With the election of senior Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai as Nepal’s new Prime Minister last week, there is now the smallest hope in some time that the Himalayan nation can begin making the first moves towards stability after years of political turmoil. Dr Bhattarai is thought to be given to reflection, moderation and consensus-building, the very qualities needed to heal the new Nepal established after the end of the monarchy.
The political space in Nepal is deeply fractured. The Maoists, who won the most seats in the Constituent Assembly (effectively the Parliament) in the April 2008 election, were too full of hubris. Under the leadership of Pushp Kumar Dahal, better known as “Prachanda”, they sought to steamroller their way through despite not having a majority. They fought with the President, the Army Chief and two major political parties — the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (UML) — over integrating their 20,000 armed fighters into the regular Nepal Army. This factor became the biggest obstacle to the success of the peace process (after royal rule ended) and the framing of the country’s new Constitution in the post-monarchy dispensation.
On becoming PM, Dr Bhattarai has sought an extension of three months — after several missed deadlines — to conclude the process of finalising the Constitution. It won’t be an easy task. The incoming leader will have to strike deals with the NC and CPN (UM-L), although he has come to head the government with the support of the Terai’s Madhesi MPs. This calls for statesmanship, and possibly also for overcoming opposition to the idea within the PM’s own party. If Dr Bhattarai is able to bring the Constituent Assembly around to agreeing on some of the key principles that are holding up progress on the peace process, framing a new Constitution shouldn’t be difficult.
The well-being of Nepal is riding on Dr Bhattarai’s success. In the absence of a return to order and an end to uncertain politics, the country risks being thrown back to the era when the three-way confrontation — between royalist Nepal and the Maoists, between the King and the other key parties, and between the Maoists and other parties — had taken a big toll and normal life ceased to exist. Such a state of affairs, when forces of disruption can be tempted to use military means to take control, naturally causes acute concern in India. This country has ancient ties with the people of Nepal, and we have an open border. If the people of Nepal can’t even give themselves a Constitution in the post-royal dispensation, the possibility remains of such forces taking over that are disruptive of democracy.