| Before we went to Nepal, we were advised “to be careful because of the
increasing anti-government movements in Nepal.” Certainly enough, when
we arrived there last April, strong demonstrations, which are called “bandha”
in Nepalese, were going on demanding the prime minister’s resign in connection
with the aircraft scandal and our hotel was changed from the center to
the outskirts of the city. But the left-wing political parties were keeping
a joint front then and did not plan as a whole to realize the demand by
violence. Nepal was still in more or less stable conditions. The shocking incident of assassination of the king broke out in June. Some media described it unbelievable to happen in a comparatively stable state of Nepal. That kind of killings could only take place in a play of Shakespeare. The true facts of the incident are yet to be known, but with this as a turning point the prime minister Koirala resigned. The new prime minister Deuba negotiated with the extreme left-wing Maoist group for four months with the hope to solve the problem by talks. The government, however, could not accept the Maoists’ demand to abolish the King’s rule and revise the Constitution to introduce a republican system of government, and the negotiation came to the end. The Maoists declared a fight by arms and the government in turn proclaimed a state of emergency on November 26. Nepal has been in conditions of a civil war for months, each day with news of some victims on both sides. It is worried that Nepal might become “the second Afghanistan.” People start a war to achieve their demands by violence, but violence does not solve anything; it only spreads distrust among people. Truly good results can basically be obtained only by mutual understanding, agreement, and cooperation among people. I used the words “pondering on peace” in the title of this article. “Pondering” here is meant to include action. I am currently engaged in advising management of agricultural cooperative unions in Nepal utilizing my expertise. What we are doing now in Nepal may not be a big project. But small and time-consuming as it may be, only mutual consent can solve our problems. When things look hopeless, we try to understand each other, admit the difference between us, and find the solution on that ground. I believe that now is the time when we all must abide by the UNESCO spirits. |