India & the world - SEMINAR REPORT

Nepal: The Present Situation

Chair: Maj Gen Ashok Mehta, Independent Security Analyst
Speaker: Dr. Rhoderick Chalmers, South Asia Deputy Project Director, International Crisis Group

Chair’s Introductory Remarks

There are only a few days left before the Nepalese Constitution cease to exist, that is unless some miracles or other intervening factors change the course of things. There is still hope between now and 28 May as some kind of a package deal may still be negotiated between various political groups. However, the question that remains is who will be in power before 28 May, that is, before matters fall into the hands of the President. The Maoists, in the last few days, have shown unusual flexibility as was demonstrated by Prachanda when he apologized to the civil society, media and businesses and also promised to integrate the armies within four months. Apparently, the Maoists are keen on a power-sharing deal. These flexibilities are, no doubt, being displayed due to the uncertain period that lies ahead.

Dr. Rhoderick Chalmers

The International Crisis Group (ICG) has drafted a yet-to-be-published report which looks at the overall peace process, questions some basic assumptions, as well as terms and references that have been used, and looks instead at the nature of the politics in Nepal. It consists of three conceptual parts. The first being the question of whether or not Nepal is in a post-conflict situation, that is, is the war that was waged from 1996 to 2006, a thing of the past? The second question considers if Nepal is in a pre-conflict situation as there is a resurgence of newer threats and armed conflicts. The third dimension takes a different approach and looks into the nature and role of the state as most analyses often fail to address this aspect.

Post-conflict Scenario

It is important to ask if Nepal is in a stable, post-conflict situation? To start with, one needs to look at the peace process. While there has been an obvious transition from war to a state of non-war, the term ‘peace process’ completely fails to capture the complex interwoven processes which are at work in the country. It is important to recognize that the agreements on which the peace process was founded were all completed in the span of about a year as the real peace process lasted from April-May 2005 to April-May 2006. At the same time, the fragility of the process has also been over stated. The structural compulsions on the Maoists and other parties to cooperate is much stronger than is often imagined. The evolution that has taken place during the last four years, particularly the structural transformation of the Maoist movement, has to be taken into consideration. While other parties have not attempted to transform themselves, there has been a shift in the Maoist movement from quality to quantity as they are turning themselves in to a mass-based movement recruiting new people including even those who may not be ideologically driven. Also, Maoists are rapidly moving ahead and embracing the state and adopting the rules and the culture of the political game. They have joined institutions and adopted mechanisms, which enable them to compete and collaborate with other parties for the control of resources and influence. Arguably, it is increasingly less likely that Nepal could slip back to a pre-2006 situation; the Maoists certainly do not want to. However, they are an organized movement and could always resort to fighting, but it will certainly not be their first choice.

Is Nepal in a Pre-conflict Situation?

Nepal is now dealing with dozens of new actors who were not on the political scene even two or three years ago, and it is difficult to assess how seriously they should be taken as they could be the next Maoists. However, one needs to differentiate between the Maoists and what the aims, structure and strategies of new groups like the Limbus and Chhetries are. More or less, none of these groups have the potential to be a nation-wide threat. To understand where these groups stand, one needs to understand the nature of democracy and acknowledge that there has been a ‘Nepalization’ of democracy. Parties have become enmeshed in social and economic patronage networks and structures, which have brought politics into an inescapable embrace with corruption and degrees of political violence. Nepal had embraced and legitimized violence well before the Maoists became a detrimental force. Most of the newer groups have also chosen to abide by these established practices and follow a set of rules, as they fight for space within these structures. In conclusion, Nepal is definitely not heading towards a new nation-wide conflict, though a state of continual disorder remains likely as long as this transition extends. Rather than anarchy, there will be structured forms of disorder, but Nepal, most probably will not turn into a Sri Lanka-like situation or that in the Balkans.

The Role of the State

The state’s capacity to deliver security to its people and enforce law and order is still very weak. While terms such as ‘failed’, ‘failing’ and ‘fragile’ state are being used frequently, they are not particularly useful in explaining the situation in Nepal. Throughout Nepal, despite the transition and various uprisings, the state continues to thrive. It is not a fragile state, but a surviving one as it has endured the toughest range of challenges and has come out unscathed. A state has to deliver certain key functions such as providing security and employment to the people, and exists for other relationships as well, in which it is involved, in particular with the political parties. Parties and the states have become so entwined that each needs the other to survive. At the same time, the relationship between the citizens and the state is a very complex one. One should be careful in differentiating between popular aspirations and popular expectations. The Nepalese know how politicians behave and have a fair idea of what expectations to have from the state. But people also have a vision and hope for an ideal state that serves them well. This state survives and thrives on dysfunction, thus, the ICG report argues that there is a complex balance between the state’s resilience, population’s resilience, and political resistance.

Discussion

• There is a level of transformation, but to what extent have the Maoists actually transformed? What situations are likely to unfold in the immediate future?
• How can one argue that the Maoists have changed when they are extending the very practices of violent culture which the speaker claims have been institutionalized since 1993?
• What kind of control does the central leadership of the Maoist exercise over the groups of thugs and mafia?
• Where would you place the role of the international community in Nepal’s political landscape?
• There has been much talk of structural determinism. Has there been no change at all in Nepal, is it totally consumed by the political structure?
• What is the relationship that exists between the Nepalese civil society and political parties? Further, in Nepal there is a structured pattern of corruption and violence. What does this mean as far as the South Asian region itself, since there are similar trends in many parts of India as well?
• The 28 May constitutional deadline is of significance. The immediate scenarios that might emerge until then are quite easy to spell out. There might be consensus between all the major parties to amend the constitution to give them more time or one might witness the lapsing of the current interim constitution. There might be a situation wherein the current government continues to function by default or Nepal might find itself in a more intense period of political conflict. Of all these scenarios, an agreement to amend the constitution seems the most likely.
• The nature and operations of the YCL are fundamentally different from other parties. They are doing different things and pursuing different goals.
• The ICG is making a detailed study of the structural changes of the Maoist movement. While none can argue that Maoists are democrats, but it is important to acknowledge that some things about them have certainly changed. The other parties might have changed the process of electoral politics, but they have not transformed anything. The Maoist control on discipline is still remarkable and this has ensured their people remain in check.
• As far as Nepal is concerned, apart from India no other international actor really matters. The role of these other international actors is to keep the money flowing. China has been a bit more active in the last couple of years, nevertheless, it is no rival to India for the depth and multifaceted relationship that India has with Nepal
• There are different political epistemologies and political cultures. Often, people are far too ready to accept preconceptions and one should therefore, be cautious in this regard. The effort should be the other way around – to try and see the world through the eyes of the people.
• We know far too little about Nepal. While Nepal has been studied at length by anthropologists, very little political ethnographic studies of the country have been undertaken.
• The structure of political parties and bureaucracies is quite different in the two countries. India’s experience is different from that of Nepal’s.
   

Tanvi Pate
Research Intern, IPCS