राजनीति, विद्रोह र सत्ता

राजनीति, विद्रोह र सत्ता

फाल्गुन २६, २०७५कृष्ण खनाल

काठमाडौँ — राजनीतिमा असम्भव र अस्वाभाविक केही पनि छैन । हिजोका विद्रोही आज सत्तामा छन्, प्रधानमन्त्री केपी शर्मा ओली हुन् वा सत्तारूढ दल नेकपा अर्का अध्यक्ष पुष्पकमल दाहाल । कांग्रेस पनि कुनै बेला विद्रोहमै थियो । त्यही बाटाबाट सत्तामा पुग्यो । विद्रोह र सक्ता राजनीतिका घामछाया हुन् ।

गत शुत्रबार ओली र दाहाल दुवैको उपस्थितिमा अर्का विद्रोही सीके राउतले एउटा सम्झौता गरे, दुवैसँग हात मिलाए । झन्डै एक दशकदेखि मधेसको राजनीतिलाई बेग्लै धारमा तरंगित गर्दै काठमाडौंका सत्ताधारीलाई राष्ट्रियविखण्डनको हाउगुजी अलाप्ने तम्तयारी मसला थियो सीके राउतको ‘स्वतन्त्र मधेस’को अस्त्र । उनले हतियार बोकेका थिएनन् तर उनको त्यो अस्त्र भने अर्कोलाई भय देखाउन सबैका लागि उपयोगी थियो । अर्को कुनै दिन अर्का विद्रोही नेक्रवित्रम चन्दसँग यसैगरी अर्को सम्झौता हुँदा आश्चर्य मान्नु पर्दैन । आखिर त्यो पनि अपेक्षित कुरा नै हो ।

सरकार–राउत सहमतिका ११ बुँदामा के के लेखिएका छन् वा लेखिएनन्, त्यो मेरो धेरै चासोको विषय होइन । यो सहमतिका तीनवटा कुरा महत्त्वपूर्ण छन् । पहिलो, सीके राउतले ‘स्वतन्त्र मधेस गठबन्धन’का नाममा चलाएका गतिविधिको अन्त्य भयो । उनले अब संवैधानिक प्रक्रियाभित्रको राजनीति गर्ने भए ।

दोस्रो, सरकारले पनि विगत गतिविधिका आधारमा उनी र उनका नाममा परिचालित कसैमाथि कुनै कारबाही नगर्ने भयो । तेस्रो, लोकतन्त्रको विधि, सिद्धान्त र मान्यताको सरकारले पुनरुक्ति गर्‍यो, उनले स्वीकारोक्ति । पहिलो र दोस्रो सीके राउतको सोच र गतिविधिले उत्पादन गरेको कुरा हो । तेस्रो कुरा थप महत्त्वको विषय हो । सहमतिका पहिलो तीन बुँदा यसैका लागि खर्चिएका छन् । ‘शान्तिपूर्ण लोकतान्त्रिक बाटो र जनतामा निहित सार्वभौम अधिकारको प्रयोग गर्दै असन्तुष्टिलाई जनअभिमतमा आधारित लोकतान्त्रिक विधिबाट समाधान’ गर्ने कुरा उल्लेख भएका छन् ।

सहमतिमा प्रयुक्त शब्दावलीलाई आआफ्नो अनुकूल व्याख्या गर्ने सुविधामा छाडिएको छ । खासगरी ‘जनतामा निहित सार्वभौमसत्ता’ र ‘जनअभिमतमा आधारित लोकतान्त्रिक विधि’ भन्ने शब्दावलीलाई जति फराकिलो व्याख्या गरे पनि हुन्छ । सहमतिपत्र आदानप्रदान सँगसँगै आएका सरकारी पक्ष र राउतका अभिव्यक्तिले यही पुष्टि गर्छन् । राउत पक्षले यसलाई जनमत संग्रहमा जाने बाटो खोलिदिएको भनेर व्याख्या गरेको छ भने प्रधानमन्क्रीले ‘देश टुत्र्याउने कुरा आजबाट समाप्त भयो’ भनेर दाबी गरेका छन् । मुख्य कुरा के हो भने सहमतिपछि प्रधानमन्त्री ओली र सीके राउत एकै ठाउँमा उभिन पुगेका छन्, एकअर्काको प्रशंसा गर्दै । मधेसको राजनीतिक सन्दर्भमा संविधानले हासिल गरेको यो थप माइलेज हो ।

लोकतन्त्रले राज्य पक्ष होस् वा विद्रोही कसैबाट पनि हिंसा र बल प्रयोगलाई स्वीकार गर्दैन । बरु विकल्पमा जनमत संग्रहको अभ्यासका लागि ठाउँ दिन्छ । सरकारका नीति र कामका विषयमा मात्र होइन, राष्ट्रिय विखण्डनका मागलाई समेत शान्तिपूर्ण एवं लोकतान्त्रिक विधिबाट सम्बोधन र निकास दिने प्रक्रियाका रूपमा यसलाई अपनाइएको छ ।

क्यानडामा फ्रेन्च भाषी क्युबेक प्रान्त, बेलायतमा स्कटल्यान्डमा भएका जनमत संग्रह यसका केही दृष्टान्त हुन् । त्यहाँ क्युबेक वा स्कटिस पृथक्तावादका पक्षमा बहुमत मतदान भएको भए शान्तिपूर्ण लोकतान्क्रिक विधिबाट क्यानाडा र बेलायत टुत्रिने थिए । लोकतन्त्रको यस्तो अभ्यास अन्यत्र बिरलै पाइन्छ ।

सरकार–राउत सहमतिमा प्रयुक्त शब्दावलीमा टेकेर एउटा बहस प्रारम्भ गर्न सकिन्छ । ‘जनअभिमतमा आधारित लोकतान्त्रिक विधि’ भनेको के हो ? सहमतिमा तराई–मधेसलगायत देशका कतिपय स्थानमा रहेका असन्तुष्टिलाई यो विधिबाट समाधान गर्न सहमत भएको उल्लेख छ । यसले भूगोलकेन्द्री एउटा ठाउँलाई आकर्षित गरेको प्रस्ट हुन्छ ।

तसर्थ यसका आधारमा मधेसको विषयलाई जनमत संग्रहमा लैजाने कुरालाई सिद्धान्ततः स्वीकार गरिएको छ भन्दा कुनै अन्यथा मान्नु पर्दैन साथै संविधानले पनि राष्ट्रिय महत्त्वका विषयमा जनमत संग्रहबाट निर्णय लिन सकिनेछ भनेर उल्लेख गरेको छ ।

सकारात्मक रूपमा यसको उपयोग गर्ने हो भने मधेसलाई अरू समेट्न यसले महत्त्वपूर्ण आधार दिन्छ । आवश्यक परे संविधानले निर्धारण गरेको प्रक्रियाबाट जनमत संग्रहसम्म पुग्न पनि सकिएला तर मलाई लाग्दैन, यो सहमतिले हाम्रो लोकतन्त्रलाई त्यति फराकिलो आयाम दिएको छ ।

यो सहमतिले तत्कालका लागि सीके राउतको राजनीतिलाई एउटा बिसौनी दिएको छ, त्यस्तै सरकारमा बस्नेका लागि उपलब्धिको प्रचार मसला पनि तर यसबाट मधेसमापृथक्ताको सोच अन्त्य भयो भनी बुझ्नु पर्याप्त हुँदैन । यो सोचको स्रोत न सीके राउत हुन्, न उनीसँगै सकिन्छ नै । यो त प्रवृत्ति हो, जुन बेलाबखत मधेसको राजनीतिमा देखिँदै आएको छ । मूलतः पहिचानको राजनीतिसँग सम्बन्धित कुरा हो यो साथै भूराजनीतिक उपयोगको अस्त्र पनि । अनुकूल भएका बेला यो स्वर अलि चर्को हुन्छ, सुनिन्छ । प्रतिकूल अवस्थामा यो आफैं खुम्चिएर दबिएर बस्छ । यसैका आधारमा कुनै राष्ट्र बलियो छ वा विखण्डन हुने भयो भनेर स्वर मच्चाउनु आवश्यक छैन ।

सीके राउत प्रकरणको एउटा विशेषता के हो भने उनी स्वतन्त्र मधेसको कुरा गरे पनि देशबाट पलायन भएनन्, हतियार उठाएनन् । उनका गतिविधि वैचारिक अभिमत निर्माण र परिचालनमा केन्द्रित थियो । यद्यपि राज्य पक्षका लागि यो भयावह र अकल्पनीय सोच थियो तर लोकतन्त्रमा यस्ता सोच आउँछन्, केही वैचारिक मन्थन हुँदैमा वा त्यो विचारको केही परिचालन हुँदैमा देशै विखण्डन हुने भयो, अलगथलग हुने भयो भनेर भयग्रस्त हुनु पनि आवश्यक छैन । संवैधानिक प्रणाली र शासकीय व्यवहार जति लोकतान्त्रिक बन्दै जान्छ, उति यस्ता प्रवृत्ति र स्वरलाई थेग्ने क्षमता पनि बढ्छ । तसर्थ हाम्रो मुख्य चुनौती भनेको लोकतान्त्रिक प्रणाली र अभ्यासको निरन्तरता एवं सुदृढीकरण हो ।

जातीय, क्षेत्रीय विविधता भएको देशको राजनीतिमापृथक्तावादी सोचले ठाउँ लिन खोज्नु अन्यथा पनि होइन । मुख्य कुरा यसको सम्बोधन र व्यवस्थापन कसरी गर्ने भन्ने हो । संघीयता त्यस्तो राजनीतिक प्रविधि हो, जसका माध्यमबाट यसको व्यवस्थापन गर्न सकिन्छ, विश्वमा भइराखेका पनि छन् ।

यसले स्वायत्तता र पहिचानको आकांक्षालाई सकारात्मक रूपमा खेल्ने र हुर्कने ठाउँ दिन्छ, विखण्डनको भित्तासम्म पुग्न दिँदैन । यो सहमतिको मुख्य आधार पनि त्यहीँ देखिन्छ । अहिले हाम्रा लागि संघीयताको स्वस्थ अभ्यास र विश्वसनीय संघीय राजनीतिक संस्कार निर्माण सबैभन्दा महत्त्वपूर्ण कुरा हुन् । हाम्रो संघीय यात्राको स्वरूप निर्धारणको मुख्य कडी संघीय सरकार र प्रदेश, त्यसमा पनि प्रदेश–२ बीच विकसित हुने आपसी विश्वास र सहकार्य हो ।

सीके राउत भोलिको राजनीतिमा कहाँ पुग्छन्, के गर्छन्, त्यो ठूलो कुरा भएन । उनले निर्माण गरेको वैचारिक मत सधैं उनकै पछि लाग्छ भन्ने जरुरी पनि छैन । उनी आफैं हिजोभन्दा पृथक् सैद्धान्तिक बिसौनीमा आइपुगेका छन् । सत्ताको फेरो समातेर मूलधारमा पुग्छन् वा अरू सीमान्तमा धकेलिन्छन्, समयले नै बताउला तर शान्तिपूर्ण र लोकतान्त्रिक बाटाबाट राजनीति गर्ने उनको चाहना भने सराहनायोग्य नै मान्नुपर्छ ।

नेपालको चालु राजनीतिलाई हेर्दा मुद्दा उठाउन, आन्दोलन गर्न र सहमतिमा पुग्न धेरै कठिन देखिन्न, जति त्यसपछिको विश्वनीयता जोगाउन र व्यवस्थापन गर्न उत्तिकै चुनौती छ । तत्कालीन माओवादीसँग भएको शान्तिसम्झौता यसको एउटा ज्वलन्त उदाहरण हो । माओवादी विद्रोहकै पुरानो विरासत बोकेर अहिले नेक्रवित्रम चन्द समूह अघि बढेको छ ।

यो विद्रोहको निरन्तरता हो वा आन्तरिक व्यवस्थापनमा भएका कमजोरीको उपज ? के उनीसँग अर्को शान्तिसम्झौता सम्भव छ ? के उनको विकल्प भनेको प्रतिष्ठा जोगाउने लेनदेन मात्र हो ? हामी पनि भित्रसम्म पुगेर छुट्याउने प्रयत्न गर्दैनौं । यस्तै, यो सहमतिपछि सरकारको त एउटा काम सकियो । अब उपलब्धिको बखानमा नै ऊ रमाउँछ तर सीके राउतका चुनौती भने कम छैनन् । लोकतान्त्रिक विधि र जनतामा निहित सार्वभौम अधिकारजस्तो धारिलो शब्दावली प्रयोग जता पनि गर्न सकिन्छ ।

मधेसको मामिलामा सरकार जनमत संग्रह गर्न तयार भयो भनेर आत्मगत प्रचारबाजीको राजनीतिमा उनी अलमलिने हुन् वा मूलधारको राजनीतिमा समाहित हुने ? फेरि, मूलधारको राजनीति भनेको के हो ? सत्तारूढ दलसँगको सहयात्रा हो वा मधेसकै मुद्दामा केन्द्रित भएर अर्को एउटा क्षेत्रीय दल बन्न प्रयत्न गर्ने ? यो द्वन्द्व नै अब उनको राजनीतिक नियति हो । सहमतिले उनले उठाएको गन्तव्य उल्टाएको छ । मुद्दाका प्रकृति मिल्लान् तर अबको राजनीतिक यात्रा उनले नयाँ सिराबाट प्रारम्भ गर्नुपर्ने हुन्छ । अन्यथा उनको यो प्रकरण मधेस राजनीतिको एउटा फुटनोट सन्दर्भमा सीमित हुनेछ ।

सीके राउतले उठाएको विखण्डनको मुद्दाले एउटा पाठ भने राम्रैसँग सिकाएको छ । यो विषय सीमित युवाबीच क्षणिक रूपमा भावना परिचालनको सजिलो औजार त बनाउन सकिएला तर यो केटाकेटीको रहरमा सीमित हुने सम्भावना पनि उत्तिकै रहेछ । त्यसको धार कति कामयावी बनाउन सजिलो रहेनछ । विखण्डनको कोरा हाइपोथेसिस त बनाउन सकिन्छ, केही भेरिएबल जोडजाड पनि गर्न सकिएला तर टेस्ट गर्ने प्रयोगशाला रहेनछ । सीके राउत प्रकरण यहाँको भूराजनीति, सामरिक अवस्थिति र कम्तीमा पनि दक्षिण एसियाली राजनीतिक सीमांकन नबुझी गरिने एउटा अपरिपक्व सोचको परिणाम हो भन्ने पुष्टि भएको छ ।

 प्रकाशित : कान्तिपुर, फाल्गुन २६, २०७५ ०७:४६

Govt unlikely to hold consultations with victims

Published: January 19, 2019 9:27 am On: Nepal

Govt unlikely to hold consultations with victims

Roshan S Nepal

The government and parties are in a deep slumber. We are of the view that meaningful participation of victims should be ensured in the entire transitional justice process — Suman Adhikari, former chairman, Conflict Victims Common Platform

From the very beginning of the transitional justice process in June 2007 when the then Ministry of Peace and Reconstruction unveiled the first draft TRC bill, conflict victims have, among other things, one constant discontent: The government does not hold consultations with them while drafting/amending laws concerned or taking crucial decisions related to transitional justice.

The last time the government came up with a draft amendment to the Enforced Disappearances Enquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act 2014 was in June last year. But the victims again rejected it, and one of the major reasons they furnished was that the government prepared the draft without holding any consultation with them.

The government is again preparing to amend the act to address its shortcomings on the basis of six factors—the Comprehensive Peace Accord; Nepal’s national and international obligations related to human rights; fundamental principles of transitional justice; decisions and orders of the Supreme Court; sentiments of conflict victims; and Nepal’s legal and political processes.

But this time around too, consultations with victims are unlikely, given the government has only three week’s time for the job as the tenure of the two transitional justice mechanisms — Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Commission of Investigation of Enforced Disappeared Persons — expires on February 9 without the two bodies completing their job.

Addressing the Parliament, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli today said consultations were still under way among political parties and stakeholders on whether to bring a new act, what kind of legal arrangements were to be made, and whether to keep the two commissions intact or reconstitute them.

Acknowledging that ‘nursing of wounds inflicted during the conflict’ was yet to be done, the PM  said the government was actively and carefully working on ‘ending vestiges of the conflict and completing the process of establishing peace’.  All these mean that the government and political parties are still undecided on the issue, and chances of consultations with victims are very slim on act amendment.

This also means the government and political parties now have two options — either fast-tracking the act amendment process, or extending the tenure of the two commissions leaving everything as they are and amending the act later by addressing concerns of the victims.

However, fast-tracking the amendment is not going to be feasible at this time, said Nepali Congress lawmaker Minendra Rijal, who is actively involved in the ongoing cross-party consultations.

Conceding that many things were yet to be done before reaching the stage of holding consultations with the victims, Rijal said they were very cautious this time about avoiding any major discontent.

“Yes, it has already been late for holding discussions on amendment with the victims or in the Parliament,” Rijal told THT. “On the other hand, pushing the act amendment without holding consultations with the victims would again not work.”

When asked whether the government would then just extend the tenure of the two commissions and amend the act later by addressing the victims’ concerns, Rijal said they had yet to reach a phase where they’d consider the option. “We are very seriously working on a solution.”

Consultations with victims had almost begun when the government in June last year came up with a draft act and even sought feedback from stakeholders concerned. However, the process got stuck after a section of victims, backed by a section of rights activists, demanded restructuring of the commissions and formation of a high-level mechanism to oversee the entire transitional justice process.

This also diverted the entire discourse from what should actually have been done, according to Ram Kumar Bhandari, Founder and Director of National Network of the Families of the Disappeared and Missing Nepal. Bhandari is leading a section of conflict victims who are opposed to the idea of the high-level mechanism.

“Those advocating for the high-level mechanism sabotaged the consultations,” he told THT. “They failed themselves, and also failed the consultation process.”

He also warned if the act was amended just on the basis of political understanding, it would further weaken the commissions and boost political domination in the entire transitional justice process that should have actually been victim-centric.

Suman Adhikari, former chairman of Conflict Victims Common Platform that demanded the restructuring of the commissions, also said they were waiting for reply as they had presented their views to the government and parties. “But the government and parties are in a deep slumber,” he said. “We are of the view that meaningful participation of victims should be ensured in the entire transitional justice process.”

Federalizing Nepal Police

EDITORIAL: Share power

The federal Home Ministry has registered a new bill at the Parliament Secretariat to govern the process of “operation, supervision and coordination” of the Nepal Police and Provincial Police. However, it has been opposed by the provincial governments, saying that the bill is all set to centralise the power and authority of the Nepal Police. The bill proposes that the police chiefs in all the provinces be deployed by the federal government and function under the direct control and command of Chief District Officers who will act as representatives of the central government. Promotion, transfer and deployment of police officials above the Deputy Superintendent of Police will be handled by the central government. Only police officials below the Inspector will be hired, transferred or deployed by the provincial governments. For the time being, the provincial police forces, according to the bill, will be created out of the Nepal Police personnel, who will be adjusted in all the provinces. Recruitment process (filling of vacancies, examination syllabus and criteria related to examination) of the provincial police shall be as determined by the federal Nepal Police Act.

If the bill is passed as it is, the Provincial Police will not have the right to launch a criminal investigation. It can, however, assist the federal police in criminal investigations; maintain peace and security; keep records of all crimes and protect the crime scene and assist the federal police in criminal investigation; carry out rescue and relief operation in times of disasters and emergency as well as engage in traffic management in the provinces. On the whole, the Provincial Police will act as a community police force. The Provincial Police force may procure arms and ammunition upon receiving approval from the Nepal Police. However, the provincial leaders, including Province 3 Minister of Internal Affairs and Law Shalikram Jamakattel, have opposed the bill. They have insisted that the Provincial Police should be under the direct control of the police chief appointed by the provincial governments.

It may be noted that Province 2 has already passed a bill to form the Provincial Police force. It passed the bill on October 24 last year before the federal Parliament could enact the umbrella bill on the Nepal Police. If the umbrella bill is passed without any changes, it will create conflict between the Centre and the provinces. While addressing the first ever Inter-Province Council meeting with the Chief Ministers of all the provinces on December 10, Prime Minister KP Oli had vowed to give more legal teeth to the provinces so that they could function independently. Delegating more power to the provinces on matters relating to maintaining peace and security was one of the major agenda of the council meeting. Federalism is an evolutionary process which needs continuous nurturing. The federal government, which has resources and institutional expertise, must assist the provinces to make them fully functional. The way the umbrella bill has been designed to govern the Nepal Police will not strengthen the provinces when it comes to maintaining law and order there. Federalism is a shared rule. It is, therefore, necessary that the Centre share its power with the provinces.

---

Reconstruction delay

It is apparent that the National Reconstruction Authority (NRA), headed by the Prime Minister, will not rebuild all of the monuments and houses damaged in the Gorkha Earthquake within the given five years. Three years have already elapsed, and reconstruction of some major landmarks like the Dharahara and Ranipokhari will extend beyond the available two years. And of the 811,000 beneficiaries, only about 347,000 have built their houses. This means, the rebuilding of shelters and monuments has been painfully slow. Legal hurdles and frequent change of the NRA’s Chief Executive Officer are partly responsible for its failure to gain the desired momentum.

While speed in the reconstruction process is greatly desirable, in the end, let it be a job well done. Reconstruction is not only about building houses and monuments, it’s also about helping people get on with their lives. Many unforeseen problems have surfaced during the reconstruction phase ranging from lack of livelihood programmes in the integrated settlements to drinking water shortages at other places. The NRA’s performance will also be judged by how it solves these problems to ease people’s lives.

---

A version of this article appears in print on January 16, 2019 of The Himalayan Times.

Trauma of armed insurgency

June 18, 2005

Trauma of armed insurgency

Recently I had been to a round trip inspection tour of several districts. In this connection I also visited the Bandipur of Siraha district where Maoist had attacked on one unified security base camp, police station, and army battalion HQ. Three policemen, one army soldier, and six local people, and many Maoists died in this incident. Few security personnel are taken as hostage by Maoist. The dead bodies of many ‘guerillas’ were strewn around the incident site. Looking at the bodies of these ‘guerillas’; I felt very bad. They were of very young age, looked innocent and ignorant of any politics of Maoism giving impetus to totalitarianism. Most of them appeared to belong to indigenous group, the Janajatis. Their poor dress and gear indicated that they lacked resources and had very poor preparations. It appeared that they were committing suicidal attacks on such well fortified camps manned by well trained soldiers with superior fire arms.

We should be actively doing something, not only show tacit connivance, to stop these types of killings of one Nepali by another Nepali. We can do few things like—raising awareness and education among the communities against the futility of such terrorism means to achieve any political power or social change; provide economic activities for many jobless young people; and create good political environment which is more accommodating and inclusive than conservative. An effective response to the Maoist threat should encompass larger issues of development, leadership, and good governance. And only expanded economic and social infrastructures and opportunities for all to rise to their full potential will make a new Nepal-a peaceful, developed, beautiful, and a great Nepal.

Written on Sunday, May 15, 2005