|
Teaching
a King to dialogue
There
is an uncanny link between ongoing meeting of the High Level Peace
Committee (HLPC) being held in Kathmandu from 28 September 2004
and uncertainty about the week long visit of King Gyanendra Bir
Bikram Shah Dev to New Delhi scheduled from 30 September 2004. The
HLPC meeting is being held to discuss the Maoist's major demands
for holding elections to the constituent assembly and involving
the United Nations or any credible international human rights organization
in the negotiations to resolve the ongoing crisis. The HLPC meeting
failed to come up with any coherent strategy on 28 September 2004
and therefore, the visit of the King has been postponed. The
officials of the Shital Niwas, Nepal’s Royal Palace stated
that dates for visit of His Majesty King Gyanendra to India had
not been finalised. The Indian embassy officials in Kathmandu echoed
it by stating that there was no question of postponement of the
royal visit to Delhi as it had never been decided.
The
role of India with regard to the resolution of the Maoists crisis
in Nepal is indispensable in more ways than one. Earlier the United States Ambassador to Nepal, James F Moriarty
while speaking at an interaction organised by Nepal Council of World
Affairs and American Center on “US foreign policy after 9/11” stated, "India has a big role to play in resolving
Maoist problem. Considering the military assistance and diplomatic
help it has provided to Nepal, I conclude that Maoists will not
be allowed to take over Kathmandu".
While the Maoists cannot take over the Kathmandu valley, Nepal,
one of the poorest countries in the world, can ill-afford the ongoing
war.
The
installation of Sher Bahadur Deuba as the third Prime Minister in
June 2004 has paved the way for the visit of the King to India.
India had insisted on the installation of multi-party government
while supporting constitutional monarchy. However, King Gyanendra is no longer a mere
constitutional monarch. His Majesty remains the de facto
and de jure ruler especially after the expiry of the term
of the parliament in April 2004.
Prime
Minister Deuba was earlier fired on 4 October 2002 on the grounds
of “incompetence” for his failure to hold the elections. It is a
foregone conclusion that elections cannot be held without resolving
the Maoists crisis. However, Deuba must not only perform the difficult
balancing act with coalition consisting of the Communist Party of
Nepal United Marxist Leninist and royalist Rashtriya Prajatantra
Party (RPP). He must also ensure not to invite the ire of the King,
lest he will be fired again. The politics in Kathmandu valley remains
fragmented with the split of the biggest and oldest political party,
the Nepali Congress into Koirala and Deuba factions. Mr GP Koirala
has been leading demonstrations for revival of the Parliament even
after the expiry of its term.
India
has assured military assistance to Prime Minister Deuba during his
visit to New Delhi from 8 to12 September 2004 and agreed to provide
two helicopters immediately. According to The Hindu of 29
September 2004, an aircraft operated by Vega Airlines, a private
Bulgarian cargo company, carrying explosives and ammunition to "combat"
the Maoists in Nepal, has been sitting at an Indian airport since
26 September 2004, awaiting permission to fly out to Kathmandu.
But,
there is no military solution to the Maoists crisis. India reportedly
deploys between 400,000 and 700,000 army and paramilitary forces
to combat the insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir. In comparison, Nepal
has only 70,000 troops out of which 30-40% are locked to defend
the Kathmandu valley and the King. Since the Unified Command of the Royal Nepal Army took over
the administration in November 2001, the number of police stations
has reportedly reduced from 1,500 to 350 by April 2004. While
the Maoists may strangulate the Kathmandu valley as reflected from
the blockade from 18-25 August 2004, international community cannot
remain a mute witness to the fall of Kathmandu.
Therefore, the need to hold dialogue.
Over
9,000 persons have been killed in the war that started in 1996.
Both the security forces and the Maoist insurgents have been responsible
for gross and widespread human rights violations. Amnesty International
stated that 378 persons have disappeared since the collapse of the
ceasefire in August 2003. On 18 September 2004, after a marathon
meeting, Prime Minister Deuba agreed to release two Maoist leaders
- Resham Lama and Bishnu Thapa Magar. Initially, the government
refused to acknowledge their detention and they were never produced
before the courts. Illegality is the norm and the rule of law is
an exception in Nepal. Not surprisingly, Nepal has so farfailed
to sign the Memorandum of Understanding with the Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights as provided in the Chairman’s
Statement of the 60th session of the Commission on Human
Rights on “Human Right’s Assistance to Nepal”.
Prime
Minister Deuba’s overtures have failed to impress the Maoists. On
31 August 2004, the government of Nepal announced formation of much-hyped
High-Level Peace Committee headed by the Prime Minister and consisting
of CPN-UML General Secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal, RPP Chairman Pashupati
Shumsher Rana, King’s nominee Dr Mohammad Mohsin and Nepal Sadhvavna
Party President Badri Prasad Mandal, for holding talks with the
Maoists. The Maoists have rejected to hold dialogue without the
mediation of the United Nations or any other credible facilitator
and pressed for talks directly only with the King. The government
renewed its appeal on 24 September 2004,which was met by posers from the Maoist Supremo, Prachanda.
When
the negotiation failed in August 2003, domestic interlocutors had
little influence over the parties – the government and the Maoists.
Drawn from civil society activists or former political leaders,
they serve as mere messengers. It is essential that international
mediators who may have leverage over the Maoists and the government
are involved in the peace process. The UN Secretary General expressed
interest to use his good offices to resolve the conflict.
New Delhi has so far reportedly been advising
Kathmandu against involvement of third parties including the United
Nations Secretary General. Not surprisingly, the only official response
from the ongoing HLPC meeting has been to the effect that there
is no need of international mediation in the proposed peace talks.
This was also echoed by Nepals' Minister of State for Foreign Affairs
Dr Prakash Saran Mahat in his speech at the ongoing 59th General
Assembly of the United Nations on 28 September 2004. But, New Delhi
has so far failed to take any active role apart from arresting the
Maoists and extraditing them sans trial. The arrest and extradition
of the Maoists is unlikely to make India a neutral broker in the
eyes of the Maoists. In addition, New Delhi appears to be over conscious
about the possible perceptions of neigbouring countries and international
community about its potential role as a mediator and its implications
on its own insurgency problems.
New Delhi obviously refuses to recognise dimensions
of the Maoists crisis. Kathmandu also is not keen to take independent
decision given the indispensibility of New Delhi as explained by
the United States Ambassador to Nepal, James F Moriarty. However, it is a fact that Maoists writ run
all over Nepal in comparison to the King’s edict in the Kathmandu
valley. Even if the “shared threat” to Nepal and India
from the Maoists is to be taken seriously, there is no "package solution" to the
Maoists problem as the Shital Niwas has been hinting. If
the edifice of the state structure of Nepal is to be restored and
Nepal were not to become a failed State, New Delhi needs to change
its own perceptions and impress upon King Gyanendra either to directly
involve himself or involve credible third party mediators who can
have leverage on both sides among others, over human rights violations.
Delaying the talks for the sake of addressing India's concerns and
perceptions on the involvment of third parties will further erode
the credibility of the King and surely cause further destruction
of Nepal.
|