It is a pretty scary question dangling on people’s tongues whether violence has come back in Nepali politics. In the wake of Biplav’s declaration of physical assaults on the leaders of the country to redress public grievances and stern response from the government to suppress it, people got swayed by the return of violence that was seen, over ten years, not sparing the innocent people. The peace process following the halt of the Maoist war is yet to be completed.

The excesses and atrocities committed during the 10-year fight are yet to be resolved. The lost and strayed victims are yet to be traced out. The innocent victims are yet to be determined and compensated. It is at such critical time that violence is staring at the hills and dales of Nepal.

Of course, Biplav was then a part of the Maoist force. But he parted company from the mainstream Maoists and is challenging his own erstwhile colleagues in the government. Those who get sandwiched between two rivals are invariably the innocent people.

I would like to recall what I said on 26 Oct 2002, some 17 years ago, that “even if the Maoists renounce violence permanently with the successful outcome of any potential talks, there is no guarantee that violence will end forever in Nepal. The splinter group in the Maoist cadre is an indication towards this direction.”  Of course, Biplav was then a part of the Maoist force. But he parted company from the mainstream Maoists and is challenging his own erstwhile colleagues in the government. Those who get sandwiched between two rivals are invariably the innocent people.

Unfortunately, our political history is fraught with violence and bloodshed. Take the big changes enforced by Prithvi Narayan Shah, Jung Bahadur Rana and Bhimsen Thapa in the Nepalese chronicles. They tell stories full of struggles and bloodshed. Even the biggest change in 1950 was not bloodless. It is something different that the revolution ended in compromise and contract.

If we look back at the role of the gun, it has made a lot of impacts. By sheer coincidence, the Maoists looked like the great followers of the Nepali Congress. The armed rebellion, the Maoists launched in 1996, and more intensively since 2001, had a great resemblance with the one that the Nepali Congress had started in 1962.

Both were dissidents and harbored serious political disgruntlement. It is almost 60 years that King Mahendra scrapped the parliamentary constitution and dissolved the parliament. He not only dismissed democratically elected B.P.Koirala government but also threw all the members of his cabinet behind bars. It indeed invited armed but unsuccessful retaliation from the exiled Congressmen.

Violence has eventually gained credence in our political culture, if not in our constitution. The constitutional framework, at present or in the past, did not make room for a violent activity but violence made its presence felt in the country. The government has formed a committee to hold dialogues with such groups, which mushroomed especially in the lower plain of Nepal. Fortunately, most of them renounced the guns and joined the peaceful stream.

The party as such did not abandon violence as a means of achieving a political end. It resorted to it against the Ranas and against King Mahendra. Who is not? The communists are ideologically believers in violence and many of our leaders were involved in Jhapa incidents of violence.  Even many of the RPP leaders, who were dominant during the Panchayat period, had got their hands smeared with blood in the course of suppressing the so-called enemies of the erstwhile establishment.

The Maoists preached and practiced violence without any qualm of conscience. They are at the helm of affairs today. In the present context, it is the communists fighting against the communists. By sheer coincidence, both the communist parties, one at Singh Durbar and the other in the western hills, are known by the same name. Even Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli made a caustic remark on it and expressed disdain at his opponents.

Violence has eventually gained credence in our political culture, if not in our constitution. The constitutional framework, at present or in the past, did not make room for a violent activity but violence made its presence felt in the country. The government has formed a committee to hold dialogues with such groups, which mushroomed especially in the lower plain of Nepal. Fortunately, most of them renounced the guns and joined the peaceful stream.

In the midst of the Maoist war, the government agreed to hold peace talks with the rebels, who had no other mandate of the people except the power gained through the barrel of the gun. All the political parties approved the talks thereby taking cognizance of a violent force beyond the periphery of the national constitution. The same call has been repeated now. Many political parties and leaders have asked the Oli government to hold talks with the Biplav group instead of clamping down a ban on his group and dragging them to mainstream politics.

Those who are in power are found to be treating violence with greater violence. Since the inception of the Maoist menace in Nepal, all the prime ministers followed the same retaliatory policies against them. K.P. Bhattarai stated many times during his tenure of office that the army and the police would take care of the Maoists and solve the problem. They never did. Girija Prasad Koirala tried to deal with it like a law-and-order problem and mobilized the police forces. He failed. Surya Bahadur Thapa and Lokendra Bahadur Chand were not different in their handling of the problem when they became prime ministers. Sher Bahadur Deuba went too far ahead by declaring them as terrorists and clamped down a state of emergency. Now it is the turn of Prime Minister Oli to appear tough and aggressive against the Biplav force.

What need to be emphasized is that until the real issues of the people are addressed, violence will remain an unavoidable feature of Nepalese political life. Poverty and desperation in the Nepalese society are its perennial source. Nepal’s geography is a favorable factor for it. It is just a question of new disgruntled organizers how far they could go in making it an effective instrument.

In the wake of the current violence, we crave for peace talks leading to permanent peace. Peace talks by itself are no solution. It is again only a means to a solution. That might bring about a political solution but does not eradicate violence. To do away with violence we must get to the roots of our problems. They are development, justice, and equity. The government should logically concentrate on achieving them.