By Prateek Pradhan
NEW YORK April 7 : When Nepal’s major political parties are agreeing to join hands against the Maoist insurgency, Nepalis living on the other side of the globe are voicing increasing concern over the situation back home.
Prominent Nepalis in New York agreed that the battle between government forces and Maoist rebels has become critical as the death toll has been escalating, and the country is edging towards civil war. But they were divided over other issues like constitutional reforms, human rights violations, good governance, role of the King, and the role of civil society.
Murari Raj Sharma, Nepal’s permanent representative to the United Nations, and Khagendra G.C., an advocate, criticised both the ruling Nepali Congress party, and the main opposition UML for trying to amend the constitution at this time. The constitution might need reforms, they argued, but the timing is wrong.
“We should decide if reform is pertinent at present. We should also look into the possible repercussions of the constitutional reforms,” said Sharma. “Nepal needs to put its acts together before considering anything about the constitution,” said G.C.
In a symposium organised by Alliance for Democracy and Human Rights, New York, participants also discussed about the “high handedness” of the government in dealing with the Maoists. Alliance president Binod Rokka chaired the function.
Akhilesh Upadhyay, Kantipur Publication’s U.S. correspondent, was critical of the government’s recent ban on a grass-root NGO, BASE (Backward Society Education,) on the “unfounded allegation of their allegiance to Maoists.”
He also feared that the army action, if not carried out with extreme care and proper sensitivities, might cause a serious backlash for the government. “The initial police operations like Kilo-Sierra increased the number of Maoists killed from 31 to 502, but it spurred the insurgency rather than containing it,” Upadhyay said. He stressed that the economic and security program like ISDP (Integrated Security and Development Program) has to be promoted to tackle the Maoist problem.
However, Bijay K. Sigdel, a political analyst, argued that the only option to deal with the Maoist movement would be to go to war against them. “They have raised arms, and have been very destructive, leaving no other way for the government,” he said.
Commentators also took potshots at Nepal’s media for not doing enough to report the truth about the emergency rule. Sigdel for instance said that when vital government institutions had become corrupt and defunct, even the fourth estate was becoming shady and biased.
The political analyst however held out some hope. Despite all the ills of democracy in the country, Sigdel said there could be no better political system. “It needs certain time for democracy to stabilise. We should be patient and understand that we are in transitional phase,” he said.
Sukhadev Shah, an employee of the IMF, said the major problem behind the rebellion was the incompetence of the government. “Only 10 percent of the people are touched by the government. The remaining 90 percent are grossly neglected from any kinds of facilities,” he said, adding that these conditions, coupled with widespread poverty, helped the Maoists to exploit the situation.
But Sharma, Nepal’s UN representative, argued against the theory that poverty was the root cause of the insurgency. “It’s not poverty but the politically motivated people who manage to exploit poverty,” he said.