 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
| |
| |
|
Bishnu Raj Upreti/Social exclusion and the centralism
as source of conflict in Nepal: Ways forward for
rebuilding trust
Centralism and social exclusion are fundamental
causes of the Maoist-state conflict, and a hurdle
to the building of trust, without which the conflict
cannot be settled. Several writers and thinkers
have interpreted the conflict as one of Maoist
violence, preferring not to see that the violence
is only an outer manifestation of many latent
conflicts. Since the status quo is under challenge,
conflict may be an opportunity for change and
accommodation, and if the Maoist case had been
addressed politically earlier, the situation would
not have become critical. Now that trust between
society and the state has been lost, Bishnu Upreti
recommended that conflict resolution be undertaken,
involving civil society in a significant way.
Social exclusion is a useful prism through which
to view the Maoist-state conflict. Fuelled by
a perception of injustice, the conflict has raged
through the country for several years. This injustice
that has caused such destruction to Nepal is built
into the centralist state’s structure. Even
under democracy, there has been no dramatic impetus
for inclusivity, and access to resources has remained
restricted by gender, caste, class, ethnicity
and religion.
Since the conflict has its roots in such grave
injustices, negotiations between the government
and the Maoists will not settle it, and the current
agenda for talks is merely procedural. It is important
to introduce elements of conflict transformation
into the process to ensure that the structure
is no longer inequitable. Upreti said conflict
resolution requires three complementary strategies:
transactional (negotiations), structural (reform
and capacity building) and transformational (confidence
building).
Upreti stressed on the building of civil society,
saying that since the conflict arose from issues
of exclusion, it was of absolute importance that
civil society actors be included in the resolution
of the conflict.
He also stressed the importance of confidence-building
measures, as a means of repairing the social fabric
of the country, especially in the conflict-affected
areas. It is important for politicians to deliver
on promises they make at the negotiating table.
Drawing on Robert Putnam’s definition of
the role of social capital, Upreti made a connection
from the formation of social capital, to the building
of trust and finally, the resolution of conflict.
At the community level, Upreti suggested transactional
mediation achieved through building local-level
civil society and commandeering media support.
He also suggested that reconciliation at the individual
level for those who have been direct victims of
the conflict process, whether internally displaced
persons or unemployed youth, must be facilitated.
He recommended the formation of community support
groups to address the needs of the thousands of
people who have been affected economically and
psychologically by the conflict, who he said were
falling through the cracks of the system even
though hostilities had ceased.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
