Conflicts in Nepal are likely to develop to a new scale because those aspiring big changes in political and socio-economic sectors and those opposing changes in the status quo will definitely have to polarize before the constituent assembly proposed for 10 April 2008. The proposed constituent assembly has been intended for state restructuring and inclusive democracy. The traditional ruling forces in Nepal are extremely reluctant to accept the need for big changes. They have a custom of picking up a few individuals from different marginalized communities and using them to strengthen the existing rule. But the coming constituent assembly, if fairly held, will harm the ruling classes of Nepal because newer forces are eager to run Nepal with a vision of accelerating transformation. Therefore, political polarization is inevitable in different forms: one for political and socio-economic transformation and the other against it.
Nepal, as the history proves, has been ruled by the feudal monarchy for almost 240 years. Political changes in the 1950s, 1970s and 1990s served only the ruling elites while millions were politically suppressed and excluded from the mainstream development process. Hundreds of leaders and workers belonging to the ruling elitist parties became surprisingly prosperous while millions starved. The frustrated people rebelled against the state under the banner of Communist Party of Nepal (CPN) Maoist. After a decade-long armed insurgency, the Maoist insurgents were able to spread their political influence throughout Nepal.
The Maoist insurgents, capitalizing mass poverty and people’s explosive frustrations, were tactically successful in neutralizing the political influence of the then ruling parties. They got confined to palatial cities while ordinary masses began to chase them from rural parts. Ordinary people blamed on the traditional ruling parties for becoming too corrupt, immoral and power-mongers. Consequently, they lost much of the public support they had enjoyed previously in their heydays.
When King Gyanendra launched a coup d’etat on 1 February 2005, the political leaders of these conservative parties were either jailed or house-detained. Their political networks were highly disrupted by the King-headed autocratic government. Yet, Maoist insurgents had got their own political, military and communication networks. The desperate conservative political parties sidelined by the feudal d’etat had an idea generation in their mind. They decided to use the power of Maoist insurgents to topple the autocratic government. Their purpose was not to think of a new kind of state structure but to maintain it only by toppling the king’s autocratic government. But the Maoists asked them to fight for better Nepal rather than to simply replace the king-headed government. Although, the traditional ruling parties hesitated to present themselves clearly for the sake of country’s overall transformation, it was a realistically wise idea at least for them to decide to collaborate with Maoist insurgents, who actually were fighting to end feudal monarchy. But these conservative political parties, who had betrayed the Nepalis for 50 years, were not honest.
The conservative political parties, though their influence was worriably waning among people, were extremely loyal to foreign powers. They preached liberal economy though they adopted feudal landlordist economy. Because of their empty preachings in democracy, human rights and liberal economy, the international forces were not negative to them despite their proven records of ill-governance and corruption. In the post-circumstances, Maoists, whom the US Administration has labeled as terrorists, were also seeking opportunities to use the conservative political leaderships to gain some international credibility to defeat feudal monarchy. Thus, both Maoist insurgents and anti-Maoists decided to collaborate against the feudal monarchy in direct rule. Their common goal was to topple the autocracy. While the conservative parties and insurgents took part in the same peaceful movement against the direct royal regime, ordinary people aspiring changes and peace were more excited. They enthusiastically participated in the anti-monarchy movement.
When the direct rule of monarchy was defeated by the 19-day historical April uprising (2006) marked by the defiance of curfews by the people. Poverty-stricken masses believed Nepal was going to be changed through conflict transformation.
The constituent assembly was the common core agenda for managing the armed conflicts. The previously ruling parties pronounced the constituent assembly but hesitated to adopt its essence. They misconceived that if the constituent assembly really took place, the insurgents would replace all of them in the country’s politics. Consequently, they delayed the process of the interim period and baffled the long-aspired peoples’ wish of the constituent assembly. However, the constituent assembly polls date has been refixed for 10 April 2008.
In this situation, the monarchist elements existing in the Nepali Congress and the Emalay parties have used their political, economic and security influences to weaken democratic forces. Especially, previously jailed corrupt leaders of the Nepali Congress have secretly sided with the feudal monarchy with a view to sharpening contradictions to a new scale so as to foil the constituent assembly efforts and the possible change measures.
Influenced by these monarchist elements, student wings affiliated to the Emalay and the Congress have been trying their best to create violence with anti-monarchy students. They are knowingly or unknowingly preparing to create an environment in which their mother parties can polarize with the feudal monarchy. The US Administration that has opposed the entry of Nepal’s insurgents into the mainstream peace process is apparently instigating the Congress and the Emalay party workers.
The Nepalis will still have to go through difficult times before they can see the reliable settlement of their crises. But they have no other alternative except to hope for the best and prepare for the worst as the ongoing conflicts are likely to get heightened due to developing confrontations between the progressive and regressive forces dressed in different forms.
Leave Your Comments