The government has not been able to maintain law and order. Few months ago, the government decided to expand service centers in some places of Tarai. But it had to withdraw this decision following protests. If the government could not tackle such a minor crisis, it was in no position to handle the conflagration over province demarcation. Some protests were inevitable. But Kailali killings cannot be considered a political event; it was a criminal act. Kailali incident was the result of our security agencies' failure to make an objective analysis of ground realities. Nepal Police and Armed Police Force were deployed in Kailali. Despite this the government had to deploy Nepal Army. The protests in the Tarai were the outcome of recent province demarcation. But some elements that would not like a timely constitution, especially underground outfits in Tarai, infiltrated these protests. Now the security situation is getting more and more complex. It is likely to further deteriorate.
Why do you think things will get worse?
There are a number of factors. One, a number of political parties and people are not satisfied with the new demarcations. This dissatisfaction has spilled over to our streets. After the Surkhet incident where one protestor was shot dead, the government directed security bodies not to use force on protestors. And they didn't in Kalailai. But then the protestors turned violent, which led to a tragedy. There was possibility of further violence and counter-violence in Kailali. Timely deployment of Nepal Army prevented this.
Two, the government could not objectively assess the security situation in the Tarai plains. Three, the Madhesh-based parties which recently walked out of CA have also joined street protests. They also want to obstruct this process. The four parties to the 16-point agreement could not take them into confidence. Four, there are about a hundred underground armed groups in Tarai. They have become active again. They are looking to profit from the fluid political situation. These factors have added to our security challenges.
Many believe India has played an active part in destabilizing Madhesh. What do you think?
India shares a 1,800-kilometer open border with Nepal. Naturally it has deep security concerns and interest vis-à-vis Nepal. So India is not indifferent to security situation in border areas. Recent events suggest the same. Immediately after the Kailali incident, the Indian prime minister phoned his Nepali counterpart and assured every possible support needed to maintain law and order in Tarai. Right after that, the Home Minister addressed the parliament and indicated at infiltration from the 'south'. After that, the Indian ambassador sought clarification from Home Minister. This sequence of events hints that India has security concerns in Nepal.
India is not indifferent to Nepal's constitution and political process either. So, yes, it is involved but not to the extent that is portrayed in the media. All that we can say is that India is alert of events unfolding in Tarai and its possible repercussions in India's internal security.
The government has decided to deploy Nepal Army in some places. Was it a right decision?
The protests escalated after four parties backtracked from the six-province model and instead floated another seven-province model. The government must have been aware that there could be sporadic violence on the eve of constitution. But it had not anticipated the kind of violence seen in Kailali. The government may have deployed Nepal Army fearing that the security situation could go get out of its control. But it should not have made such an important decision in haste. If there was better coordination between Nepal Police and Armed Police Force, and proper analysis of overall security situation, the two police forces could have taken the situation under control. Yes, Army helped check violence. But I still believe the situation had not gone beyond the control of the police. Nepal Army had to be deployed due to lack of coordination between Nepal Police and APF.
The army should not have been deployed at this moment also because we are at the threshold of promulgating a constitution after eight years of rigorous exercise. A constitution promulgated by imposing curfew, declaring riot-prone zones, and deploying army sends a negative message to the people, especially when many parties are now out of the CA. Even if they had to deploy, there should have been proper discussion among the parties. The army is meant for defense, not internal security. There are two processes to get the army on the ground. First the National Security Council should recommend army mobilization, the council of ministers should take a decision to this effect and the President should endorse it. Another process is through Local Administration Act (2028 BS) which allows Chief District Officer of the respective district to take Nepal Army's assistance if there is risk of communal violence and loss of lives and property. The Army has been 'deployed' based on the second route. It was a wrong decision.
What are the possible risks of deploying the army?
Suppose the unrest spreads to all the Tarai districts and the army has to be deployed to take the situation under control, as in Kailali. If the army is deployed everywhere, it will seriously undermine the morale of Nepal Police. You cannot call army deployment illegal because it has been done by stepping on the Local Administration Act. But the government seems to have taken this decision in haste and out of fear. Riot control is police responsibility. In case Nepal Police fails to do so, there is Armed Police. Army should be the last resort. If we start deploying army even for riot control, it could drag Nepal Army into needless controversy.
Suppose the protestors target the army. How does it respond?
In that case, the army will have no option but to open fire. So far, the protestors have not targeted army personnel. But it cannot be ruled out. The protestors seem to have adopted the strategy of provoking security personnel by attacking police posts and injuring police personnel. Police will then be forced to open fire, some protestors will get killed and the violence will escalate. Infiltration of various elements may have made the situation worse. If this trend continues, army will have to be deployed in all riot zones. And if the protestors start provoking Army, we can't imagine what will happen.
To protect its interests India has in the past intervened militarily in the region, for instance in Sri Lanka in 1987. Is that a possibility in Nepal?
Nepal and India have had most cordial relations, but at the same time the two countries have serious border disputes as well. Nepal also has had a bitter experience of economic blockade by India. But there is no precedent of India's military intervention in Nepal. I don't think it will happen. India respects Nepal's sovereignty and territorial integrity. But there seems to be some kind of support for divisive and criminal elements in Nepal among some parties and groups in India. If the political events in Nepal threaten India's internal security, there will be both pressure and intervention. The government and our security bodies should give a serious thought about this prospect.
There is a fear that federalism could disintegrate the country, with all its attendant security challenges.
Nepal is among the oldest continuously independent countries in Asia. But since 2007, Nepal has had to cope with the agendas of inclusion, federalism, secularism and proportional representation, the factors that could drastically change the country's identity. There are questions as to whether Nepal can retain its sovereignty while addressing these political issues. These are genuine concerns. But I don't believe the country will disintegrate just because there is no unitary system or monarchy to hold it together. Federalism does not break the country. Nor can unitary system hold it together. But our integrated future will depend on the federal model and system of governance we adopt. If we fail to come up with a model that honors the aspirations of the majority of Nepalis, it might lead to disintegration, sooner or later.
Therefore, national unity, territorial integrity and people's sovereignty should be kept at the center while addressing people's aspirations. This will ensure longevity of the constitution, as well as political stability. The recently floated six- or seven-province models have tried to take this into account. These models are unlikely to lead to disintegration. Tarai, hills and mountains are integral to every part of Nepal. If we restructure the state with this reality in mind, it will help strengthen national unity, territorial integrity, people's sovereignty and national security. But the various movements for identity are also genuine. These need to be factored in as well.
Related story
Making a great first impression at an interview
