Maoist insurgency in Nepal is a fairly new phenomenon that rose like a livid blaze from age long privations buried deep in the oppressive, undemocratic annals of the 'kingdom'. Ironically, far from alleviating the abysmal state of the people, Maoist People's Movement lapsed into a rationale for people's grievances. The insurgency possesses the propensity of spilling into other South Asian states, hence, the urgency to deal with this crisis.

Genesis of Maoist Insurgency

Ironically, the 'Democratic Era' that commenced in 1991 was marked by undemocratic culture. Feudalism remained in place. Poverty, unemployment, injustice, political instability and corruption got deeply entrenched. Shortly after Nepali Congress Party (NCP) came to power in1991, the leftists began to face isolation by the former. The United People's Front (UPF) chairman, Baburam Bhattarai, disillusioned with the political system decided to embark on an armed struggle renaming his group Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-M). Finally, the "People's War" was annunciated in February 1996.

Led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Maoists demand an end to feudalism and a new constitution. The insurgency began from the least developed areas of Rolpa, Rukum and Jajarkot. Success of the Maoists in backward areas is perhaps due to the neglect of these areas by the centre leading to poverty and unemployment with increasing number of youth joining Maoist uprising. Successive governments have treated Maoist insurgency as law and order problem opting for military solution of the crisis. However, in 2001, PM Deuba took measures to engage the Maoists in negotiations. Soon, peace talks collapsed and Royal Nepalese Army was deployed against the Maoists.

Much of the Maoist sympathy has been attributed to the police high-handedness. Since 2001, however, local sympathy for the Maoists is on the wane when Maoists escalated military operations engaging in increasing human rights violations.

India and the Nepal Crisis

The Maoists are developing ties with Indian insurgent groups and have penetrated into six Indian states extending upto Andhra Pradesh, laying out a Compact Revolutionary Zone (CRZ) and have further established an umbrella group called CCOMPOSA. The porous border between Nepal and India has facilitated cooperation between the Nepalese Maoists and Indian insurgent groups. India needs to be vigilant of cross-border activities of Maoist insurgents and must take effective action against Indian insurgent groups that have ties with the Nepalese Maoists.

Resolution of the Conflict

The source of the Nepal crisis can be traced to undemocratic, iniquitous culture of the state inseminating all levels of the system - economic, social and political. Hence, human needs model can be applied to Nepal.

At economic level, Nepalese society bifurcates into few haves and bourgeoning have-nots resulting in alienation of the masses especially in rural areas ignored by the state. This has been one of the reasons for the local sympathy for the Maoists. The state must work towards alleviating the squalid life of its people. This might contribute to the withdrawal of politicized youth from the Maoist armed struggle.

In the social sphere, lack of access to education, unemployment, gender inequality and caste discrimination are prevalent. Ethnic minorities are marginalized. The state must take effective measures to accommodate backward communities into the national mainstream and education should be prioritized.

As far as the Nepalese political culture is concerned, it transgresses the democratic space of its people. Durable settlement of the Nepal crisis is possible if all sections of the state are brought within the framework of political, social and economic processes and are given the opportunity of equal participation in the governance of the state which is a hallmark of a genuine democracy.

The question arises, how can a settlement be possible considering the conundrum of diverse social and political interests? Maoists favour elections to the constituent assembly and eventually a new constitution, most left parties support this position whereas other political parties seem to be content with mere constitutional amendments. Here, Conflict Transformation might be an effective approach. An essential prerequisite to resolve this crisis is to transform mutually exclusive position of various political actors into a cooperative one. All major political actors have impinged upon the democratic space of the people. Maoists barely allow other political parties to be active in the areas captured by them. Both the RNA and the Maoists are indulging in human rights violations.

Emergency measures taken by the government in November 2001 and takeover of executive powers by the king in October 2002 have corroded the democratic fabric of the state. Peace is possible if destructive conflict behaviour of all protagonists is transformed into positive, reasonable behaviour. Political pressure of diverse groups like human rights organizations and civil societies can be conducive to shaping public opinion and altering the behaviour of major political contestants paving the way for mutual consonance. Violent action is not the solution, it merely negates lasting peace silencing the peaceable voices to the din of violence further plunging the state into a near dystropia.