Sunday, July 15, 2007
India's Dubious Silence (Courtesy: el Nino)
The clamor surrounding the probability of elections in November has triggered tremors in Kathmandu. A prominent youth leader on the condition of anonymity hesitantly conceded to the following: “elections can only be held if India decides this is what they want.” As a matter of fact, India is not wrong in concluding that the failure to conduct elections in November could derail the peace process. However, what India and the international community must clearly understand is that if the law and order situation does not improve, and as a consequence the government cannot conduct free and fair elections, the whole electoral process will prove to be futile.
As the countdown to the election date draws nearer, it becomes increasingly important to link YCL and NRA violence along with the violence perpetrated in the Terai by various other groups. This linkage will provide a realistic overview of the actual state of the law and order situation of the country. And this should be the main factor in deciding whether or not elections are genuinely possible.
A few days ago, senior SPA and Maoist leaders (while briefing journalist at the Reporters club) called for improved security as a precondition for successful polls. At this venue, the Chief Election Commissioner, Bhojraj Pokharel, broke his silence and commented that elections are impossible given the present state of affairs in the country.
It seems the government is left with two options:
Forge national consensus among all parliamentary parties to conduct free and fair elections
Push for elections ignoring the political ramification of “hollow” or “reasonably fair” polls.
Elections hold the key to the nation’s political and socio-economic future; it has the capacity to alter the dynamics of the national polity. In essence, Cuba, Zimbabwe and North Korea are all examples of countries that routinely conduct elections, but in reality, their governments are authoritarian in nature and oppose the necessity of constitutional liberalism.
Although in the past, elections have been held in hostile situations in places like Assam, Kashmir and Punjab, only Punjab can boast of a semi-functional democracy. Unfortunately, the other two states Assam and Kashmir have descended into a never- ending quagmire of civil strife. Nonetheless, both Assam and Kashmir have the privilege of relying on the Union Government as a fall back option. But does Nepal have the privilege of a fall back option?
If India and the International Community are bent on conducting elections in November without first taking into consideration the security of its political candidates, its voters and the prospective turn out, serious questions are bound to arise as to why the Indians and the international community, condemned the elections that were proposed by the royal regime. The same methods of assasinating candidates (as carried out by the Maoists and supported by the civil society, mainstream parties and nearly all opponents of the royal regime) are certain to mar upcoming elections. The precedent has already be set.
Now that Nepal’s politics is reaching a climax, most Nepali citizens hope that India and the international community will not remain silent about what they really visualize for Nepal. More importantly, India cannot afford to remain in the grey. It is imperative that the Government of India categorically state in its policy whether they want democracy or autocracy. Just maintaining the line “we respect the verdict of the people” will not suffice. Many scenarios need to be considered here: What if the elections are fraudulent? What if the elections turn out to be reasonably fair and the Maoists win? Would India accept a totalitarian state chosen by the people?
It is inevitable that India is going to have a loss of face given its present policy in Nepal. The findings of an Indian sponsored survey suggests an electoral victory for Nepali Congress and an unfathomable 13% for the Maoists. These findings point out to the fallacies in Indian policy that pushed for early elections in June. And even worse, the murmurings among the political circle indicate that an “influential group” within and outside the policy makers' circle, is refusing to link YCL violence and the Madheshi issue as problems that are directly linked to the elections.
The international community and more importantly India, have to come clean and genuinely express discontent against continuing Maoist atrocities, if they are to be the true champions of democracy. It is also essential that India gives serious thought to the probable results of the election and decides whether they are ready for a Maoist Nepal. And if not, what is the alternative? Or have the power brokers in Nepal already finalized the arithmetic of elections and satisfied both our southern border and the International Community?
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/07/dubious-silence.html
