The Nepal conundrum
NEPAL is going through a rapid and unprecedented transformation of politics and social life. For the first time, the Himalayan nation may turn into a republic from a monarchy, which it has been since 1768.
For the first time, a reordering of society seems to be in the offing, dismantling hierarchical society in which feudal lords and caste discrimination have been dominant.
While change brings new vision and new order, it always brings uncertainty. Political and social reforms in Nepal are initially likely to bring insecurity and upheaval among people, as perestroika (reform) and glasnost (openness) did for the Soviet Union in the late '80s.
There are four inter-related elements that are visible in Nepal as of today. They are:
- Lack of unity among political parties.
- Demand of minority classes for political participation.
- Economic weakness adding to social tension.
- Interest of international stakeholders in the country's stability.
Political leaders, civil society, and the armed forces in Nepal are required to take into account that they face a new challenge where cooperation and unity of purpose will be required at all levels, otherwise the country may degenerate into a state of chaos and instability.
Let me briefly discuss the above issues.
Tenuous peace deal, and election on April 10
Former Maoist rebels signed a peace deal in November 2006 and formed an interim government. Soon after, the Nepali Congress-led government fell out with the Maoists on the question of abolition of monarchy. However, both parties need each other to move forward, and they patched up an agreement to abolish monarchy.
The minorities who were dormant in society came out in the open to ventilate their grievances. Openness of society has always brought new issues that need to be addressed politically.
The peace deal, however, cannot bring peace because it still excludes politicians from the lowlands of the south. Around two dozen armed ethnic groups have emerged in the Terai region to voice their grievances. They feel marginalised politically. They want their voices to be heard politically.
In recent days, three different groups representing the minorities formed an alliance for what they called "a final revolt" against the country's government, which itself is driven by tensions ahead of national elections set for April 10.
Protests were reported in the region bordering India, home to around half of Nepal's 27 million population and known as the country's breadbasket. Authorities in Kathmandu said they were ready for dialogue, but warned that any fresh violence would not be tolerated.
A weak economy is another factor that leads to instability in the country. Many believe fiscal mismanagement has led to the chronic fuel shortages across the country; lines to the petrol stations in the capital extend for kilometers and prices have tripled in less than half a year.
Kathmandu residents face at least six hours of power cuts a day. Growth rate still hovers around only 2% . Trade unionism and general strikes disrupt production in factories. "We live in a broken state," says Mandira Sharma, a leading human rights activist.
The peace deal shows how unnatural the alliance is between the two sides, which represent different interests. The distrust between the two sides threatens the political stability.
The Maoists see themselves as "agents" of democracy and equal rights for all people, while the Congress is perceived to be wedded to the ancient regime. These two contrasting views of the political sides may dominate the election campaigns.
The continued discord, according to many, may strengthen the king, and many Nepalese consider the monarchy as a symbol of unity and stability.
In the above scenario, there appear to be three sides -- the Maoists, the Nepali-Congress, and the supporters of monarchy -- in the next election in April.
The election is for a legislature that will draft Nepal's new republican constitution. The stakes are high for all three sides. If the polls do not go smoothly, there will be a fresh spate of violence in the country, whose consequences will impact on its neighbours.
South Asia is, regrettably, being torn politically. Sri Lanka and Pakistan are going through a politically turbulent period. International confidence and support for them are declining. International actors are worried that extremist elements are likely to be on the rise in the present turmoil.
International stakeholders
Against this background, international actors, especially the US, India and China, are watching closely the Nepalese situation.
Nepal is sandwiched between India and China. India shares a porous border in the south while Tibet lies in the north. The train line between Beijing and Lhasa has brought China closer to Nepal.
However, India and China are perceived as rivals in Asia, and the China-containment policy of the US involving India is not comfortable for China.
China fears that any consensus between the US and India on Nepal's political system may be a boost for anti-Chinese Tibetan activists. China, in the past, continued to support the monarchy and did not support the Maoists in Nepal. In fact, China had nothing to do with them.
The local Maoists in Nepal are the product of India's Maoists movement and they are called Maoists because their strategy is to win the hearts and minds of the people of the countryside, like the Maoists in China.
What is being witnessed in Nepal is not the making of a few years. It is a situation that has remained for hundreds of years, and it is unfolding into a new system in which a new Nepal is being created. South Asia must be ready to ensure that a new Nepal will be a positive factor within its political and social environment.
Comments