Kathmandu: A large section of the country’s intellectuals strongly believe that the Government-Maoist talks failed solely due to the ineffective and excessively partisanised political behavior of the self-proclaimed “facilitators” engaged in the talks.
The Thapa government’s sheer inability in finding suitable qualified and neutral sort of “facilitators” instead of the “four duffers” seated as “facilitators” could have been one cause among the many for the failure of the talks that had begun itself with a reluctant mood. It was clear that the Maoists attended the talks this round only at the pressure of the members of the civil society and the peace loving silent majority.
The self-proclaimed and self-appointed facilitators contaminated the talks not only at time of the talks but even much ahead of the talks.
The four “non-entity” began making contradictory and highly objectionable lectures on their own as if they were the ones on whom the entire success of the talks depended. The fact was that the outcome did not in any way depended on their political maneuvering capabilities.
Among the four facilitators, one is a personality who commands respect and honor only in Kathmandu’s urban area. The rest of the population do not take him in high esteem which is what is demanded at time of such grave talks. This particular facilitator more often than not spoke the voice of one particular camp prior and at time of the talks as if he had been appointed as their spokesperson. The people took it very seriously and hence had already concluded that making lectures on any political issue was different than making logical interpretations on the issues of conflict management.
The other one is basically a congressman excessively harassed by congress president Koirala some years ago which forced him to quit the party for good. He is indeed a qualified personality in the sense that he is the one who was very much present at time of the framing of the 1990 constitution.
However, this does not mean that a constitutional expert should be equally competent enough matters of conflict resolutions. In effect, conflict resolution is a long process that demands experience and knowledge on the said subject. The fact is that this personality knows little about the nitty-gritty of the methods generally employed both seen and unseen in finding suitable measures in order to replace conflict with peace. Moreover, this constitutional expert, knowingly or even unknowingly, advocated the views of one particular camp to the utter dismay of the population. He in the process lost his credibility as he appeared to have aligned himself on one side.
The third one is a personality who began his political career as a communist. He then turned a Panchayati leader and worked as minister in the then Panchayati government. He was then awarded a diplomatic assignment at the United Nations and stayed there for quite a long period. Back home, he was made foreign minister.
Working at the UN and heading the foreign ministry in no way assures in one self the skills and the political acumen that is required at time of conflict resolution or for that matter conflict managing process. The Nepali people never knew that he mediated in any such affair within and without when he was posted at the UN and Shital Nivas. The Nepali media, however, elevated his ranks because he preferred to talk on any topic under the sun. After the collapse of the Panchayati system, he wished to align himself with the congress. The party suspected his political credentials and an annoyed, as he was then, opted to remain an independent personality, which he continues perhaps, till today.
Thanks the Nepali media that he was considered as an expert on Bhutanese refugee issue. He talked and talked but with no results. But in the process he became a sort of negotiator and here again the media played its role. The fact is that who appointed him as one of the facilitator, neither the government nor the people know.
The fourth is the one who is basically a bureaucrat. When and how he managed to act like a mediator or for that matter as a facilitator on such complex issues of the sort of conflict resolution now body knows. His long stint in the bureaucracy indeed might have given him the expertise on how to address the grievances of the bureaucrats. Handling bureaucracy and managing conflicts of the sort of the one wherein he got himself engaged are two diametrically matters.
However, what was nice of him was that he preferred to speak less and managed to keep him on a low profile compared to the rest of the “empty vessel, sounds much” colleagues.
All said, however, the fact is also that these people in their own right have become “media friendly” personalities. The media of late have begun suspecting the credentials of the facilitators and rep[orts have it that the establishment only the other day dashed into the house of one of the facilitators for reasons yet undisclosed. If this is so then what could be concluded is that the facilitators too have come under scrutiny.
Not surprising therefore, the government though did not appointed them as facilitators prior to the talks, did send them a letter hinting that they no more remained facilitators. One of the facilitator who was apparently hurt by this government decision said that it was unfortunate that the talks failed and wished the now stalled peace process to resume at the earliest.
However, this write up in no way should mean that they were not honored personalities of the nation. Yes they are, by all means but what is also true is that none possessed the expertise of handling of such a delicate and susceptible issue as it was.