Negotiation: A compromise for losing parties

When I was in the US, what I used to read/hear from some people interested in Nepali politics that Maoists are gradually losing grounds or popularity. Now, looking at things from this Kingdom I tend to disagree with that concept of Maoists losing gains. In fact, if I have to express my personal opinion on Maoists control, I would say the only place Maoists are not controlling is the Singhdurbar. Maoists certainly have significant pressure on Singhadurbar that is why we hear the word negotiation more from the singhdurbar or the partners there than from the Maoists. Maoists have exercised undeclared rule all over the kingdom, perhaps arguably dictated by fear than popularity. People have little confidence on the government forces to defeat Maoists. Common people have nothing to rely on except for the fate or themselves.

Negotiation is a compromise for losing parties not for the winning ones. I see the confidence of Maoists is increasing everyday not declining. So, at this point without major concession from the people in Narayanhiti cum Singhdurbar, hope of negotiation is nothing but just a poor hope.

Although the long term solution to this Maoists issue is the radical uplifting of socio-economic structure not political but the temporary solution rests on political address. Sooner the people who claim to be leaders realize this the better.

Ok, first points first. The Royal Nepal Army cannot fight the Maoists; first, it lacks the capacity to fight, given that it has around 7-8000 militarymen, and Maoists have around 10-13000 cadre. Second, rebellions cannot be suppressed completely, hence the government and its henchmen are diplomatic enough not to keep any remains of a rebellion for another ethnic/social/economic uprising in future.

Negotiation. Rational Choice theory says that if the cost of making a move (move A) is higher than the benefit, group X will not make a move or make another move (move B). In this case, if the Maoists see that they will be given space in the government, benefit is higher, so they will negotiate. Or, the Principled Negotiation Theory, if Baburam and his troops find that they cannot fight the war anymore, with losing local support and India imposing restrictions on arms import, then they will come for a negotiation. Neither is a pressing need right now.

The government's side, same thing. If the government receives India and US' pressure to solve the problem (which it will take its time- since the US interfered with the decision to have the UN negotiate it), then it will 'swerve'. If the India/US finds Nepal as a strategic location to station its army in Nepal to keep an eye on China, they will make up a reason like they did in Iraq (weapons of mass destruction) and come all over the Maoists and wipe them off may be. Or for some economic and stability reasons, they might just pressure the monarch to end the conflict, then the Monarch will swerve.

Then negotiation will happen. Unless the two parties, either the Maoists or the Monarch dont buzz, there will be no negotiation. The government is just a puppet, and since the past twelve years it has functioned under the direct supervision of the Monarch (although he had only constitutional rights, the supreme power of decision making still rests with him).

And personally, I'm kinda tired of hearing analysis that repeat again and again that Maoism emerged out of social/economic dissatisfactions, ethnic discrimination, poverty and etc. No! Conflict has always been a part of Nepali politics; every regime change in Nepal has experienced a violent overthrow, even the Nepali Congress had attempted an armed revolution against the Ranas, in fact it carried it out in some parts of Nepal, with some support of King Tribhuwan. There has never been a nonviolent revolution in Nepal's history, except for the mass movement for Democracy. And no, Maoists didnt go underground for the poor and the underprivileged; they went underground when they were denied political space for the first election after democracy. It was in 1991. And the outcome of the first democratic government's efforts were starting to be seen only after 3/4 yrs of its rule (1995-96), so the Maoists cannot simply have gone underground out of dissatisfaction of the government to rule effectively. One thing is for sure, Baburam certainly wanted to end the deep rooted system of feudalism in Nepal.

Power politics. Not much of a difference from how politics works in the international scenario. IF there is a possibility of power-sharing, negotiation is possible (for the Maoists), if there is possibility that it can give away the least and take the larger pie, there will be negotiation (for the Monarch).

DC Girl,

"And personally, I'm kinda tired of hearing analysis that repeat again and again that Maoism emerged out of social/economic dissatisfactions, ethnic discrimination, poverty and etc. No! Conflict has always been a part of Nepali politics; ..."

I disagree. I firmly believe Maoism emerged out of socio-economic injustice. Once the issue of injustice is addressed with proper measures, the fundamental issues of Maoists will be countered. Look at the demands of Maoists.

Of course, conflict is part of every society but what fuels the conflict is more important here. to me , severe socio-economic weakness especially in rural nepal is fueling the conflict.

finally, with due disagreement, I appreciate your comments and enjoyed your points of view. For me, Nepal that I visualized from the US differed from What I see now from within.

When they were denied political space, Maoists felt they wouldn't be able to bring about structural change in the development system that they had originally planned. And of course, their hopes were bittered when the so called democracy that was supposed to grant the sovereignty to Nepalese people somehow still got stuck under the sleeves of the Monarch (with the new constitution that still gave monarch a large share of power). What more, the weak government that compromised its dreams in favor of immediate gains had not much to console Baburam and his group of similar minded people that this government will bring about any radical change to uplift Nepal from the quagmire of underdevelopment and poverty it was sunk into for so long.

The only solution at hand was to go underground and bring about an armed revolution, keeping in mind and probably inspired by the numerous small political uprisings during the Rana regimes and after, carried out by Nepali Congress and other political parties. But those were small scale uprisings. Baburam and the likes decided to take up arms, this time, in a massive scale, a planned armed uprising that would cover a larger mass, all throughout the nation, thus reducing the risk of failures(when there is a large support base, failures are less likely; e.g- fight for democracy that covered most of Kathmandu and the neighboring areas). But fight for democracy was an elite fight in the capital city, leaving behind the majority of rural Nepalese unaware of changes.

This massive revolution was possible if they could garner support from rural areas. The villagers would also sympathize with Maoists because they would be fighting for people?s cause (referring to Baburam?s stand to wipe out the system of feudalism from Nepal, which, both as a learned student and a member of poor class determined to fight out oppression, Baburam opined since he participated in Oscal campus? political riots and consequently wrote his thesis on, while in JNU- and my sympathies are with him). Maoists could grab excluded ethnic, underprivileged groups onto their advantage and fight a war to uproot the oppressive, feudalistic regime.

If, this more than 130 years of autocratic regime wouldn't have been absolute in its nature; keeping people away from education in fear of mass uprisings that would disrupt the trend of handing over power to the Ranas, if it had been liberal enough to provide the basic human needs to its citizens without pocketing everything for themselves, if there had been a consistency in development works, Maoism possibly wouldn't have emerged (although I cannot say this with authority because the world political scenario also plays a vital role and the advent of democracy in Nepal was partly initiated by the wave of political and democratic awareness that was sweeping Asia).

But what I see the root cause, more than poverty and the segregation of society or individual ethnic disparities, is the system of feudalism fueled by the years of Rana regime, later continued by the system of monarchy (although minor changes like the system of Panchayat were implemented, but what we call ?sovereign power vested in the people? was actually vested in the interests of the few rulers), and democracy up to date hasn't been able to solely function on its own with the system of monarchy as a symbol of non-democracy still looming large in Nepal. This, is what Baburam and his likes wanted to disrupt, this system. Of course poverty, corruption, underdevelopment, ethnic disparity, societal segregation with regard to an individual?s religion, caste, social status and etc. are the vehicles to give this revolution a legitimate cause.

One factor (besides many others) that gives continuity to feudalism and has hindered democratic practices in Nepal, as history has shown, is the system of monarchy, the maintenance of hierarchical system of handing over power without popular consent. And this also, as a part of feudalism, was what Baburam wanted to uproot.

Sparsha ji, one way or another, poverty and the likes are the vehicles to give legitimacy to the uprising, but the end of feudalism (and system of monarchy) is what I see as the core reason. And indeed, watching Nepal from a distant, or being a part of it brings a big difference to our conclusions, but being away from Nepal for a while has given me a chance to analyze Nepal's political scenario as a passive, disinterested observer. If you see any biases in me (candid support for Baburam's frustrations over oppression, as one belonging to an oppressed class), I yet do not support this war; he was unable to prescribe the right medicine for the disease.

Conflict is not independent or proactive but dependent or reactive force. From my observation I see you consider feudalism as the factor that is fueling current Maoists movement in Nepal. I, as mentioned earlier, consider strong and gradually strengthening socio-economic weakness is the reason that is provoking the movement. I think feudalism is a part of socio-economic spectrum. Is it not?

Unless the proper measures are taken to address the socio-economic weakness for the majority of the population, no political or developmental activities will be supported by the desperate ones. That means conflict will keep on swinging with one name or other. Just speeches or rhetoric provoking sovereignty to people or democracy mean nothing constructive. Survival comes before anything including democracy or sovereignty.

Nepal is in chaos. I don?t think Maoists will come to table to negotiate unless a major concession is given to them. Why? Because I notice their confidence is solidifying, and the government is nothing but defunct because it has no agendas that support national interests. My opinion.

Sparsha ji,

A few years back when I started my detailed study on probability,
statistics, maintenance of infrastructures, strategy.... I was asked to
gather information / knowledge on game theory, so that it can be applied
in engineering. At one point, I realized "negotiation" is part of that game
theory. If you are a good player, you surely want to gamble your ray of
hope and negotiate to gain as much power as you can. Power and
negotiation can be mathematically written as follows:

Power x negotiation + = 1

Those who have power, they, don't have to negotiate. A good player will maintain the the relation always satisfied. But, a corrupted player can not maintain that equation, but, for him the equation should be modified as follows:

Power x negotiation = 1 - Sum of leakage (=losses)

Dumb power player:

Power x negotiation = very close to zero.

Girija has fairly good degree of power until 2001. He always failed. He told
his cadres that we don't have to negotiate with Maoists or UML in this issue,
because Maoists are not our problem, that is UML's problem, because they
are only loosing the cadres. How Maoist cornered Girija from power pyramid?
Girija failed to negotiate through they he had real power and mandate from
public. Girija even lost his lowerhouse because of his own foolish strategy,
i.e. he got angry for not seeing his picture in Nepal TV.

Well, our strategists are failing to apply the knowledge of game theory. I
wonder how many top Nepali political leaders / parliamentarians have heard
the game theory. It will be interesting to hear a single name who knows something
about game theory and its application in politics., especially, in power vs
negotiation game.

GP

Lau ma bicha ma futta aye hai, I am not big time analyst tara ni mero view,

..I do not agree Sparsh ji, do you think instant socio-economic changes can be brought about with ABACADABRA.. I think even maoists know, it can't be. Its thug-of-war between Government (lets say monarchy) and Maoist for mere power. Yes they are doing nothing but struggling for power. They are not desparate becoz they are concern about plight of Nepali people, neither they give f**k to deterioting socio-economical factors. Dude, they all are fishes of same pond, Maoist, Congress, Communist. As DC said, they are refering "socio-economic weaknesses" as legtimate cause to conduct guerrilla warfare . We witnessed the great democratic movement, thought then-underground-neta would bring some changes in social, economic and political sector -so what happened ever since? Hadn't these neta fought their ass-off for system change? So.! Hernus Sparsh ji, don't get in confusion - to me, maoist movements symbolize their frustration for not being able to form their totalitarian government.

Aba hernus na, They were against King Birendra when he was in power. Right after he died they tried to be emphatetic to the public by claiming their informal alliance with former King on the ground of their views on national issues similar to that of king. No wonder, this sort of oxymoron statements are usually issued by them.

Movement is well-planned game from both side, Government and Maoist and civilians are being targeted.

Maoist have well able to influence people by carving image of a maoist as innocent peasant from very rural area who is willing to fight for his rights. Isn't that an illusion what we have..?

Yes Maoist will come to the table if, only if constitution is revised again in their favor. If they are allowed to implicate their neo-Maoism in the country.

Doesn't matter how hard government tried to improve socio-economic (which for sure government will not), maoist seek another cause to oppose unless power is not transfer.

DC_Girl thanx for sharing knowledge.. I like yours...

Pisces ji,

When we talk about Maoists, we are talking about an umbrella group. What leadership wants does not neceesarily reflect what grassroot caders want. The organization being an umbrella one is loosly fit together but their effect is combined. you will see it if you step outside any metro area, and even within the metros. i have seen it, and seeing it everyday here. The govt. is pretty much non-existent beyound towns and admin. headquarters.

I have said, above, that although improvement of socio-economic situation is the key for long-term solution, shortterm solution rests with political forces. Of course, socio-economic situation cannot be improved over night. It may take many decades, but just because it takes time does not mean the cause should be ignored when looking for remedy. There is no quick fix to the problem we have here in Nepal but atleast political forces could help establish peace if they want to.

politics???? * runs away 20398123908 miles *