But what has changed? Has the deal changed the fate of millions of Nepalis who live in poverty? Is the deal ushering us to new ideas, inventions, theories and a different ´way of life´? What substantive differences will the deal have in our daily lives? Will the nature of our politics change? Will the young generation of our country abandon looking for opportunities abroad? Can each parent provide their kids two meals a day?
Questions are unlimited as Nepali emotions rise on every occasion and fall instantly. It falls because leaders often fail to address it. Society understands that no deal can bring in overnight changes; but time demands that we as a nation at least determine what has changed through the Seven-Point Deal or rather what needs to be changed. There will definitely be some short-term changes. Difficult issues that Nepali society was compelled to live with for the last 10 years is likely to get managed, which is a positive achievement.
Nevertheless; there are also other long-term implications of the present deal. Thousands of people who once dreamt of a socialist society have met with the realities of present day world. Initiators of violent movement have turned to peace messiahs overnight. Those who denounced Buddha in every possible way have put their political career at stake in helping Buddha get recognized all over the world. Theories that were once extremely revolutionary have been smashed. Rationality has taken over radicalism.
Relevance of the armed movement has been put at stake. ´Rights´ and ´Justice´ for the underprivileged, which should have emerged as an end of politics, unfortunately looks like merely a by-product of the revolution.
However, in spite of all these short- and long-term implications, the deal fails to lift the spirit of a nation. Practically, it is not necessary that every political deal has to lift a nation´s spirit. But as Nepal needs a break from continuity in order to be free from the shackles of poverty, unemployment and depression; politics is expected to bring in a qualitative difference in the nation´s life. The Seven-Point Deal is like one among those deals which has taken place in every decade or two in the political history of Nepal.
Can the political parties of our nation declare that with the signing of the Seven-Point Deal, they have vowed to end politics that thrives on manipulation, coercion, nepotism, and corruption? Do they have guts to declare that violence will not be a means to achieve their stated political objectives?
Beginning from ´Sugauli treaty´ to ´Delhi accord´ and ´1990 compromise´ and recently signed 12-Point Deal, peace agreement, and several other points and treaties, our nation has signed a bevy of deals. And every ´deal´ comes along with its own price tags. In Sugauli and Delhi accord, we lost our freedom, morals and values. Our democratic ideals that were managed by the 1990 compromise were soon smashed by then ´constitutionalists´. The 12-Point and peace agreements were used more as a tool to establish one´s own authority. And the latest deal looks more like a ´face-saving´ exercise to make up for the loss of the previous, precious five years.
Negotiations and agreements are at times positive and at times negative. It is positive in one sense: At least it gives some space for the conflicting parties to rectify their errors. After having remained unpopular for the past five years and the failure to reasonably argue the legitimacy of the constituent assembly, it was necessary on the part of political parties to re-commit what was committed five years ago. It is a welcome sign and the parties involved need to be applauded for their recommitment. However, as there is a specific tendency of Nepali society not to learn from the failure of its history, it is most likely that the jubilant society is likely to ignore and shy away from introspecting varied important political aspects on the pretext of the Seven-Point Deal.
Therefore, like Sartre, it becomes important to ask to our political parties: Where has the change taken place? Can the political parties of our nation declare that with the signing of the Seven-Point Deal, they have vowed to end politics that thrives on manipulation, coercion, nepotism, and corruption? Do they have guts to declare that violence will not be a means to achieve their stated political objectives? Can they commit that our nation, which has been compelled to witness and experience ´movement´ after movement and conflicts after conflicts in each decade or two, will be freed from the vicious cycles of movements and conflicts? Will we collectively chart our course toward alleviating poverty and all-round development?
The deal merely speaks of managing the immediate issues. It does not speak of setting politics in the positive track. It neither furnishes reasonable solution toward long-term national goals nor does it talk about freeing Nepali citizens from the coercion of politics and destitution. Therefore, unlike what Sartre indicated, it becomes pertinent to choose what has changed and what needs to be changed. Is it the society that has changed? Is it us who have changed? The time has come for us to choose. And if we declare that perhaps it´s nothing substantiate that has changed; the time for society to demand what needs to be changed is now.
The deal can help begin a journey of egalitarian politics. On the other hand, it is merely an end of one phase of politics just to begin other irrational courses. Therefore, it can either be a new beginning or a new end to begin the same old politics. I, therefore, leave it to Nepali society to choose what it really is. At times, no conclusion can perhaps give birth to a new conclusion.
The writer is the author of "Unfinished Journey: The Story of a Nation"
sharmasumit77@gmail.com
Related story
It’s the beginning of the end of the Bilderberg Era
