Nepal is definitely at the crossroads. It is still not certain whether Nepal will see the establishment of a durable peace or a protracted conflict. The chances of going either way is almost fifty-fifty. And with this uncertainty we welcome the international New Year.

Timothy Garton Ash wrote on his weekly column on the Guardian on the first day of 2009: “Happy new year? You must be joking. 2009 will begin with a wail, and then get worse.”

Although he was referring to the western world and its economic woes that is predicted to put millions out of work this year, his observation holds true for many other parts of the world too, not least Nepal. Traditionally our government does not take employment as one of its key constituencies because the responsibility has been unofficially “outsourced” to the manpower companies, and more recently to the Young Communist League (YCL) and Youth Force (YF).

More such home-employment schemes could crop up in the future as we hear many more groups forming their own militant forces, Tharus for instance. Perhaps because of this, our highly qualified finance minister claims (as he did recently with AFP journalist Sam Taylor) that the world-wide economic recession will not have much impact on Nepal’s economy.

Kathmandu has now been christened as Darkmandu as it lives more than half of the 24-hour day without power. Looking at it positively, it could be seen as a model for combating climate change! Why don’t the other capitals follow suit?

Perhaps one should not take it as a bad omen. Cynics say the acute power problem has taught a good lesson to PM Prachanda and his team: you destroyed the infrastructure with great enthusiasm, and now you have the opportunity to show that you can build them with equal zeal. The school kids may pass their exams by reading in the dim light of kerosene lamps (unless, of course, the ruling party and others do not declare education strikes during the exams), but how will Nepal’s economy function without power?

Manjushree Thapa wrote a commentary on Kantipur online (30 Dec) reflecting on Nepal’s depressing political situation. She rightly attacked the apparent “idiocy” of all the current players. One of her comments was particularly frightening: “Personally, I find them [Maoists] to be scary people. I try to like them but find I can not. (Reason? Simple: they would kill me to further their aim, which is to capture state power, whereas I would not kill them to further my aim, which is to write freely). Since the start of the peace process they have proven themselves masters of the fine art of screwing around: saying one thing while doing another.”

She is not alone to feel insecure and unsafe in our supposedly new Nepal. There are many groups to fear from, but the biggest source of fear unfortunately comes from none other than the ruling party. They would not accept it though, just like Mugabe did not accept the spread of cholera killing thousands in Zimbabwe. In such a situation, one would be forced to ask a simple question: What has happened to our much-hyped peace process? If it has any teeth at all, why are people subjected to constant fear and terror? Does anybody have any answer?

Perhaps this is time to change the meta-narrative because in practical terms our ‘peace process’ seems to have metamorphosed into a ‘war process’. If I understand correctly, the mere fact that the two armies are not fighting each other on battlegrounds does not mark the non-existence of war. Ask anybody in Nepal, he or she will tell you that there is a potential threat to his life (except the leaders under the protection of the state and private security). A certain level of violence, terror, threat and murder continues, but the criminals almost always go unpunished.

The worse part is that our Rt Honourable Prime Minister continues to make public statements claiming that the power comes from the barrel of the gun. He and his team continues to insist that they have not given up their objectives of capturing the state and that they are waging their war differently on different battlefronts, namely: sadak (streets), sadan (parliament) and sarkar (government). Their activities support these claims.

Is this not a war? Or at least, is this not an invitation to a war? The Prime Minister’s public fetishism of guns has a potential to take Nepal to a more complicated violent conflict. If everybody is to follow his wise words, all the disgruntled parties, organisations and ethnic groups will have to take up arms. Already some groups in Terai have emulated the violent means, and those groups who do not use violence (such as Dalits) continue to be neglected.

Nepal is definitely at the crossroads. It is still not certain whether Nepal will see the establishment of a durable peace or a protracted conflict. The chances of going either way is almost fifty-fifty. And with this uncertainty we welcome the international New Year.

What happens in Nepal in the future largely depends on how the parties will play in the year 2009. This is more than mending fences between NC and Maoists, or integrating the PLA. The parties, diplomatic community and everybody talks about taking the peace process to a successful end. But they vary on what they mean by the successful end. They are playing the same game but they wish to score on different goal posts.

The Maoists have stated they will not give up their endeavour unless they have captured the state and rendered other parties and organisations too weak to confront them. The Nepali Congress wishes to resume a well-functioning Westminster-style multi-party parliamentary democracy. The UML is still oscillating between these two poles and is likely to follow whichever party is in power at the given time.

The UNMIN obviously wants to see the completion of the technical bits (no matter how poorly enforced in practice). The UN desperately needs a morale booster in terms of peace building. It failed almost everywhere (cynics say even in Nepal) and its chief aim is to somehow show the world that Nepal is a success story. Yubaraj Gautam in his article on 1 January on Annapurna Post asked: “Why did UNMIN keep mum when the Maoist cadre carried the guns with UN stickers and create terror in different districts?” The article points out many other alleged inefficiency of UNMIN and claims that it failed to play the role of a neutral referee.

Personally I have no objection to the Maoist’s apparent intent to takeover. But this has the potential for the rise of more complicated and protracted violent conflict. The worse case scenario could see the rise of ethnic violence as well. So, all the influential players should take careful and effective steps in 2009 to avoid Nepal jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

(This article first appeared in Newsfront weekly. The writer can be reached at: ud.pariyar@gmail.com)