'आपत्तिजनक सम्झौता’ प्रति

सौरभ

विश्वेश्वर कोइरालाले 'सबैभन्दा अविश्वसनीय' भनेका पात्रको प्रधानमन्त्रित्वकालमा, ३० हजारमा नेपाली सेना झारे हुन्छ भनेर १९८९ मा एमजे अकबरलाई अन्तरवार्ता दिने ऋषिकेश शाहको परोक्ष तर पूर्ण अनुसरण, त्यो पनि उनकै चेलाबाट भएछ भने पनि धेरैलाई आश्चर्य लाग्नेछैन । त्यसैले आपत्तिजनक चारबुँदे सम्झौता हुन पुग्यो, जसमा कथित तराई मोर्चाले आफ्नो तुहिनै लागेको अडानका कुरा बेलाबेला उठाइरहन्छ । तर कुन तुक र तर्कका आधारमा ? यहाँ त्यसैको विस्तार गरिन्छ ।
अघोषित नियम

६ फिटभन्दा अग्लो हुनुपथ्र्यो, हनुमानढोकाको पहरेदार हुन् । यो चलन राजेन्द्रविक्रम शाहका बेलासम्म कायम थियो । जर्मन काइजर्सको दरबारको पहरागणको अनुकरण भए पनि विसं १९०४ मा तिनैलाई समेटेर राइफल गण गठन गरियो । द्वितीय विश्वयुद्ध (सन् १९३९) सम्म काठमाडौं उपत्यकाको काँठका मानिसहरूलाई सेनामा भर्ना लिइँदैनथ्यो । यद्यपि काँठमा प्रशस्तै क्षत्री परिवारहरू बसोबास गर्थे । त्यो बेलाको काँठ भनेको टुकुचाटार (कालिकास्थान), धाँकिटार (गौरीघाट उत्तर), भैमाल (मनहरा पारि) पनि हो । प्रधानसेनापतिमा सकेसम्म ठकुरीलाई नियुक्ति दिइँदैनथ्यो । यो चलन २०२२ सालमा सुरेन्द्रबहादुर शाहको नियुक्तिले टुटेको मात्रै हो । पृथ्वीनारायण शाहका आफ्नै भाइ महोद्दामकीर्ति शाहले गुल्मीको फौजी सहयोगमा गोरखाविरुद्ध विद्रोह गर्न खोजेपछि यस्तो नीति लिइएको हो । नभन्दै पृथ्वीनारायण शाहले दिव्योपदेशमा 'ठकुरीले दगा गर्छ' भनेकै छन् । राजाचाहिँ ठकुरी हुने तर प्रधानसेनापति नहुने त्यस्तो हदैसम्मको कठोरता देख्दादेख्दै तराईवासीमाथि किन पक्षपात ? भन्ने तर्कको कुनै तुक छैन । दहचोक, दिगर्चा, कास्की, नाल्दुमका लडाइँमा उपाध्यायहरू लडेका र मरेका छन् । तर ब्राह्मणलाई युद्धमैदानको कमान्डर नै चाहिँ बनाइएको छैन, उनीहरूको गणको कुरा त परै रहोस् (कोतको तुलसी मठमा ब्राह्मणलाई कृष्णबहादुर राणाले काटेकै हुन्, तर ती अर्यालको नामसमेत उल्लेख छैन) । लिम्बुहरू झनक्कै रिसाइहाल्ने र झगडालु हुन्छन् (भेन्सिटार्ट), यसैले उनीहरूको बहुलता रहेको गणलाई अरूबाट केही परै राखिन्छ, कोही जाति प्रहरीका निम्ति मात्र उपयुक्त हुन्छन् (ऐजन), यसैले प्रहरी सेवा नभएको कालमा समरजङ्ग कम्पनीको तर्जुमा भएको हो, कोही जाति साम्प्रदायिक हुन्छन् (एल्डरसट), यसैले उनीहरू बहुल रहेको गणमा अरू जातिलाई पनि मिसाइन्छ ।

ब्रिटिस टेलिकमले रोटरी टेलिफोनको प्रचलन कालसम्म देब्रे हात मात्र चल्नेलाई कर्मचारीमा

लिँदैनथ्यो । माथिका नियमहरू त्यस्तै हुन् । त्यस्ता अघोषित नीति सेनामा सयौं छन् । २००८ को कार्यसम्पादन ऐनजस्तै नीति हो यो, टाउको भएको शरीर नभएको । जसको व्याख्या विशुद्ध विज्ञानको क्षमताभित्र पर्दैन । बरु कृष्णप्रसाद भट्टराईको कार्यकाल छोट्टिनुको एउटा प्रमुख कारण थियो, उनले दिल्लीमा दिएको प्रतिउत्तर, 'तिमीहरूले चाहिँ तराईवासीलाई सेनामा भर्ना किन नलिएको ?' भन्ने कुरा बुझे हुन्छ ।

दायित्व

सेरामा रोपाईं गर्नुपथ्र्यो, सेनाले सैनिक पोसाक नै लगाएर, केवल मोहता घुँडासम्म सारेर । सेरा भनेको पछिल्लो कालको विभाजनमा अब्बल, दोयम, सिम, चाहारमध्येको अब्बल जमिन हो । यस्तो जमिन प्रायः राजाकै पक्कै हुन्थ्यो । तर सेरामा सेनाको योगदानको अर्थ हो खाद्य सुरक्षाको ग्यारेन्टी । त्यसपछि मात्र अन्य जमिनमा रोपाइँ सुरु हुन्थ्यो करिबकरिब सबै रजौटा राज्यमा ।

सिन्धुली, रामेछाप र उदयपुर जिल्लामा रामदली गाउनुको अर्थ घाँसेगीत गाउनु हो । तर यथार्थ के हो भने रामदली मकै गोड्दा मात्रै गाइने गीत हो (रामकली गाउनुको अर्थचाहिँ अर्कै हो) । सन् १९०७ मा हजुरिया कर्णेल नरबहादुर बस्नेतले त्यहाँ 'डेन्ट कर्न' भित्र्याए । मकै (जिया मेज) को 'फि्लन्ट कर्न' प्रजाति जगज्जय मल्लकै बेलादेखि थियो, 'पप कर्न' प्रजाति जंगबहादुर राणाअघि नै थियो । तर यो अत्यन्त नयाँ प्रजातिको उब्जनी पक्का गर्न सेनाको राम दललाई उपयोग गरियो । जुन दल पछि प्रहरीमा परिणत भयो अर्थात् बाहिरी आक्रमणबाट देश रक्षा गर्न मात्र होइन, नागरिकलाई खाद्य सुरक्षा दिलाउने दायित्व पनि सेनाकै थियो । जति बेला हरित क्रान्तिको कुरा गर्ने नर्मन बोर्लागको न जन्म भएको थियो, न एमोनियम सल्फेट नै भित्रिएको (१९५२) थियो । यस्ता सेराहरू पश्चिमसम्म अझै टन्नै छन् । ठिमीको नेकु सेरा पनि सेरा नै हो (नेवारीको नेकु जोडिएको कारण त्यहाँ नीरकमल (निम्फिया स्टेलाटा) लगाइन थालेकाले हो । नेकु बन्छ संस्कृतको कालोबोधक निस्कुटबाट रूपान्तरित भएर नेवारीमा बन्ने निकुथु राँगोबाट । नीरकमलको बियाँ राँगाको टाउकोजस्तै हुन्छ नियाल्यो भने ।) तर अवनतिको हद यस्तो भएर गयो नेकु सेराले पछिपछि धान होइन, वर्षको ६ वटा नीरकमल मात्रै दरबारलाई बुझाउन थालेको थियो ।

अर्थात् तराईले खाद्य सुरक्षा दिएन भने पहाड धानिँदैन र त्यसले घुँडा टेक्छ भन्ने दक्षिण सञ्चालित मनोविज्ञानका आडमा चलेको राजनीतिमा कुनै दम छैन । यद्यपि रिपु मल्लको डोटी राज्यका हातमा भारतस्थित सिङ्घियाईसम्मको तराई, पाल्पाको हातमा बटौली -मान्छे बटुलिने ठाउँ), खस्यौली -खस्न गएकाहरू बस्ने ठाउँ), सुनौली -सुनजस्ता बाला झुल्ने ठाउँ), तनहुँका हातमा भारतको रामनगरसम्म, चौदण्डीका हातमा पूर्वी तराईदेखि पूणिर्यासम्म सोझै अधीनस्थ इलाकाहरू थिए, अझ दीनानाथ दाहालले जोडेका चार जिल्लासहित (सिन्धुलीको मुलकोटमा उनले बनाएको पीपल चौतारा मात्रै अब त्यस महान् कूटनीतिज्ञको कीर्तिशेष रहेको छ) जहाँ पारिबाट खेतीका लागि अधियाँ दिई दिई ल्याउनुपथ्र्यो ।

अभ्यास

माओवादी विद्रोहको एउटा प्रशंसा गर्नैपर्छ त्यो हो अभ्यासहीन, सुतेको र धेरै नै बोसो लागेको परम्परागत सेनालाई यसले एकाएक चुनौतीको माध्यमबाट ताजा र तयार रहन प्रेरित गर्‍यो । यद्यपि ८० प्रतिशत भूभाग कब्जाको जुन दाबी गरिन्छ त्यो माओवादी बलियो भएर होइन, राज्यको अनुपस्थिति र सेना कुँजो अवस्थामा पुगिसकेकाले हो ।

२००७ सालपछि नेपाली सेनालाई कुँजो कसरी बनाउने भनेर दक्षिणी प्रयासहरू भएरै आएका थिए । राणाकालको पुनःगठनका नाममा ६ हजारमा सेनालाई झारियो । यो खप्न सकेन नेपालले र सबैलाई मिलिसिया ट्रेनिङ दिने आवाज घन्कियो, कम्तीमा अहिलेको इजरायल वा दक्षिण कोरियाको ढाँचामा । केआई सिंह यस विचारका प्रणेता थिए । तर भिसी विजेता लक्ष्मण गुरुङले पाएको भन्दा पनि चर्को स्वागत दिल्लीमा पाएपछि यो प्रसंगलाई कलेजबाट केही विद्यार्थी भर्ना गर्ने गरी नेसनल क्याडेट कोर्समा पुर्‍याएर तुहाइयो । आज देव गुरुङहरूले पुनः त्यसलाई जब जगाउने प्रयास गरे, दक्षिणलाई टाउको दुख्यो । नेपाली कांग्रेसका 'सिलौटा' र 'शिखण्डी' हरू त्यसविरुद्ध खनिए ।

जब कि नेपालको पुनः एकीकरण अभियानको विस्फोट मात्रै गोरखाबाट भएको हो । पश्चिमका यावत् खलंगा (छाउनी) हरू मध्यकालभन्दा पनि अघिदेखिका हुन् । सैनी भनिन्छ सेनाप्रमुखलाई अर्थात् गोरखाको नुवाकोट भैरवीजस्तै पश्चिमको निम्ति निगाला सैनी, पोटाला सैनी, खडक सैनी, विन्द्रा सैनी, डिला सैनी सबै युद्धका देवी हुन्, सिंगा सैन, तिमल सैन, मंगल सैन, पाण्डु सैन, बाटुला सैन, घोडा सैन, खीर सैन सबै पूर्वछाउनीहरू हुन् । गण्डी गुल्म (चौकी) बाट गुल्मी, पयठ (मार्च) बाट प्युठान हुन पुगेको छ । यद्यपि तिलंगा भारतको तेलंगनाको सिपाहीलाई मात्र भनिन्छ अर्थात् नेपाली जनजीवनको सबैभन्दा प्रबल धार नै सैनिक धार हो । नेपाली साधुका बोलीमा पनि सैनिक लवज पाइन्छ, गहिरियो भने । यसैले नेपालको पैदल सेना विश्वकै सबैभन्दा राम्रो पैदल सेना हुन पुग्यो कुनै बेला ।

पक्कै हो, भारत संघको निर्माणपछि त्यसैको निरन्तरता व्यावहारिक रहेन तर धाइफाल (लङ जम्प), ठेलो (सट पुट) र अझ सन् १८४२ को सार्वजनिक पल्टनबाजी (समर सल्ट) प्रदर्शन सबै छापामार चरित्रका अभ्यास हुन् । पश्चिममा खेलिने 'गर्रा' नै महाभारतकालीन चक्रव्यूहको अवशेष हो । जडेलो -भाइटिस) लाई काट्न वर्जना गरिएको नै छापामारलाई निर्जन जंगलबीच पानी पिलाउनलाई हो । बारुदका निम्ति राम्रो धुलेगोलको खोजीमा सतीबयर -रस पार्भीफ्लोरा) व्यापक रूपमा जंगलमा रोपेको माओवादीले यो रहस्य बुझेकै होला ।

अर्थात् भारत संघको निर्माणपछि कदाचित् परिहालेमा उपयोग गर्न सकिने चरित्र भनेको छापामार चरित्र नै हो, शक्तिशाली अमेरिकाविरुद्ध भियतकङजस्तो । यो उसले चाहिँ राम्रै बुझेको छ र मिलिसिया ट्रेनिङको विरोध भइरहेको हो । तर मैदानमा हुर्केकाहरूले के पहाडी भूगोलमा चल्ने र त्यसको उपयोगिता हुने फोकटको रासन खानेबाहेक ?

पतनको सीमा

विसं १८९९ मा शार्दुलजङ पल्टनका सिपाहीहरूले तलबका विषयमा माग राखे, आफ्नो बन्दुक बिसाए । वृद्ध बाबुआमा, पत्नी र छोराछोरी पाल्न नै एक व्यक्तिले ज्यानको बाजी राखेर सिपाहीको जागिर खाएको हुन्छ । यो कुनै विद्रोह थिएन, गुनासो मात्र थियो सरकारसँग ।

तर त्यसबापत तिनलाई कुनै युद्धमा लड्न जान नपाउने, आधुनिक सैनिक पोसाक लगाउन नपाउने र बन्दुकको नाल आकाशतिर फर्काउन नपाइने सजाय दिइयो । फलस्वरूप 'गुरुज्यूको परेवा' (बाह्र प्वाँखे, चुत्थो), 'गुरुज्यूको लम्बर' (मनपरि) जस्ता नेपाली टुक्काहरूमा थप 'गुरुज्यूको पल्टन' (नलड्ने) मा त्यो दर्ता भएको छ । जब कि विसं १८७१-७२ को जैथकको लडाइँमा यसले इस्ट इन्डिया कम्पनीको सेनासँग लडेर त्यसलाई हराएको थियो ।

तर आज आफैंविरुद्ध, आफैंले मानी आएको परम्पराविरुद्ध, बन्दुक नै उठाएकाहरूलाई समेत सेना समायोजनका नाममा भित्र्याउन बाध्य छ सेना । यद्यपि भारतविरुद्ध बंकरसमेत खनेको माओवादीलाई नक्कली नोट भित्र्याउनेहरू, तस्करी गर्नेहरू, दसगजा मिच्नेहरू, सीमास्तम्भ ढाल्नेहरू, घुसपैठिया आतंककारीहरूलाई तह लगाउनकै निम्ति मात्रै भए पनि सीमा सुरक्षा बलमा परिणत हुन आपत्ति किन भएको हो ? बुझी नसक्नु छ । यहाँनिर शार्दुलजङ कम्पनीमाथि झन्डै १७० वर्षपछि आफ्नो फौजदारी अदालतबाट यथार्थवादी तर्कसहित न्याय दिएर मात्रै समायोजनतर्फ लाग्नु सेनाका निम्ति उचित हुनुपथ्र्यो, मैदानबाट बगालै भर्ती सुरु गर्ने त पछिको कुरा भयो ।

अन्त्यमा

सुरसण्ड पर्छ सीमापारि । त्यहाँ जन्मेर ससुराली धाइरहेको पात्रलाई नेपालमा राजनीति गराउन कोइरालाहरूले भित्र्याएका महन्थ ठाकुर । सोनवर्षा पनि पर्छ सीमापारि, त्यहाँ जन्मेर पर्साको एक चिनी कारखानामा लोडर र त्रिभुवन विमानस्थलमा सफाइ कामदारको ठेकेदार हुँदै सर्लाहीको नागरिकता लिने पात्रको नाम राजेन्द्र महतो । जसको बोली १६ पुसको नयाँपत्रिकामा पढ्न पाइन्छ- नेपाली सेनामा मधेसीलाई भर्ना गर्ने प्रक्रिया कसैले रोक्न सक्दैन । त्यसको विरोध गर्नुको औचित्य छैन । पटनामा जन्मेर नेपाल भित्रिएपछि मन्त्री बन्न पुगेकी सद्भावना आनन्दीदेवीकी नेतृ, घोडासान नजिकैको कबइमा जन्मिएर राप्रपा नेपालको सभासद, अघिल्लो पुस्तामा उत्तर प्रदेशको महाराजगन्जबाट जनकराज पाण्डेको परासीस्थित खाँडसारी मिलमा मिस्त्रीबाट मन्त्री, जयनगरमा जन्मिएर मधुबनीको नागरिकता लिँदै एमालेबाट मन्त्री, सीमावारिको होइन पारिको

मर्चवारमा जन्मिएर सूर्यबहादुर थापाको मन्त्रिमण्डलमा क्याबिनेटस्तरीय शिक्षामन्त्री, अघिल्लो पुस्तामा बिहारको वीरपुरबाट भित्रिएर नेपाली कांग्रेसबाट मन्त्री हुँदै फोरम र त्यसबाट मधेसी मोर्चाको नेता- हरूको एक ठूलो बगाल नै रहेपछि तिनबाट नेपाली सेनाको छापामार चरित्रको विकासलाई रोक्न हुने हरसम्भव प्रयासमा आश्चर्य के ? रैथाने तराईवासीको खोइ हैसियत राजनीतिमा ? जसको सेनासम्बन्धी सोचले कुनै मौलिक आयाम र महत्त्व राखोस् ।

Nepal may be venue of opposing Chinese and Indo-US Security interests

Sulav Khatiwada
MBA Graduate,Jhapa, Nepal

Sulabh Khatiwada, a fresh MBA Graduate from Apex College, Kathmandu, is now associated with a business firm named DR Construction & DR Supplies. Apart from being involved in the business activities, he is closely observing the political events happening within and without the national boundaries.
Sujit Sharma for the Telegraph Weekly and its online edition telegraphnepal.com approached and talked with this lively young man on several aspects of Nepali economy and politics, recent trends observed in global politics and its possible impact in Nepal.
Below are the excerpts of this exclusive interview: Chief Editor.


Q1: Nepal is now undergoing through peace process. Does this situation have had any impact in the development activities happening in the country?
Khatiwada: Being an associate of a construction company, I am largely benefitted by the current state of country. Nepalese economy was in stagnation, better say it was very much close to a collapse, during the 10 years long Maoist insurgency. After the mainstreaming of the Maoists in national politics, some positive changes have been noticed in the national economy. Our economy is gradually becoming pulsating.
The firm to which I am associated is mainly focused on the construction works in several municipalities. The development activities in the municipalities have been increased drastically after the beginning of the peace process. Government has increased budgetary allocation for the development activities and Consumer Groups have been formed at the local levels to monitor such activities. The ongoing development activities have integrated the aspiration and stake of the local people. I am satisfied with this change.

Q2: It is being rumored that the businessmen in Nepal are being victimized by the extortion campaign of different political parties and armed groups. Is it true?
Khatiwada: I would prefer to remain tight lipped over this issue. Let it remain just a rumor only. I apologize for this.

Q3: A section of analysts accuse that the Politics-Crime nexus in Nepal is gradually taking a dangerous turn. What do you think about this?
Khatiwada: This pitiable situation emerged in our country after the people made politics the means of earning their livelihood. Politics should not be a job, it is a volunteer service. The politicians in Nepal are trying to loot the country with the help of the political power they wield. This situation has led to the surfacing of criminal activities under the cover of politics. It should immediately come to an end. Or else, our country will plunge in the whirlpool of impunity.

Q4: What do you want to say further about the Nepali politics?
Khatiwada: Nepali politics is now moving ahead through four different paths, each being led, for example, by Unified Maoists, Nepali Congress, UML and the Madesh based parties. I don’t see any meeting point in between them. National interest could be a meeting point; however, they are least interested in making the national interest an issue as such.

Q5: After signing Seven Points Agreement, November 1, 2011, between major political parties, it was said that an atmosphere of political consensus was formed. But such presumed consensus, according to some analysts, is gradually fading away. Why it so happened Mr. Khatiwada? Why Nepali political actors cannot ever unite?
Khatiwada: Its answer is very simple. The current political mess is the net result of unnatural (or say unholy) alliance(s) between the Left and Right extremism. The Unified Maoists and the Nepali Congress represent the Left and the Right camp respectively. Their ideologies are totally opposing ones. One prefers to eat with the right hand while the other insists to use the left one.
How the alliance between such diametrically opposing poles could become possible in the near past? Which force on earth made these two forces unite amongst themselves and for what purposes? We need to dwell on this Himalayan question.
To end the ongoing political mess, either Nepalese Congress or the Unified Maoist has to surrender its structured ideology and beliefs. Until and unless this does not happen, political stalemate in Nepal will not end. Take it for granted.

Q6: But some analysts claim that the maneuvering of alien forces is responsible for the current pathetic situation of Nepal? Do you see any logic behind such allegations?
Khatiwada: Our geostrategic location is so unique that we cannot avert the maneuvering of the alien forces. First of all, we must accept this fact. However, we should not get worried by the prevalence of such a situation. If handled with care and vision, this situation may yield positive results for the whole country. For this, we need to enrich our diplomatic acumen and negotiating capabilities.

Q7: Could you please further elaborate your saying? I think you are making quiet interesting remarks.
Khatiwada: The geopolitics of Nepal and the upheavals' being witnessed in both regional and global political/strategic landscape has significantly enriched the geo-political significance of our country.
Our geography and the recent developments that have happened in international politics has compelled our neighbor(s) to exhibit their serious concerns towards the Nepali affairs because Nepali soil now has acquired tremendous strength to influence the security and economic landscape of the two Asian giants, China and India.

Q8: What Nepal should do in this situation? Could you please forward some candid suggestions?
Khatiwada: We should try our best to exploit maximum benefit from the concerns now being exhibited by regional and extra-regional powers towards Nepal's politics and geographical situation.
We can learn from the way Myanmar is extracting benefit from the existing hostile relation between China and India. Kathmandu too can utilize its maneuvering capabilities in its relations with India, China, US and other European countries as against their anxiety in Nepal and can use their concerns for the development of the whole nation.

Q9: Mr. Khatiwada, could you please become more candid on what you exactly mean to say?
Khatiwada: I think I should clarify my opinion with the help of an example.
Tibet is one of the major factors determining Nepal's relation with other countries. Kathmandu is reiterating its firm commitment towards One China Policy since long. This might have been made to appease the Chinese. However, our Southern neighbor and some Western countries are offensively annoyed by Nepal's presumed hostility towards Tibetan refugees. US lawmaker Frank Rudolph Wolf had recently ventilated his ire against Kathmandu and had even threatened to strip off the US aid if it did not provide safe passage to the Tibetan defectors.
Under the prevailing circumstance, we should try to extract more financial and diplomatic support from China to counter the USs coercion. Lots of people in Nepal believe that Nepal is meaningful for China. Despite of the Nepal's firm commitment towards One China Policy (both in theory and practice), China is mocking at Nepal by providing peanut support to the latter. We should try to convey message to Beijing that Nepal cannot afford to tease other friendlier countries by suppressing Tibetan refugees, as desired by Beijing in the prevailing situation. If Beijing wants us to act as per its desire, it should be sincere towards the development of Nepal. If needed, we can open US or India card to convince China in this regard.

Q10: So, then why Kathmandu has yet not exercised its foreign policy as brilliantly suggested by you?
Khatiwada: I am very sorry to say that we haven't reformed our foreign policy since long. The existing foreign policy is outdated; we need to formulate new ones based on the strong bedrock of the national interests. But political leaders of Nepal are not sincere towards it. They cannot unite among themselves even for the sake of national interests. Rather they enjoy dancing to the tune of alien music.

Q11: Thanks for your unique comment(s). It is said that Nepal will become another Afghanistan because of excessive maneuvering of the alien forces in the political and ethnic issues of this Himalayan nation. Do you think this is likely to happen?
Khatiwada: Because of the duffer Nepali politicians, it looks as if a dangerous catastrophe is gradually approaching. However, I don’t think Nepal can ever become a battleground of international powers.
Former USSR repented for its decision by invading Afghanistan. US also lost money, power and prestige with no substantial gains in having sent its troops inside Afghani soil. In these circumstances, I don’t think that any country can dare to interfere militarily in Nepal. If it so happens unfortunately, the whole region will be destabilized. This is for sure.
I think that eruption of a proxy war is very likely in Nepal. We should remain very much cautious about it.

Q13: It is said that the US has recently made paradigm shift in its Asia policy. How do you see this policy shift? And please say how the presumed change in US policy will affect the Nepali affairs?
Khatiwada: Prior to the recent address made by President Barak Obama in the Australian Parliament, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton in her article published in Foreign Policy on November had said, “Just as Asia is critical to America's future, an engaged America is vital to Asia's future." The address of President Obama is nothing but the additional elaboration of the article of Mrs. Clinton.
The US is now going to make grand entry in the strategic scene of Asia-Pacific region, especially in the Southeast Asian countries which share borders with South China Sea. The sole intention of US's recent paradigm shift in Asia policy is to prolong the duration of the current unipolar international order.

Q14: Could you please further elaborate what you have just said?
Khatiwada: Well, if we see the current happening, we can easily see as to how the global influence of US is gradually fading away.
Its best example is the acquiring of full membership by Palestine in the UNESCO, a cultural body of the UN.
Despite the US reluctance, an overwhelming majority of the member states of UNESCO voted in favor of Palestine acquiring UNESCO membership. US, the strongest ally of Israel with veto power in the Security Council, couldn’t foil the attempts of Palestine. This is the manifestation of waning power of the US in the global affair.

Q15: Mr. Khatiwada, please let our august readers know how this change in US policy towards Asia will impact people of Nepal and its politics?
Khatiwada: The recent change in foreign policy of the US will foster muscle flexing of US and China in the Pacific Ocean in general and in the South China Sea in particular. India, an Asian ally of the US, along with other proxies of US in Southeast Asian region, will try to tease and contain China. Nepal, being a landlocked country situated in between China and India, will soon experience the grand impact of muscle flexing in South China Sea.
The opposite interests of China and Indo-US axis may converge in Kathmandu for some obvious security reasons. Therefore, this is high time for Nepal to tighten its belt.
But I don’t think we should get worried with the emerging situation. We can utilize the diplomatic maneuvering with skill and can develop our nation. For this, I repeat, Kathmandu should advance its diplomatic acumen.

(Exclusive for telegraphnepal.com)

Link : http://www.telegraphnepal.com/opinion/2011-11-30/nepal-may-be-venue-of-opposing-chinese-and-indo-us-security-interests.html

Nepal’s independence is as much a concern of Madhesis as of Pahadis

Kalyan B. Mathema
Sociologist, Nepal

Kalyan B. Mathema, a lecturer of Social Anthropology is now vigorously screening external and internal dimensions of the ongoing Nepali political affairs through sociological lenses. His new book "Madheshi Uprising: The resurgence of Ethnicity" published by Mandala Book Point has recently hit the kiosks of Nepal's major cities. In this book, Mr. Mathema has tried to explain as to how the Madhesh culture led to the biggest ethnic uprising in Nepal some years back.
Sujit Sharma for the Telegraph Weekly and its online edition telegraphnepal.com has interviewed this promising young scholar on several aspects of Nepal's politics and the associated social phenomenon.
Below the excerpts of his exclusive interview: Chief Editor


TGQ1: Nepali population is experiencing two distinct trends concurrently. They are trying to adjust themselves in today's globalized context and at the same time insisting to restructure the nation on the basis of ethnicity. As a Sociologist, how do you think Nepal can adjust itself in such contrasting trends? Your enlightening comments please.
Mathema: Many social scientists like Ernest Gellner and Charles Tilly who have meticulously studied ethnicity have come to a conclusion that the importance of ethnicity increases with the increase in the influence of modernization and globalization. Arguing from a theoretical perspective called instrumentalist model, these scholars reason that the ethnic fragmentation in society occurs through modernization, economic competition and elite ambitions. The process of modernization, they argue, improves literacy rate, widens the reach of mass media and facilitates transportation which promotes inter-cultural communications and which in turn heightens ethnic awareness among different ethnic or cultural groups. The basic argument from this influential theoretical model is that the modernization process increases both self and ethnic consciousness. Looking from this perspective, the ethnic consciousness and ethnic movements in Nepal can be viewed as a natural result of the increasing impact of globalization and the modernization taking place in the country.
The impact of globalization is not limited to the rise of ethnicity and ethnic consciousness but it also touches upon national culture of nation states and challenges it confronts. In one sense, globalization homogenizes culture in the global scale but at the nation state level it leads to the rise of popular or populist culture and which thus poses a threat to the cultural elements of nationalism that thrives on the reproduction of nationalism based on monoculture. The weakening of the cultural elements of nationalism at the nation state level leads to the formation of various intra state cultures that challenges nationalism. This challenge to nationalism is both a problem and opportunity. It is a problem because it could lead to the identity and ideological based fragmentation in the country’s social fabric. On the other hand, if challenges brought about by globalization are accepted in a scientific manner by nation states then the concept of nationalism can be broadened and democratized.
The ethnic movements in Nepal have scores of demands such as federalist state structure, decentralization, positive discrimination, inclusion of excluded communities in the state apparatus, preservation of their cultures and the right to have a dignified ethnic identity. Instead of classifying their demands and explaining the pros and cons of each demand one by one, the logical way would be to understand the spirit behind these demands. Whatever be the demands of these movements - federalism or positive discrimination, the spirit behind both is the desire of these ethnic communities to have a greater role in the Nepalese state apparatus and say in Nepalese politics. The inclusion of the previously excluded community in the state apparatus and the politics will strengthen, instead weakening the Nepali state, as inclusion will help them to view the state and politics as their own and not something that is beyond their control. This sense of inclusion will build the sense of belongingness and ownership among the previously excluded communities and Nepal is sure to benefit by winning the allegiance of the previously excluded groups.
The way to address the demands of ethnic movements in Nepal is by creating a Nepalese society that is free from ethnic, religious and identity based extremism. This can take place only when we build a national culture that leads people to respect and appreciate all other cultures of Nepal and promote the responsibility for the creation of a fair society. Every citizens of Nepal should have the right to choose and enjoy any type of cultural lives that they find as suitable for themselves but they should not be allowed to interpret their cultural rights in such a way as to justify the violation of the rights of others.

TGQ2: In the changed context, foundation of Nepali nationalism are gradually deteriorating and new foundations are yet to be in place. In your view, what could be the new premise of Nepali nationalism?
Mathema: The upsurge in the identity movement in Nepal since 2007 indicates that the version of nationalism that was adopted in 1990 was not able to accommodate the aspirations of many ethnic communities in Nepal. The nationalism that the ethnic movements have demanded or demanding is the nationalism that is based on cultural pluralism. Cultural pluralists consider all cultural groups as equal. Some political analysts see cultural pluralism as a problem because they believe that only monoculture and homogeneity will help bring strong nationalism. Regardless of such constricted interpretation of nationalism, we must accept the fact that Nepal is a culturally diverse society. We should see cultural diversity as an asset rather than a problem. We are a unique country where different ethnic communities with different glorious histories, myths, traditions, symbols and values are united by the love for Nepal. A strong, prosperous and a democratic Nepal can be achieved only after we build a strong nationalism based on the bedrock of our cultural diversity.
Zygmunt Bauman, a Polish Sociologist, rightly argues that nationalism can only be erected on the foundation of a strong state. Nationalism, according to him, is like a product produced through meticulous ‘social engineering’ in a ‘factory’ of a nation state. If we agree with Bauman (which I do) then our first job in Nepal will be to work towards creating a strong State. In other words, our first priority in order to build a strong Nepali nationalism should be on building an effective and competent state. The Nepalese state however should be democratic and not an authoritarian one, as an undemocratic system, no matter how efficient it might be, will still fail to build a strong nation state where all people have a strong common identity, interest and goal. It is often said and very truly that the state is the organization to hold a country physically intact while the nationalism is the psychological glue to unite the people of the country together. An undemocratic Nepalese state may attempt to build a nation state through an imposed version of nationalism but this does not work as nationalism is an ideology that cannot be forced upon people. An authoritarian state that does not give political power to its people will not enjoy the loyalty of majority of its citizens and as a result will not be able to produce a sustainable and healthy nationalism. Nationalism built by authoritarian and totalitarian states are usually jingoistic ones and not suitable for the civilized era.

TGQ 3: Political scientists believe that foreign interference in Nepal was institutionalized after signing of humiliating Treaty of Sugauli with East India Company in 1816. The 1950 Nepal-India Peace and Friendship Treaty had already nullified the Treaty of Sugauli; however, foreign interference still prevails in Nepali politics. Why and how this happens Mr. Mathema? Your precious comment please.
Mathema: The issue of foreign relationship and interference is always at the center of debate in all weak and smaller nation states. The relationship between different nation states especially between or among the neighboring ones is always based on social, political and economic conflict of interests and negotiation. When two sovereign nation states interact, each expresses its own national interest and the result is the synthesis shaped by their conflict of interest. The outcome of the negotiations between any two nation states usually goes in favor of the one that has higher degree of bargaining power.
It is very important for us to agree on what our national interest is, what our bargaining power is, what and how Nepal can benefit from its relationship with other countries, and what interests these foreign nation state(s) have on Nepal and what should be our national strategy in pursuit of ours having a strong foreign policy.
Nepal’s national interest regarding foreign policy is primarily:
(a) To preserve sovereignty,
(b) Protect national integrity,
(c) Safeguard political independence,
(d) Ensure internal security and social harmony,
(e) Improve the standard of living for Nepalese citizens,
(f) Safeguard democracy, civil liberty and human rights,
(g) Preserve and enhance Nepal’s positive image in the comity of nations and
(h) Maintain friendly relationship with other countries, particularly the neighboring ones.
A country’s national strategy is its ability to make various pragmatic plans by assembling all the economic, political, cultural, diplomatic and other available resources and mobilizing them in an effective manner to secure one’s own national interests. For the planning and implementation of a successful national strategy, it is essential for the civil society groups, political parties and the state to have a common understanding of where our national interest lies. Studying the current situation in Nepal, it becomes clear that the State is currently in a weak position. The major political parties and various civil society groups remain in a divided state on ideological and ethnic lines and there is a lack of national consensus on issues even related with foreign affairs and policies. In a situation like this, it is easy for foreign states to push their national interests at the cost of Nepal’s own interest through various power centers in Nepal. It is absolutely essential for Nepalese political parties to form a common world view as far as Nepal’s relations with other countries, more particularly the neighboring countries are concerned.
It is also advisable for Nepal to develop a strong team of scholars and researchers through its university systems to study and advise the government on foreign policy matters. Such team should be made up of retired diplomats and academics from different fields like economy, politics, law, security, sociology and culture. To begin with, there could be at least two teams of experts, one specializing in India and the other in China. Both India and China are big countries and their politics are intricate and complex. It is absolutely essential for us to have a good understanding of both these countries- their politics, economy, finance, commerce, society, their foreign relations and their comparative strength or weaknesses vis-à-vis Nepal in various spheres so that we can understand and deal with them well in a dignified manner.

TGQ4: Recently sacked Defense Minister Mr. Sarat Singh Bhandari jolted the entire nation by his secessionist remarks. Being an expert of Madheshi society and culture, do you think his remark reflect the opinion and aspiration of the entire Madheshi population?
Mathema: Mr. Sarat Singh Bhandari’s remarks were very unfortunate. His remarks however, do not reflect the opinions and aspirations of Madheshi population. The new democratic Nepal has offered to Madhesis a place of pride and honor. Under the changed political scenario, the Madheshi parliamentarians can, for instance, angrily debate on any issues in their own mother tongue with Pahadi brothers and sisters in the Nepalese parliament. While the Madheshi leaders will continue to fight for more political role and space, they have also clearly understood that in the current democratic Nepal they have more social and political power than they had ever before. Nepal’s sovereignty, protection of its territorial integrity and safeguarding of political independence is now as much a concern of the Madhesis as that of the Pahadis.

TGQ5: Let us end with a surgical question. There is the simultaneous rise in the ethnic consciousness, religious differences, political instability, culture of impunity, criminalization of business, breakdown of law and order, naked foreign interference and economic stagnation. Some political scientists have warned of the possible outbreak of civil war. What is the best way to deal with these likely infernos?
Mathema: According to James Fearon and David Laitin, the two prominent political scientists who studied 122 civil wars that occurred between 1945 and 1999 and which claimed over 16.2 million lives, factors such as poverty, weak state, political instability and large population are more responsible for civil conflicts than factors such as ethnic or religious diversity. If we are to agree with these two scholars, then we should be more worried about Nepal’s flagging economy, widespread criminalization of business, eroding state power and the growing disparity between the rich and the poor than the rise of ethnic consciousness. If Nepal is to avoid any civil unrest or conflict in the future, it must work hard to establish a strong and efficient State which not only delivers services to the people with efficiency and fairness but also deals with the problem of law and order and bring an end to the culture of impunity. State failure in sectors such as health and education has serious consequences in the well-being of the people, particularly those who are poor and deprived and this could have serious impact on people’s faith on the efficacy of the government. All this could lead to social unrest and ethnic violence. If economic and social justice are continued to be ignored then there is no way to prevent Nepal’s eventual slide to conflict again. Maoists’ insurgency and the Madheshi Uprising are both fuelled by youth discontentment mostly in rural areas due to various reasons but especially the growing inequality in Nepalese society. It is also very much important that the high political consciousness of Nepalese people should be capitalized by the state by making constantly keeping them engaged in politics so that they can act as a pressure group to bring timely reforms in various spheres of national life.

http://www.telegraphnepal.com/five-questions/2011-10-28/nepals-independence-is-as-much-a-concern-of-madhesis-as-of-pahadis.html

असान्दर्भिक पात्र : किरण र गान्धी

सुजित मैनाली

उपयोगीताको सिद्धान्तको अब्बल अभ्यास हुन्छ राजनीतिमा । इतिहासको कुनै विशेष कालखण्डमा विशिष्ठ महत्व र उचाई हासिल गरेको व्यक्ति अर्को चरणमा पुग्दा बेकामे बन्न पुग्छ । राजनीतिमा समय र परिस्थीति ज्यादै निर्मम हुन्छ जसले रगत छउन्जेल मानिसलाई चुसिरहन्छ र रित्तिएपछि पाखामा मिल्काइदिन्छ । मानौ मानिस उखुको खोष्टो हो !

राजनीतिमा उपयोगीताको सिद्धान्त बुझ्न दुई जना पात्रलाई उदाहरणका रुपमा लिन सकिन्छ भारतीय स्वतन्त्रता संग्रामका शिखर पुरुष महात्मा गान्धि र एकीकृत नेकपा माओवादीका उपाध्यक्ष मोहन वैद्य 'किरण' । अिहंसाका पुजारी गान्धी र दश वर्षे शशष्त्र द्वन्द्वका क्रममा भएको रक्तपातका निम्ती नैतिक रुपले जिम्मेवार ठहराइएका किरणबीचको तुलना आफैमा अमिल्दो देखिन्छ । तर उपयोगीताको सिद्धान्तबमोजीम भरपुर उपयोग भएर मिल्किएका र मिल्कने क्रममा रहेका यी दुई पात्रको नियतीले दुबैलाई एकअर्काको नजिक ल्याएको छ ।

महात्मा गान्धी उच्च अध्ययनका लागि दक्षिण अपि्रुका जानु अगावै भारतमा स्वतन्त्रता संग्रामको विजारोपण भइसकेको थियो । तर संग्रामलाई सिद्धान्तीकरण गर्ने र 'क्यारीस्मेटिक' नेतृत्व प्रदान गर्ने व्यक्तिको अभावमा यसले गति लिन सकिरहेको थिएन । गान्धिले दक्षिण अपि्रुका पुगेपछि बुझे - कमजोरले बलियोसँग लड्ने भनेको बाहुबलले होइन वुद्धि र करुणाले हो । अपि्रुकामै उनले यसको आरम्भिक प्रयोग समेत गरे जसलाई उनले शान्तिपूर्ण सत्याग्रहको नाम दिए । आफ्नो प्रयोग आंशिक रुपमा सफल भएपछि भारत फर्किएर उनले यसलाई व्यापक बनाए । 'कहिल्यै सुर्य नअस्ताउने' साम्राज्यसँग लड्ने यो भन्दा उपयुक्त अर्को हतियार थिएन । फलस्वरुप भगत िसंह, सुवासचन्द बोशजस्ता केहि अपवादलाई छोडेर स्वतन्त्रता संग्राममा संलग्न सबैले गान्धिद्वारा प्रतिपादित आन्दोलन पद्दतीमा सहमती जनाए ।

गान्धीले उपनिवेशकालिन भारतमा स्वतन्त्रता राष्ट्रियता र साप्रदायीक एकताको आन्दोलनलाई अकल्पनीय उचाइ दिलाए । उनको उपयोगीता त्यत्तिका लागि मात्रै थियो । उपयोगीता सकिएपछि अन्त्यमा उनी आफ्नै पार्टिद्वारा मिल्काइए जसरी अहिले माओवादी पार्टिले किरणलाई मिल्काउने प्रयत्न गरिरहेको छ ।

किरण र गान्धि काँडैकाडाले भरिएको बाटोमा हिड्ने नियती बोकेका प्राणी हुन् । बगैँचाको मनोरम र आनन्ददायक क्षण उपभोग गर्न जन्मिएका होइनन उनीहरु । हिजो युद्धको बेला पार्टिभित्र सर्वत्र पुजिएका किरण अहिले चारैतिरबाट बहिष्कृत भएका छन् । 'क्रान्ति' उठान गर्न कुनै बेलामा किरणलाई गुरु थाप्ने अध्यक्ष पुष्पकमल दाहाल अहिले पराइलाई मनाउन आफ्नै गुरुको बली चढाउन उद्दत भएका छन् । हिजो माओवादको नेपाली भाष्य तयार गर्ने बेलामा किरणको उपदेयता थियो । नेतृत्व कस्तो हुनुपर्छ संगठनको शक्ति के हो र यसलाई कसरी परिचालन गर्नुपर्छ ? अरुले आफूमाथि सैद्धान्तीक हमला गरेभने यसको प्रतिकार कसरी गर्ने ? सिद्धान्त अथ्र्याएर मानिसलाई हतियार बोक्न कसरी उद्वेलीन गर्ने ? प्रचण्ड को हो र प्रचण्डपथ के हो ? यस्ता विषयमा दाहाल लगायत सम्पूर्ण पार्टिले किरणको विशेषज्ञयताको चरम दोहन गरेका थिए । तर अहिले शशष्त्र द्वन्द्व टुंगीएको छ र माओवादी शान्तिपूर्ण राजनीतिमा अवतरीत भइसकेको छ । हिजोको जंगलको बास (प्रचण्ड, बाबुराम आदिले नयाँ दिल्लीको नोयडामा ुजनयुद्धु का बेला करिब आठ वर्ष बिताएको तथ्यलाई एकछिन बिसर्िदिउँ) को ठाउँमा अहिले अर्बौ मुल्यका आलिशान महल माओवादी नेताका निम्ति ठडिएका छन् । खच्चडको सट्टा लाखौं मुल्यको चिल्ला गाडिले उनीहरुलाई हुइकाइरहेका छन् । यस्तोमा किन चाहियो माओवादीलाई माओवादको नेपाली भाष्य ? सुखसयल र सत्ताको उन्मादले मात्तिएका दाहाल, बाबुराम, जवहलराल नेहरु र बल्लभभाइ पटेलले अझै किरण र गान्धिलाई आदर्श मानेर लामो कठिनाइपछि आइलागेको अवशरलाई किन जोखिममा पारुन ?

पद र पैसाप्रतीको वितराग गान्धि र किरणलाई जोड्ने अर्को पुल हो । भारत स्वतन्त्र भएपछि गान्धि राज्यको कुनै पदमा आसिन भएनन् । किरणले सभासदको पद त्यागे मन्त्री अथवा प्रधानमन्त्री बन्ने लालसा कहिल्यै देखाएनन् । अप्ठेरो परेको बेला दुलो पसी अनुकुल समयमा फुत्त निस्केर तर मार्ने नारायणकाजिजस्ता अवशरबादका नाइकेको बोलाबोल रहेको बेला किरण पार्टिभित्रबाटै परित्यक्त हुन्छन् भने यसमा आश्चर्य मान्नुपर्ने कुरा नै के छ र ?

भारत स्वतन्त्र नभएसम्म जवहरलाल नेहरु र बल्लभभाइ पटेल गान्धिलाई 'बापु' भन्दै उनको पाउ मुसार्थे । 'बापु' निन्दाएको बेला उनको गोडा मिच्थे र आर्शिवादको याचना गर्थे । तीनै नेहरु र पटेलले भारत स्वतन्त्र भएपछि गान्धिलाई टेरेनन् । भारत-पाकिस्तान विभाजनको बेला भारतले पाकिस्तानलाई ७५ करोड रुपैयाँ तिर्नुपर्ने भएको थियो । पहिलो चरणमा पाकिस्तानले २० करोड रुपैयाँ लिइसकेको थियो । बाँकी पैसा माग्दा नेहरु र पटेलले दिन अस्विकार गरे । त्यतिबेला काश्मिरमा भारत-पाकिस्तान लडाइ जारी थियो । भारतबाट पाउने पैसा पकिस्तानले हतियार खरिद गर्न खर्च गर्ने भय उनीहरुलाई थियो । पाकिस्तान आफ्नै पैसाबाट वाचीत भएको स्थीति गान्धिका लागि सैह्य थिएन । स्वतन्त्र भएलगत्तै भारतले झुट र कपटलाई राज्य साचालनको आधार बनाएपछि गान्धिले यसको विरोध गरे । आफ्नो विरोधलाई नेहरु र पटेलले टेरपुच्छर नलाएपछि गान्धि आमरण अनसनमा बसे । हिजोसम्म 'भगवान' मानेको ७८ वर्षिया वृद्धलाई उनीहरुले हप्तौंसम्म भोकै राखे ।

ओटो भन विस्मार्क उपयोगीताको सिद्धान्तबमोजिम चुसिएका अर्का एतिहासीक पात्र हुन् । उनले जर्मनीको एकीकरण गरे र युरोपको शक्ति सन्तुलनलाई आफ्नो राष्ट्रको अनुकुल बनाए । उनकै पालामा जर्मन ज्यादै शक्तिशाली भयो । तर अन्त्यमा विस्मार्कलाई प्रुान्स र बि्रटनको बेगसँग हिँड्न नसक्ने अयोग्य व्यक्ति ठहराइयो । कैसर विल्हेल्म द्धिृतीयले 'अयोग्य' हुन पुगेका विष्मार्कलाई पदच्युत गरी पहिलो विश्वयुद्धको सङ्खघोष गरे र जर्मनलाई बर्बाद पारे । त्यस्तै सन् १९१७ मा रुसमा बोल्सेभिक क्रान्ति हुँदा लाल सेनाको सर्वोच्च कमान्ड सम्हालेका लियोन ट्राटस्की सत्ता कब्जा भइसकेपछि अवािाछन हुन पुगे । क्रान्तिसम्बन्धी उनको परिभाषालाई अपूर्ण र माक्स्रवादविरोधी ठहराइयो । उनी देशनिकालामा परे र अन्त्यमा मारिए ।

प्रतिकुल समयमा उपयोगी हुने जिव सामान्य जीवनमा सान्दर्भिक नहुन सक्छ । राजनीतिमा अक्सर यस्तो हुने गर्छ । दोस्रो विश्वयुद्धमा आफ्नो अलौकीक नेतृत्वदायी क्षमताको उपयोग गरेर नाजी जमर्नी र फासिष्ट इटालीलाई पराजित गर्ने बि्रटेनका प्रधानमन्त्री सर विन्स्टन चर्चिल युद्ध समाप्त नहुँदै कुसर्ीबाट खँदारिए ।

राजनीतिको यस्तो निर्मम सिद्धान्तबाट नेपाल मात्र अछुतो हुने कुरै आउँदैन । त्यसैले किरणलाई आदर्शवादी अव्यवहारीक समयअनुसार चल्न नसक्ने हठि जडसुत्रवादी स्वैरकल्पनाबादी आदि भएको आरोप लगाइँदैछ । र तिनै जडसुत्रबादीले हुर्काएको बोटको फल टोक्ने दाहाल भट्टराई र नारायणकाजीलाई व्यवहारीक भनि पुजा गरिँदैछ । अहिलेको संसार किरण र गान्धिको होइन । यहाँ 'व्यवहारवाद' का नाइकेहरुका लागि मात्र स्थान छ ।

(हिमालय टाइम्स राष्ट्रिय दैनिकमा प्रकाशित)

साम्राज्यवादको छद्म हुँकार

सुजित मैनाली

साम्राज्यवादी विर्य र विस्तारवादी डिम्बको ुफ्युजनुबाट जन्मिएको सरकारले अन्ततः आफ्नो असली रुप देखाएरै छाड्यो । रक्षामन्त्री शरदिसंह भण्डारीले नेपाललाई टुक्राउने धम्की दिनु अनपेक्षित थिएन । तर उनको अभिव्यक्तिप्रती प्रधानमन्त्री डा. बाबुराम भट्टराईले साधेको मौनता भने धेरैले अपेक्षा गरेभन्दा विपरीत छ । यसलाई राष्ट्रसंघ महासभामा सहभागि हुन जाँदा न्युयोर्क बसाइका क्रममा लागेको बोसोको परिणती मान्नु पर्ला !

शरदिसंहको विखण्डनबादी अभिव्यक्ति सुनेर दिल्लीका उनका 'सेठ' हरु झस्किए होलान् । मध्य र दक्षिण एसियामा फुटको बिउ छर्न खोज्ने बाह्य शक्ति यसबाट उत्साहित भयो होला । चीनको उदयलाई छोप्न र अफगानिस्तानमा स्थीरता बाहली गर्ने बहानामा निर्माण भएको भनिएको भारत-अमेरिका रणनीतिक साझेदारीले नेपालमा विपरीत धार समात्न पुग्दा राजनीतिशाष्त्रका विद्धानहरुले समेत निधार खुम्चाए होलान् ।

लिट्टेमार्फत श्रीलंकामा विस्तारवादी नीति लागू गर्न खोज्दा साम्राज्यवादी घुसपैठ भएर तमिलनाडु झन्डै छुट्टिएको त्रासद अनुभव दिल्लीले यति चाँडै बिसर्िने कुरै आएन । त्यसैकारण श्रीलंकाली राष्ट्रपति महिन्दा राजापाक्षेले चिनियाँ तथा पाकिस्तानी हतियार भित्राएर प्रभाकरणको वध गर्दा समेत भारतले जयललिता र करुनानिधीमार्फत तमिलनाडुको चित्त बुझाउनका लागि राजापाक्षेको विरोध गरेझैं देखाएपनि राजापाक्षेलाई असहयोग गर्ने धृष्टता गरेन । उता अमेरिका युरोपेली महासंघदेखी स्केन्डिनेभियन राष्ट्रहरु राजापाक्षेविरुद्ध अिरंगलको गोलो बनेर खनिए । युरोपले श्रीलंकाली पस्मिना आयातमा प्रतिबन्ध लगायो, अमेरिकाको राज्यस्तरको अदालतले राजापाक्षेविरुद्ध 'एरेष्ट वारेन्ट' जारी गर्यो । राजापाक्षेलाई अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय फौजदारी अदालतमा अभियोजन लगाउनुपर्ने एकाध नारा नेपालमा पनि गुिाजए । सार्वजनिक उपभोगका लागि भारतले श्रीलंकामा विखण्डनवादविरोधी युद्धका क्रममा भएका मानवअधिकार उल्लंघनका घटनामा चासो देखाएजस्तो गरेपनि अन्त्यमा राजापाक्षेका लागि नयाँ दिल्लीमा रातो कार्पेट बिछ्याइ छोड्यो । एउटा छिमेकी राष्ट्रमा साम्राज्यवादी घुसपैठको अवसान भएलगत्तै 'इण्डो-गंगेटिक' भूभागको सुरक्षासँग प्रत्यक्ष सरोकार राख्ने उत्तरको छिमेकी राष्ट्रमा साम्राज्यवादको अवशेष सलबलाउन खोज्दा नयाँ दिल्लीको कत्रो 'निन्द हराम' भयो होला !

विस्तारवादी आवरणमा बनेको यो सरकारको नसामा साम्राज्यवादी रगत बग्दैछ भन्ने कुराको गतिलो उदाहरण शरदिसंहको अभिव्यक्ति बन्न पुगेको छ । शरदिसंहले सोच-विचर गरिकन त्यस्तो अभिव्यक्ति नदिएका होलान् । तथापी अनायसै यस्तो विचार ओकाल्ने जुन प्रकारको मनोविज्ञान उनीभित्र विकसीत भयो त्यो झन सघन र खतरापूर्ण छ । किनकी सिग्मण्ड प्रुयडले भनेझै मानिसको वास्तवीक व्यक्तित्व उसको चेतन नभई अवचेतन मनले निर्धारण गर्छ ।

सन् २००९ को अन्त्यमा अमेरिकी राष्ट्रपति बाराक ओबामाले चीन भ्रमणका क्रममा काश्मिर विवाद समाधानमा चिनियाँ भुमिकालाई अनुमोदन गरेका थिए । ओबामाको यस्तो कदमप्रती भारतले कडा आपत्ति जनाउँदा उनले लगत्तै नयाँदिल्ली पुगेर दक्षिणपूर्वि एसियामा भारतीय भुमिकालाई आफ्नो समर्थन रहने आवश्वासन दिएर भारतलाई शान्त पार्न खोजेका थिए । यी दुई एसियाली शक्तिबीच 'भाले भिडन्त' आयोजना गरेर आनन्द लिने ध्येय मात्र थिएन, ओबामाको । चीन-भारत कटुतालाई प्रवर्दन गरी यस क्षेत्रमा फुटको विजारोपण गर्ने जमर्को उनको अभिव्यक्तिमा सन्निहित थियो ।

नपत्याए काश्मिर विवादमा अमेरिका र बि्रटेनसँग भारत किन तसर्िन्छ त्यत्ति बुझे पुग्छ । पाकिस्तानले परमाणू हतियार उत्पादन गरेपछि काश्मिरको शक्ति सन्तुलन डगमगाउन पाएन । पाकिस्तानलाई परमाणु हतियार उत्पादन गर्ने अथाह धन कसले दियो ? उसकै तथाकथित साझेदार राष्ट्र अमेरिकाले होइन ? यस कारण काश्मिर विवादमा बाह्य पक्षको संलग्नता अस्विकार गर्नुलाई भारतले आफ्नो 'बटम लाइन' बनाएको छ । नेपालको शान्ति प्रकि्रयामा सघाउ पुर्याउने बहानामा राष्ट्रसंघिय मिसन अनमिन आउँदा नेपालको पहाडै पहाड हुँदै साम्राज्यवादको एजेन्ट काश्मिरसम्म पुग्ला भन्ने भयले भारतले माधव कुमार नेपाल र सुशिल कोइरालालाई प्रयोग गरेर राष्ट्रसंघलाई दक्षिण एसियाबाट धपाएको होइन ?

नेपाल टुक्राउने नीति भारतको होइन । यदि कुनैबेला यस्तो नीति उसले बनाएको थियो भने पनि अहिले परिवर्तन गरिसकेको छ । ु'मोग्राफिक इन्जभेजन' (जनसंख्यीक आक्रमण) र संस्कृतिक अतिक्रमणमार्फत नेपालमाथिको नियन्त्रणलाई स्थायित्व दिलाउन सकिन्छ भन्नेमा भारत विश्वस्त छ । यस्तोमा भारतसँग सिमा जोडिएका २२ वटा जिल्लालाई नेपालबाट अलग गराउने शरदिसंहको अभिव्यक्तिले काठमाडौंलाई भन्दा बढि नयाँ दिल्लीलाई बेचैन बनाएको छ ।

शदरदिसंहको साम्राज्यवादी हुँकारमा सन्निहित सन्देश डरलाग्दो छ । काठमाडौंलाई जाकर्ताको नियती भोग्न बाध्य बनाएर पूर्वी पहाडलाई इष्ट टिमोर बनाउने, तराइ मधेसलाई दक्षिण सुडान बनाउने र यसको तरंगलाई विस्तार गर्दै चीन भारत पाकिस्तानसहित समग्र दक्षिण तथा मध्य एसियालाई 'बाल्कनाइजेशन' को प्रकि्रयामा लाने साम्राज्यवादी 'ग्रान्ड डिजाइन' को संकेत उनको हुँकारबाट मिलेको छ । यस्तो 'ग्रान्ड डिजाइन' बुझ्न कि्रश्चियन धर्म प्रचार र समावेशीका नाउँमा जातियता प्रवर्दन गर्न पश्चिमबाट निरन्तर रुपमा भित्रिरहेको डलको ओइरोको उद्देश्य पहिल्याउनु मात्र पनि पर्याप्त हुन्छ । नेपाली राजनीतिमा भारतले क्षेत्रीयतालाई जोड दिइरहेको बेलामा चरम जातीकेन्द्रित भावना कसरी छ्याप्छ्याप्ती हुन पुग्यो ? के यो साम्राज्यवादद्धारा पालित-पोसित तथाकथित राजनीतिक दल नागरिक समाज र मानवअधिकारवादीको डलरप्रेरीत निष्ठाको उपज होइन ?

अझ प्रष्ट हुन अमेरिकाले बेइजिङप्रती असन्तुष्ट चीनभित्रका जातिय समुहसँग राखेको सम्बन्धपट्टि हेर्नु वााछनिय हुन्छ । आतंकवादविरुद्धको युद्धमा आफूसहित सम्पूर्ण विश्वलाई होमेको अमेरिकाले सिन्जियाङका उइगुर सुन्नी मुसलमान अतिवादीहरुलाई सहयोग गरिरहेको छ । उइगुरको पृथक्तावादी अभियानका अगुवाहरुले अमेरिकामा कार्यलय स्थापना गरी विश्वव्यापी रुपमै अभियान साचालन गरिरहेका छन् । साम्राज्यवाद बडो चतुर हुन्छ । यस्तो विरोधाभाषपुर्ण अवस्थालाई पनि उसले बडो कुशलताका साथ समन्वय गरिरहेको छ ।

'इसाइ साम्राज्य' विस्तारको एकसुत्रिय एजेन्डामा लागि परेको अमेरिका र युरोपेली महासंघले दलाई लामाको 'स्वतन्त्र तिब्बत आन्दोलन' लाई खुला रुपमै सहयोग गरिरहेका छन् । इसाइ धर्मका लागि सबैभन्दा ठूलो जोखिम बन्न पुगेको बौद्ध धर्मलाई साम्राज्यवादी सहयोग हासिल हुनु आफैमा असामन्जस्यपूर्ण स्थीति हो । तरपनि साम्राज्यवादले बडो चर्तुयाइका साथ आफ्नो एजेन्डा लागू गरिरहेको छ । तिब्बतमा चीनलाई थोरै मात्रामा गलाउन सकियो भने सिन्जियाङ, माचुरीया र भित्रि मंगोलियाजस्ता चीनका सिमान्त भूभागमा विप्लव मच्चाउने हङकङदेखी मकाउसम्मको अन्तरविरोधमा खेल्ने र चीनलाई धुजाधुजा गराउन सकिने सम्भावनालाई साम्राज्यवादले बडो मिहिनपूर्वक नियालीरहेको छ । यसो भएको खण्डमा पश्चिमको आर्थिक तथा धार्मिक साम्राज्यवादको प्रतिरोध गर्नसक्ने कुनै शक्ति एसियामा बाँकी रहने छैन । यस्तो अवस्थामा मध्य तथा दक्षिण एसियाको साँधमा रहेको मुलुक नेपालमा जातियताका आधारमा विखण्डनको वकालत गर्ने सबै सामाज्यवादका भरिया हुन् । आवरणमा उनीहरु विस्तारवादका एजेन्ट देखिन्छन् भने त्यो हेर्नेकै दृष्टिदोष हो ।


(हिमालय टाइम्स राष्ट्रिय दैनिकमा प्रकाशित)

बदलिँदो मधेस राजनीति

सुजित मैनाली

विशाल जनसंख्या, खेतीयोग्य जमिनको प्रचुरता, कलकारखानाको विकास र विदेशी भूमिमा सहज आवतजावतको सुविधा आदिले राष्ट्रिय राजनीतिमा मधेसको उपस्थितिलाई बलियो बनाएको छ । संविधानसभामा मधेसी समुदायको प्रचुर उपस्थिति र सडक तथा सदन दुवै मोर्चाबाट मधेसले निम्त्याउन सक्ने कम्पनको सतही अध्ययन मात्र पनि मधेसको सुदृढ क्षमता बुझ्न चाहनेहरूका लागि पर्याप्त हुन्छ । मधेसको जनसांख्यिक संरचनाको बलियो आधार र भारतको टेकोको सहायताले झ्यांगिन पुगेको मधेस राजनीतिले मुलुकमा राजनीतिक संक्रमण गहिरिँदै जाँदा परिवर्तनका संकेत देखाउन थालेको छ । मधेस राजनीतिले नयाँ शैली र प्रवृत्तिलाई आत्मसात् गर्न खोजिरहेको संकेत केही समययता प्रस्ट रूपमा देखिन थालेको छ ।

राजेन्द्र महतोले अध्यक्षता गरेको सद्भावना पार्टी फुटाएर संघीय सद्भावना पार्टी गठन गर्ने अनिलकुमार झाको अहिलेको द्विविधाग्रस्त मनस्थिति मधेस राजनीतिले लिन खोजिरहेको नयाँ स्वरूपलाई नियाल्ने आँखीझ्याल बन्न सक्छ । महतो 'बेइमानी का काम इमानदारी से ना कर्ने वाला' -बेइमानीको काम इमानदारीपूर्वक नगर्ने व्यक्ति) भएकाले पार्टी फुटाउन बाध्य हुनुपरेको बताउने झा अहिले 'पर्ख र हेर'को अन्योलपूर्ण र द्विविधाग्रस्त मनस्थितिमा छन् । खासगरी दिल्लीले पार्टी फुटाउने आफ्नो निर्णयप्रति कस्तो धारणा राख्ने हो भन्ने विषयले उनको द्विविधा र सन्देहलाई बढाइरहेको छ । माओवादीको प्रभाव न्यूनीकरणका लागि दिल्लीले संयुक्त मधेसी मोर्चालाई क्रियाशील गराइरहेको अवस्थामा मोर्चामा सहभागी दल सद्भावनालाई टुक्रयाउने झाको निर्णय दिल्लीका लागि अपि्रय हुनु अनौठो होइन । तसर्थ, आफ्नो भावी मार्गमा दिल्लीले भाँजो हाल्ने सम्भावना प्रबल रहेको अनुभव झाले गरेका छन् । अतः जुनसुकै वेला भारतविरुद्ध 'जिहाद' छेड्नुपर्ने हुन सक्छ भनेर झा अहिले नेपाल र भारतबीच भएका यावत् सन्धि, सम्झौता अध्ययनमा लागिपरेका छन् । नेपाल-भारत सन्धि-सम्झौतामा नेपाल कहाँ ठगिएको छ भन्ने पहिल्याउन उनी अहिले घोत्लिरहेका छन्, ताकि भोलि भारत साँच्चिकै आफूविरुद्ध खनिए सन्धि-सम्झौताका धारा, उपधारा, दफा आदिको हवला दिँदै भारतप्रतिको आफ्नो व्यक्तिगत र स्वार्थप्रेरित आक्रोशलाई वैधानिक एवं राष्ट्रिय चरित्रको बनाउन सकियोस् ।

तथापि झा राजनीतिले जुनसुकै वेला अनपेक्षित मोड लिन सक्ने राजनीतिको सामान्य चरित्रलाई समेत बुझ्न सक्ने ल्याकत नभएका नेता भने होइनन् । राजनीतिको सैद्धान्तिक एवं व्यावहारिक पाटोमा झाको दक्षता राजेन्द्र महतोको भन्दा लाखौँ गुणा नभए पनि हजारौँ गुणा बढी अवश्य छ । अझ अहिले नेपाल संक्रमणकालबाट गुजि्ररहेको र भारतले नेपालमा गम्भीर चुनौतीको सामना गर्नुपरिरहेको वर्तमान अवस्थामा दिल्लीले नयाँ रणनीति बनाउन सक्ने र यस्तो रणनीति कार्यान्वयनको 'भरिया' आफू पनि हुन पाउने सम्भावनालाई चतुर झाले पूर्णतः नकार्न सकेका छैनन् । त्यसैले उनी अहिले भारतसँगको नेपालको सम्बन्धबारे खुलस्त बोल्दैनन्, न त मधेसी मोर्चाले उठाएको ताजा जनादेशको पक्ष/विपक्षमै स्पष्ट धारणा राख्छन् । भारतले 'गि्रन सिग्नल' दिएको खण्डमा पनि उसलाई रिझाई मधेस राजनीतिमा आफ्नो भूमिका बढाउन झाले अन्य मधेसी दलसँग प्रतिस्पर्धा गर्नुपर्ने हुन्छ । त्यसैले सन्धि-सम्झौताको अध्ययनबाट फुर्सद निकालेर उनले भारतको गुलामी गर्ने तौरतरिकाको 'ट्रेनिङ' पनि सँगसँगै लिइरहेका छन् । किनकि सयौँ वर्षसम्म बि्रटिसको गुलामी गरेको भारतलाई प्रसन्न बनाउन उच्चस्तरको गुलामी गर्न आवश्यक छ भन्ने कुरा त नेपालका राजनीतिज्ञको आजसम्मको व्यवहारले प्रमाणित गरेकै छ ।

झाको द्विविधाग्रस्त मनस्थितिले भारतको असहयोगका बाबजुद मधेसमा राजनीति गर्न सकिन्छ भन्नेतर्फ संकेत गरेको छ । यसको अर्थ हुन्छ, मधेस राजनीतिमा भारतको विकल्प विस्तारै उदाउँदै छ । अझ प्रस्टसँग भन्नुपर्दा मधेसमा भारतको एकाधिकार क्रमशः भंग हुँदै छ । नयाँदिल्लीको विकल्पमा मधेसले पेरिसडाँडालाई मात्र होइन, क्षेत्रीय र अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय शक्तिकेन्द्रतर्फ समेत आँखा डुलाउन थालेको छ । यसलाई मधेस राजनीतिमा देखिन लागेको गुणात्मक परिवर्तनको पूर्वसंकेत मान्न सकिन्छ ।

आजसम्म मधेस राजनीतिको आधारभूत चरित्र भारत भक्ति र सत्ताप्रतिको आशक्ति रहँदै आएको छ । सद्भावना पार्टीका संस्थापक नेता गजेन्द्रनारायण सिंहदेखि जेपी गुप्ता हुँदै महन्थ ठाकुर र राजेन्द्र महतोसम्मले दोहोर्‍याउने गरेको नेपाललाई श्रीलंका बनाइदिने विखण्डनकारी रटानको पृष्ठभूमिमा भारतभक्तिको आशय लुकेको देख्न आँखा तन्काइरहनुपर्दैन । मधेसका जनताको हित गर्ने भ्रम छरी अधिकांश मधेसी नेताबाट आजसम्म भारतको सेवा गर्ने काम हुँदै आएको छ । आफ्ना नेताको यस्तो विदेशभक्तिको महँगो मूल्य भने मधेसका सोझासाझा जनताले चुकाउनुपरिरहेको छ । स्पष्ट रूपमा भन्नुपर्दा भारत नेपालमा तीनवटा नीति लागू गर्न चाहन्छ : जनसांख्यिक हमला (डेमोग्राफिक इन्भेजन) मार्फत नेपालमा आफ्ना नागरिक निर्यात गरी प्रजातान्त्रिक तरिकाबाटै नेपालमा कब्जा जमाउन ! हिन्दीभाषीको बाहुल्य रहेको युपी र बिहार राज्यसँग सीमा जोडिएको राष्ट्र नेपालमा हिन्दी भाषालाई बलजफ्ती लाद्दै यहाँ सांस्कृतिक साम्राज्य संस्थागत गर्न र सांस्कृतिक र जनसांख्यिक हतियार प्रयोग गरी यहाँका राजनीतिक र प्राकृतिक साधन-स्रोतमाथि कब्जा जमाउन । यी नीतिको सफल कार्यान्वयनको जाँतोमा सबैभन्दा पहिले पिसिनुपर्ने मधेसी समुदायले नै हो । तथापि, मधेसीको हकहितका लागि भन्दै भारतका यस्ता नीति कार्यान्वयनको भारी बोक्न मधेसी नेता लाग्नुभन्दा ठूलो विडम्बना मधेसी जनताका लागि अरू के हुन्छ र !

'जनसांख्यिक हमला' मार्फत ह्वारह्वार्ती नेपाल भित्रिने भारतीयले सबैभन्दा पहिले विस्थापित गर्ने भनेको मधेसका नेपालीलाई नै हो ! नेपाली नागरिकता किनेका भारतीयले राज्यबाट पाउने सेवा, सुविधाको मार खेप्नुपर्ने आखिर मधेसका जनताले नै हो ! नेपालमा नागरिक निर्यातका लागि भारतले खुला राखेको नेपालसँगको सिमाबाट भित्रिने अपराधीले सबैभन्दा बढि प्रताडित गर्ने आखिर मधेसका जनतालाई नै हो ! र, यदि भोलि नेपालको जलस्रोतमा भारतको कब्जा स्थापित भयो भने बृहत्तर नदी जडान परियोजनाका नाममा नेपाललाई 'वाटर रिजर्भर' बनाइँदा डुबानमा पर्ने पनि आखिर मधेस नै हो ! त्यसैले, भारतका गृहमन्त्री पी चिदम्बरम् नेपाल-भारत सीमा व्यवस्थित र नियन्त्रित गर्न चाहँदैनन् । तर, फोरम नेपालका सभासद् अभिषेक प्रताप शाह सीमा नियन्त्रित गर्नुका साथै नेपालपट्टकिो सीमामा सुरक्षाफौजको ठूलै डफ्फा परिचालन गर्न चाहन्छन् । अभिषेकको यस्तो चाहना मधेसको भूराजनीतिको वस्तुगत आँकलन मात्र नभई मधेस राजनीतिमा देखा पर्न लागिरहेको परिवर्तनको अर्को सूचकसमेत हो ।

दूरगामी सोच राख्नसक्ने केही मधेसी नेताले भारतको भक्तिमा आफ्नो र आफूले प्रतिनिधित्व गर्ने समुदायको अन्त्येष्टिको झल्को देखेका छन् । तथापि, मधेस राजनीतिमा देखा पर्न थालेको परिवर्तनको संकेत यी नेताको दूरदृष्टिको उपज मात्र भने होइन । मुख्य कुरा के हो भने मधेसमा राजनीति गर्नेका लागि झोली फौलाउने ठाउँ अब दिल्ली मात्र रहेन । बेइजिङ, वासिंगटन र ब्रसेल्सका ढोका पनि अब मधेसी नेताका लागि खुला भएका छन् । मधेसमा भारतको एकाधिकारलाई चुनौती दिने शक्तिको बीजारोपण भइसकेको छ । डलर छर्दै वासिंगटन र ब्रसेल्स मधेसमा छिरिसकेको छ भने बौद्ध धर्म र व्यापार-वाणिज्यका आडमा मधेसमा प्रवेश गर्न बेइजिङले पनि यात्रा सुरु गरिसकेको छ । यस्तै अवस्था जारी रहँदा कालान्तरमा मधेसमा भारतप्रति चरम असहिष्णु नेतृत्वपंक्तिको उदय हुने सम्भावना प्रबल छ किनकि भारतको कमजोर उपस्थितिमा मात्र मधेसमा सुदृढ नेतृत्व निर्माण सम्भव छ भन्ने कुरा उपेन्द्र यादवको अहिलेको दयनीय अवस्थाले नै छर्लंग पारेको छ । हिन्दुत्वको धागोले अहिलेसम्म पहाड र मधेसलाई एकअर्काविरुद्ध निणर्ायक रूपमा खनिन नदिएको अवस्था छ । यसै धागोको आडमा भारतीय हस्तक्षेपको विरोध गर्ने नाउँमा आगामी दिनमा मधेसी र पहाडी समुदायबीच अभूतपूर्व एकता भयो भने कसैले आश्चर्य नमाने हुन्छ । यस्तो एकतालाई कसैले पर्दापछाडिबाट सहयोग गर्छ भने त्यो अचम्मको विषय बन्नेछैन । किनकि पर्दापछाडिको राजनीतिको प्रधानता नेपाली राजनीतिको मौलिक चरित्र नै बनिसकेको छ ।

Published on Naya Patrika Daily
http://www.nayapatrika.com/the-view/11696-%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%81%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8B-%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B8-%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF.html

Blatant Indian intrusion in Nepal affairs is an open secret

Khagendra Prasad Sharma
Conflict Management Expert, Nepal

K.P. Sharma is a conflict management expert of Nepal with rich experience and excellent academic backing. He has recently presented a working paper entitled 'Nepalese Perspective; Challenges in Security Sector Restructuring' at a seminar jointly organized by Germany based Berghof Research Center and Canada based Canadian International Development Research Center in Canada. Currently he is persuing his doctoral degree in conflict management from Nepal Sanskrit University.
Journalist Sujit Mainali for Telegraph weekly/ telegraphnepal.com talked with Mr. Sharma on several aspects of Nepal's peace process.
Here are the excerpts of this exclusive interview: Chief Editor.

TGQ1: Contradictory standpoints acquired by the major political parties of Nepal on several issues related to peace process is widely being held responsible for the ongoing political stalemate. Mr. K.P., can you forward some ideas on how to bridge such contending standpoints for concluding ongoing peace process in a win-win situation?
K.P.: Peace process in Nepal was initiated after a compromise was reached in between the then armed subversive force, Unified Maoists, and other parliamentarian parties of Nepal. However, after the Maoist formally entered into the mainstream politics; the parliamentary parties became very reluctant to acknowledge the former as a major political force. The Maoist also couldn't completely abandon the war mindset. I think this is the main reason responsible for the continuing political stalemate in Nepal.
To resolve the ongoing peace process in a win-win model, all the major forces of Nepali politics have to perform a constructive role. The parliamentary parties of Nepal should, first of all, acknowledge the Maoists as a major political force. The Maoist garnered largest number of vote during Constituent Assembly (CA) election held April 8, 2008. However, the other parties are insisting that Maoists are yet not eligible to steer the government. This is a ridiculous argument. The Maoist have had peoples mandate for it. Everyone must acknowledge this fact.
Secondly, the Maoist currently is in itself facing serious internal differences on several ideological and tactical issues. The party is highly polarized on two distinct poles where one pole favors conclusion of the constitution drafting and peace processes while the other prefers immediate revolt. The Maoist must forge common strategy and it should publicly announce its commitment on the logical conclusion of peace process.
Thirdly, Nepal is now experiencing acute absence of 'third party engagement' that could assist to reconcile, mediate and negotiate the parties in conflict through back channel. After the departure of UNMIN, civil society could have filled the vacuum. However, civil society in Nepal is sharply divided and adheres to different political leaning. The civil society should have to forge common agenda and try their best to continue the legacy of UNMIN.
Fourthly, Nepal is now suffering from the leadership crisis. After the demise of G.P. Koirala, Nepal couldn't produce any statesman (?) to replace him. We can understand the importance of statesman in resolving conflict from the study of conflict resolution process of South Africa, Ruanda, Burundi, etc.
Fifthly, Nepali politics is divided into different lobbies and each lobby is heavy influenced by alien forces. The international community is trying to impose their interests with the help of these lobbies. If these lobbying groups resolve their differences for the sake of larger national interests, this will provide positive impetus to the ongoing peace process.
And last but not least, the Maoists must abandon its war mindset. They should believe on the will of people, rather than believing on the barrel of the guns. If the above stated guidelines are strictly followed in practice, then I firmly believe that peace process can he concluded in a win-win model and current political impasse can be resolved.

TGQ2: Foreign community based in Kathmandu has been exhibiting its serious concerns on the ongoing peace process of Nepal. Moreover, it is widely believed that India is trying to impose its interest and concerns through different mode of intervention. Could you please enlighten our august readers on what might be the interests of India associated with Nepal's peace process?
K.P.: Well, the blatant interference of India in internal affairs of Nepal has now become an open secret. Because of the excessive intervention, its Nepal policy has now miserably failed. India is trying to recover the loss by sending its modest and calm envoy, Mr. Jayant Prasad to Kathmandu. Mr. Prasad will have to face daunting challenges to bag success in his assigned goal in the days ahead.
Right now, Nepal-India relation basically means the relations between Maoist and New Delhi. An antagonistic relation has developed in between them. In the current position, it looks as if India feels that Nepal-India relations are dominated by the Maoists. Each and every Indian attempt are becoming futile because of the Maoists.
I can give some examples to prove my argument. India's Nepal policy is primarily aimed to elevate pro-Indian forces in Kathmandu’s power corridors. Such force only can obey New Delhi's dictation and can address even the illogical and illegitimate concerns of New Delhi.
In post CA election period, Nepal got three successive governments. Among them, two government leaded by Chairman of Unified Maoist Mr. Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Chairman of UML Mr. Jhalanath Khanal were formed without the consent of New Delhi. This is the sign of failure of India's Nepal policy.
There are several political and security related interests of India associated with the ongoing peace process of Nepal. India wants to foil Maoist's attempt to make communism tilted constitution of Nepal. Such a constitution, India believes, will weaken pro-Indian forces in Nepal in the long term. To materialize this desire, India is trying to bring about a split in the Maoist top echelon. It is even trying to topple its leadership. This has posed serious hurdle in the conclusion of peace process.
India is against the integration of Maoist combatants in Nepalese Army (NA). The integration of combatants will limit the influence of India in NA structure because till now NA has remained in favor of our southern neighbor.
India had tried several times to make Maoist militarily weak. It had previously forwarded integration and rehabilitation package. However, the Maoist did not accept the Indian proposal. The Indian package was implicitly designed to curtail the military might of the Maoists.
India played crucial role in ousting UNMIN from Nepal by using its proxies in Nepal. And it is lingering Nepal's peace process by providing clandestine support to the anti-Maoist parties of Nepal. Strong and vibrant Maoist is not in the interest of India.

TGQ3: Communal hatred is gradually increasing in Nepal and it is widely believed that Nepal will witness widespread communal violence in the days ahead. If it so happens, unfortunately, what might be the regional impact of such a violence? What say you?
K.P.: Your question is more hypothetical. I don’t think Nepal will ever experience widespread communal violence. National and regional ground is not favorable for the emergence of such violence as you stated. Maoist had schooled their followers on ethnic grounds. They have assorted the class and ethnic sentiments. They are advocating for the formation of provinces on the basis of ethnicity with an aim to garner support from the ethnic communities of Nepal. If the Maoist fail to provide proper schooling to the people regarding their agenda, this may create hostile relation between ethnic groups. But I don’t think such hostility will ever crop up in Nepal.
Lots of people in Nepal believe that India may further provoke such hostile relations that presumably exist between ethnic groups of Nepal in order to make this Himalayan nation more unstable. If it so happens, it will be detrimental to the overall security of India itself. Ethnic violence of Nepal, if it ever happened, will be followed by enraged ethnic movement in Utter Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal of India which shares border with Nepal. There are many ethnic communities in India with secession motive. The situation of Nepal will encourage those ethnic communities. And eventually, Nepal may get many neighboring countries in its surrounding.
India is aware of this fact. Therefore, may use communal card for the short term to elevate some vested interest groups to the power corridor. However, India will not favor widespread communal violence in Nepal.
Similarly, unstable Nepal is also not in the broader interest of China as well. A strong, peaceful and stable Nepal can only ensure the security and stability of China's underbelly Tibet.
Hence, in conclusion I believe that communal violence in Nepal can be detrimental to the overall security and stability of both China and India. Hence, both regional and internal context do not favor communal antagonism in Nepal.

TGQ4: There is huge difference inside Unified Maoist regarding the ongoing peace and constitution drafting process of Nepal. What type of effect this internal division inside the Maoist will have an impact in the overall peace process?
K.P.: If the Maoist fails to bridge its internal differences, then the ongoing peace process is not going to see a positive end. The Maoist must be clear about their future move. If they want "People's Revolt", they should immediately prepare for it. Otherwise, they should be sincere towards the peace and constitution drafting process. Until and unless the Maoist do not favor the conclusion of peace process, this process is not going to end because the Maoists are one of the major stakeholders of this process. Maoist consent is required for the successful conclusion of these processes.

TGQ5: A French scholar Isabelle Duquesne in her latest book "Nepal: Zone of Peace" has proposed to declare Nepal as a Zone of Peace (ZoP). As a conflict resolution expert, what you would like to say on the proposal forwarded by Mrs. Isabelle?
K.P.: Being a son of Nepal, I praised her proposal. However, I don’t think situation has become favorable to declare Nepal a ZoP.
Nepal has not yet recovered from the internal conflict. Peace process has not yet reached to its logical conclusion. We have already ousted UNMIN, a lone mediator of the peace process. Things have become more fragile. The internal difference between Maoists has made the situation more serious. In these circumstances, if we propose to make Nepal a ZoP, I don’t think international community will endorse our proposal.
Right now, Nepal is being the victim of triangular rivalry. Pro Indo-US, pro Chinese and nationalist groups of Nepal are in direct confrontation. This has made Nepali politics fragmented and disintegrated. Amidst this situation, if we forward the proposal of ZoP, international community may laugh on us. First of all, we have to bridge our internal differences and should successfully conclude the peace process. The political parties of Nepal should unite for the common national agenda. Then only we should think about declaring Nepal as a ZoP. Right now, the concept of ZoP looks immature. However, the concept of Mrs. Isabelle is praise worthy one. I personally want to offer thanks to her for her affection towards Nepal.

Source: http://www.telegraphnepal.com/five-questions/2011-08-24/blatant-indian-intrusion-in-nepal-affairs-is-an-open-secret.html