By DR. TILAK RAWAL

Conflict-devastated Nepalese have started deriving some solace after listening to somewhat softened observations of stalwarts of current regime. It is gratifying to find conciliatory notes in the observations of people who until recently repeatedly suggested imposing a ban on political parties and their activities. The sharp criticism of political parties by them was reminiscent of pre-1990 three decades of party less panchayat system when political activities by parties were banned and anyone found sympathetic to leaders and parties was attacked as an anti national element. Indeed, a pleasant surprise that even some of the ministers, who never missed out on ridiculing leaders, have emphasized dialogue between the monarch and the agitating parties to resolve the crisis.

Notwithstanding incessant sharp criticism of current dispensation by political parties and declaration of further protest programs, it would not be too much to expect political leaders to declare moves of rapprochement and reconciliation. The monarch has shown flexibility and a remarkable change in the attitude of some propagandists of current dispensation is also observed. Indeed, one had to struggle to find conciliatory notes in the monarch’s address given on the completion of one year rule, which was branded by parties as a futile attempt to justify the direct rule. The royal address of democracy day, however, abounded with conciliatory expressions and looked a positive departure from the earlier stand.

It seems the Narayanhiti doors are open to all political parties and their respective leaders. The big question, however, is how are these noble wishes going to be actualized? So that the sincere wishes do not remain a mere wishful thinking, concerted efforts from the concerned quarters are necessary to build further on the platform offered. Issues related to municipal elections have been rightfully forgotten as the parties in dispute have now many important agenda to concentrate on.

Indeed, a debate on whether the polls were successfully held or they ended in a fiasco does not merit attention of Nepalese who are desperately awaiting return of normalcy in Nepal . There are very good reasons to believe that the main object behind monarch’s experimentation with different governments including the current one was to restore normalcy and hold much awaited elections. Since every government in the past was given time to fulfill the task that it was charged with, the current government’s performance must also have been evaluated after passage of reasonable time period.

While peace thirsty Nepalese thought, encouraged as they were by the impressive speech of February 1, that direct rule would definitely bring peace to the country, the selection of people to discharge the challenging responsibility, however, prompted many to conclude that the monarch was trying to negotiate a stiff climb with a cabinet load of unhealthy subordinates on shoulder. The powerful impression that the takeover speech made on majority of Nepalese was momentary as the constitution of government the next day and its periodic reshuffle thereafter contributed to the rapid erosion of confidence that the royal proclamation of February 1 had built.

Talking of the evaluation of current dispensation, it can be safely observed that it has a mixed story of failure and some success to reveal. On the peace front, the situation of relative quietness, no bombs and not much killing, that emerged soon after take over and is continuing till date in the Valley is definitely an improvement over the situation in the past. This situation of relative calmness, however, could not be extended to other areas where people experienced some semblance of peace only during the four months of unilateral peace declaration by the Maoists, the period that happily coincided with the annual festivals of Dashain and Tihar. Neither the Maoists have come to the negotiating table nor do they appear militarily weakened in a significant manner.

As the experience elsewhere in the world shows that force is used to bring parties in disagreement to agreement, which again is the result of table talks that are held after the military intervention. With the exception of a few cases such as British military intervention in Falkland to settle the ownership dispute with Argentina, in most cases use of force in recent times has not succeeded in providing the final solution to a problem. It may also be mentioned that NATO’s firepower led to quick ouster of former dictator Milosevic who recently died in his cell while being tried for four years by International War Crime Tribunal in The Hague .

In the past, it took US forces only thirty days to effectively counter Saddam’s aggression in Kuwait . More recently, American-led multilateral forces succeeded in dislodging Saddam quickly, contrary to the belief of many observers, but let us not forget that the Iraqi problem is far from over: formation of a unity government after the parliamentary polls has not been possible. The road that the Americans have decided to walk in Iraq is not a smooth one, President Bush has recently confessed. Iraq is bleeding, admits, US envoy to Iraq . Numerous examples can be cited to conclude that military intervention is only an intermediary tool.

Chief of the armed force of Nepal has gone on record in the past stating that army was constitutionally used to bring the rebels into mainstream politics. What can be inferred from this statement of general Thapa is that the goal of military intervention in Nepal is to help feuding parties reach a point of settlement and the object has never been to completely wipe out the rebels of Nepalese origin.

We have had enough of war and the time now is to talk and actualize peace. Let us refrain from sowing conflict and increasing confusion. Therefore, what is the harm in letting current ministers boast that they could hold municipal polls in a difficult situation, securing 20 percent turnout. Indeed, in the face of effective boycott of polls by the agitating parties and Maoists vowing to make polls a total failure, it was an uphill task for the government to find adequate number of candidates for the positions lying vacant and to persuade people, no matter how small a number it was, into casting their ballots. Very rightfully, issues such as how many positions have been filled and how many elected officials have gone into hiding have now been relegated to oblivion This issue does not merit serious attention of political leaders faced with more important challenges of conflict resolution and then mending the torn nation and the economy.

Convergence of divergent opinions can be made possible in the greater interest of the nation and its people. Of late, rebels have shown some flexibility of political nature, palace appears flexible and people would definitely expect their leaders not to lag behind in creating a conducive environment for restoration of peace. Let us also not take interest shown by friendly nations as interference in our internal affairs as long as the utterances and actions of our friends are well intentioned. If we had no problems, we would definitely not tolerate foreigners professing unnecessarily. Because we have serious problems at home, we need assistance, both technical and financial, from multilateral and bilateral fronts as has been the case in other trouble- torn nations such as Sri-Lanka , Afghanistan , Sudan , Congo , etc.

The Norwegian brokered ceasefire in Sri Lanka is still on, despite fear of collapse, but the huge money on offer is yet to be delivered by the donors because there has been no substantial progress in peace talks there. There is no harm in accepting conditional inputs as long as they augment welfare of the nation and its people, which can be possible through creation of assets and its justifiable distribution. To create wealth and welfare, we have to make sure that a proper environment prevails to effectively use available resources.

Notwithstanding some differences of opinion amongst friendly nations of Nepal such as US and UK on the twelve point pacts inked by the parties and the rebels, the unanimous opinion of outside world has stood in favor of resolution of current problem through dialogue and negotiations. In retrospect, it is seen that these powerful nations have worked jointly achieving varying level of input (military intervention) output (restoration of normalcy) ratios in conflict- torn areas such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Darfur region of Sudan to name a few. Let us benefit from the inputs of friendly nations and agencies. What is the harm in getting meaningful inputs from a dozen friendly nations?

A rumor is also going on that the monarch is likely to offload the burden assumed in a difficult circumstance in favor of someone soon. Nepalese would be interested to see that the person chosen to lead the government has a clear vision and succeeds in bringing the parties and the palace nearer and then approach the rebels for a much longed meaningful result. The change this time has to be meaningful because Nepalese want no patch work: they are least interested in watching who succeeds in maneuvering his or her way into position of power and influence because they are tired and sick of such activities in the past. The attitude of indifference that is slowly but dangerously developing amongst people should not take alarming proportion.

Maoists may also wish to realize that they have established themselves as a military force, delivering crippling blows to ill-equipped government security personnel in the initial years of conflict and not easily succumbing now to the power of joint security forces. However, to be considered a political force nationally and internationally, they will have to shun violence and take resort to democratic norms and procedures. Maoists may also wish to refrain from activities that tend to make the life of common man miserable because guns can not be taken resort to indefinitely to garner mass support. With flexibility shown by different quarters and conciliatory notes flowing from some, it seems the opportune moment has arrived to start something meaningful this time. Therefore, without inordinate delay, a unifier is needed to bring different forces to the table.

(Dr. Rawal is a former governor of Nepal Rastra Bank)