In Nepal, the people have been forced to endure a long and protracted conflict that has taken more than 15,000 lives. No one feels secure in Nepal anymore. Innocent people are killed for political gain every day.

Because of long conflict Nepal has been set centuries behind as a nation in a senseless bloodbath of tyranny and terrorism. In time of war, always the innocent women and children are most vulnerable and become war’s main causality. Although they pose no threat to either side, they are very much affected. There are certain instances that the fighting forces have misused innocent people for their own political purposes. During armed conflicts, many innocent people are tortured, kidnapped, and raped.

Warring sides in Nepal, all in the name of justifying any means at all to win the bloody war, have also utilized all kinds of atrocities that have been perpetrated against citizens living in different parts of the world.

Many of people have gone to war willing to die. This means that there are so many people willing to take up arms against their own people. The loud and clear message of this phenomenon is that there is something vitally lacking in a state that long found its identification in the important role of insuring a peaceful life for all citizens

Why have so many formerly peaceful Nepalese chosen to take on the mentality to kill or to be killed. How is it that these Nepalese have forsaken the once peaceful countryside of their ancestors, to walk instead among a bloody killing field of their own making?

People all over the world continue to die from poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, political exploitation, and war – war between nations, between communities, between political ideologies, between religious beliefs, between ethnic differences, etc.

Dictatorial regimes historically neglect to provided resources and protection for the majority of people under their domain. However, when the tyranny of oppression becomes too great for the majority to bear, they are innately inclined to rise up, regardless of the risk, to fight for the right to live free with dignity and respect under a constitutional, democratic style of governance. The death toll of people dying from war between nations when compared to the death toll of people dying from long protracted war within nations, the later is significantly higher in number.

The source of rising death tolls varies according to the situation. Some tolls relate to differences between regions and cultures, some relate to disease. However, most death tolls relate to political causes. When minutely examined, one finds these figures relate to a despotic regime’s greed for wealth, power, and control of resources at the expense of citizen’s human rights. Therefore, the key political causality of suffering and death in the world is none other than one political leader’s lack of respect for the basic human rights of others whether in their own land or another’s.

In addition, the lust for seizing state power, for ruling in a dictatorial way in the name of some ideology, whether political or religious, is the primary cause of suffering and death in all political history. Nepal’s present conflict is no different. The death and destruction suffered here since democracy won in 1990 is the result of political greed between two despotic forces seeking the overthrow of freedom at any cost.

Both the Monarchists and the Maoists began to plot the political overthrow of democracy from the day of its inception. Both forces worked overtly and covertly to undermine the democratic constitution the ensuing democratic process and procedure. They made mockery of the recently established multi party parliamentary system. In numerous ways, they disrupted peaceful negotiations and mediation amongst interested persons working to meet the people’s needs. Since the seizure of state power by the King on 1 Feb 2005, the motives of the King have became clear to all, even to those people somewhat skeptical of democracy at the beginning of the Maoist insurgency.

As we have seen, the King requires absolute agreement by those his raises to government status, or he quickly dismisses them from service. The multi party system in name only he may continue to tolerate for the sake of world opinion. However, eventually, if they want to survive they must capitulate to support the king alone as true savior of the country and the people

Regarding the Maoists, after the King established himself in power in February, they are suspiciously willing to work with the mainstream parliamentary political parties. Surly this is only for the purposes of improving their own power standing. Are the parties expected to believe the Maoists have transformed their hearts so suddenly?

Are the parties so naïve they will forget it is the Maoists who, continue to torture and kill many democratic political activists from other parties. That it is the Maoists who were the first to raise arms against the multi party parliamentary system of democracy, and who continue to kidnap and commit all kinds of atrocities against innocent civilians as well, especially in the defenseless rural areas of Nepal the power base of other political parties.

Negotiation with Maoists remains almost impossible as long as their primary goal and belief system remains the establishment of communist dictatorship in Nepal. As ever, this translates to mean there will be no democracy and no respect of human rights for the people. Can people simply believe the Maoists words since the leaders say something and party cadres do exactly opposite? Then the leaders barely apologize for the mistakes but most of the time tries to justify the atrocities as in Peru.

The Maoists talk about coming out with a more democratic and inclusive system (revisionist version of Communism?). If indeed they have any, nothing to date has come forth.

Regarding the mainstream political parties, they favor neither direct rule of the King nor the one party dictatorial rule of the Maoists. They want sustainable multi party democracy and to see the increase of interest and participation of the people in the self-governing process. The King’s control over the Military and the Police at least is the one specific area multi party supporters want to revise in the present constitution. They can go ahead of this.

Therefore, there several questions remain to be answered regarding peace negation in the context of Nepal’s present on going bloody conflict for seizing state power amongst the three key political forces in Nepal as well as the power of influence between the Superpower and the mighty Asian giants that are her immediate neighbors.

1. How will the positions of the three key political stakeholders be addressed in would be political negotiations in Nepal?

2. Has the time come for the Maoist to come to the political process to rewrite the Constitution of Nepal in which once powerless King will get his share of power?

3. Will not the status quo prevail in Nepal for many years to come if the King does not get, as he wants in the name of fighting with the communist terrorists?

4. Are the main stream political parties not ready to have their stair going on either they regain at least whatever they have achieved in 1990 or be reduced as after 1960 Royal coup?

5. What are the essentials factors for the wider political dialogue to be initiated?

6. How many more people have to be killed?

7. Cannot the nation and the people more important than seizing power for ruling the country for own benefit making people fool without providing human rights and democracy?

8. What can be the best interest of political powers domestic as well as international in Nepal?

There can be three different kind of political systems established in Nepal. a) The dictator King’s direct rule with arm insurgency and political instability continue as it is going on. b) The dictatorial communist rule without human rights and democracy and will be the beginning of a strong resistance movement within the country from civil societies as well as political parties. c) Sustained multi party parliamentary democracy with human rights and liberty for all.

The people of Nepal specially represented by civil society strongly not only believe but also have practiced democracy for the last one and half decades. They are committed to the fundamentals of human rights and democracy although they do not claim themselves as political players but they are naturally important stakeholders. This is the forth position in the political conflict of Nepal.

In societies where democracy does not exist and people are not given room to exercise their human rights, conflicts are certain to occur. The basic human rights are to live in dignity. To live in dignity one’s requirements are basic needs as food, shelter and clothing as well as freedom and liberty. This is indivisible. The essentials of dignified living provide the foundation from which all human rights are formed. No circumstance provides justification to deny a person even the smallest part of his or her basic human rights.

It would be a paradox for a dictator to rule democratically. To respect the human rights of the people, a dictator would need to loosen his or her power grip. No regime can be benevolent if it is not democratic. The political instability and insurgencies to date, is the direct by-product of those undemocratic regimes. The root causes of many conflicts around world today date back to dictatorial regimes resumed in similar fashion after national independence was won. Those countries that adopted democratic governments after independence have significant political stability.

The sustained internal security of people is not firmly established by winning the so-called peace alone, or by the initial development of an independent state or nation. Rather, sustained internal security rests upon the unmitigated protection and opportunity of the people to practice their basic human rights at all levels of society, without fear or exception.

Therefore, it is essential to care for one another’s human rights that to risk violating even one person’s dignity in the area for political gain, disturbs the security of the people. In addition, risks the rise of a cycle of violence that could further threaten the security of the people, spreading not only to nearby communities, but throughout the entire society, state, or nation, and perhaps the region as a whole.

Bhupal Lamichhaney
***********************
Vice President
Human Rights Organization of Nepal (HURON)