The appointment of a new government and a cease-fire in Nepal give the country the best chance for peace it has had in five years. Since 1996, when Maoist guerrillas started their rebellion to overthrow the monarchy and replace it with a communist republic, over 1,700 people have been killed. Until now it looked as if the country was set for interminable conflict; neither the Maoists, who presently control about a quarter of the country, nor the government forces have been able to gain the upper hand.
Ironically, it was last month’s appalling massacre of King Birendra and his family by his son, Crown Prince Dipendra, that has permitted this breakthrough. It was a cathartic moment in time for Nepal. The resulting national trauma led to a widespread sense that Nepal needed healing, and that that healing included making peace with the guerrillas and giving the country a fresh start. The new ruler, King Gyanendra, as well as many politicians are clearly passionate about the need to end the conflict. At the same time, the Maoists increased their profile with a series of attacks on the police while at the same time trying to exploit public grief and anger and undermine the popularity of the monarchy by suggesting that the killing was the work of King Gyanendra and his son, the new crown prince. The claim was that they were acting on behalf of the CIA and the Indian government, both of whom feared a Maoist victory and had concluded that Birendra was not up to the task of crushing them: only Gyanendra was strong enough.
This story is believed by no one, although there is a rational argument behind it. Were the Maoists, supported by China, to grab power in Nepal, it would turn the region into an area of potential confrontation. No one wants to see war in the Himalayas between two nuclear giants, least of all the US. The accusation by the Maoists makes sense. But making sense does not make it true; and the proof of it being a lie is that King Gyanendra has opted for dialogue not repression.
It is also difficult to believe that Beijing imagined that a puppet regime could be installed and maintained in Katmandu. It may simply be that in supporting the Nepalese Maoists, Beijing intended nothing more than little local difficulty, keeping India on its toes. It is equally possible that now that there has been such traumatic change in Nepal, it has put pressure on its clients to join in the dialogue. The fact that the Maoists have done so when they still believe in revolution suggests that they have been pressurized.
But there has to be a serious nagging suspicions whether the peace process can as yet come to anything. It is not just that the Maoists’ heart is not in it. There have to be doubts as to whether the new government can deliver. The ruling Nepalese Congress Party is notoriously faction-ridden and the new Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, and his Cabinet all come from one faction. The delay in announcing the Cabinet was because of infighting for ministerial positions; hardly an encouraging omen. Nor is this Deuba’s first time as prime minister. He held the post when the Maoists started their rebellion. The need for peace ought to unite the country’s political elite behind a common cause. So far it does not seem to have done so.
