In this context, Republica’s Kiran Chapagain and Kosh Raj Koirala talked to Dr Ram Sharan Mahat, central member of Nepali Congress and one of the key interlocutors in the ongoing talks, to learn more about the meeting, prospect of parties forging a consensus and other issues related to present political scenario. [break]
EXCERPTS
How was the three-party meeting different this time than in the past?
There was more seriousness in this meeting. We devoted two days of time exclusively for the meeting at a secret location, which means we took the meeting very seriously. We tried to find out our differences and hammer out solutions.
Some leaders have said that the meeting has brought about positive development to end the current deadlock while some have termed it nothing but one more round of meeting. How do you evaluate the meeting?
I agree that the meeting was not able to produce concrete results. This is the fact. But at the same time, you cannot find a solution without understanding each other better.
What impeded the parties to arrive at a consensus?
Basically both sides – Maoists and NC-UML – insisted on their respective positions. The meeting was productive in the sense that both sides had times to listen to each other’s concerns. So from that point of view, it was very productive and meaningful. We understood each other better but we could not agree on the solution.
What were the major differences between the Maoists and the NC-UML?
Our –NC-UML- position was that we trusted the Maoists enough in the past. Now, we are disappointed because they haven’t implemented any of the past agreements and commitments. So, we were adamant in the sense that until and unless they meet the past commitments and detach themselves from their troops and arms, it would be difficult for us to share power with them. Our priority was to complete the peace process. This is very important for us because the issues have been outstanding for years now. Since we wasted enough time in the past, this time we insisted that this issue must be first settled before we talked about power sharing arrangements. On the other hand, the Maoists insisted on leading the new government. That is where our differences were. Our priorities differed.
What did the Maoists say when NC and UML blamed them for not implementing past agreements while reviewing the all past agreements on the first day of the meeting?
They had their own explanations and interpretations, which were not necessarily acceptable to us.
NC and UML have the same position that there will be no Maoist-led government unless there is concrete action, not just commitment, to resolve the pending issues of the peace process.
The talks headed for a positive direction on the first day. But everything changed on the second day. Why?
On the first day, we reviewed the overall situation. Everyone gave their own version of the situation. The idea was to let everybody express their thoughts on the current situation. Maoist Chairman even proposed new things- three prime ministers, presidium, prime minister in rotational basis – so that the three parties could share power and ensure cabinet representation on proportional basis.
But for us, these were peripheral issues. Power sharing is secondary issue; peace process is our priority. When he was floating his new ideas for power sharing we thought, he would be forthcoming on the peace process as well. But when we tried to discuss the peace process specifically in our next meeting the following day, it all changed.
What was the Maoist stance on peace process?
Their point was that they must lead the government to implement the peace process. To implement the past agreements, it is necessary that they be given authority, which would only be possible if they form a government under their leadership. Their position was that the peace process demands consensus government and such a government should be led by them by virtue of becoming the largest party. So their position was that they must be given opportunity to lead a coalition government, a consensus government immediately.
It seems that there will be no consensus even on Wednesday?
I cannot talk of the future. I just told you what happened in the meeting and our differences.
You said that NC and UML largely share same concerns with the Maoists on peace process and constitution drafting. Can you be specific on the differences between NC and UML?
Of course, we are different parties. We have differences over many issues. Even on constitutional issues we have our differences. But on the issue of Maoists leading the next government, we have the same position that there will be no Maoist-led government unless there is concrete action, not just commitment, to resolve the pending or unfulfilled issues of the peace process on the part of the Maoists.
What is the stance of the Maoists? Did they say that they want to take the peace process and government formation simultaneously?
Whether we agree or not, they will go simultaneously. We are making progress in constitution drafting but practically nothing on the peace process. The irony is that we should have completed the peace process a long ago; much earlier than the constitution drafting. But the reverse is happening.
How optimistic are you about arriving at a consensus on Wednesday’s meeting?
I really cannot say about it. It depends on the Maoists. It depends on the flexibility they show to our concerns. It depends on how they respond to the concerns of other parties and general public, how quickly they want to give up arms and violence. Present political stalemate stems from the fact that they still haven’t given up violence.
It is difficult to arrive at a consensus by sticking to the same stance. Is there any possibility of NC changing its stances on Wednesday’s meeting?
We can not give up our stances. If we give up on our positions then we are betraying the peace process.
Did the meeting also dwell on the budget? Was there any agreement on budget?
No. The Maoists are insisting that only a full-fledged government can do this and if not, the constitution should be amended to pave the way for new budget by the caretaker government. I do not understand the logic behind the Maoist stance. NC does not believe that constitution amendment is necessary to bring the budget. The budget should be such that it does not contain any new policies and programs. And the main objective of the budget would be to ensure the continuation of regular budget and continuation of normal development activities.
In a different note, India has recently written to Nepal government, alleging that Nepali Maoists have been providing trainings to the Indian Maoists. As a member of Special Committee for Supervision, Integration and Rehabilitation of Maoist Combatants, what do you have to say about this?
I have heard of this. If this is verified then this is a serious matter and the government must be serious about it. This also speaks of the quality of UNMIN’s monitoring, if the Indian allegation is proven. We have been saying all along that UNMIN’s monitoring has not been very effective.
Related story
Pakistan remains Beijing's top arms importer; 61% made-in-China...
