By Dr Shailendra Sigdel

One of my colleagues (who considers Nepal as his second home) from Thailand recently asked me two interesting questions. He told me, “Shailendra, I was reading news about Nepal for the last two weeks and both the King and Maoist leaders seem to be ready for dialogue but why things are not moving?”

He was referring to King’s address to the nation on the occasion of National Democracy Day (Feb. 19) and Maoist leader Prachanda’s recent interview with The Kathmandu Post and the BBC. His second question was: “Why the so-called democratic parties are not ready to hold talks with King, if they really believe in democracy?”

These are good questions but one has to analyse the situation carefully before trying to find answers. The King has called political parties for talks whereas Maoists seem to be willing to hold talks with the government (led by the King). On the other hand, the political parties seem not ready as yet to talk with the King.

I had not seriously thought about these issues. It seems to me that not only me those who are expected to help Nepal to install democratic process are also not doing that. There is no doubt that Nepalis have primary responsibility of solving their own political problems. But if they failed to do themselves, I think it is the moral duty of other well wishers to help Nepal to solve her problems

In the recent past, significant concerns have been expressed by the donor community regarding worsening political situation and its impact on the overall socio-economic development of Nepal. The recent example being the US ambassador James F. Moriarty’s statement regarding the need for dialogue between political parties and the King. However, delivering speech is not going to solve Nepal’s problems. What is required is some pragmatic approach.

In 2002, the government of UK appointed Sir Jeffrey James as its special envoy to facilitate peace process but nothing substantial could be achieved during his tenure. Similarly, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan is quick to make comments as soon as there are important political developments in Nepal. But nothing substantial has been initiated from UN as of now.

Same is true with many advisers, experts and consultants who visited Nepal over the last several years in the name of conflict and peace building. How much they have contributed in conflict resolution is a big question. Some even argue that conflict in Nepal has become the dollar-earning industry for many local and international consultants in Nepal.

Time has now come for donors to rethink on why their request to find an amicable solution to the ongoing political solution has not brought about desired changes. What has been happening so far is that Nepal is getting adequate amount of moral support from donors but there is a sheer lack of pragmatic approach to deal with the crisis. The fundamental question is: Why the donors’ backed peace process has failed to yield any significant results? It seems that donors are keen to make speech and visit the country rather than making any substantial contribution to the peace process.

The seven political parties and Maoists’ 12 point MoU is a landmark achievement as the leaders of the seven parties have rightly recognized that permanent peace is not possible without active involvement of the Maoists. But again this alliance is highly criticized by the US Ambassador. Delivering speech by criticizing Maoists hardly is going to solve Nepal’s on-going political problems. What is needed now is a pragmatic approach where all party can sit together and find an amicable solution. Donors can play a very important role in this regard.

In his message on the Democracy Day, the King has expressed his desire to initiate talks with the political parties to resume stalled democratic process. But the King’s desire is not translated into concrete actions in terms of time frame and modality of the dialogue.

In this context, the diplomatic community could take initiative to start the dialogue. There is nothing wrong in that. Since majority of political parties are not listening to the people for lasting peace and the experience has shown that they seriously listen to the outsiders, it is high time that they must be persuaded to start dialogue with the King. Here again, donor community can play an important role.

The parties must get rid of their rigidity and biased mentality of not talking with the government. What is wrong if they get what they wanted by talking with the King instead of marching in the streets which has not been a very popular act in the eyes of majority of the Nepali citizens. They must not forget that they are also part of the problem for the current mess in the country. We all are aware that there is nothing wrong in the democratic system it is the leaders who made mockery of democracy in Nepal over the last 13 years.

Since the Maoist leaders have also expressed their willingness to start negotiations, there is nothing wrong in creating favorable conditions for talks to take place. It is very sad to note that why the donors’ community is not forthcoming to facilitate the peace process as is the case in Sri Lanka by the Norwegian government. What Nepal needs today is what Norwegians are trying to do in Sri Lanka to establish peace in the island nation. There is nothing wrong for the UN or some neutral countries to take lead in establishing the peace process in Nepal. Since time is running out, donors must not leave this as internal affairs of Nepal. Instead, they must take some concrete actions to reinstall democracy and peace in the country.

Constituting an international facilitating team comprising representatives from the UN and some neutral countries like Norway and Denmark would be a good starting point. Since the King has also expressed his willingness to initiate dialogue, there would not be any problem for this team to initiate peace process. In order to bring lasting peace, talks should not only confined to political parties but also with the Maoists because the stark truth is that without their involvement, peace would remain elusive.

(Dr Sigdel is working as a program director at the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) in Thailand. Please send your comments to [email protected] or [email protected])

(Editor’s Note: Nepalis, wherever they live, as well as friends of Nepal around the globe are requested to contribute their views/opinions/recollections etc. on issues concerning present day Nepal to the Guest Column of Nepalnews. Length of the article should not be more than 1,000 words and may be edited for the purpose of clarity and space. Relevant photos as well as photo of the author may also be sent along with the article. Please send your write-ups to [email protected])