The failure to acknowledge the normal course of conflict and act accordingly has left horrifying result in the world. Only the 1990s have witnessed violent confrontation in Bosnia, Chechnya and elsewhere. Over one-half million people were killed in Rwanda in there months in 1994, more that what had happened in four years in Yugoslivia between 1991 and 1995.

Sources of conflict vary. However, it mostly originates from the exploitative system that provides for a few to accumulate wealth, and leaves many to starve do death. A conflict comes in place between the oppressor and the oppressed, between the rich and the poor, between those who have access to state mechanism and those deprived of it. It is not personal quarrel, but a structural conflict, the end of which requires a political system based on equality, mutual respect and just distribution of resources and opportunities.

Conflict and violence are not one and the same. The presence of conflict is not violent in itself. For example, debate is a form of conflict but there in no presence of violence. Therefore all conflicts should not be seen in the background of violence. A normal course of conflict turns violent if no action is taken to transform or manage it through a natural course of action. Violence is an unnatural manifestation of conflict. Therefore, conflict is not a normal process as well.

Even in the contest of Nepal conflict is not anything new. However, the term has come into frequent use in connection with the Maoist ‘People’s War’. Put other way, conflict in its contemporary uses has been understood in relation to ‘People’s War’ alone. Violent conflict came in place as soon as the sponsors of the ‘People’s War’ attacked on police and civilians (whom they identified as their ‘spies’), and the government responded it with bullets, to contain what they called ‘terrorists’. By 2000, after 5 years of the start of the ‘People’s War’, the situation has been almost impossible to handle.

Ten years before the Peoples Movement for the Restoration of Democracy was launched, some foreign intellectuals had warned that Nepal was in Crisis. The warning was made on the basis of the finding of a 4-year-long study of the political economy of Nepal. The writers had argued that the crisis was rooted in a failure of productive organization required for political and economic development. They also had another logic for the crisis: a particular form of imperialism experienced by Nepal. The experience as a ‘semi-colony’ ensured a degree of ‘forced stagnation’ in production and productivity, which led to increased population pressure on marginal land, emigration, and ecological decline.

During the panchayat regime, the economic policy of Nepal had been influenced by political and economic interests of her immediate neighbors (China and India). In home, it was associated with the security issue of a small ruling elite.

At the end of the eighties, people started to be organized against the panchayat system holding it responsible for social irregularities, political repression and economic stagnation. Right at the time, the Government of India imposed a trade embargo against Nepal. This added insult to the already injured Nepalese lives. As the government was unable to resolve the crisis, the people became more aggressive towards the government. And, they started to voice their opposition more openly.

Starting from 18 February 1990, the people led a peaceful struggle against the regime despite government attempts to suppress it violently. Finally, after one-and-a-half month, the citadel of the panchayat system crumbled, and multiparty democracy was restored. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1990 was introduced as a democratic constitution. But, the Constitution could not satisfy all who participated in the anti-panchayat struggle. Nepali Congress Party hailed it as a historic document, the then Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninist) critically accepted it. Some ethnic organization and communist factions such as the Communist Party of Nepal (Fourth Convention) denounced the document. The reason was the Constitution did not accommodate their demands concerning religion, regionalism, language and so on.

Nepalese had high hopes for democracy. They were hopeful that the culprits of the panchayat regime would be brought to justice. They were hopeful about socio-economic progress and had dreams of better life with sound social security. But all was not well. All hopes turned to mirage, as they did not sense any difference even after democratic changes. Those who were responsible for ordering to kill people surrounding the mass movement were left scot-free. The democratic government failed to implement the report of the Mallik Commission. Even the opposition parties did not make a head on to get the report implemented. They had to inform people of the finding in the report, educate them and create public pressure to implement the report. Nationwide pressure was necessary to let the culprits feel their crimes and realize mistakes. It did not happen. Instead, the culprits, the former Panchas were allowed in political parties that fought for democracy. These newcomers pretended to be the best, truest and most loyal guards for the new political system. On pretences of protecting nascent democracy, any acts of violence were justified. These former Panchas were the ones who could fish well in the troubled waters. Amidst chaos, Nepali Congress formed the government.

The leftists chose to be a big fish in a small pond. They could not give up personal interests in the name of the parties they represented. They could not think beyond government, they saw nothing they could do unless they formed government of their own. Thus, even after the democratic change, political leaders and people were divided as rulers and the ruled, much in the same way it was in the panchayat regime.

People felt no change even after the change in polity, they continued to be pressed and exploited by the landlord and local elites. The people completely divided into two groups: the congress and communists. But the relation between them grew hostile and violent. In Rukum, Rolpa, Salyan, Jajarkot and other districts in the western hills of Nepal, the division and hostility further widened and worsened.

People’s voice of oppositions and grievances were not taken care of. Instead of transforming and managing the grievances the government of the day adopted a policy to silence the voices. The government used local Nepali Congress cadres, police and administration to suppress those who voiced the opposition. As years passed by, the situation got worse in the western hilly districts. Mostly, the sufferers were the then United People’s Front (UPF) cadres.

Next Page >>

Back to Contents