A Tenuous Calm

Rebel guns have been silent for morethan six weeks now. But whether this cease-fire would turn into a peace processforcing the government to reciprocate remains an open question. Whatever mayhave provoked the Maoists to unilaterally declare a ceasefire with a pledge thatthey would not kill any civilian, nor would initiate offensive operationsagainst the security forces well ahead of the Dussehera, it has certainly givensome respite to common people. The Maoist cease-fire came into effect for threemonths from September 3, 2005.

The most plausible explanation is that, by unilaterallycalling off their offensive just six days before King Gyanendra was to embark ona trip to the United Nations (UN) to solicit international support against‘terrorism’, the rebels succeeded in disarming him quietly. The ceasefirealso sent out a message that the Maoists were prepared to take any risk – butwere a step ahead of the government – in seeking a resolution to the conflict,preferably with UN mediation. 

The King cancelled his visit under a variety of embarrassingcircumstances, including the striking off of his name from President Bush’sguest list, along with another seven dictators considered ‘enemies ofdemocracy’ by the West. Within Nepal, the Maoists were trying to convincedemocratic forces that the King could not be trusted any more to remain‘totally constitutional’ within the framework of the present constitution,and that it was, consequently, high time that the political parties and theMaoists came together to have a new constitution drafted through an electedConstituent Assembly.

As a follow-up to the ceasefire, the seven pro-democracypolitical parties authorised their two top leaders – G.P. Koirala , Presidentof the Nepali Congress (NC) and Madhav Kumar Nepal, General Secretary of theCommunist Party of Nepal – United Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) to hold dialoguewith the Maoists in an effort to bring them into the political mainstream, andwith a strict proviso that they would abjure violence. 

The Maoist ‘ideologue’, Dr. Baburam Bhattarai has alreadyacknowledged, albeit indirectly, that, since both Nepal’s southern andnorthern neighbours – China and India – have refused to recognise or supporttheir movement as an acceptable way of bringing about political and associatedchanges, and as even the citizens do not appear supportive, joining hands withpro-democracy political parties for a ‘democratic republican Nepal’ is thetactical option for now.

It is, however, equally clear that a ‘republican’ Nepalis not something that the King will willingly concede. For that, the politicalparties and the Maoists would need a sustained, decisive and peaceful campaign,but the crowds on the streets over the past eight months since the ‘King’scoup’ on February 1, 2005, do not indicate that the kind or scale of masssupport needed would, in fact, be readily available. The political parties arealso counting more on the international support – mainly from democraticcountries including the US, UK, the European Union (EU) and India, besides theUN, which has been asking the King to seek conciliation with the politicalparties.

The King has, however, done nothing toconceal his contempt for the political parties, dismissing them as corrupt andincompetent. Nevertheless, he did take cognizance of international pressure whenhe announced that elections to the House of Representatives would be held bymid-April 2007, fully restoring the present Constitution. The King’sannouncement implies that he is no longer rigid about ruling the country forthree years, as announced on Feb 1, 2005, in his ‘takeover’ speech. 

Secondly, by asking the international community to contributeto the successful and fair conduct of elections, he has clearly acknowledgedthat there could not be real democracy restored in the country without thepeople being able to elect their own government. The King’s move also leavesthe international community with a Hobson’s choice – to support the move forthe restoration of democracy through elections under the King’s aegis, or letpolitical parties ‘work together with the Maoists, who most of you have calledterrorists’. So far, British Ambassador Keith Bloomfield has raised doubtsover the possibility of holding elections within the current conflict scenario.As he expressed it, peace is what Nepal needs first.

This has no doubt left the pro-democracy internationalcommunity in dilemma – but that is not their predicament alone. The Maoistsare equally confused. Party supremo Prachanda and key ideologue Bhattarai remaindivided on the issue of capturing state power through ‘armed struggle’, orto seek power through an alliance with the democratic parties in deference tothe realities of the 21st century. For the time being, it seems thatBhattarai’s line has prevailed, but their new found allies at home and theinternational community are cautiously watching whether the insurgents can betrusted.

The evidence is ambivalent. Violence levels have dropped, ofcourse, and the Maoists have remained true to their word on the ceasefire.Nevertheless, even during the first one month of the unilateral truce, they haveabducted nearly four hundred people from different parts of the country, andthey were released after varied period of ‘indoctrination’. The Maoists’extortion spree continues, and the security forces fear that the‘terrorists’ are exploiting the so-called ceasefire to make a safe move toKathmandu. 

According to a senior Army source, "the Royal Nepal Armycertainly contemplated reciprocating the ceasefire, but we had strongindications that it was only tactical". Dr Tulsi Giri, Vice Chairman of theCouncil of Ministers, noted further, "Why would the government need toreciprocate? This ceasefire agreement is between the Maoists and the politicalparties." Dr. Giri also made it clear that the government would‘welcome’ G.P. Koirala’s efforts to bring peace through negotiation withthe Maoists, adding sarcastically: "We will give him the full credit and hewill be a national hero. Many pro-dialogue forces tend to side with the governmenton this count. Can peace be achieved without a party to the conflict – the government– being asked to join the peace process?"

All current indications are that Maoists simply seek to extend theirlegitimacy in the eyes of the UN, the international community and democraticforces within the country, without actually wanting a resolution to theconflict.

Nepal’s politics evidently remainsuspended at a crossroads, with no clear indication that some direction willeasily be recovered. An EU delegation (October 4-6), led by Tom Phillips,Director of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London, warned that the statewas on the verge of collapse, and suggested that conciliation was the onlyoption. The King’s announcement of elections followed shortly thereafter.Nevertheless, acceptance of international advice has been grudging and partial,and the King is still refusing to open a dialogue process with the politicalparties.

The political parties are, however, no less to blame for thesituation. Their major strength – no doubt – is the support of theinternational community, but, as one senior diplomat stated, "We have ourlimitations, we cannot go beyond a point."

The Maoists, on the other hand, hope that even if theirtactical ‘partnership’ with the political parties does not work in theirfavour, the collapse of the state or the current system would still ensue. But aMaoist success remains uncertain. That is why they have, through their ceasefiredeclaration, sought UN mediation. The Nepali assessment, however, is that Indiawould remain an obstacle to any move for UN or international mediation.

A group of leaders from Nepal’s main political parties,along with General Vivek Shah, former Military Secretary to the King, iscurrently in the US on the invitation of the Atlanta-based Carter Center at ameeting that would, among other things, explore the ‘outside’ role in theresolution of Nepal’s conflict. It must be clear, however, that outside forcescan, at best, only facilitate processes, it is the internal actors who will haveto move closer. Unfortunately, a willingness to do so is not visible. Of course,it would be a positive and successful move on the part of the political partiesif they are able to encourage the Maoists to extend their ‘ceasefire’ beyondthe originally announced three months, ending on December 3, 2005, thusincreasing the pressure on the government to reciprocate. If they fail, however,and the Maoists call of their ceasefire, this would force them to negotiate withthe King from a position of increasing disadvantage, and to struggle to find themeans to create a conducive atmosphere for holding the promised elections.

Yubaraj Ghimire is Editor, Samay, Kathmandu. Courtesy,the South Asia Intelligence Review of the South Asia Terrorism Portal