The Growing Crisis

The Maoist comrades have done it again. And, this time, the victim is a Swiss national Steve Jeannereet. It is a matter of national shame that we cannot ensure safety of tourists that enrich our public purse and enhance our national image.

The Maoists have killed teachers, journalists, and harassed doctors. But by physically assaulting a foreign national, they have not only ashamed themselves but also dented nation's image. When will the Maoists come to their senses? I guess it is not the right question to ask. Will they ever come to senses, unless they are forced to?

The government is trying to tighten the screw on rebels in the tarai while providing a free pass to the Maoists to engage in criminal activities. This strategy will eventually backfire. It will make easier for the rebel groups in the tarai to manipulate young unemployed youths in the name of ethnic discrimination. If the government cannot ruffle Puspa Kamal Dahal's feathers, it should not set a dangerous precedence of selective justice by targeting Madhesi rebels.

There is no difference whatsoever between Puspa Kamal Dahal and Nagendra Paswan's men. They are all engaged in criminal and anti-social activities. They have blood of innocent people stained in their hands.

The current government has completely failed to maintain law-and-order in the country. One thing that the current government is good at is -- provide compensation to the victims of Maoist crimes. If the prime minister or the home minister had to pay compensation from their pockets, then they would feel the heat. To give away taxpayers' hard-earned money does not seem to bother them a bit. This is height of irresponsibility and unaccountability.

If the Maoists are responsible for committing crimes, the current government is responsible for turning a blind eye on their criminal activities. Needles to say, both are at fault. In order to make the Maoists more responsible, the government should deduct the amount handed over to the victims' family from the money that the Maoists receive for their men confined in the camps. Let them feel the heat too. Hit them where it hurts most.

Of late, it has become evident that the Maoist leadership is not only power hungry but also hungry for money. Thousands of innocent civilians that were lured and registered as combatants have deserted the UN-administered camps, but the Maoist leadership is yet to report the cases to the government and reject payments made to support them. They blame the mainstream political parties for corruption and mismanagement but fail to see how mismanaged and corrupt their own party is. Collecting payments on behalf of non-existent combatants is a fraud in broad daylight.

It is understandable that the Maoists would not budge about it because they are financially benefiting from it. But why are UNMIN and the government silent on this issue? Neither UNMIN has shown any decency and reported the matter to the government nor has the government deemed it necessary to become fiscally responsible and stopped the payment even after media has reported it. When will the people in the corridors of power and those appeasing them to bury their own incompetence be held responsible for their screw ups?

With each passing day, things are becoming clearer: (1) The Seven Party Alliance (SPA) wants to remain in power forever in the name of peace process (2) India, after having burnt it fingers in its mission of buying unequivocal and everlasting Maoist support, now wants to teach them a lesson by strengthening rebels outfit in the tarai (3) the Maoists do not want peace and elections because of the plummeting public support. If there is peace, and free and fair elections are held, the Maoist leadership knows it very well that its bargaining power will take a nosedive. For the Maoists, chaos is profitable. It has both financial and political pay-offs.

Another thing that has become evident from the Maoists' never ending experiment is that they know what they want (capture the power and hang in there), but they don't know how to get there. That's the reason why they are engaged in never ending errant experimentation of all kinds.

The Nepalis are now in a far worse situation than they were during the Maoist insurgency. Then, we had one problem -- the Maoist insurgency. But we have uncountable groups with various motives and agendas. They are used and abused by various unseen forces to gain control. Caught in the middle is the unelected government that neither has the required mandate to force its will on people, nor has any strategy to solve the problems. What an ugly situation to be in.

India by forcing the SPA to join hands with the Maoists has created more problems than it actually had. While Nepal is failing, India wants to redefine its success. After the Maoists stopped dancing to the Indian tune, India now, wants to tighten its grip on Nepal and teach the Maoists a lesson by strengthening the rebel outfits in the tarai. India might have a last laugh by wiping out the Maoists in the tarai, but the Nepalis do not have anything to cheer about. It might be a good strategy from India's point of view, but when it comes to the people of Nepal, India will be simply replacing one devil with another. Creation of warlords has never brought peace and strengthened democracy anywhere.

With each passing day, not only our freedom and prosperity, but also our sovereignty is at stake. How much India values our sovereignty is crystal clear from its recent request to maintain a status-quo on encroachment of the Nepali soil at Susta.

Let us get realistic for a second, shall we? Had King Gyanendra agreed to dance to Indian tune like Jigme in Bhutan, Gayyoom in the Maldives, and General Than Shwe in Burma, what would have been the fate of SPA politicians? Where would they be now?

India's selfless desire towards establishing peace and stable democracy in Nepal is not as selfless as India would like it. It cares more about its grips on Nepal than anything else. It wants to administer proxy rule in Nepal through the likes of Dasho Jigme Khesar Namgyal Wangchuck, Gayyoom in the Maldives. What will it take us to realize this fact?

Ram Raja Prasad Singh has already revealed India's role in fueling the ongoing crisis in the tarai. If India really wanted peace in Nepal and respected its sovereignty, it would not deploy its intelligence agency to bring together all the rebel groups operating in the tarai and have a meeting with them in Indian soil. It would not have engaged itself in encroachment of Nepali soil. It would rather help negotiate a settlement between the rebels and the Nepali government and returned encroached soil even before Nepal approached for it.

The problem with our political leaders is that they don't believe what they don't want to believe. Ignorance is bliss and this adage applies very well to beleaguered politicians who want to conveniently ignore ground realities as long as they can. The self-esteem of the political leadership has sunk so low that it is hard to believe that the current leadership will be able to navigate the nation towards stable liberal democracy.

So far both optimists and pessimists have been proved wrong. Neither peace nor complete political paralysis has resulted. Political crises are yet to be equated with disaster. However, if the current political deadlock and insincerity among the political leadership persists, the nation will plunge into a deep political and social crisis. Nepal will disintegrate internally if the inherent malaise is not removed.

Dreams Deferred: Peace & Democracy In Nepal

The US ambassador to Nepal, James F Moriarty is perhaps the most hated man amongst the radical Maoists। They love to hate him for the precision with which he assesses their dubious motives and covert operations and makes matters worse for them by publicizing these motives. With his tenure winding down, Moriarty may be the last man standing in Nepali soil that dares to counter Maoist propaganda eloquently, effectively, and consistently.

Moriarty had questioned Maoist commitment to complete disarmament long before CP Gajurel, a Maoist ideologue and central committee member, revealed among the Maoist sympathizers in Jawahar Lal Nehru University that they had raised the strength of their army from 10,000 to 37,000 after the fall of King Gyanendra's regime. Gajurel's recent revelation clearly shows that Moriarty was correct in his assessments when he made it public long before Gajurel did.
As far as the surrender of weapons to the United Nations is concerned, Moriarty had bluntly said that Maoists are acquiring "crummy weapons" from the Indian state of Bihar for locking up in cantonments, while retaining the "modern weapons" they already have। Gajurel's recent revelation has confirmed Moriarty's claim: Maoists not only bought "crummy weapons" but also are buying modern weapons to launch a city-centered revolution in the near future.

When Gajurel said that the Maoist military strength had increased from 10,000 to 37,000, he was also indirectly noting that if they had 10,000 guns before, they now had 27,000 more। An army is considered an army only when it is armed and the Maoists know it better than anyone else. The recent terai agitation has opened their eyes in terms of their existence in the absence of weapons.

Maoists cannot refute the fact that they are not buying weapons to arm these additional 27,000 recruits; if they do, they are not telling the truth this time around too. An army without weapons cannot be considered an army; at best, they can be considered as scouts and the Maoists know very well that a city-centered revolution is impossible with scouts.

When ambassador Moriarty accused the Maoists of acquiring and submitting only "crummy weapons" to the UN disarmament officials, Maoists used their dearest sympathizer in the cabinet -- Home Minister Krishna Prasad Sitaula -- to do the dirty laundry।

According to unofficial reports, Maoists have so far surrendered less than 4000 weapons out of which around 500 are not functional। If we count, it becomes evident that the weapons surrendered by the Maoists approximately match the number of weapons they had captured from the Nepal Army, Armed Police Force, and Nepali Police during the so-called people's war. What happened to the "modern weapons" that Maoists claim to have bought during the course of people's war?

Sitaula, instead of taking time and trying to find out the truth behind the statement, preferred to believe the Maoists for whatever reasons it may be and discredited ambassador's claim। However, the total number of weapons surrendered by the Maoists and Gajurel's recent revelation shows how our ministers misinform those very people whom they are supposed to keep abreast of every detail of the ongoing peace process.

Gajurel's recent revelation has proved that instead of disarming the militiamen, Maoists are actually increasing their military strength। How good of a job is Sitaula doing as home minister? Isn't it his duty, not a foreign diplomat's, to blow the proverbial whistle when there is foul play on the part of Maoists? Shouldn't he be morally responsible and accountable for misinforming people? He deluded his constituents when he discredited Moriarty's claim that Maoists were not being truthful to their commitment. If he cannot gather rather accurate information, he should not be at least misguiding the citizens.

Recently, Finance Minister Dr Ram Sharan Mahat said, "The Maoists have not produced any details of their expenditure।" The government had provided Rs 350 million to Maoist spokesperson Krishna Bahadur Mahara for necessary arrangements in all cantonments for Maoist combatants.

If we try to connect the dots and analyze the chain of statements from ambassador Moriarty to Dr Mahat, it is easy enough to ascertain where the taxpayers' money, handed over to Maoists as a "cash prize," is being spent।

The breakdown of data given by Dr Mahat shows that Maoists needed 63 million rupees each month to feed their 35,000 guerillas each month। However, Gajurel's revelation that they have raised their army strength from 10,000 to 37,000 clearly shows that the Maoists never had 35,000 militiamen to begin with. How could the government squander the taxpayers' hard-earned money without the proper homework to ascertain the real strength of the Maoist militia that was to be fed, clothed, and housed?

It is clear that the money that was given to feed, house, and clothe the 25,000 militiamen that never existed was spent, in reality, to increase the strength of their militia। Thus, the taxpayers' money which was handed over to the Maoists without proper homework has in turn exacerbated an already dire security situation and made the road to peace, stability, democracy difficult than ever.

It is not only about money but what the money given to take care off guerillas that never existed has done in terms of securing peace, stability, and democracy in the nation। Instead of contributing to the establishment of peace, security, and democracy, it has threatened these very ideals it was supposed to secure. In addition, Gajurel's revelation about the initial strength of the Maoist militia has demonstrated how easily the Maoists can fool our government and not be accountable for their actions.

The recent statements by Moriarty, Sitaula, Gajurel and Dr Mahat clearly show how murky the peace process is। It does not take Einstein's brain to come to the conclusion that Maoists have successfully hijacked the mandate of the people's movement II and the people's aspirations to peace, stability, and democracy, by using the very people who were supposed to defend the people's right to freedom and democracy. They are slowly, but firmly, building the foundation for establishing a proletarian communist state by skillfully using the SPA leaders that vouch for democracy.

An unprecedented surge in the Maoist military recruitment by using the taxpayers' money can be considered the most brilliant path devised by communists in modern times to defeat democracy and establish a proletarian communist state so far। Never in the history of mankind has such a successful plan been devised which misused the very money of the state that is run predominantly by the people that stand for multiparty democracy to recruit militiamen whose main aim is to undermine and ultimately defeat the existence of multiparty democracy and establish a proletarian communist state.

The sad part of the ongoing peace process is that while the Maoists, who have been double crossing the government thus far, have revealed their plan to initiate a city-centered revolution soon, the government is still glued to the wishful thinking of believing that things would fall into place once Maoists join the government। The government has no contingent strategy whatsoever to counter the Maoist threat of a city-centered revolution. This lack of sensitivity on the part of our politicians shows that the mindset of a time before King Gyanendra's rule still prevails.

Gajurel's recent revelation has sent chills over the spines of the Nepali citizens that have always dreamt of an inclusive democracy and the right to freedom of expression. With the revelation of an increase in Maoist military might and the initiation of a city-centered revolution, it begs the question: In an attempt to save ourselves from one monster—a repressive monarch—have we fallen into the clutches of another, (CPN Maoist)? Hopefully we will be luckier than the North Koreans and Cubans in translating our dreams of peace, stability and democracy into a reality.

Peace under the gun?

The news about the government and the Maoists making a breakthrough on the issue of arms management took everyone by surprise. The Kathmandu Post (Oct 31) quoted an anonymous leader involved in the negotiation and reported that a breakthrough acceptable to the government, the Maoists and the international community had been reached.

However, the recent interview given by Maoist leader Ram Bahadur Thapa "Badal" to Nepal Magazine states otherwise. He flatly refuses any possibility of the Maoists agreeing to the disarmament, demobilization, reintegration (DDR) formula put forward by the United Nations (UN). His perception of DDR as a means to force the Maoists to surrender raises serious doubts about him toeing the line with the Maoist supreme leaders, Prachanda and Dr. Babu Ram Bhattarai, on the issue of arms management. The brewing suspicion of him leading a splinter Maoist rebel group holds ground more than ever now and should not be understated.

A flurry of statements from the Maoist and SPA leaders in recent days have led to waxing and waning of people's expectations for a durable peace and stability. The marriage of convenience between the SPA and Maoists during the April revolution had instilled a ray of hope for a lasting peace and stability among the conflict-ridden Nepali citizens. However, with each day's passing, both peace and democracy seem to be an elusive dream.

As long as the Maoists maintain their goals inflexible and provide conflicting signals, there is a strong possibility that talks may soon hit the wall. Their refusal to disarm may prove to be a stumbling block in the ongoing peace process. When a party involved in negotiation puts forward inflexible goals, overlapping bargaining ranges fail to emerge and negotiations can break down prematurely.

At this point in time, the Maoists are trying to prove that they can hold out longer than their opposition during both negotiations and war. They understand that the longer they can stall negotiations, the more likely they are to convince the SPA government to capitulate.

The Maoist leaders are reluctant to disarm militiamen because while divulging secret weapons depots might facilitate settlement, it will simultaneously leave them vulnerable to intimidations and attacks. They know that the people and security forces that they have intimidated during this decade-long insurgency will lash out at them at the first chance they get.

Thus, the Maoists are trapped in a Catch-22 situation when it comes to the issue of disarmament. If the Maoist leaders agree to complete decommissioning of weapons, they will be making their militiamen dangerously vulnerable to annihilation; if they refuse to do so, they would be triggering the very security dilemma they hope to avoid.

Insurgency resolution is always a complex matter, no matter how simple and straightforward it may look from outside. It is complex not because of conflicting objectives, but because of conflicting perceptions of the issues involved and the complicated relationships between adversaries.

Resolving the Maoist insurgency requires more than agreeing to a ceasefire. An extension of a ceasefire is not a guarantor of peace. Successful resolution of the Maoist conflict warrants complete disarmament and demobilization of Maoist militiamen, integration of militiamen into the mainstream of society, and building an interim government capable of accommodating insurgents' interests. However, the formation of an interim government including the Maoists should be based on the complete disarmament and demobilization of Maoist militiamen.

Disarmament and demobilization of Maoist militiamen is crucial because a free and fair Constituent Assembly (CA) election is not possible without complete disarmament of Maoist militiamen. If they are not disarmed, the Maoists will definitely try to capitalize on people's fears. It would be naive to think that the demagogues, with their pathetic human right records, would act like Boy Scouts during the CA election.

In addition, if the CA election is held without disarming the Maoist rbels, it will be dominated by concerns about peace and security. Furthermore, the voters will be forced to use the limited power of their franchise to appease armed insurgents with a hope that this will prevent rebels from heading back to the jungles.

Thus, successful disarmament and demobilization of the militiamen is extremely important in enhancing confidence in the electoral process and guaranteeing fair election results.

Peace and democracy cannot flourish under the gun. The mad rush towards the formation of an interim government without addressing the core issues--- disarmament and demobilization of armed rebels --- would be a futile attempt towards a lasting peace and stability. The solution based on power sharing without taking care of the core issues remains incomplete. Forcing unwilling and contentious factions together in any kind of power-sharing structure is not a lasting solution and is bound to fail in the long run.

If we look at the world's history, it becomes evident that settlements based on power sharing without taking care of disarmament, demobilization, reintegration (DDR) issues eventually fail and lead to renewed war. For instance, failure to disarm combatants led to renewed conflict in Angola.

According to Margaret Antsee, the UN special envoy to Angola, "Any lasting solution of a long-standing civil war depends on a satisfactory resolution of the military element." Thus, complete disarmament and demobilization of Maoist militiamen should be the central component of efforts towards re-establishing legitimate governance, lasting peace, and a well-functioning democracy.

If peace talks are on the verge of breakdown, the Maoist fear of annihilation can be subsided through a firm commitment from the third party. The UN can mobilize peace keeping forces in the field to actively punish violations and protect disarmed Maoist militiamen. This will ensure that the Maoist security concerns will not be negated and will promote their willingness towards disarmament.

The ongoing peace negotiations may fail, not because the Maoists do not want peace, but because they cannot solve certain tenacious bargaining problems. If the Maoists want to establish themselves as a political force, they should view disarmament and demobilization as an important step towards both confidence-building among the parties and the development of new institutions and procedures of decision-making that are necessary for sustaining peace and democracy.

The Maoists should move away from their current competitive-bargaining strategy and adopt a softer cooperative-bargaining strategy. This is mainly because competitive-bargaining strategy assumes a "win-lose" situation. As neither the Maoists nor the government want to be perceived as a loser, this strategy does not lend itself to the compromises necessary to bring an end to the conflict; no substantial progress can be made as such. Cooperative-bargaining is based more on a "win-win" mentality and is geared more towards focusing on benefits for the parties involved.