INDIA'S FORGOTTEN WAR – blogging naxalism.

Nepal Plunging Back Into War? (2)

leave a comment »

imagesAs tension between the Nepalese army and the Maoist led government deepens, India is increasing its mediation efforts. The Indian ambassador in Nepal flew to Delhi for consultations with senior government officials. He is scheduled to return to Kathmandu today.

In a further sign of the deepening seriousness of the standoff, the Indian ambassador, along with his Chinese, American and British counterparts phoned the Nepalese PM expressing their concern.

There is a ridiculously biased article in the Times of India on the latest developments in the crisis:

Though the Maoists have been at it for some time, refusing to abide by the rules of democracy which they invoked to justify their bid for power, what brought matters to boil was Prachanda’s proposal to sack General Rukmangad Katawal after he resisted the move to induct former Maoist guerrillas in the army.

Unfortunately for the Times, the case is far more complicated. Yes, there is a dispute over the sacking of General Katwal and the integration of the army and guerillas, but the issue is equally about confidence and mutual trust. Both sides have failed to completely abide by the terms of the 2006 peace agreement (see full text). The guerrilas have not disarmed as per their commitments, nor has the military absorbed and integrated any Maoist cadres into their ranks.

Both Prachanda and Katwal have not lived up to their commitments. Is the 2006 agreement dead? It depends on what happens in the next few weeks.

The single biggest barrier to building a post-conflict society in Nepal is a failure to engage in meaningful confidence and trust building exercises. The Maoists do not trust the army, who they fought but didn’t defeat militarily, and the army does not trust the Maoists, who they also fought but didn’t defeat.

The army as an institution is terrified that rather than absorbing the guerrillas, they will be absorbed by them. One side is confined to its cantonments and the other side is confined to its barracks. There have been no joint exercises or gradual integration between either of the two commands.

Assuming that neither side want a resumption of war (and this is certainly not clear), the mechanisms of the peace agreement need to be revisited. A gradual and phased integration of both groups must be designed in such a way that would slowly increase personal and institutional links between the two. Additionally, both Prachanda and the army must make an unequivocal commitment to Nepalese democracy.

All of this will require international, and particularly India, involvement. India must not seek to undermine the government. This would be disastrous for Nepal and disastrous for India. A resumption of war would effectively see Nepal as a failed state with no government and a large and angry Maoist army  tempted to look across the border and deepen their ties with the Naxalites.

(Image: AP)

Update: Of course its also far more complex than trust. Trust assumes good faith on both sides and it isn’t at all clear how much of this exists. Are the army and conservative elements willing to countenance democracy, especially one led by Maoists? Are the Maoists dishonestly consolidating their power until they are ready to take over the state and establish a dictorship? Nepal is a nototiously complicated country rife with intrigues and heavily polarised population. None of the negates the importance of confidence building measures.

Advertisements

Written by Michael

April 24, 2009 at 5:15 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: