By P.R. Pradhan
In April 2006, during an interview with the state-owned Nepal Television, this scribe stated that the alliance between the seven parliamentary parties and the then terrorist-designated Maoists was unnatural and detrimental to democracy, democratic political parties, and the nation.
Today, after two decades, I am convinced that my prediction has proven true. We have witnessed not only a decline of the nation on multiple fronts but also a surprising downfall of those established political parties.
Let us recall the political developments of that time. The 13th SAARC Summit was held in Dhaka in November 2005, where King Gyanendra led the Nepali delegation. During the summit, Nepal opposed the proposal to grant SAARC membership to Afghanistan, arguing that such a decision would violate the SAARC Charter due to the presence of NATO forces in Afghanistan. The Indo-American interest, however, was to secure Afghanistan’s membership.
Nepal’s position against Afghanistan reportedly displeased both the United States and India. Furthermore, Nepal suggested for China’s membership. Eventually, a compromise was reached: Afghanistan was admitted as a member, while China was granted observer status.
Immediately after the Dhaka summit, India’s South Block and Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) invited leaders of Nepal’s parliamentary parties to New Delhi. Senior Maoist leaders—Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Baburam Bhattarai—were also in India under RAW’s protection. Nepali leaders subsequently signed a 12-point agreement to jointly launch a movement against the direct rule of King Gyanendra.
The agreement, reportedly drafted in Hindi under Indian facilitation, aimed to challenge the king’s executive authority. At the time, broader geopolitical dynamics—including efforts by India and the United States to limit China’s regional influence—also shaped developments. Nepal’s attempt to bring China closer to SAARC added further complexity. As a result, India intensified its engagement in Nepal’s political process.
The Maoist insurgency, which had already claimed over 17,000 lives, became a central force in this alliance. The agreement between mainstream parties and the Maoists marked a significant turning point in Nepal’s political history.
Inking such an agreement in Delhi, under external coordination, between parliamentary parties and an armed insurgent group was widely viewed by critics as an unprincipled alliance against national interests, democracy, and the people.
Indian involvement in Nepal’s politics had already become more pronounced since the 1990 people’s movement. During this period, key leaders such as Girija Prasad Koirala, Madhav Kumar Nepal, Prachanda, and Bhattarai emerged as dominant figures. Meanwhile, governance was increasingly criticized for corruption and patronage.
Following the 1990 movement, the monarchy was reduced to a constitutional role, while political leaders became deeply entangled in power struggles and corruption. Commission-based practices flourished, and a small group of influential intermediaries emerged, effectively shaping national policies. These actors often operated behind the scenes, while elected leaders appeared to serve their interests.
In the absence of a strong monarchy and effective institutional checks, political parties alternated in power through a syndicate-like system, often losing sight of their responsibility to serve the people and the nation.
At present, traditional political parties appear to have been held accountable by public dissatisfaction. However, many suspect that the current government remains heavily influenced by external forces, particularly from the United States. History suggests that any political system overly dependent on foreign powers risks failing its citizens and may ultimately face a serious crisis of national existence.
More importantly, if a new political force emerges and creates suspicion among immediate and powerful neighbors, it could be harmful to the nation. The old political forces have already been rejected by voters, while the new political force remains untested. If this new force acts against national interests or adopts a confrontational stance toward neighboring countries, the country is likely to face a serious crisis.
Login to add a comment