Conflict
does not end for all the time once it breaks up in a country. It happened so in
Africa, Latin America, Asia and other parts of the world. Experience shows that
conflict re-emerged in at least 40 per cent of the countries that at one or the
other point of time were engulfed by conflict. Though unfortunate, certain
ominous symptoms of another conflict have already appeared in Nepal that was
triggered by violent conflict between 1996 and 2006 and in which more than
18,000 innocent people were killed and there was huge loss of property. What
would happen to the Himalayan country and in its neighbourhood, particularly in
India, if another violent conflict arises? Time has come to ponder over this.
The
violent conflict in Nepal had started in 1996 after the then Prime Minister of
Nepal Sher Bahadur Deuba failed to meet 40-point demands of the Communist Party
of Nepal (Maoist). Like in 1996, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) with its
leader Mohan Baidya (alias Kiran) submitted 70-point demand to the leader of
Unified Communist Party of Nepal –Maoist (UCPN-Maoist) and Prime Minister of
Nepal, Baburam Bhattari, on September 10, 2012. However, the difference in the
situation in 1996 and 2012 is that Baburam Bhattarai submitted the 40-point
demand to the government of Nepal as a rebel leader of Maoists. But now
Bhattarai is Prime Minister and the 70-point demand was submitted to him by
none other than his own colleagues of CPN (Maoist) who split from the mother
party UCPN (Maoist) on June 19, 2012.
Strikingly,
many of the demands covered in 40-point demand in 1996 resemble the 70-point
demand in 2012 and this is more so when it comes to opposing deals with India.
In their bid to lend a nationalist fervor to their demands, the Maoists in 2012
as in 1996 tried to raise different issues like the scrapping of all the
“unequal” treaties and other deals with India. Towards this end, emphasis was
laid on scrapping the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship with India, which is
virtually a security pact between the two countries. Besides, abrogation of
Arms Treaty of 1965, Mahakali Treaty of 1996 and Bilateral Investment
Protection and Promotion Agreement of 2011 with India has also been demanded.
Other issues that have been covered in the demand include stricter control of
the Nepal-India border, scrapping of contracts given to the Indian contractors
such as to GMR and others for the construction of Karnli and Arun III
hydropower projects, preventing the movement of vehicles with Indian number
plates, and banning Indian Hindi movies as well as Indian music in Nepal.
The
Mohan Baidya led Maoist party even threatened to take resort to violent means
if their 70-point demands were not met. As the Bhattarai-led government in
Nepal did not do anything about the 70-point demands as it cannot be done, the
CPN (Maoist) in the first phase of their struggle declared ban on the movement
of vehicles with Indian number plates in Nepal. Cinema halls across the country
have been threatened not to show Hindi movies and play Hindi music. Argument
has been placed that some of these measures were essential to give opportunity
to the Nepalese industries to grow, which many of the intellectuals have
questioned.
Of
course, the Prime Minister of Nepal, Baburam Bhattarai, has given instruction
to the security agencies to deal with the miscreants if at all they tried to
stop the vehicles with Indian number plates because that could create shortage
of basic essential goods in Nepal, including petroleum products and food items.
But in reality, the Maoist call seems to have been working as most of the
vehicles with Indian number plates have stopped plying on the roads in Nepal
out of fear of attack. Even buses that used to bring Indian tourists to Nepal
have been affected. On top of that, the cinema halls do not want to take the
risk of showing Hindi movies and playing Indian music.
In
the meantime, Nepal’s other political parties like the Nepali Congress, the
Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) and the Madheshi parties
have opposed the 70-point demand of the CPN (Maoist). There is certain news of
retaliation across the border in India when effort was made to stop the
vehicles with Nepalese number plates. In Nepal itself, many people are
dissatisfied with the move of CPN (Maoist) as they have started facing shortage
of petroleum products and other essential items. Even the cinema viewers who
like the Hindi movies and Indian music are disappointed. Most of the Nepalese
media have also opposed the Maoist demands.
Notwithstanding
the opposition, the CPN (Maoist) cadres are not in a mood to retreat from their
70-point demands. Media report s confirm that the CPN (Maoist) have among their
cadres those elements who could not be accommodated within the mother UCPN
(Maoist) led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal (alias Prachand). At a time when the
political situation in the country is fragile and the law and order situation
is fragile, efforts are being made by the party to bring to its fold those
Maoist fighters who were discharged from the Maoist cantonments in 2012. Of the
19,000 plus Maoist fighters, more than 16,000 have already been discharged from
the cantonments as they opted for voluntary retirement scheme. Now effort is
being made to bring those people into the fold of the party. Besides, those
thousands of Maoist workers who were disqualified in the cantonments in the
initial stage for being child soldiers or on other grounds are also being
mobilized. Consequently, the Maoists’ spirit is emboldened and the cases of
forced donation, bandh and other such activities have started growing.
However,
it is beyond comprehension as to how the Maoists, who took shelter in India for
years during the conflict period, are targeting India. It was through the
Indian intervention that the Maoists and the seven political parties of Nepal
entered into 12-point agreement in New Delhi in 2005, which ensured safe return
of the Maoists in Nepal. In a way, the 12-point agreement paved the way for the
second People’s Movement in Nepal in 2006 and the emergence of the Maoists as
the single largest party in the Constituent Assembly in 2008. It was then only
that the monarchical institution of 239-long years was abolished and the
Maoists were able to head the government in 2008-2009.
It
is also difficult to understand as to why several Maoists want to maintain
closer relation with China when the Chinese government provided even lethal
weapons to Nepal to crush the Maoists during the time King Gyanendra ruled the
country in 2005.
It
appears that the CPN (Maoist) might try to take Nepal on the path of conflict
again to serve their motto of capturing power, though such a move might prove
disastrous to Nepal. They might do so with the help of the old fighters who
were heavily indoctrinated during the conflict period in Nepal. Yet the ground
reality does not favour the Maoists. Perhaps, many of such cadres might not
return to the jungle and work as guerillas as they did in the past because they
have been so much accustomed to the life of the cities and towns now. They have
neither genuine support from the common mass of the Nepalese population nor do
they have any international backing as such. Even the decade-long conflict made
the people so much wary that they cannot that easily be diverted. They are in
no mood for any conflict as they are disgusted with the selfish nature of the
leaders. But this does not give room for complacency. In case the conflict of
even low intensity breaks, of which there is some probability, it might not
only have an impact within Nepal but also it might affect India most as being
the closest neighbour and also due to the fact that there is an open border
between the two countries. Therefore, before the situation goes out of control,
all the Nepalese and other international stakeholders including India should
see to it that peace and stability in Nepal is not disturbed. Conflict anywhere
is threat to peace everywhere.
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें