Success depends on a tightrope walk

The ceasefire is on. But no one has any doubt about the clout the Maoists are wielding in the current round of negotiations with the government.

The government had surrendered all its authority to the rebels right at the beginning, when the dialogue began.

But the revived parliament—after a series of “radical declarations” aimed chiefly at curtailing the King’s power and empowering people—has now suddenly begun realising the impact of the move.

In a knee-jerk reaction, it has come up with the CPP resolution against the dissolution of parliament. In fact, the view that the dissolution of parliament will only lead to absence of democratic and representative institutions, has been endorsed by senior leaders of other political parties.

But the belated realisation has put a question mark on the future of the ongoing dialogue and the peace process with the Maoists. The timing, too, could not have been worse, for the government has already invited the United Nations to “work for management of weapons of the Nepal Army as well as the rebels”.

Prime Minister G P Koirala had watched the restlessness of his party’s parliamentarians from the hospital, where he was admitted for respiratory problems.

Koirala has hinted that he would honour the spirit of the resolution. But that would also mean not honouring his agreement with the Maoists on June 16—committing for dissolution of the House of Representatives.

In a counter move, Maoist ideologue Baburam Bhattarai has declared, they will “not surrender the arms” before the election to the proposed Constituent Assembly. This means that the Maoists will want to join the proposed interim Government on their terms—while in possession of arms—no matter how strongly the US and India spoke against such a move.

This will have an impact that would not be confined within the boundaries of the country: this was the gist of India’s recent message to Koirala and Nepali Congress (Democratic) leader Sher Bahadur Deuba, conveyed by Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh himself.

The settlement of the decade-long conflict should be done through peaceful negotiation and in the spirit of accommodation, India had said. But total surrender (by the state) will only give more legitimacy to violence as an instrument of politics.

Goel’s case thus assumes great political significance.

The state has so far, not responded to it. Nor has it questioned the Maoists’ right to impose fine on individuals. The incident occurred almost two weeks after Maoist chief Prachanda instructed kangaroo courts to stop their operation, following complaints that the violation of the code of conduct might lead to collapse of the dialogue.

The Maoists will, no doubt, assert their right to punish Goel summarily and interpret the CPP resolution against the dissolution of the parliament as a “conspiracy” under the dictat of the “imperialist US and expansionist India”.

But the CPP decision was meant to encourage the seven-party alliance government to assert and exercise its authority as mandated by the people’s movement. The timing, tone and tenor of the CPP resolution is that the parliament, an outcome of the successful movement of the people, should not be dissolved just because Maoists want.

It was firm on its stand that punishing culprits, realising “fine” and enforcing law and order is the state’s duty and obligation, which cannot be surrendered to rebels even during a ceasefire. And it wants the Maoists to work for the creation of a conducive atmosphere for election to the constituent assembly.

Prime Minister Koirala’s known ability to demonstrate the state’s authority has largely been compromised because of his ill-health. And his government’s inability on that count will only facilitate Nepal’s journey towards failure—something both Maoists and the government had pledged to check.

That will also be a big setback for the international community, which recently “saluted” the people of Nepal for having won the battle of democracy.