In this paper my discussion is
about the local dynamics of conflict in general and Nepalese political
development in particular. The paper aims to give an overview that the conflict
led by the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-M) was nothing other than an
emergence of a “new ideology” as a part of social process. The conflict was
overlooked for almost a decade and was conceptualized in such a way which
forced the differing ideology (CPN-M) to be discarded from the “whole”, the
social and political
process though not possible in
reality. But after a decade, the way the conflict has been transformed, at
least to a certain degree, can be a new approach to handle differing ideas in
different societies in order to practice a “genuine democracy” and promote peace.
This is the main message of this brief text.
Complex
socio-political structure: foundation for emergence of conflict
Nepal, a small country
bordering India on three sides and china in one side on the north is
economically, politically and geographically sandwiched. Nevertheless, she has
a glorious history because of her independency. It was a tough time for Nepal
to remain uncolonized while her southern neighbors India, Bangladesh and
Pakistan were British colonies. Instead, Nepal had to fight with the British
troops in those days. The brave, courageous Nepalese soldiers’ contribution to
protect Nepal from colonial power still has a good remark. In Nepal, around 40
% population is still illiterate. The current CBS (2004: Pp 61-79) report
explains that male and female literacy rate is 63% and 39% respectively. Nepal
Living Standard Survey (1995-96) indicates that around 50 percent population
lives in poverty. The situation probably has not changed to better due to the
conflict that emerged in 1996. Furthermore, Nepal is a multilingual,
multiethnic and multi religious country with around 23.15 million population
(CBS, 2001). Hindu is the leading religion (85%), Buddhist (11%), Muslim (4.2%)
and others like practitioners of indigenous animist religion and Christian
(3.6%). Nepali is the national official language which is spoken by only 60 %
of population and there are 61 different nationalities. Within such diversity,
feudal system, unjust socio-political structure and political instability
played a vital role for the emergence and accelerating of the conflict
(1996-2006). For a background, let us look at the Nepalese political history
also in brief. There was a family rule of Ranas for 104 years which lasted
until 1950 wherein Kings were just a rubber stamp. Nepalese people introduced
multiparty system in 1950, for the first time in the history and palace was
offered a better space in Nepali politics. It was our unfortunate that the
multy-party system was hijacked by King Mahendra, the father of the present
King Gyanendra in 1960 and loaded Party-less Panchyat System (PPS). Since then
political parties were banned but due to growing civic consciousness, pressure
from people and parties in exile, the King had to face a referendum in 1980
between Improved Panchayat System (IPS) and Multiparty System. Unfortunately,
the result was announced in favor of the IPS. Nevertheless, debate on
multiparty system kept on continuing. The changing global politics, peoples’
growing awareness on civil rights and widening gap between poor and rich, once
again brought people on the street in 1990 which hammered the Party less
Panchayat System. The PPS fell off thereby bringing multiparty system back for
the second time in the history of Nepal. This was, however, an important time
for a reformulation of a new system so as to restructure Nepal
socio-politically, culturally and economically.
1990s political
change and the emergence of People’s War (PW) in Nepal
The victory of Janaandolan
(1990 People’s movement) ended autocratic Party-less Panchayat System and new
challenges emerged in the changed context. It was an important time for the
leadership to be aware of the people’s sentiment and the voice of the time. The
infant democracy was in need of proper care for its natural development which
the then political leadership did not realize. Nepal, a semi-feudal society was
in need of a grand reengineering of socio-economic structure in order to quench
the thirst of huge bulk of poor people in the remote and rural areas. On such a
pretext, most often there emerged intra-party and in-party conflict thereby
spreading seeds of further conflict creating a fertile ground for an emergence
of “new-ideology” as a part of social process. CPN-M happened to lead this
ideology. They conceptualized that in order to make people ‘relatively equal’
in terms of their access to resources and to make people sovereign in reality.
To achieve this, there was a need of drastic structural changes. For this,
CPN-M drafted a plan and forwarded a 40 point agenda (for details see Hutt,
2004 P. 285-87) in
1996 to the government of
Nepali Congress led by Sher Bahadur Deuba. Their proposal was not received
positively which forced them feel “segregated” from the “whole” the social and
political process. Although the 40 points agenda looked quite big and complex
it was in fact the response of time and the context which captures very fundamental
requirements in order to restructure unjust Nepalese society. Further ahead, in
such a situation they also conceptualized that the “bourgeoisie democracy” (in
their
words) could not meet people’s
need, hence needs to be restructured entirely. Restructuring of such a feudal
and complex society was definitely not an easy project. Also they realized that
the main political enemy was palace which leads the feudal structure.
Therefore, their political goal became “republicanism” as a model for
transformation of Nepalese society. Where as, other major political parties had
accepted monarchism and multiparty parliamentary democracy as principle in
their party statute. Hence, there appeared three different forces, palace,
parliamentary parties and CPN-M in the theater of Nepalese politics to play
their respective roles. As a result of the refusal of the demand to restructure
Nepalese society forwarded by CPN-M, they determined to launch an opposition,
that too, militarily and politically. They announced People’s War (PW) on 13th Fed.1996 attacking several police posts. They
say, they began PW with one 303 rifle which was donated by some one. In a short
period they proved themselves a powerful force to attack Royal Nepalese Army
and even to seize their weapons. There had been many attacks by the CPN-M to
RNA during the period 1996-2006. During this period they collected
sophisticated weapon to foil RNA’s attack. During this period of a decade more
than 12000 Nepalese have lost their lives and many people are reported missing.
CPN-M launched People’s War flourished in an organized manner which caught
international attention as well. They also started mobile radio stations to air
their activities. Increasing military force and their grounding in the villages
had immense impact and control over more than 80% of the country. In many
districts people felt “absence” of government. Maoist control over villages
pressurized the parties, enlarged
their influence and contracted
parties’ activities and their presence. Parties were compelled to remain solely
in cities and capital .Therefore; they could not function in a normal way. Such
a paralyzing situation inspired the king Gyanendra to show his presence in
politics. On top of that, the sad, unexpected bloody night (1st June, 2001)
swept away relatively popular former King Birendra and his relatives leaving
behind the present King Gyanedra1 and his
family untouched. Let us not ponder into the reality of this incident. However,
it would be wise to argue that this incident opened up a “highway” whereon King
Gyanendra might have imagined that he could enjoy the feudal marathon thereby
bypassing major political parties and Maoist. He also might have speculated
that the poor people still could be manipulated if portrayed himself as an incarnation
of God. It might be that on the basis of such motivation King Gyanendra sacked
the elected government on Oct.4, 2002 led by Sher Bahadur Deuba blaming him as
an incompetent Prime Minister. He formed another government but was heavily
opposed which compelled the King to reappoint Deuba as Prime Minster in June
2004 but later the King
did a coup on Feb.1, 2005 in a
dramatic way by home arresting all ministers and Prime Minister Deuba at
midnight .After such a palace coup the King himself led the government. His
hand picked Vice chairmen and ministers advocated this step “a necessary one”
and also said that it was in favor of people, democracy and peace. They tried
to pretend the world that the King’s step was an acceptable act for Nepalese.
This step however forced the major parliamentary parties to rethink and
re-conceptualize the context in a broader way to understand the reality and
protect the nation from a shock of unbearable political catastrophe. This is
how the conflict in Nepal has come through three different stages. In the fist
phase the political parties advocated in favor of palace and therefore,
conceptualized CPN-M their major enemy. In the second stage mainly after the Prime
Minister Deuba was sacked for the first time till the end of 2005 there was
such a confusion that all these three forces seemed to be enemy of each other.
It was a time of confusion. This was a “confused state”. But after the Seven
Party Alliance (SPA) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with CPN-M in
Delhi, the capital city of India, the whole political scenario changed and
palace was conceptualized as the major enemy and main cause of Nepal’s
underdevelopment. The figure2 below
illustrates the dynamics of Nepalese conflict and power shift in relation to
People’s War in Nepal. King
Gyanendra is the middle brother. Birendra is the eldest and Dhirenra the
youngest who was also killed in the same
night. By looking at such a dynamics of
conflict at the local level, it is arguable that societies are transforming in different dimension wherein new
thoughts and ideas emerge. Hence, it also
would be realistic to say that emerging new thoughts and ideas definitely do
contradict with the establishment as it has been
experienced in Nepal which is a process of
further conceptualization in the whole in order to build up a new collective
awareness. New ideology that has spirit to
benefit majority can be termed as good force3. Hence, all differing ideas and thoughts in the whole definitely are
not considerable as “good force” though they
are products of the social process at a particular time and place. On such a
conceptual understanding conflict is not something
that is to be conceptualized as some thing
completely “avoidable” kind of phenomena in a society. Coser (1956:39) argues
that conflicts clear the air, eliminate the
accumulation of blocked balked disposition by allowing
their behavioral exposition. In the same way,
Agerback
(1996:27) argues that; This
figure was first published in an article: Armed conflict and migration;
A threat for
development and peace. Available at:
http://www.nepalresearch.org
Phase One
Phase Two
….any dynamic human system is
by nature a conflicting one, encompassing the play of opposing interest. The
crux lies in how much conflict is managed. So long as the social and political
processes provide channels for dialogue, participation and negotiation,
conflict plays a constructive role. Where such channels are blocked, and yet
basic needs unmet, then the resentment and desperation build up.
The outcome is protest,
repression and violence (1996:27). By this view it is convincing that conflict
as such is not a negative phenomenon in the “whole” rather it is our capacity
to read and respond them that makes a difference and helps to change the course
of conflict which determines the dynamics of conflict. Therefore, conflict is a
“disagreement” over “others”. It is a sign of imbalance in the whole which
forms a clear demarcation between “I” and “You” and “We” and “Them”. This is a
sign of segregation and discard of the minority in the whole which compels them
to further solidify their sense of being in the whole and inspires even to
raise arms if not managed it in advance.
Practice of
inclusiveness, a “genuine democracy” and the importance of local
dynamics of
conflict.
I believe that it would be
possible for us now to conceptualize the emergence of CPN-M as unavoidable
phenomena in the social and political process in Nepal to facilitate for
reconceptualization reality in order to benefit majority. The probability of
minimizing intensity of conflict was ignored as the essence of “dialogue” which
is a base for imagination for peace (Lederach, 2005) was undervalued by the
then governments. It is also mentionable here that everything is in a motion,
is transforming in different dimensions as per time and place. Everything is
maintained in such a way that even a small change in the whole does have an
influence in the total system yet some are not noticeable. The same concept is
applicable to the conflict in Nepal. Hence, the way the emergence of CPN-M and
it’s essence in the whole was undermined and devalued; it changed the course of
the conflict. The essence of the emergence of CPN-M was realized when the
conflict reached the third phase which has been explained in the figure above. This
is all because of the dynamics of conflict which is highly influenced by the international
phenomena and the local dynamics of gradual change and transformation. On this
background, one must accept that the local dynamics of conflict is complex and should
be understood differently in different contexts. Now, let us discuss why PW in Nepal
can be an example of conflict transformation as a “New Model”. We have already argued
that new ideas and thoughts that emerge during social and political process
with an aim to benefit majority should not be ignored. Sadly, it happened in
Nepal. The differing ideology i.e., CPN-M, was segregated from the system.
Finally, at the third stage of the conflict, it has been realized that CPN-M
actually was not something “avoidable” therein in the whole because it had
raised the issues4 already in 1996 which have
been considered pasitively recently by the major political parties. Not only
that, they even have inspired to change the party statue for new political
setting. Such an, They raised issues
like constitutional assembly to form a new constitution by people’s
representatives. Royal Nepalese Army must be under parliament not under palace.
King should be under constitution. They also have raised many issues related to
land reformation, economic policies, education and health policies which seem
to be in favour of majority. understanding opened up possibilities for
re-conceptualizing social and political process in Nepal in order to practice a
“genuine democracy” where differing ideas and thoughts are respected and
regarded a part of a social and political process. Yet, there is much to happen
in reality. The so called super power led by US regarded such a process in
Nepal as “unnatural” after major political parties, united under Seven Party
Alliance (SPA) and signed a 12 point Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with
CPN-M on November 22, 2005 in Delhi, India. Rather, they were suggested to make
an alliance with Palace which is the central of feudalism. The reason might be
that CPN-M carries a socialistic approach and is one of the leading leftist
forces in the Nepalese political society. We must thank the alliance for their
commitment because it was a necessary in the context of Nepal. After the
alliance between the SPA and CPN-M they announced peaceful people’s movement
commencing on 6th April. King’s government
announced curfew order to foil the people’s peaceful movement. The flood of
people defied day and night “shoot in sight”curfuw in the capital and in other
major towns for more than two weeks. The 19 days long curfew order was avoided.
Everyday the movement got supported and added thousands of people each day in
the demonstration. Such an organized people’s peaceful movement faced brutal
baton charge, tear gas shells and even bullets. This was however the final
brutal and inhuman action from the King led government. 21 people died so far
and thousands severely injured. Some have lost their eyesight. The peaceful
movement led by the SPA and supported by CPN-M shows the local dynamics of
conflict and its essence which finally compelled the autocratic rule to accept
the power of “people’s movement” which is never defetable by any means, even by
sophisticated weapons. Finally, the unavoidable local dynamic reality compelled
the super power to accept “the unnatural ties” as they termed earlier. The
parliament was reinstated on 24th April by
the King and recently the parliament has decided go for constituent assembly, a
major demand of CPN-M from the beginning of People’s War. People are always
powerful. Autocracy, be of whatever form falls apart at a certain point of
social process when it proceeds ahead in the complex dynamism of conflict in a
social and political process. People’s sentiment of “democracy” and “freedom”
can never be defeated. Nepal’s successful movement is a live example on the
dynamics of conflict for the rest of the world.
Conclusion
Differing ideas and thoughts
that emerge at certain point of social and political process should not be ignored
if their intention is to benefit majority. The conflict in Nepal (Nepalese
People’s War), the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between the SPA and
CPN-M and the down fall of autocratic Monarch in Nepal is such an example that
portrays the importance of local dynamics of conflict. It also gives a message
that inclusiveness is as a “New Model” and “dialogue” is the point of departure
for conflict resolution which can be applicable in rest of the world.
References:
· Agerback , L. (1996) Breaking
the cycle of violence: doing development in situation
of
conflict in D. Eade (ed.) Development in States of War, Oxford:
Oxfam
· Central Bureau of Statistics (2001) Nepal
Living Standard Survey, Kathamndu.
· Central Bureau of Statistics (2004) Nepal
Living Standard Survey, Kathamndu.
http://www.cbs.gov.np
· Hutt, Michael (2004) Himalayan
People’s war. Nepal Maoist Rebellion. Hurst and
Company, London
· Lederach, J. P. (2005) The
Moral Imagination; The Art and Soul of Building Peace.
Oxford University Press
No comments:
Post a Comment