Nepal is engaged in state reconstruction and drafting a constitution. This process however has been inordinately delayed and Nepal’s Constituent Assembly (CA) has had to give itself several extensions. But the stalemate continues. In meantime there has been much wrangling between the main political parties and also within them on who should be the prime minister, a post that has seen several hands changing in the last few months. Many political party leaders have had an unsuccessful shot at trying to get the majority required behind them. But the Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (UML), the Communist Party (Maoists) and the smaller Madhesi parties have been so fractured in their mandate that the complexity and importance of transition seems to constantly evade them.
The changes in Nepal are dramatic as they transit from constitutional monarchy to democracy; from Hindu kingdom to secular republic; from unified state to federalism. This in itself is huge. But there are other challenges. The decade long civil war led by the Maoists with no side really winning but all incurring heavy loss of life and rights violations came to a conclusion only after the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed in 2006 after a major intervention by the Nepali civil society, backed significantly by the good offices of India. This enabled the Maoists and their leader Prachanda to come over ground, the abdication of the monarchy and a peace process was initiated. The elections to make the Constituent Assembly that followed in 2008 saw the Maoists get the largest numbers, but they did not have a clear majority to form a government on their own and needed coalition partners. But despite that, there was hope that peace, democracy, secularism and a federal Nepal would emerge. This has not happened as yet.
The main reasons for the stalemate are that the mainstream parties and the Maoists do not trust each other. And since neither group has the requisite numbers in the Assembly, are unable to pass anything on their own. The Maoists had brought the issue of ethnic minority rights of the Madhesis, in a region seen as part of and influenced by India and outside the earlier ‘exclusive Nepali politics’. But since the Madhesi parties won seats in the elections, their main interest is in altering the political institutions to get more representatives for themselves. So political constellations in the Assembly keep changing.
The other tricky issue is that of integrating the Maoist armed militia (PLA) into the Nepal Army. This militia (of 19,000) comprises young Maoist cadre — men and women who had been at the forefront of the Maoist rebellion. They had committed huge violations as also suffered humiliations at the hands of the Royal Nepal Army. The peace process had ambiguously promised that part of these cadres get integrated into the regular Nepal army. Until that happens they were to remain in camps that were safeguarded by the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN), but whose term also expired while the task of de-militarisation and re-integration remained incomplete. The mainstream parties like the Nepali Congress, the Communist Party (UML) and now the Madhesi Parties, believe that the Maoists do not really want a multi-party system, but would like to capture complete power and establish a ‘people’s democracy’ in Maoist tradition. They believe that the Maoists are waiting for the right moment and therefore these parties are constantly trying to prevent the Maoists from getting leeway in either day-to-day politics, or in integrating the PLA, or in finalising a constitution that might favour them.
India has always been an important backroom player in Nepali politics. This has been both resented and used by Nepali politicians. It has encouraged even more cloak and dagger politics from the Indian side, especially because India feels that it has given this land locked country visa free and complete access to trade and transit. But then, Indian business also has Nepal as an extended market. And India has geopolitical interests here.
India played a positive role in bringing the feuding parties and Nepali Maoists together at the most critical juncture for ending the civil war. But in recent times, India wants to keep the Maoists out of power and so has been backing other horses. The US always interested in South Asia would like to keep the Maoists out of governance. Both India and the US feel that the Maoists in Nepal might get closer to China.
But the reality is that India’s meddling in day -to-day politics runs counter to both Nepali and Indian interests. Both India and Nepal have to recognise that the Maoist Party is part of Nepal’s politics. They have a mandate — though not total from the people. Nepal’s democratic process is irreversible and manipulating parties and coalitions in collaboration will de-legitimise India and the parties involved. It will give a bad name to the backroom players, in an age where leaks and stories are commonplace. And US interests cannot be the same as India’s.
Clearly China also wants leverage in Nepal especially in order to keep an eye on Tibet, which is China’s major worry and also to ensure the market there. Clearly, India has to play its cards right. India will have to give all Nepali parties the necessary space and in fact encourage a government of national unity that can make a consensus constitution.
This cannot be done without the Maoists and the other parties building trust and political will. India can emerge a winner if it helps rather than retards this process. Alienating the Maoists will mean breaking links with a group that might well come to power in the near future. Moreover India must not be seen as hegemonic even if it is the natural big power in the region. For this, India should not only continue to give the economic aid and assistance it has been giving, but do so more magnanimously.
The author is a Professor at the School of International Studies, JNU, New Delhi. Email: chenoy@gmail.com