahead with the November 22 polls, but the postponement forced by the ultras threatened to complicate the political situation raising uncertainty about the future. The worsening Govt-Maoists ties had not only cast a dark shadow in the political horizon but seemed to scuttle the prospects of the declared “Road Map”.

The picturesque kingdom began showing signs of trouble as the government and the radical leftists seemed to be drifting apart leading to a serious rift in their broad unity. This difference could lead to a situation where the “Road Map” for a “New Nepal” may become increasingly uncertain. While the country looked well set towards political stability following last year’s successful anti-King agitation, this situation hardly carried anything encouraging in that direction as the fresh government-Maoists disputes caused anxiety.

Last year, a remarkable democratic victory was accomplished in Nepal, convulsed by a long-drawn peoples agitation demanding restoration of representative authority and curbing corruption and misuse of powers by the monarchy. King Gyanendra capitulated and finally agreed to reconvene the elected parliament which he dissolved in 2002 in utter disregard to democratic norms.

Katmandu admirably introduced Westminster type democracy in 1990 ending more than two centuries old effective monarchy, but was later robbed off this system. However, a section of the politicians were also to be blamed for the situation as they failed to live up to peoples expectations because of their unbridled corruption and abuse of power. The King exploited this situation to grab absolute authority for the throne once again but his repressive rule and lust for power and wealth once again turned the masses against the King and consequently Nepal reverted to representative rule. Indeed, it was a great achievement, but was made possible at a huge cost of lives and sacrifices, much of which definitely could have been avoided had the King realised the gravity of situation earlier.

The government headed by prime minister G.P.Koirala faced two main problems when elected government was restored. First, the monarchy issue as the government was vacillating on the matter. The seven-party alliance carried out the anti-King movement in collusion with the ultra leftist “Maoists”, who are totally opposed to the existence of monarchy in any form and want to turn the country a “People‘s Republic”. The political parties are largely at variance with the radicals on this issue as all political parties do not see eye to eye on the monarchy issue. The monarchy debate poses a big challenge since some quarters feel that the country may continue with the “Twin pillars” of constitutional monarchy and elected government in line with Britain or Japan. Many others strongly feel that the “Monarchy concept” must be scrapped altogether.

The second main challenge for the new government is the sensitive issue of dealing with the “Maoists”, who were the partner of the seven-party alliance in the anti–King agitation. The two sides agreed to cooperate on the fundamental issues like national elections and a new constitution for the country despite having some differences on approaches on certain matters. They signed a landmark peace agreement and the “Maoists”, who have a large force of cadres and plenty of weapons mobilised over the years, also agreed to come into mainstream politics. Later they joined the seven-party alliance government – all these came as a big relief for the Nepalese who experienced massive political mayhem prior to this healthy situation.

As the Nepalese pinned high hopes on the government and the Maoists, they have also bitter memories. The brief spell of democratic rule after 1990 was unfortunately marked by political infighting, rampant corruption and revolving-governments that had largely eroded peoples faith in their quality of leadership.

The people by and large now feel that the country could move ahead towards a new future if the political parties and the Maoists worked together towards political and economic stability. The two sides maintained broad understanding and agreed for elections in November for a constituent parliament to draft a new constitution.

But differences began to crop up as the radicals quit the government three months ago, accusing the govt. of not doing enough against the monarchy. True, the government so far took several decisions including curbing political and financial powers of the King and is mulling with the idea of nationalising the seven palaces belonging to the royal family. But the Maoists consider these measures as inadequate and are opposing tooth and nail existence of the monarchy in any form. Now they are saying nothing in effect has been done to abolish the monarchy and hence they would not take part in the election process.

The postponement of the crucial polls has certainty raised eye-brows about the shape of things in Nepal in the coming days. However, the two sides seem to have realised this unhappy situation and it is against this background that the parliament passed the new proposal on the fate of monarchy. But contrary to the expectations, two sides are again falling apart.

While the elections now clearly hangs in the balance, the ultimate fate of the monarchy will now largely influence the affairs of Nepal. Two biggest stakeholders are in variance on this crucially important issue. The basic objectives of the “Road Map” for New Nepal is being seriously hampered. The ultras are planning “parallel” programmes and this may inexorably bring them into sharp conflict with the government.

The Amnesty International has also expressed grave concern over the situation in Nepal, saying the positive omens are disappearing fast and urged both parties to be pragmatic for the sake of their people. Two sides need to show wisdom and sagacity for greater interest.