Opinion Helping Nepal pull together

Interestingly,Bhattarai is also likely,according to his chief political advisor,Devendra Poudel,to seek a formal Indian role in concluding the peace process in Nepal. Speaking at the Indo-Nepal Human Development Forum on September 25,UCPN(Maoist) Chairman Pushpa Kumar Dahal “Prachanda” had also made a similar plea. The government of India would do well to heed such a request,if it comes.

At the moment,the peace process in Nepal is at a delicate stage. While taking over as prime minister,Bhattarai had given himself 45 days to complete the process of integration and rehabilitation of PLA cadres. The time limit passed last week without the target having been achieved. Bhattarai,therefore,will need all the help he can get.

Look at the problems that he is facing. Some perceptive analysts had pointed out that the failure of the first Maoist government,led by Prachanda,resulted from the fact that it was wanting in the multiple skills that were required for the three different tasks that the government was supposed to perform: running the administration of the country; providing leadership for the writing of a new constitution; and completing the peace process.

The Maoists are now saddled with all three responsibilities once again,and Bhattarai faces an even more onerous task than Prachanda,who had a more or less cohesive party behind him. Bhattarai faces serious revolt from a strong faction from within his party,headed by Mohan Baidya.

Also,Prachanda,when PM,could count on the statesmanship of Girija Prasad Koirala,who,though frail,was then leading the Nepali Congress. In his interview to La Republica after Girijababu’s death,Prachanda touchingly acknowledged the sound advice that the former used to give him even though they were adversaries on the Nepalese political scene. Today,there is no similar elder statesman in the Nepali Congress to give it a positive direction in the pursuit of the peace process. In the other major party,NCP(UML),there is no love lost amongst its top leaders K.P. Oli,Jhalanath Khanal and Madhav Nepal. Infighting among all these parties has a serious adverse impact on the peace process and the writing of the constitution.

Thirdly,the four-point agreement between the Maoists and the coalition of Madhesi parties,with its commitment to the creation of a federal,democratic republic,has given rise to misgivings amongst those who have been suspicious of the political ambitions of the plains-dwellers in Nepal,the size of whose representation in the constituent assembly enable them to play the kingmakers’ role today. In these suspicions,all parties,whether democratic or pro-monarchy,are united. The latest manifestation of these sentiments has been the demand for the resignation of Defence Minister Sharat Singh Bhandari,who belongs to the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum and who is alleged to have made a statement threatening secession by the Madhesi districts.

On the positive side is the genuine popularity and credibility that Bhattarai enjoys,apart from his academic brilliance and the consistency of his political beliefs. Among the first steps that he took as PM was to return the keys of containers in which the weapons of PLA cadres were kept,a gesture which helped put the integration process back on the rails. He believes that Nepal needs a consensus government to usher in a new constitution,though his efforts to reach out to NC and NCP(UML) have not succeeded so far.

The fact that,as prime minister,he goes around in a Mustang jeep assembled in Nepal,and that the travelling allowance he got for his journey to New York to attend the UN General Assembly was gifted to quake victims,has made a favourable impression amongst the people of Nepal. Some admirers call him a Marxian Gandhi! What gives additional hope this time around is the fact that the Government of India is seemingly positive in its attitude towards the Maoist-led government. Unfortunately,India’s involvement in Nepal over the past couple of years had been perceived as interference by many in that country.

However,at the moment,those who advise the Indian prime minister on Nepal seem to believe more in engagement than in confrontation. The suspicion about Maoist intentions,which clouded the Government of India’s perceptions ever since the UCPN(M) emerged as the single largest party in Nepal in 2008,seems to be giving way to comprehension of the positive implications of a peaceful transition to democracy in Nepal under Maoist leadership and its possible impact on the left-wing extremist (LWE) movement in India. The strong,adverse reaction of the Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)-Naxalbari to the elevation of Baburam Bhattarai as prime minister of Nepal,through a press release on September 16,in which it condemned the UCPN(M) for its ideological deviation from the Chungwang process has presumably not gone unnoticed in New Delhi. The LWE leadership in India is evidently concerned that the Nepalese political evolution,if completed peacefully,can cause similar ideological deviations amongst its cadres in India.

Dor Bahadur Bista described Nepal in 1994 as “a heteronomous society with a complex ethnic mix,overlaid by disparities in social and economic opportunity” and perceived the country as a “cultural conglomerate seeking perpetually to accommodate,if not synthesise its diverse discrete parts.” Bista’s analysis suggests that the key to the success of any government in Nepal is the management of ethnic diversities and the deft handling of social and economic disparities. Baburam Bhattarai needs no one’s advice to realise that this is a cardinal principle that he must keep in mind as he gets ready to lead his country out of the trauma of struggle,conflict and contradiction.

The writer is a former chief of the Research and Analysis Wing