People´s Elected Nepal Government & Nepal Army Establishment
Prakash Bom
January 28, 2009
Perhaps the people´s aspiration for a new Nepal is easy said than edifice without conflicts. However, conflicts are unavoidable despite the common agreement of all. But the outcome depends on how sensibly the parties involved in the conflict take the responsibility. For example, in the case of Nepal Army´s attempt to continue recruitment against the spirit of 2006 Peace Accord depends on how people´s elected government under the leadership of Maoist can handle the issue and how Nepal Army with its old establishment can coordinate with the new government´s commitments to peace and democracy.
Despite Nepal Army chief Gen Rukmangad Katuwal´s humble public statement on behalf of Nepal Army for its commitment to Democracy as per the aspiration of people is not that easy to put in practice within the old establishment of Nepal Army that is rooted in feudal and undemocratic army managerial.
The world has witnessed the odious impetus of Nepal Army establishment, particularly since Panchayet dictatorship to Maoist insurgency, which fundamental objective was to defend the interest of the institution of feudal monarchy even at the expense of people´s civil liberty and rights. Yet, people of Nepal have successfully established their sovereignty over all by abolishing monarchy as the supreme chief of such an army.
The army professionalism was defamed as "Royal Nepal Army" with its nationwide terror and human rights violation against people predominantly during Maoist insurgency. Its managerial body had sided interest of one institution against the will of people. Again as people´s Nepal Army if it perpetuates same attitude against regulation of people´s elected government whether it be Maoist or NC under the influence of top army managerial in the hierarchy, then Nepal Government must introduce appropriate regulation to professionalize Nepal Army in doing away with the old managerial.
Nepal Army managerial has not yet been professionalized to respect people´s civil liberty and rights by maintaining political non-partisanship army response to the national politics in respect to peace and Democracy. If it had it should not have attempted the current recruitment based on previous government´s program against the spirit of 2006 Peace Accord and aspiration of people for peace and democracy. Professionally, it has failed to cooperate with the peace process due its practice of managerial abstinence siding with the certain political parties´ interest.
Of course, Nepal Army could have facilitated the peace process if it had purposed new recruitment as programmed to include members of Maoist PLA based on the professional credentials of each individual candidate. But to continue with the recruitment as programmed under previous government prior to the declaration of "Federal Democratic Republic Nepal" and abolition of the institution of monarchy by people´s elected members of Constituent Assembly is nothing but an attempt to discourage people´s aspiration for peace and democracy.
Credentials to process Democracy do not only lie in politicians and political parties but to all responsible institutions of the nation in compliance with the logics of democracy that have been established by electoral processes. This means Nepal Army cannot continue with the programs and regulations established prior to the abolition of the monarchy and declaration of the Republic Nepal. The failure to comply with the changes for running its intra-army managerial lies solely on Nepal Army either for failure to purpose new programs by coordinating with the government or for attitude to continue with the old managerial establishment by deliberately ignoring current change for peace and democracy.
It is clear that any political party that supports Nepal Army´s attempt to continue with the old program of recruitment has been planning to obstruct the peace process. As all parties have agreed upon 2006 Peace Accord that without bringing peace to logical conclusion the aspiration of people for democracy cannot be fully institutionalized, which can only be achieved by integrating professional members of Maoist PLA into Nepal Army as well as rehabilitation and recruitment to other security and technical professions.
The fundamental objective of 2006 Peace Accord is to disarm Maoist political party completely. But what is going on within Maoist party has created political cloud, particularly with the challenging pronouncements of Maoist hardliners against multiparty democracy. By long shot Maoists have not fully complied with 2006 Peace Accord because Maoist PLA want to establish sort of union that allow top PLA commanders to keep high rank for maintaining discreet PLA unit with Nepal Army whereas the hardliners with Maoist party object integration of PLA into Nepal Army.
But as legitimate demand to keep up with the professionalism of Nepal Army for maintaining non-political military managerial the Nepal Army chief Gen Rukmangad Katuwal will not accept politically indoctrinated Maoist combatants. The question is whether Maoist party has honestly accepted the 2006 Peace Accord to honor party disarmament in order to participate fully in the multi-party democratic processes.
The mixed Maoist response to the question has made peace complicated as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has recently pointed out the difficult to reach consensus among country´s political parties is substantial due to the differences among political parties, even within the parties, and different approaches of Maoist combatants and Nepal army, regarding the Maoist army integration.
Despite Maoist hardliners´ accusations to certain Nepal Army officers´ hangover to old establishment managerial the integration and rehabilitation of Maoist combatants is critical to sustain peace due to Maoist double standard – "Signing 2006 Peace Accord for disarming Maoist party to fully participate in the multiparty democracy yet scheming Maoist ideology for military state."
Obviously, the approach can never be accomplished except for dragging the nation into conflict. The solution lies on the Maoist party´s commitment to the multiparty democracy, which people of Nepal and the international community have honored, that if the majority of Maoists honestly believe in the electoral process of democracy then Maoist led government as well as the major opposition party NC should introduce a bill that honors 2006 Peace Accord for Maoist combatants´ integration and rehabilitation in the security system of the nation for Constituent Assembly to vote upon.
The current tension between Maoist led government and Nepal Army in regard to army integration is demoralizing peace process that people have a great expectation for permanent achievement. If the main political parties fail to reach a democratic solution beyond their own petty party politics the practice of stable multiparty democracy with the substantial political and economic developments can be hard to sustain for a long period of time.
Despite Nepal Army chief Gen Rukmangad Katuwal´s humble public statement on behalf of Nepal Army for its commitment to Democracy as per the aspiration of people is not that easy to put in practice within the old establishment of Nepal Army that is rooted in feudal and undemocratic army managerial.
The world has witnessed the odious impetus of Nepal Army establishment, particularly since Panchayet dictatorship to Maoist insurgency, which fundamental objective was to defend the interest of the institution of feudal monarchy even at the expense of people´s civil liberty and rights. Yet, people of Nepal have successfully established their sovereignty over all by abolishing monarchy as the supreme chief of such an army.
The army professionalism was defamed as "Royal Nepal Army" with its nationwide terror and human rights violation against people predominantly during Maoist insurgency. Its managerial body had sided interest of one institution against the will of people. Again as people´s Nepal Army if it perpetuates same attitude against regulation of people´s elected government whether it be Maoist or NC under the influence of top army managerial in the hierarchy, then Nepal Government must introduce appropriate regulation to professionalize Nepal Army in doing away with the old managerial.
Nepal Army managerial has not yet been professionalized to respect people´s civil liberty and rights by maintaining political non-partisanship army response to the national politics in respect to peace and Democracy. If it had it should not have attempted the current recruitment based on previous government´s program against the spirit of 2006 Peace Accord and aspiration of people for peace and democracy. Professionally, it has failed to cooperate with the peace process due its practice of managerial abstinence siding with the certain political parties´ interest.
Of course, Nepal Army could have facilitated the peace process if it had purposed new recruitment as programmed to include members of Maoist PLA based on the professional credentials of each individual candidate. But to continue with the recruitment as programmed under previous government prior to the declaration of "Federal Democratic Republic Nepal" and abolition of the institution of monarchy by people´s elected members of Constituent Assembly is nothing but an attempt to discourage people´s aspiration for peace and democracy.
Credentials to process Democracy do not only lie in politicians and political parties but to all responsible institutions of the nation in compliance with the logics of democracy that have been established by electoral processes. This means Nepal Army cannot continue with the programs and regulations established prior to the abolition of the monarchy and declaration of the Republic Nepal. The failure to comply with the changes for running its intra-army managerial lies solely on Nepal Army either for failure to purpose new programs by coordinating with the government or for attitude to continue with the old managerial establishment by deliberately ignoring current change for peace and democracy.
It is clear that any political party that supports Nepal Army´s attempt to continue with the old program of recruitment has been planning to obstruct the peace process. As all parties have agreed upon 2006 Peace Accord that without bringing peace to logical conclusion the aspiration of people for democracy cannot be fully institutionalized, which can only be achieved by integrating professional members of Maoist PLA into Nepal Army as well as rehabilitation and recruitment to other security and technical professions.
The fundamental objective of 2006 Peace Accord is to disarm Maoist political party completely. But what is going on within Maoist party has created political cloud, particularly with the challenging pronouncements of Maoist hardliners against multiparty democracy. By long shot Maoists have not fully complied with 2006 Peace Accord because Maoist PLA want to establish sort of union that allow top PLA commanders to keep high rank for maintaining discreet PLA unit with Nepal Army whereas the hardliners with Maoist party object integration of PLA into Nepal Army.
But as legitimate demand to keep up with the professionalism of Nepal Army for maintaining non-political military managerial the Nepal Army chief Gen Rukmangad Katuwal will not accept politically indoctrinated Maoist combatants. The question is whether Maoist party has honestly accepted the 2006 Peace Accord to honor party disarmament in order to participate fully in the multi-party democratic processes.
The mixed Maoist response to the question has made peace complicated as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has recently pointed out the difficult to reach consensus among country´s political parties is substantial due to the differences among political parties, even within the parties, and different approaches of Maoist combatants and Nepal army, regarding the Maoist army integration.
Despite Maoist hardliners´ accusations to certain Nepal Army officers´ hangover to old establishment managerial the integration and rehabilitation of Maoist combatants is critical to sustain peace due to Maoist double standard – "Signing 2006 Peace Accord for disarming Maoist party to fully participate in the multiparty democracy yet scheming Maoist ideology for military state."
Obviously, the approach can never be accomplished except for dragging the nation into conflict. The solution lies on the Maoist party´s commitment to the multiparty democracy, which people of Nepal and the international community have honored, that if the majority of Maoists honestly believe in the electoral process of democracy then Maoist led government as well as the major opposition party NC should introduce a bill that honors 2006 Peace Accord for Maoist combatants´ integration and rehabilitation in the security system of the nation for Constituent Assembly to vote upon.
The current tension between Maoist led government and Nepal Army in regard to army integration is demoralizing peace process that people have a great expectation for permanent achievement. If the main political parties fail to reach a democratic solution beyond their own petty party politics the practice of stable multiparty democracy with the substantial political and economic developments can be hard to sustain for a long period of time.