Introduction

With its ancient culture and the Himalayas as a backdrop, the landlocked South Asian Kingdom of Nepal has for many years been the destination of choice for foreign travellers in search of adventure. With a size roughly twice that of Ireland and a population of 26.3 million, Nepal is also one of the poorest countries in the world.

Nepal has been under the sway of a hereditary monarchy or ruling family for most of its known history. A brief experiment with multi-party politics in 1959-1960 ended with late King Mahendra suspending parliament and taking sole charge. Democratic politics was introduced in 1991 after popular protests, but it has been extremely factionalised with frequent changes of government.

Nepal is presently engaged in an internal armed conflict with the insurgence of the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-M) People's War; the resulting efforts of suppression by the police and now the army; and a peaceful resistance by the seven party alliance since February 2005 against the absolute monarchy. The "People's War" is an armed uprising by Maoist insurgents that started on February 12, 1996 under the leadership of Puspa Kamal Dahal, widely known as "Comrade Prachanda." The triangular conflict has led the country to the brink of civil war with the predictable danger of the conflict becoming protracted over the coming years.

The present political crisis in Nepal has to be seen in the historical context of political struggle in the past. Over the last sixty years, the major political parties of Nepal, in particular the Nepali Congress and CPN (UML), have resorted to armed struggle for democracy. These parties, two members of the seven party alliance, are even today struggling for absolute democracy, whereas the CPN (Maoists) is conducting an armed struggle. A prominent question is why the Nepalese people have to fight for democracy from generation to generation. Perhaps the transformation of state power held by the monarchy to civilian government has yet to be completed. I believe the root cause of the present political crisis lies here.

▲Top▲

Conflict Dynamics

This Hindu kingdom, once perceived as idyllic, became a multi-party democracy in 1990 again after almost 30 years of the party-less Panchyat system led by the absolute monarch. The multiparty democracy was in its early stages with an underdeveloped and thus largely fragmented civil society. There is a lack of leadership with insufficient democratic experience in the means and ways of governing. Given these circumstances, the constitutional monarchy supported by the army exhibits differences in comparison to constitutional monarchies in the West.

In the beginning of the People’s War, assuming the “cause of the people” provided considerable political credibility for the CPN-M. The open political environment under the multiparty democracy and the failure of the political parties to govern the country democratically have created opportunities for the CPN-M to establish support, allowing them to launch this violent attack against the state machinery. Besides, the system and state structure constructed in the constitution of 1990 were incapable of dealing with the political agendas advocated by the CPN (Maoists).

The CPN-M maintains that the main objective of the People’s War is to establish the rule of the proletariat in Nepal. The Communist Party believes that Nepal is a semi-feudal society and the multiparty system has failed to meet the needs and expectations of the people, a large portion of whom live well below the poverty line. By this time, the Nepalese Maoist groups have extended their activities throughout Nepal; all districts are now affected by the People’s War. On the other side, the nationwide peaceful movement, which was called for by the seven political parties seeking absolute democracy and which attracts participation throughout society, has paralysed the functioning of the state.

The conflict dynamics have changed since the monarchy assumed absolute power through a royal-military coup in February 2005. The King, who was acting behind the scenes throughout the period of conflict and political crisis, has come to the forefront as a visible actor in the conflict. It was relatively easy for the King to marginalize the parties, particularly after they were driven from the countryside by the armed conflict. The parties are held as emblematic of all aspects of democracy in Nepal and thus have been blamed for all of its failures.

Military escalation has eclipsed political strategies for peace and the army is becoming active in wider aspects of Nepali political life and governance. There is a policy void and a lack of political leadership with regards to progress towards peace.

▲Top▲

Contributory Factors

The conflict has various dimensions involving social, economic and political complexities. Nepal is one of the world's poorest countries and one third of its population lives in poverty. Agriculture is the major source of income for more than ninety percent of the population. Some argue that the crisis in governance is the root cause of the conflict. Yet the main reason for the insurgence is the inequitable distribution of resources among the Nepalese population and the lack of real opportunity to affect decision-making at the political level. The conflict has been brought on by the crisis in governance rooted in inequitable access to the country's resources and the exclusion of many from the political decision-making process.

Political, legal, social, ethnic, economic, and international factors have significantly contributed to the instability in the country. The People’s War started in the most remote and least developed areas of Nepal, especially those that receive little attention from the ruling elite in Kathmandu. These areas have remained in political and economic isolation, far removed from development processes, ruled by local feudalism, and marginalized, disenfranchised and excluded from the decision-making processes.

▲Top▲

Chronology of Events

Currently, the country is going through a number of crises and political complexities. “People’s War” was declared in Nepal in February 1996 by the CPN (Maoists); Parliament was dissolved in April 2002 and the elected government dismissed in October 2002; and direct rule was proclaimed by the King in February 2005. Thus a non-violent but increasingly bitter conflict between democratic forces and the King was added to the armed war with the Communist Party of Nepal – Maoist (CPN-M).

Thus, on the one hand, the parliamentarian political parties have set to launch a peaceful resistance against the absolute monarchy, while, on the other, the country is presently engaged in an internal armed conflict with the insurgence of the Maoists. The “People’s War” is an armed uprising by Maoist insurgents that started on February 13, 1996, under the leadership of Puspa Kamal Dahal, widely known as “Comrade Prachanda”. The armed struggle launched by the CPN (Maoists), the peaceful movement of the seven party alliance and violent reprisal by the royal regime have led the country to the brink of civil war with the predictable danger of the conflict becoming protracted over the coming years.

Neverthless, attempts were made to end of the armed conflict through a political settlement. Negotiations failed in November 2001 and again in August 2003 between the Government of Nepal and the CPN-M. After the failure of negotiations in November 2001 with the declaration of a State of Emergency, the Government of Nepal mobilised the army nationwide (previously the police had been the main state force in confrontations with the CPN-M). The King dissolved the elected government, began appointing prime ministers and proclaimed an era of politics guided by royal proclamation.

▲Top▲

Impact of the Conflict

In any conflict situation, it is difficult to quantify the impact, effects and consequences in terms of the costs it has incurred, and there is always a challenge to produce solid statistics. Nevertheless, efforts have been made by the non-government organisations in Nepal and have produced documents compiling costs of the war.

Regarding the negative impact of the war, a report published by the National Peace Campaign in January 2004 estimates that the conflict may have cost the country’s GDP 66.2 billion rupees by the end of 2003. By the end of 2006, nearly 13,000 people will have lost their lives, thousands have been tortured and imprisoned, and an estimated two to three hundred thousand people have been internally displaced. Refugee flows to India top the million mark. Children have been recruited as soldiers and have lost schooling opportunities, and hundred of women have been victims of sexual harassment. Unfortunately, a lack of concrete data on victims is the reality in the Nepalese context. On the social and psychological front, the impact has yet to be researched. On the political front, people’s freedoms and rights have been restricted, democratic structures have been destroyed and direct rule has been imposed by the King.

Nevertheless, the conflict has also had some positive impact and brought change to Nepalese society. The issue of discrimination based on caste, gender and ethnicity has entered the national agenda. The marginalised and disadvantaged communities are now looking for their role in the nation-building process, and the demand for state restructuring is at a high. The armed conflict has challenged the feudal system, from village level to the relevance of the monarchy in the country. Precisely, the conflict has destroyed the roots of feudal structure at the grassroot level, which may prove to be highly instrumental for sustaining democracy in the long run.

▲Top▲

Key Political Actors

There is a wide range of domestic and international actors involved in the Nepalese conflict. The internal conflict in Nepal has been regionalised (to the concern of India) and internationalised (to the concern of the West and the United Nations). The Nepalese people, who are the direct victims of the conflict, are far removed from the decision-making process that will shape the future of their country. The three major domestic political actors in the Nepalese crisis hold diverse views and are pursuing their own strategies in order to achieve their stated goals. Below I present a concise outline of their perspectives:

CPN (Maoists): The party resorted to armed rebellion in 1996. Ideologically, it believes in the rule of the proletariat. However, it has expressed commitment to multi-party democracy and human rights, and reached to 12-point agreement with the parliamentary political parties in November 2005. Regarding its agenda and proposed process to end the current political crisis, it advocates (a) round table dialogue, (b) interim government, and (c) constituent assembly.

Palace and Royal Nepal Army: The King believes in absolute power and the traditional role of the monarchy, and has breached the agreement reached in 1990 with the political parties upon the success of mass movement. The army is loyal to the king and fighting to ensure the agenda and road-map of the king. Currently, the King is not in favour of dialogue with political parties and the CPN (Maoists) as a means to political settlement of the crisis.

Seven Party Alliance (SPA): The alliance of the seven major parliamentarian parties is conducting a peaceful movement towards ‘complete democracy’ and against the absolute rule imposed by the King in February 2005. Regarding its agenda and proposed process to end the current political crisis, it advocates (a) restoration of the dissolved parliament, (b) all-party government, and (c) constituent assembly. The peaceful demonstration movement called by the Alliance attracts participation from people of all walks of life, including identity groups, marginalised communities and professional organisations.

▲Top▲

Efforts towards Negotiation

At first, the government responded with all available security forces to challenge the armed insurgency. When this proved largely ineffective and talks broke off in November 2001, the government deployed the army as a last resort. In addition, a state of emergency was declared and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention and Control) Ordinance enacted, granting unlimited power to the authorities and security forces. The involvement of the armed forces and the availability of the anti-terrorist law have encouraged the government to crush the “terrorism” by sheer force. This application of brute force has wrought little change in the resultant daily deepening of the crisis.

The government adopted a military approach to suppress the dissenting voices, which further motivated the youths and disadvantaged groups to accelerate the armed struggle, thus supporting the agendas of the CPN (Maoists). Nevertheless, efforts towards a negotiated settlement of the armed conflict continued amidst the spiralling violence. Those initiatives are as follows:

Dhami Commission: The first initiative to understand the nature of armed conflict and look for ways of resolving the conflict through political means was launched in April 1997 by the coalition government headed by Prime Minister Lokendra Bahadur Chand. The government formed a working group which highlighted work through national consensus as a means to deal with the armed conflict.

Deuba Commission: In January 2000, the government headed by Prime Minister Krishna P. Bhattarai formed a high level commission under the chairmanship of Sher B. Deuba. The Deuba Committee held a series of consultations with the major stakeholders and recommended a political settlement of the armed conflict. Meanwhile, the government was reshuffled and the recommendation was not implemented.

Informal Dialogue: In the end of 2000, home minister Ramchandra Paudel held an informal dialogue with Mr. Rabindra Shrestha, a politburo member of the CPN (Maoists). The dialogue was facilitated by a human rights activist, Padma Ratna Tuladhar. But the informal dialogue ended in mutual recrimination.

First Official Initiative: The government led by Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba initiated the first official dialogue with the CPN (Maoists) upon coming to power in June 2001. A ceasefire was announced by both sides and three rounds of peace talks were held. The negotiation process ended in November 2001 upon the unilateral withdrawal by the CPN (Maoists) and following the attacks on army barracks in Dang by the Maoists.

Second Official Initiative: The second official initiatives were taken by the royal government led by Prime Minister Lokendra Bahadur Chand, an appointee of the King, in January 2003 and the government led by prime Surya Bahadur Thapa, also appointed by the King, in May 2003. Both parties agreed to a ceasefire and held several rounds of formal and informal talks. The negotiation process ended in August 2003 without bringing any substantial results. The CPN (Maoists) withdrew from the negotiation process stating that the government was not sincere in peace talks or on political agendas. The Dhoramba massacre, in which the RNA killed 15 non-armed Maoists cadres, served as a pretext for ending the negotiation process.

Stalled Peace Process: The official peace process has been stalled since August 2003. There has been no initiative by either side to resume the peace talks. Nevertheless, the CPN (Maoists) announced four months of unilateral ceasefire last year. The royal regime simply turned down the prospects for ceasefire and peace talks stating that the Maoists’ ceasefire was a ploy.

▲Top▲

2006 Update

The historic people's movement of 2062-63 (2006) has forced the King to step down. The dissolved parliament has been restored with the mandate of the people's movement. The restored parliament has made many historic declarations, including the decision to go to the constituent assembly, which is the major political demand of the CPN (Maoists). However, the Nepalese people believe that the constituent assembly has begun to follow a national agenda following the 12-point Understanding reached between the CPN (Maoists) and parliamentarian political parties, and the historical declaration of the restored parliament. Both the government and the rebels have announced cease-fires, formed dialogue teams, signed codes of conduct and are currently in peace talks.

▲Top▲

2007 Update

Following two rounds of failed negotiations in 2001 and 2003, the government of Nepal and the insurgent CPN (Maoists) signed a Comprehensive Peace Agreement in November 2006. With the success of people’s uprising in April-May 2006, the drivers of peace were stronger and there was a higher level of political will to end the war.

In a historic declaration, the restored parliament unanimously passed a resolution to hold elections for a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution, which was a key political demand of the CPN (Maoists). By invitation and agreement of both parties, the United Nations will monitor the elections and administer an arms management programme.

Key elements of the Peace Agreements are concerned with the modalities of power transfer and addressing the costs of the armed conflict including: (a) future of the monarchy to be decided by the constituent assembly, (b) arms management reform in army, (c) state restructuring, and (d) establishment of a Truth and Peace Commission.

Despite the positive developments, Nepal's peace process has still been less than participatory from the beginning. The negotiation process has not been inclusive as it does not involve representatives from women, Dalits, Terai people, and Janajati communities. The recent identity-based violence and unrest in the Terai areas of the country, in January-February 2007, has to be seen from this perspective. There are many identity-groups in Nepal, in particular the Terai, Janajatis and Dalits, who are looking for an appropriate opportunity to get their voices heard in the peace process.

Certainly, the peace process is also a nation-building process, and the concerns of identity-groups for participation in the peace process are genuine and legitimate. The challenge now will be to hear and address the concerns of all groups to ensure that triggering factors do not provoke violence and identity-based conflicts, and that all groups can participate in the nation-building process.

▲Top▲

Latest Update from CrisisWatch (January 2008)

Maoists rejoined government 30 December, after deal with government led to 28 December vote by interim assembly to end monarchy. Assembly vote pre-empted decision by future constituent assembly, which must now endorse country’s status as republic upon its first meeting. Deal also altered rules for configuration of assembly to be elected in April polls: of 601 members, 240 first-past-the-post, 335 proportional representation, 25 nominated by PM. Science and technology minister and 3 Madhesi deputies resigned 10 December over government’s failure to address Madhesi grievances.

Published at the beginning of each calendar month, CrisisWatch is produced by the International Crisis Group.

▲Top▲

Latest Update from CrisisWatch (September 2007)

Government figures underscored commitment to 22 November poll date after much-denied reports Maoist leader Prachanda mooted 5-month postponement. Maoists threatened protests ahead of elections to secure guarantee new government will declare Nepal republic. King Gyanendra vacated Nagarjuna palace 24 August after government moved to nationalise 20 royal properties.

Published at the beginning of each calendar month, CrisisWatch is produced by the International Crisis Group.

▲Top▲

Resources, Links and References

Insight on Conflict is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

Amnesty Nepal - News, reports, and publications on the Nepalese conflict, in English and Nepali.

CARE - Country profile and projects run by CARE in Nepal.

Center of Excellence in Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance - News reports on the Nepalese conflict from the last 7 days.

Concern - Country profile, news, and stories from Nepal.

Ethnologue - A guide to the languages and ethnicities of Nepal.

Himal Magazine - Monthly publication on Himalayan current affairs.

INSEC - Nepal's first Human Rights news website.

Internal Displacement Monitoring Center - Comprehensive overview of the Nepalese conflict, including the latest figures on IDP's.

International Alert - Background information and projects run by IA in Nepal.

International Crisis Group - Comprehensive resource for information on Nepalese conflict.

International Nepal Solidarity Network - News, analysis and documents relating to the conflict in Nepal, in English and Nepali.

Kantinpur - General news site, in English and Nepali

National Peace Campaign - Includes details of NPC's projects in Nepal, a history of the conflict, and publications in Nepali.

Nepal Homepage - Provides links to a wide range of information on Nepal.

Nepalnews.com - Up-to-date news and commentary on Nepali current affairs.

Nepal Research - Website on Nepal and Himalayan Studies.

Peace Brigades International - Latest news and reports, plus details of PBI's projects in Nepal.

ReliefWeb - A leading on-line gateway to information on humanitarian emergencies and disasters.

SAFHR - South Asian Forum for Human Rights - contains articles and publications relating to the Nepali conflict.

South Asia Analysis Group - Political analysis reports and papers on international and political affairs in Nepal.

University of Uppsala Department of Peace and Conflict Research - Detailed overview and commentary on Nepali conflict.

USAID - Country profile, updates, and projects relating to Nepalese development.

Publications and Documents

Peace Dialogue, by National Peace Campaign, Kathmandu, 2005.

Costs of the War, by National Peace Campaign, Kathmandu, 2004.

Class, State and Struggle in Nepal, by Mikesell and Stephen Lawrence. New Delhi, Manohar, 1999.

Foreign Aid and Foreign Policy: Major Powers and Nepal, by Khadka Narayan. New Delhi, Vikas Publishing House, 1997.

Nepal in Crisis: Growth and Stagnation at the Periphery, by Blaikie Piers, John Cameron, and David Seddon. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1982.

People, Politics and Ideology: Democracy and Political Change in Nepal, by Martin Hoftun et al. Kathmandu, Mandala, 1999.

'The Maoist Insurgence and Crisis of Governability in Nepal', by Panchan Maharjan. In Dhurba Kumar (ed.), Domestic Conflict and Crisis of Governability in Nepal, Kathmandu, Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies, 2000, pp. 163-196.

Women, Politico-Economic Rationale of People's War, by Baburam Bhattarai. Kathmandu, Utprerak Prakashan, 1998.

Women, War and Peace in South Asia, by Rita Manchanda. New Delhi, Sage, 2000.

▲Top▲