Saturday, December 19, 2015

Creating Nepal’s own Quartet

By John Narayan Parajuli
The current conflict between the state and Madhes, the polarisation of the society between Madhesi and Pahadi communities has put a spotlight on the absence of a national conflict resolution mechanism. 
Civil society institutions and leaders could have played the role of a healer. But unfortunately, they are divided along the regional lines. On both sides, civil society leaders have become cheerleaders. Both sides have engaged in cherry-picking anecdotes as evidence of the other sides’ lack of humanity—demonising the other, rather than finding common grounds for a compromise. 
Echo chambers 
In this age of social media, everyone has a microphone and that has truly empowered the people (those who have access to social media)—giving them their own platform to voice their opinions. Gone are the days when journalists alone were gatekeepers of what was disseminated. While technology has democratised the public sphere, it has also created echo chambers that reinforce one’s own beliefs and prejudices. The anonymity that social media allows encourages knee-jerk and highly insensitive conversations that often add fuel to the fire. Civil society leaders have not remained immune to this phenomenon.  They have been split along partisan and regional lines—doing more to fuel the conflict and less to bridge the divide.
It is important that we take actions towards creating a credible national mechanism to help facilitate dialogue for this and other subsequent conflicts.
Significant investments have been made by national and international non-governmental organisations in the areas of early warning, conflict mitigation, and resolution. But a large portion of these investments has supported smaller organisations to organise grassroots level dialogue. Except for a few ad hoc Chatham House style sessions, very little systematic dialogue facilitation has been organised at the national level. 
Non-state actors, who often have international funding, are reluctant to boldly push towards the creation of a national level entity to fear of a backlash. So they self-censor themselves from doing what is needed, to doing what would be less risky. There is also a tendency of doing the easiest things or picking the low hanging fruit, as they put it.
Now, I am not suggesting supporting grass roots organisation is bad investment. Local dynamics are important too. But discord at the national level has the potential to do so much more damage than a localised conflict. Once you can facilitate dialogue at the national level, the leaders at the centre can influence the sentiment on the ground. The question here is of priority, not the degree of importance. If civil society leaders take initiative, some of the resources from the conflict resolution projects can be easily diverted to this national task.
Tunisian Quartet
Before it was awarded the 2015 Nobel Peace Prize, the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet was virtually unknown outside Tunisia. In its citations, the Nobel Committee praised the Quartet for providing an alternative political process to avert a civil war. In the words of some of the members of the Committee, the Quartet convened peace conferences that Alfred Nobel mentioned in his will.
The Quartet, which comprises of the country’s labour union, confederation of industries, human rights league and association of lawyers—hence the Quartet—was formed in the summer of 2013 in response to the political assassinations of two key politicians and the outbreak of violent clashes between the Islamists and secular parties. While Tunisia is still a long way from institutionalising democracy, civil society organisations, nevertheless, were able to come together to bring opposing sides to the table to provide a semblance of peace.
What the Quartet achieved was immensely dramatic. They were able to force the resignation of the entire Cabinet and to usher in a non-partisan government. They prepared a roadmap to transition Tunisia into a stable democracy and persuaded all the major political forces to agree to it. 
Given the legitimacy of the organisations involved, the Quartet was able to force its decisions on the political parties. Though it may not be possible to replicate what they did in Tunisia, it certainly should inspire civil society organisations everywhere to think outside box in using their leverage to steer the country towards a corrective path.
There has been some attempt in Nepal to facilitate dialogue by civil society organisations. Professional’s Alliance for Peace and Democracy (PAPAD), an umbrella organisation of civil society organisations, including the Federation of Journalists and the Bar Association, has from time to time taken initiative, but it has never been a sustained effort that bore any significant results.
PAPAD has the potential to become Nepal’s own Quartet. But given that its leaders primarily come from the one side of the current divide, it will not be seen as neutral force, at least in the current conflict. It can then join hands with Madhesi civil society leaders to improve its credibility.  Given the sporadic nature of current negotiations, an improved PAPAD can force both sides to hold all-nighter negotiations, night after night, until a solution is found. If the parties fail to find a solution, it can draw up a roadmap and formulas for compromise after consultations with moderates on both sides. 
There is a strong possibility that another conflict will eventually emerge even after the current one is resolved. This would require civil society initiatives that would stand above the partisan and regional leanings and facilitate dialogue and compromise.
First Published in The Kathmandu Post

After Paris climate deal

Dec 19, 2015- Understanding what happened in Paris on December 11, 2015 isn’t easy. While it is being hailed as a historic climate deal, the reality is that the agreement is largely non-binding and relies heavily on voluntary actions of member states—postponing any serious action, both on mitigation and adaption, until 2020. 

The success of the agreement rests on several assumptions coming true. First, it assumes that all member states will act in good faith. Second, it assumes that rapid technological development will make clean and renewable energy more economically viable. Third, it takes for granted the science behind, or the lack thereof, the human ability to limit with precision the temperature rise to under 2C. The emphasis of the agreement seems to be on the biggest polluters and developed countries investing in renewable technology as a way to drastically cut their reliance on fossil fuel and subsequently cutting emissions level. So in essence the mitigation part is contingent upon rapid advances in technology.  

Well I don’t doubt that renewable technology can rapidly make that leap and become economically sustainable. The question is of political sustainability, especially in countries like the United States and India. This proposition naively assumes that the fossil fuel industry will cooperate and will not lobby hard to protect its billions of dollars worth of investments.  

Big power politics aside, where does Nepal come into the picture? Nepal’s vulnerability to climate change has been widely documented. There are already visible impacts of climate change in Nepal: the glaciers are retreating at an alarming rate; there is increased risks of floods caused by glacial lake outbursts and other natural hazards in the mountains; the agriculture sector is already under strain due to erratic rainfall and longer dry spells; and there is an increased frequency and intensity of disasters including floods, droughts and landslides occurring in the country. Various research works have also shown the shift in tree-line vegetation in mountainous parts of the Manaslu region.  Even if the countries were able to limit the temperature rise to under 2C by drastically cutting carbon emissions—thanks to the Paris climate agreement—it won’t necessarily be a safe limit for Nepal and other low-lying and mountainous countries. The damage will already have been done. 

Leveraging the adaptation fund

 So the best hope for countries like Nepal is to leverage the deal and the existing commitment of developed countries to provide US$100 billion annually for adaptation by 2020, for jump-starting technological development and getting the needed investment to expedite clean and renewable energy and infrastructure projects. The Paris agreement clearly stresses on the need for accelerating and enabling innovation as an effective, long-term response to climate change.  “Such effort shall be, as appropriate, supported, including by the Technology Mechanism and, through financial means, by the Financial Mechanism of the Convention, for collaborative approaches to research and development, and facilitating access to technology, in particular for early stages of the technology cycle, to developing country Parties,” the agreement states. It also calls on the Green Climate Fund to expedite support for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and developing countries—both in formulating and implementing national adaptation plans.

 National contributions
Before the Paris convention, parties had been asked to submit their national plan of action or Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). INDCs are voluntary actions that each country proposes to undertake, both as mitigation and an adaptive measure. Especially for LDCs, INDCs could become a national strategy and action plan to not just to adapt but also to develop low carbon-based economies.  While Nepal failed to submit its INDC in time, a draft proposal that was circulated has set ambitious goals, including fulfilling 100 percent of national electricity demand through hydropower and renewable sources by 2030 and developing a fully carbon neutral economy by 2050. A low carbon or carbon neutral economy proposition would entail a whole range of development actions—ranging from electric mass transit, solar street lighting, and biogas plants for cooking, among other things. Nepal is well-positioned to take advantage of the funds available for low carbon development—given the potential for hydro power and other renewable energy-based development.  

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) has a starting capital of US$10 billion and much of the annual $100 billion promised by developed countries is expected to flow through GCF. The fund has already started investing in projects. In November it approved a $168 million climate resilience project for Zambia and countries like Nepal can benefit from both the GCF and Least Developed Countries Fund to access funding for their plans to usher in a low carbon economy. And lobbying for these accessing adaptation funds should be done both on a bilateral and multilateral levels. 

Nepal is already part of Vulnerable Twenty Group (V20), a group of 20 most vulnerable countries from climate change, formed earlier this year. This and other forums need to be used effectively. With a right pitch accompanied by sustained and effective climate diplomacy, Nepal can turn its vulnerability into an opportunity to access increased finance for its development needs. 

First published in the Kathmandu Post

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Towards a finale

Parties took a critical leap forward on Tuesday, but they will have to be realistic about anticipating the problems in its implementation.

After dithering for over three years, the major parties finally gave what they had promised—a breakthrough in the peace process and a genuine effort to restore the consensus mechanism on statute drafting and power-sharing. This is a landmark agreement and second only to 2005-06 peace framework.

Statistically, it is rare that civil wars result into permanent peace. Out of 140 civil wars around the world since 1945, just over 18 percent have ended in a peaceful settlement. The risk of backsliding into conflict even after initial settlement is high. But Tuesday’s agreement is another assurance that Nepal’s peace process is in different league altogether and has developed a level of resilience that is difficult to undo.

It has also shown that Nepali political actors understand risk of another conflict and are capable acting rationally when it matters.

Integrating and rehabilitating Maoist combatants is a critical component of Nepal’s negotiated settlement, but examples from elsewhere shows that implementing a Military Integration (MI) agreement isn’t always easy. According to dataset put together by Doyle and Sambanis between 1945 and 1999, 27 wars ended in negotiated settlement and MI took place in 34 cases. Out of 34, only 23 were actually implemented.

Many integration agreements fail to take off or fail midway because of irreconcilable differences aided by calculations among warring sides that returning to conflict is less costly than permanent peace. But in Nepal, thankfully, the settlement process has come to a point where the cost of returning to conflict far outweighs the cost of peace.

The deal has now opened doors for tangible progress on peace, statute-writing and power-sharing, and its implementation will complete the Nepal’s five-years-old arduous peace journey.

The deal appears to be win-win situation for both the Maoists and non-Maoist parties. On ranks and modality, Nepali Congress and CPN-UML managed to get what they wanted. On numbers and rehabilitation package, the Maoists managed to strike a rather sweet deal. The agreement is bit ambiguous on rank and leadership issue of the new directorate but it is possible that the parties have a gentlemen’s agreement behind the actual agreement, and that the ambiguity on ranks and leadership were deliberate.

Both sides in the negotiation pro-cess have constituency to keep, and the deal has enough to keep even the extr-eme elements on both sides engaged.

Maoists hardliners have been insisting all along that the leadership of the directorate be given to PLA combatants. On number and financial package, the hardliners do not have much to complain about. Although Mohan Baidya and company were publicly calling for 8,000 combatants to be integrated, they had more or less accepted that it won’t exceed 7,000 — the number proposed officially by the party establishment. By agreeing on a generous rehabilitation package, NC and UML have deliberately given Dahal room for some face-saving with the hardliners. In return the Maoists have agreed to return seized properties and provide compensation to the owners. Though the tab will be picked by the taxpayers, the price for peace is far less than the cost of continued stalemate.

The give-and-take also indicates the growing rapport between parties and how far both sides have gone to accommodate each other’s concern. This should all work out well for Dahal

in undermining the hardliners’ case. Reports from Maoists cantonments

suggest that Dahal may have pulled

this one off very well .

Integration is a big issue for rebels anywhere after a negotiated settlement for two primary reasons: security guarantee by being part of state’s coercive apparatus and financial incentives. In Nepal the political landscape is such that the former rebels have no need for the security guarantees that comes with integration. The Maoists are part

of the state establishment as an unintended consequence of the political expediency at the time. Nepali actors didn’t follow the typical sequencing of a peaceful settlement: demobilisation, disarmament and elections. Election before the management of arms catapulted the rebels as the largest political party in the CA—dramatically altering the political equations. This has also eliminated the possibility of state reneging on its integration promise or giving a raw deal to the rebels, although the thought must have crossed minds of non-Maoists politicians.

The morphing of former rebels into state actors before the integration started leaves little need for security guarantees. Therefore, it shouldn’t surprise people if generous financial package end up attracting more ex-PLA men than the Maoists had intended.

Overall, Nepal Army deserves credit for thinking outside the box and floating the original proposal that became the basis for Tuesday’s agreement. But there are still many unanswered questions. The deal only provides a broad outline of an integration process and seems to make false assumption that process will be smooth. For it to work the agreement will have to be properly structured. The fixing of the top ceiling for integration, though a political necessity, contradicts the principle of voluntary integration and retirement. What if, hypothetically, more people than expected express wish for integration and also pass the norms of the NA? The current deal assumes that the Maoists will be able to persuade them to change their minds. The Maoists have already finished their version of ‘expression of interest’ survey and the number on the deal is comfortably within the rang. Experiences from sub-Saharan Africa, however, suggests otherwise. Too many simplistic assumptions about a process as complex as integration leads to a poorly worked out integration process that risks failure. Although in Nepal, the transformation of Maoists into a mainstream political force is a guarantor against that risk.

Integration can be a messy process, and working out tight time-bound calendar, though a political necessity, appears unrealistic.

Another significant issue which the parties need to pay attention to is the dispute resolution mechanism. At some point there is bound to be grievances, especially from the former rebels, about real or imagined discrimination. The ex-PLA could find the disciplinary regime of a national army unfair and may feel that they are being discriminated against. Parties and the Special Committee, therefore, should look into forming a separate tribunal to address these issues. Absence of such a tribunal could tempt the Maoists to meddle in favour of their comrades, especially if they are in a position of power.

Monday, October 31, 2011

NC shifts strategy to counter ‘misperception’

KATHMANDU, NOV 01 - A series of positive statements on the peace process in the past one month reflects a tactical shift in negotiation and public relations (PR) strategy adopted by the Nepali Congress, which, the party leaders hope will counter the party's 'obstructionist image.'

The new approach stems largely from conviction among the NC leaders that a generally positive approach in public presentation on matters related to the peace and statute drafting processes will help claw back the party's 'unfavourable' image.

NC leaders say they have now realised that the Maoists have all along handled themselves extremely well before the media, when in fact they were pushing for tough bargain in the actual negotiations. This has led to the grand old party, which prides itself in leading the charge in 'numerous democratic struggle', being presented in negative light.

"We will be extremely amenable to fulfil the public aspirations for peace and constitution," said NC President Sushil Koirala, speaking briefly at the Maoist tea reception in Kathmandu on Monday--hours after attending negotiations among the three major parties.

The remarks are part of NC's careful strategy to get the public messaging right in a bid to avoid being seen as a 'status-quoist,' according to NC leaders.

"We are very serious about completing the peace process," said NC leader and a member of the Special Committee, Minendra Rijal. "But we haven't done enough to present ourselves favourably in the press. So we thought this is the right time to be proactive."

The new efforts come amid a growing perception that the Maoists were doing more to complete the peace process despite strong opposition from hardliners among them. This has earned the former rebels some accolades among the international community--especially after the Maoists handed over the keys to arms containers on September 1.

"In our meetings we have been telling NC leaders to be more amenable," said a Western diplomat last month.

A February 2009 US embassy cable dispatched from Kathmandu on the eve of US Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs Richard Boucher's visit to Kathmandu also sheds some light on how the NC was perceived even among countries that had been critical of the Maoists in the past.

"The GON (Government of Nepal) has made little progress on the wider peace process, and bickering within and among the political parties has not helped matters. The opposition NC party complains about the Maoists' lack of implementation of previous agreements, especially returning seized land and reigning in the YCL, and other parties even within the ruling coalition share the complaints. Nevertheless, the NC tends to appear as obstructionist more often than not."

NC leaders say that they are aware of these perceptions and that they are now doing more to counter it.

"Our public presentation of the peace process has been flawed for quite sometime," admitted NC leader Gagan Thapa, who along with others, has advised the party leadership to do away with "too much negativity" in public remarks. "It has done quite a lot of damage to our public standing."

NC President Sushil Koirala is said to be convinced that adopting a 'non-obstructionist' approach on the peace process coupled with an increase in engagement with the Maoists will ultimately help the NC's image. A semblance of progress in the peace process also provides a useful diversion from NC's internal problem for Koirala who is under strong pressure from the Deuba camp for unilaterally dissolving the party's sister wings.

However, NC leaders make clear that the positive vibes in the media, in part, come as a reciprocation of the Maoist gesture rather than a 'unilateral action.'

The party president's point-man on the peace process, Krishna Sitaula, argues that it is the 'change of heart,' among the Maoists, particularly Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai that drives his party's response.

Even party President Sushil Koirala feels that Dahal and Bhattarai will have to be encouraged to take the peace process forward. Koirala has publicly prodded Dahal to act as a statesman and take risks to take the peace process forward. If the peace process is concluded, NC, too, gets the credit, and if polarisation within the Maoists leads to a split within them, the party benefits equally, goes the thinking, according to some NC leaders.

"If you look at the negotiations, there hasn't been any substantive change in our positions," said NC leader Rijal. "Maoists say they are serious about completing the peace process. Even if it's their bluff, it is high time we call their bluff."

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

The last leg

In a nutshell, there is one fundamental disagreement on integration: whether or not the combatants should be allowed to retain a distinct identity. Nepali Congress fears that doing so, even after integration, will continue to ‘fan fire to smoulders’ of the conflict. The NC argument is that the Maoists could use their former fighters for ulterior motives if they are somehow allowed to cling on to old loyalties. NC leaders have recently cited examples of mutiny from Bangladesh in support of their argument. It is not yet clear if the Maoists leadership have given up their demand of retaining a separate identity for the combatants, but for sure, the hardliners want it more than anything. Some NC leaders however seem to think that the Maoist establishment is willing to let go of the demand.

Nepal’s peace process has shown surprising resilience over the years. It has survived the breakdown of the consensus prevalent after the Constituent Assembly election of 2008; it survived the sharp polarisation between parties from May 2009 to early 2011 that threatened to derail the peace framework; and it also survived the abrupt departure of UNMIN. Over the course of the peace process, both sides have reneged on their word, partly due to intra-party complications and partly for political expediency. But as the stalemate protracted, both sides have made a surprising turnaround to find common ground by starting where they left off in 2008. In many ways, smooth progress until the CA election and turbulence thereafter was natural. In the initial days of the peace process, the parties had to deal with the broader contours of the process and had a common enemy in the form of the monarchy. But as the enemy was eliminated and time progressed, agreement on specificities could no longer be deferred. Both

sides then took to differing interpretations of what those contours meant to appease their own constituencies.

Once again, parties have reached a broad understanding to expedite the integration process and neither side is deliberately using contentious issues to defer an agreement. The Maoists have shown greater flexibility on some of their demands. Equally, the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML are determined to see this through and have hence have shown flexibility of their own. The biggest catalyst has been the clarity shown by the Maoists on how far they are willing to go to resolve the issues, despite opposition from hardliners within them. In turn, NC leaders have increasingly begun to articulate, in clearer and amenable terms, where their core objections lie and where they are willing to cede ground. This has reduced the trust deficit among both sides. But a more instrumental role in nudging all parties has been played quietly by India. There is a growing sense that India, once again, is taking some ownership of the peace process that it originally facilitated.

India will have to be given a formal public role and Prime Minister Bhattarai rightly reiterated his official request in New Delhi, as he did in New York. So many other international actors with little contributions in facilitating the initial peace framework are actively contributing in various aspects of the process. It is only appropriate that New Delhi, whose behind the scene role has been instrumental from the get-go, be given a public role. But spreading the ownership of the peace process among other domestic constituents is equally critical in guaranteeing success as Nepal’s key actors embark on the last leg of this long and arduous peace journey.

Potential spoilers

There is a constituency in all three major parties that opposes further compromises. In the Maoists, it is quite obvious—the hardliners are more organised and influential than ever before as they vigorously pursue the formation of parallel structures. That gives them an enormous ability to undercut the support for a deal with the Maoists rank and file. Prachanda will have to work overtime on his persuasion skills, but more importantly, giving them an ownership in the decision-making process will go a long way. Only Dev Gurung has been continuously involved in the peace process from this camp. Despite his posturing, Gurung is the only one who understands the complications and the nuances of the peace process. Others have been largely shut out from engagement with other parties. Most of them were in jails in India when the process started, but later

the party headquarters deliberately gave them no role. That needs to change if Dahal wants to avoid an all out assault from the Baidya camp.

In the Nepali Congress, there is also a segment that is opposed to giving up on the party’s long-held stance. In fact, some leaders close to the party establishment are in favour of inking a deal and joining the current government. The opposition within Nepali Congress is partly opportunistic—jockeying for the party’s internal power-sharing—and partly fanned by the conservative element within it that has never accepted the 2005/06 peace framework. Sushil Koirala, like Prachanda, will have to reach out to his opponents.

Support or opposition to further compromises that could lead to a final resolution also depends on how far and

wide the ownership of the peae process is spread and on calculations of who stands to gain or lose in next elections. The three parties will have to keep up the tempo of current engagement, while addressing each other’s sensitivities.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

The lone wolf

APR 02 - The peace process enters a crucial phase, with the extended Constituent Assembly’s term nearing an end. The role of the UCPN (Maoist)—especially the hard line faction—will be instrumental in deciding which way the process will go.

The hard line faction is led by none other than 64-year-old Mohan Vaidya ‘Kiran’, mentor to many revolutionaries including party Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal himself. It is Kiran who holds the key to whether Maoists will demonstrate further flexibility in the days to come. Vaidya—who is also the party’s Senior Vice Chairman and chief ideologue—takes pride in the “consistency” of his beliefs. Though—in typical Marxist-speak—he admits that too much of anything is dangerous, he has no doubt about his correct diagnosis of Nepal’s problems.

“I have never been in the minority,” says Vaidya, referring to the two-line struggle that is integral to any communist party.

“Many have come and gone over the last 50 years of my political career, but my line has always prevailed.”

Vaidya’s relationship with Dahal is key to understanding the Maoists’ fortunes. The two have had a complex love-hate relationship. Vaidya, cognizant of his limitations, sees Dahal as a vehicle for implementation of his ideologies. Dahal, meanwhile, finds him a useful ally in the battle for leadership against Baburam Bhattarai. At times the two have worked together, and at other instances, they have worked against each other. Though Vaidya has considerable influence within the party rank and file, the chairman and his men control the party and its frontal organisations. Vaidya admits that he doesn’t quite trust the Chairman, yet he says he doesn’t entirely distrust him. “Marxism calls for a healthy dose of scepticism in everything,” he says as if to justify the mistrust between the two as natural.

Vaidya maintains that his faith in the chairman never deterred even during the insurgency. “I have never had a problem working with or under a younger leader. In fact, I spotted Dahal’s talent very early on and paved the way for his eventual elevation as the party leader,” he says, referring to his 1986 resignation that made room for Dahal as CPN (Mashal)’s general secretary.

In the past, Vaidya had been full of praise for Dahal. In one interview, he said that no communist leader has been able to reach Dahal’s height because the chairman has unique abilities to “analyse the prevailing situation and accommodate disparate views.” But in recent years, he hasn’t concealed his disillusionment with Dahal’s tactics. If the party leadership goes against the aspirations of the people, Vaidya says, “that will be the end of it.”

A student of Nepali literature and philosophy, he may not exude much gravitas in public appearances, but in private meetings, he is known to be argumentative and persuasive. Besides other communist heavyweights, Mao’s successes in China and even failures have had a deep impact on him. He sees himself as the party’s conscience, and says that he is the one who is standing between the party’s revisionist ideals and fizzling out of its revolutionary dreams. He has a ready historical reference to back up his argument. “A Constituent Assembly isn’t something new. It was first raised by the Nepali Congress in the 1950s. The Congress leadership went soft, the king took advantage, and that subsequently led to miscarriage of the revolution,” he says, arguing that various previous uprisings such as those in the 1950s, 80s, and the 1990 movements all eventually amounted to nothing as leaders couldn’t stand firm at the height of the movement. “I don’t want people to go through repeated revolutions that shed considerable amount of blood for nothing,” he says. He appears determined to take the current ‘revolution’ to its climax—on the path of socialism.

Life’s travails have shaped and hardened Vaidya’s ideology over the decades. Born in a poor Brahmin family in Pyuthan, he saw both the pretence of the upper caste and poverty’s hardships firsthand. He had an inherent dislike of the discrimination the caste system meted out those on the ‘lower order.’ While studying in Janata Secondary school in Pyuthan, he became an active member of the Nepal Communist Party in 1964. As the then-royal regime began cracking down on communists, he fled to Dang, where he began teaching Nepali. He began leading the district committee of the party, and his association with communist leaders Mohan Bikram Singh, Nirmal Lama, and Manmohan Adhikari led to the formation of the party’s Central Committee (CC) in 1971. While on a trip to Pokhara as in-charge of the Western region, Vaidya was arrested and sent to Salyan in 1972. After spending nearly 18 months in prison, he was finally released in 1974. While he was still in prison, the party’s Fourth Convention took place and he was elected a CC member.

But Vaidya broke away in 1984 after differences with Singh became irreconcilable over what he calls Singh’s authoritarian style—one must note the irony as this is the charge Vaidya levels at Dahal today. He formed a new party, Communist Party of Nepal (Mashal). Vaidya became the general secretary of the new party at the Fifth Congress held in Gorakhpur, India. Among the CC members who were elected at the congress were current Maoist leaders like Dahal, Dev Gurung, and C.P. Gajurel.

In 1986, Mashal reformulated its ideology to include Maoism, and opposed the then-Panchayat elections. To subvert the electoral process, the party launched limited attacks on police posts in Kathmandu and vandalised a statue of king Tribhuvan, which became known as the Sector Incident. Vaidya says he didn’t have any prior information to the acts, and resigned from party leadership taking responsibility for the misadventures. Dahal was named general secretary the same year. As the uprising against the Panchayat regime peaked in 1990, CPN (Mashal) and Masal unified, and in 1991, they merged with the CPN (Fourth Convention) to form the Unity Centre, which would eventually launch the ‘People’s War’. Vaidya was arrested and put in jail in Siliguri during the insurgency while undergoing an eye surgery in 2003. “Our autocratic Panchayati jails were much better than jails in so-called democratic India,” he recounts, perhaps hinting at the reasons behind his hard-line stance against India.

At the Palungtar plenum last year, both Dahal and Vaidya declared India and its domestic ‘reactionary allies’ as principal contradictions of the “Nepali revolution”. They argued that India was hell-bent on preventing the Maoists from coming to power. In fact, Vaidya went a step further and proposed that the party should immediately start preparing for a revolt against India.

Of late, Vaidya and Bhattarai seem to have realised the source of Dahal’s power: control over frontal organisations, especially, trade unions which contribute most to the party coffers. This has resulted in a three-way split in some fronts, including the All Nepal Trade Union Federation. The internal schism manifested into clashes between the leaders of all three factions of ANTUF. The party was forced to disband the union, and though the rumours about the party’s imminent split have become vociferous, Vaidya scoffs at the suggestion that he would be the one to endanger it. A leader close to Dahal said a few months ago that Vaidya would split the party if he can secure the support of 5,000-7,000 Maoist combatants, and that Bhattarai would do the same if he can garner the support of 100 Maoist lawmakers. Vaidya dismisses such claims. “I have always been for the unity of the party,” he says, but not before adding that he can’t speak for others.

An ageing Vaidya sees himself and the party he has nurtured as the vanguard Nepal’s communist movement. As Maoists leaders get versed in the trappings of open politics, he maintains a lonely vigil against the “UML-isation” of the Maoists. Whether Vaidya can find a way to work with his chairman to conclude the peace process amid his fears and prejudices remains to be seen.

In the eye of many storms

In the eye of many storms
In Politics on November 13, 2010 at 12:24 pm

NOV 13 – Fifty-five-year-old Gopal Kiraty’s simple appearance belies his fiery character. His health may be frail—his involvement in the Maoist insurgency has taken quite a toll (veins disorder)—but his fighting spirit remains. He lives in a modest rented apartment in Anamnagar with his wife. This is luxury compared to what a lot of his colleagues in villages have, and he is mindful of the gap it has created. “For the sake of the office I occupy, this is a necessary evil,” he says referring to the apartment and little luxury he can indulge in. Kiraty likes to shake things up. “I am not a media savvy person, but if the things I do drag me to the limelight, that is probably a good thing,” he says. All his modesty and Spartan existence stands in contradiction to his headline-grabbing acts. He has been a controversial figure from his ministerial debut. As the first Minister for Federal and Cultural Affairs of a federal republic Nepal, he tried to launch a ‘nationalistic purge’ in one of the holiest sites of the Hindus, the Pashupatinath temple. He drew up a plan to simplify the administrative units of Nepal by proposing to create 800 districts and seven large metropolises. In the latest instalment of his iconoclastic act, he led the team that hurled shoes at the Indian ambassador to Nepal, Rakesh Sood, triggering a diplomatic crisis. He wasn’t always the firebrand ‘nationalist’ that he is today. In 1983, he nearly became a “mercenary” by joining the British Gurkhas. He says his brother-in-law, Hari Narayan Rai, a local school headmaster in Solukhumbu—who was active in local communist circles—inspired him to change his mind by handing him Seema, a drama about the Gurkhas to read. Kiraty eventually gave up the idea of joining the ranks of the Gurkhas and instead gravitated towards left-leaning politics that led him to join the Maoists. He quickly rose through the ranks to become a politburo member, a Constituent Assembly member and then a minister. His colleagues describe him as passionate, someone who is willing to defy the party leadership. “Only the Chairman can reason with him,” says Hari Bhakta Kandel, a UCPN (Maoist) politburo member who has known him since 2000. Party insiders are quick to claim that none of Kiraty’s actions were in line with party policies. He has little formal education, but doesn’t elaborate on why that was so. Party colleagues in typical communist-lingo say he has no “bourgeoisie degree.” But even without a formal education, Kiraty displays a brand of politics he likes to call nationalistic. For example, he sought the removal of Indian Bhattas (priests) from the Pashupati temple as soon as he became a minister. “The presence of Indian priests epitomized our cultural dependence, in order to change that it was necessary to appoint Nepali priest instead,” he says The opportunity seemed to fall in his lap when the five Bhattas submitted their resignation once the new government was formed. Traditionally, Pashupati priests always tender their resignation in a similar fashion, and by tradition, the government of the day turns it down. Kiraty, instead, accepted the resignation. It was, after all, a Eureka moment for him. “As far as I was concerned, I felt quite relieved that the opportunity had presented itself,” he says. Instead, the acceptance of the resignation snowballed into a much bigger issue. It was immediately brought before the Supreme Court. “Contrary to our expectations, the SC didn’t issue a show cause notice; rather, it issued an interim order. If they would have issued a show cause notice, we would have a strong case in our hands,” Kiraty says. The regulations of Pashupati Area Development Trust (PADT) requires that the Mul Bhatta (Chief priest) to be a member of PADT management committee. But that contravenes with Nepal’s constitutional provision that requires any individual to be a Nepali citizen to qualify for political appointments, and this fit with Kiraty’s logic that the chief priest has to be a Nepali citizen to fulfil both the provisions of the constitution and PADT. For seven days until the SC order was received, Nepali priests were in charge. “I think that was quite an achievement. The incident has done much to raise national cultural awareness,” he says, reflecting on the issue now. But Kiraty isn’t just known for the Pashupati controversy. His plans for state restructuring were equally eye-raising when one morning he proposed the country be divided into 800 districts and seven large metropolises. Many saw that as a trial balloon by the Maoists to abandon federalism. But Kiraty refutes the allegations. “There is a narrow understanding of federalism in Nepal. All we want to do is further devolve the power of local bodies in a manner that makes state services easily accessible to all citizens alike no matter where they live,” he says. Kiraty explains his idea further. A trip to access state’s services shouldn’t be more than a day’s work, but that’s hardly the case in many remote districts. A return trip to district headquarter of Sankhuwashaba from Kimathanka is at least 14 days, he says. He feels his proposal is the right pill for ensuring good governance at the local level. “The idea is to make administrative units geographically smaller and closer to where people live,” he says. Kiraty is a political leader who has thrived on controversies, yet he believes the issues he has raised have helped his party mainstream many of its agendas. Though he says the attack on the Indian Ambassador wasn’t premeditated and that the locals got carried away, he doesn’t go quite as far as regretting it. “There are voices, including from within our own party, calling for action against those who threw shoes. It will be wrong to take action against the people and I will not lie low if that happens.” Kiraty argues that unless the Indian state treats Nepal as a “respectable sovereign state”, such protests will continue to happen. “No other ambassador to Nepal has been seen as interfering in Nepal’s internal affairs.” His actions seem to be governed by his reading of Marxist dialectic that encourages controversy and rational discussion to resolve disagreements, rather than practical considerations. That makes him unpredictable and a loose canon at times. But with his recent act, Kiraty is back to what he does best: raise his voice on an issue in a way that makes everybody else as uncomfortable as they can get, including his own party.