Political impasse takes Nepal to brink
By Dhruba Adhikary
KATHMANDU - A leader from Nepal's Maoists, a group that fought a decade-long
insurgency that brought the nation to its knees before winning parliamentary
elections in 2008, has warned it could start another conflict that would turn
the country "into another Afghanistan".
If such a conflict were to erupt, the nations likely to become embroiled could
be China, given Nepal's proximity to Tibet, and India, given China's expanding
presence in Nepal. This has already provided Delhi with a pretext to make moves
aimed at protecting its security interests.
The reference to Afghanistan was made by Baburam Bhattarai, a Maoist leader who
was finance minister in the government headed by Pushpa Kamal Dahal, better
known as Prachanda. After being
in power for nine months, he resigned in May, accusing President Ram Baran
Yadav of "unconstitutionally" overruling his attempt to sack the head of the
army.
Bhattarai, who reportedly made the remarks at a high-level political debate,
seemed to be warning that the Maoists would be prepared to return to the
jungles and restart their insurgency if Nepal's new constitution, currently
being written, is not as progressive as they would like.
Prachanda also told a public rally on Friday that the next phase of Maoist
agitation would assume a more "aggressive" form unless their demands to limit
presidential powers were met.
The Maoists have given a deadline of November 20 for their demands, or they
will start a third round of mass protests. They claim to be campaigning for
civilian supremacy over the army, so the latter cannot undermine the ongoing
democratic process.
Protests launched by the Maoists last week were largely peaceful, but the group
possesses the capacity for muscle-flexing should it find it necessary. Aside
from some 20,000 combatants now sheltered in United Nations-supervised
cantonments, the Maoists have a youth wing that can handle challenges at local
levels. Illustrating the threat, Kathmandu-based Western diplomats rushed to
meet Prachanda on November 3 to express "serious concerns" over the planned
demonstrations.
To Madhav Kumar Nepal, who became Nepal's prime minister almost immediately
after Prachanda's resignation, the Maoists present a formidable challenge.
Technically, the premier is supported by 22 of the 24 political parties in the
601-member constituent assembly (legislature), but his position is vulnerable.
His left-leaning moderate party has not given him its full support, and he
faces regular criticism for being appointed - not elected - to the powerful
position. He lost two constituencies in the 2008 elections, being defeated by a
Maoist candidate in both.
The government of Mr Nepal - who was able to become a member of parliament when
an earlier nominee became an ambassador to Sri Lanka - includes several
ministers who, like him, lost at the the 2008 elections.
One is minister of State for Agriculture and Cooperatives Karima Begum, who
represents a regional party. She hit the headlines last week when she slapped a
man five times for not sending a new car to pick her up from the airport. While
the civil service is agitated over the scandal, Premier Nepal cannot demand she
resign as he needs the support of her regional party.
Observers say that as the current premier lacks political legitimacy, he also
has no moral authority to lead a coalition of non-Maoist parties. Some of the
leaders of the premier's coalition have admitted that the alliance has been
forged solely to prevent the Maoists from coming back to power. But this is
difficult, since the Maoists hold close to 40% of the seats in the assembly.
It was on that basis that Prachanda was invited to head a Maoist-led government
in August 2008. Their numerical strength in parliament remains high, giving
them significant sway as Nepal, which was for 240 years a monarchy until May
2008, continues a constitution-writing process towards becoming a republic, a
process that must be completed by May 2010.
Prachanda and his colleagues believe - and have popular support for their
claims - that New Delhi is hindering the peace process that began in 2006. It
was at this stage the United Nations was invited to send a special mission, the
United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN), to facilitate the process.
Recent political visitors to New Delhi have heard voices supporting Premier
Nepal, even though he has faced accusations of leading an ineffective
government. His government was unable to intervene when a defiant ethnic group
in Nepal's eastern hills recently declared a "Kiraant Republic".
Writing for the South Asia Analysis Group, Dr S Chandrasekharan denounces all
ideas "to intimidate the present Madhav Nepal government to cave in and leave
the Maoists to come back to power". He adds a caveat, "This, I hope, is
understood by all non-Maoist political parties as well as the UN."
He, however, does not offer a convincing explanation as to what is wrong if the
largest party in the house gets the lead role. After all, Nepal's Maoist
leaders are not strangers to the rulers in New Delhi.
According to M D Nalapat, also an Indian writer, Nepali Maoists were assisted
"in numerous ways" by officials in New Delhi in their struggle against the
monarchy.
Once they came to power, however, the Maoists appeared to prefer improving
relations with China at the expense of those with India. For example, Prachanda
broke tradition and made China, not India, his first port of call after
becoming prime minister.
Indian rulers, who did not expect the Maoists to make substantial electoral
gains in 2008, have become jittery ever since Beijing enhanced its interest in
Nepal in view of the increasing vulnerability of its soft underbelly - Tibet.
In the pre-2006 era, Beijing relied on the monarchy. Now the Chinese appear to
be looking for a dependable alternative, and may want to examine the prospect
of wooing a political force named after chairman Mao Zedong. Prachanda's second
visit to China last month has been seen in that context.
President Hu Jintao made a rare gesture of meeting Prachanda, and this appears
to have sent more jitters to New Delhi, with which Beijing has a flaring border
dispute. If Prachanda's planned visit to China had not been canceled at the
11th hour in May, Beijing and Kathmandu may have signed a new friendship treaty
that would have given an institutional dimension to their bilateral relations.
In any case, Chinese visitors - both civilians and men and women in uniform -
to Nepal have increased in recent times and they obviously are not without
purpose.
Visible signs that China is keen to get involved in Nepal's water resources
development, an area that previously attracted only Indian attention, is also
an indicator of a rapidly changing scenario in South Asia. China is already an
observer in a South Asian regional body, the South Asian Association for
Regional Cooperation (SAARC).
But the geopolitics have stalled the ongoing peace process in Nepal which is
due to reach its logical end in about six months. This is why UN secretary
general Ban Ki-moon has encouraged the stakeholders to reconcile their
positions. His worries are understandable, especially in view of the fact that
UNMIN's current mandate runs out at the end of January.
In his latest report on Nepal, released on October 30, the secretary general
made a few observations, including this one, "A government of national unity
remains desirable for timely promulgation of the country's new constitution and
for the successful integration and rehabilitation of Maoist army personnel."
Many people found this a logical and innocuous observation, but the incumbent
prime minister and his coalition partners found it expedient to describe it as
interference. Those who are opposed see the comment as favorable to the
Maoists.
"A well-intentioned suggestion cannot be construed as interference," Professor
Lokraj Baral, who once served as Nepal's ambassador to India, told the
Kathmandu Post on November 11. The voice of the secretary general, he added,
reflected the opinion of all UN Security Council members, including the five
permanent ones. China, Nepal's neighbor to the north, is one of these five.
India, Nepal's neighbor to the south, is not even a non-permanent member in the
council at the moment.
What are the likely implications if the ongoing peace process is derailed? Who
stands to gain if Nepal becomes a failed state? The UN's concern for the
helpless Nepali people could deepen as rivalry between China and India may
spark a wider conflict in the area. Both are likely to be among the main
losers, but who would have more difficulty in reviving (and surviving) remains
a matter of conjecture.
Ian Martin, a former (and the first) head of the UNMIN, says Nepal's peace
process is in danger of failing. Although he no longer speaks for the UN on
Nepal, Martin, as a friend of Nepal, told an audience in New York this month
that an overwhelming majority of Nepal's long-suffering people wanted the peace
process to succeed.
"I believe that it is in the interests of those concerned for stability in
Nepal, including India."
But the nagging question is: does India want stability in Nepal? Seasoned
analysts in New Delhi tend to reply in the negative. "Controlled instability"
(or chaos) is something that Indian rulers always want to find in Nepal. On the
other hand, China's buzzword for Nepal has always been "stability", that
provides a secure atmosphere for investment and development.
Dhruba Adhikary is a Kathmandu-based journalist.
(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
