Pages

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Why China’s entry benefits SAARC?



Yuba Nath Lamsal
There has always been a great sense of curiosity about China in the world. This is even more in the present context as China is emerging as a global power. While the rest of the world is much enthusiastic and optimistic about China’s growth and rise, the Western world in particular seems to be much wary and skeptical by China’s growing presence and assertiveness in the international arena. The wariness of the West especially the United States, which has dominated the global power, is understandable as China’s growth is sure to challenge and also likely to ultimately end the global hegemony of the United States and create a multi-polar world, which is necessary and good for a better international balance of power and safety and security of humanity. Some of its symptoms have already been visible in various international forums.
For any country to be a global power and sustain its prowess, it first needs to take its neighbors into confidence. No country can retain its power and prosperity when its neighbors are hostile to it and vulnerable in terms of security of various sorts. Only the country that builds rapport with its neighbors and common approach on security and development in the periphery can maintain its power and prosperity both at home and abroad. Thus, neighborhood and periphery policy is highly important for any country that aspires to be a global power. The neighborhood policy and its relationship with the neighbors determine any country’s role in the international arena. If a country fails to take its neighbors along and take them into confidence, it can never attain the position of an international power. As China is currently emerging as a global power to challenge the US hegemony and domination, Beijing is expected to take this point into serious note and act accordingly so that it first leads in the neighborhood, which alone can establish its leadership in the world.
Given the tone and tenor of authorities in Beijing, it becomes clearer that China has realized it and is trying to do whatever possible to take all its neighbors along for a collective security and development of Asia. Some serious initiatives are already afoot to create a cozy and common East Asian Community, for which China has taken a lead role in recent years. Although there are some historical legacy and baggage among the countries of East Asia that often create some irritants among the neighbors, the culture and social values that East Asian countries share are likely to bind them together. This social and cultural bond is brining the people of different countries in East Asia together that would contribute to building a common perspective and strategies for regional security as well as development. The Chinese Dream, the proposition set forth by President Xi Jinping soon after he assumed the leadership of China, is vision to create common Asian community in the region and peaceful world in the larger global perspective.
At a time when China has taken initiative for a common regional approach in the East Asia, South Asia with which China shares a long border and has historic bond is watching closely and curiously as to what China’s rise would mean to this region. South Asian countries namely Nepal, India, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan have already created a regional group called South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) for a common South Asian community. Despite its lofty goals of fostering regional cooperation for greater prosperity of the South Asian people and creating a common South Asian society, it has remained a pipedream, so, far, due mainly to the absence of adequate resources and fund as almost all countries in the region are resource strapped.
Given the poor performance of the SAARC, academics and scholars have for a long time suggested for the expansion of the SAARC to accommodate some other resourceful countries so that this regional body becomes more viable in realizing its goals for which it was created way back in 1985. This was the very purpose that the SAARC has included some countries with observer status. The observers include China, the United States, Australia, Japan, European Union, Iran, Mauritius, South Korea and Myanmar. But there are debates going on among the intelligentsia in South Asia whether it was a justice to grant China an observer status which has been given to other far away countries and powers like South Korea, Japan, Australia and the United States. Their argument is for inclusion of China in the South Asian regional grouping as a full-fledged member instead of the status of mere observer.
China, too, seems to be interested to join this regional bloc as an equal partner so that it could contribute to peace and prosperity of South Asia. While the rest of the members are positive for China’s entry into the SAARC as a full member, only India appears to be hesitant to accept this proposition. It is heartening to note here that Nepal is one of the first countries to put forth this idea for bringing China into the SAARC.
Although public opinion seems to be divided on whether or not China should be given full membership of the SAARC, the organization's performance over the last 28 years necessitates that it needs to be expanded to make it resourceful and function in a way other regional groups like ASEAN and European Union have fared. But some voices have definitely come against China's entry into the SAARC that are mainly from Indian side. But there is a strong and overwhelming opinion in other member countries in favor of bringing China into the SAARC as a full member. This has been backed by reasons and logics. In the first place, China is very much a South Asian country because it shares land border with five of the eight SAARC members whereas the largest member of the body—India—has common border with only four countries. A large portion of China’s landmass is in South Asia. As India has adopted the ‘ Look East’ policy in order to get integrated with the booming East Asian economies,  China is effortful to have stronger economic relations in South Asia. China has perfectly good relationship with all South Asian countries, although China-India relations at certain points of history had witnessed some hitches and hiccups. China is the largest trading partner of most of the countries of South Asia. Even with India, China’s annual trade volume is equivalent to over 60 billion US dollars and it is likely to cross 100 billion dollars in near future. China’s trade with all SAARC countries is growing every year. Given the physical location, history and culture as well as its close proximity and increasing trade with South Asia, China is definitely not an outside power but a strong  link between South Asia and East Asia. 
China is currently working hard to revive its old silk road with wider highways to boost trade with South Asia. Once the Silk Road becomes fully operational, it would serve a great leap in the economic and trade relations and integration between China and South Asia and also between South Asia and East Asia. Similarly, China has already connected Lhasa, Tibet’s capital, with the rest of the country by a modern railway and it is expanding further south and South West to connect with Nepal and Bhutan. With these developments and greater connectivity with China, South Asian countries can benefit a lot economically. Nepal has already expressed its desire to develop itself as a vibrant bridge between China and South Asia in general and between China and South Asia in particular and it would become more practical and beneficial for the entire South Asia once China joins as a full member of the SAARC.
It, thus, bodes well if all countries of the SAARC take initiative to request and welcome the second largest economic power to this regional body. Once China joins the SAARC as a full member, the clout, profile and posture of the SAARC would be automatically upgraded and the outlook of the world towards South Asia would be totally different. So far, South Asia is being looked upon as the region of the largest number of poorest people in the world and SAARC as a club of the poor countries. China is already a global power and its entry would make SAARC a viable and strong regional body with greater strategic significance and more bargaining power in the international forums. So far SAARC has not been able to move ahead as per its goal in the absence of necessary fund and resources, China’s entry also would make this regional body more resourceful capable of launching its activities with its own resources. This is the reason why China’s entry into SAARC is necessary more for the interest of South Asia than for China itself.

Saturday, January 18, 2014

China’s periphery diplomacy and Nepal



 Yuba Nath Lamsal
The phenomenal rise of China as a global power has been a subject of intense debate and discussion among scholars and alike in the world, which has stirred both positive as well as negative reactions. Some have taken China’s rise as a threat while others appreciate China’s global presence and role. Beijing’s assertiveness in the international arena is being tipped as a positive trend towards challenging the unipolar state of the world politics.
The United States and its allies appear to be a bit skeptic and paranoid by China’s rise because Beijing’s growing clouts has already challenged the global hegemony of the Western powers. The Anglo-American power bloc that has been dominant in global power politics for the last two centuries is now busy in adopting a common and collective approach to counter and weaken China economically, strategically and militarily. But the rest of the world is euphoric and enthusiastic by China’s growth, which is being viewed as a good development for global balance of power.
China has always been a power to reckon with, albeit a brief period prior to the 1949 revolution. The world knew China by the name of sleeping dragon or the Middle Kingdom. There is an old saying ‘if the sleeping dragon (China) wakes up or wags its tail, the world trembles’.  This tells China’s role and impression in the world. The sleeping tiger is an inference that China is a peaceful power and it reacts with fierce force only when it was provoked. This inference is still valid for China as Beijing is always in pursuit of peace and cooperation worldwide and its growth and rise are for purely peaceful purpose.
Being a world power, every development and event that takes place within China creates ripples worldwide. But never has there been any kind of apprehension of China’s rise and its growing prowess in the neighborhood. Instead, neighbors have always taken China’s growth with ease as an opportunity rather than threat, except in the condition when some regimes in Asia are propped up and instigated to whip up anti-China activities. China is, therefore, in the global focal point of strategic analysis everywhere in the world including in the neighborhood especially after new leadership headed by Xi Jinping assumed power.
China has undergone three important shifts and developments after the founding the People’s Republic of China in 1949. These three important shifts and developments include: 1.  the founding of the PRC itself through a revolution under the banner of the Communist Party of China led by Mao Zedong in 1949, 2.reforms and opening up initiated in 1978 by Deng Xiaoping and 3. Xi Jinping coming to power with the resolve to pursue reforms with more vigor and rejuvenate China and establish Chinese values worldwide. With this vision, President XI has proposed the idea of Chinese Dream , which aims to rejuvenate Chinese nations at home and create a new world order marked by peace, good neighborliness, cooperation and common approach for human safety and prosperity. The Chinese Dream and the foreign policy approach that new leadership has adopted in Beijing have stirred worldwide debate. And Nepal can also not be an exception.
With China’s phenomenal growth and rise, there has been much curiosity as to what would be its impact and fallout in Nepal. There is both enthusiasm and eagerness what exactly is the Chinese new foreign policy especially in its neighborhood. Since Nepal is a close neighbor which shares over 1400 km border with China, it is natural for Nepalese intelligentsia to be eager to know what impact the new Chinese policy would have on Nepal. It is against this background, Nepal Council of World Affairs, a think tank on foreign and strategic issues, organized a talk programme last week, in which Chinese Ambassador to Nepal Wu Chuntai was invited to dwell at length on the present state of relations between Nepal and China and their future prospects.
In the talk programme, Ambassador Wu spoke highly of Nepal-China relations and said that Beijing is willing to upgrade  relationship with Nepal to the level of strategic partnership. Amidst Nepal’s top-notched scholars and academics, Ambassador Wu said that Nepal and China are already enjoying the best of relations and these bonds would be further nurtured and developed in the days to come for mutual benefit of both the countries and the peoples. Ambassador Wu also touched upon all facets and features of relationship and cooperation between Nepal and China right from the historical perspective, which was well appreciated by the participants. The programme was a part of the lecture series that the Council has been organizing on various subjects and issues mostly on foreign policy, international relations and strategic issues. It was an appropriate forum that was best utilized by Ambassador Wu to brief and share with Nepali academics on China’s foreign policy priorities accorded by the new Chinese leadership.
There is no shade of doubt that Nepal and China have friendliest relations throughout the history without any problem and issues. But there is still no room for complacency and both the countries need to make their extra efforts for further deepening their relations and exploring and expanding more areas of mutual cooperation. This is more particularly for Nepal that has to try to take maximum benefit from the miraculous growth of its closest neighbor. It is indeed a matter of pride for Nepal that its closest neighbor, which has always been cooperative and friendly, has become economic superpower. Nepal needs to work sincerely to ensure that China’s rise is translated into opportunity for our development.
Perhaps this is the areas in which Ambassador has hinted in the talk programme. According to Ambassador Wu, China wants to have strategic partnership with Nepal. But the strategic partnership, as it is often misunderstood by some, is not and should not be any kind of military or security arrangement. And it should not be taken and understood in that way. Nepal is a country that is peaceful and had adopted non-alignment policy. It is always opposed to any kind of military pact and war. Nepal wants relations with all countries and expects cooperation for peace and development at home and also abroad. Thus, the strategic partnership with China is purely and entirely for economic cooperation between these two countries. Perhaps, China, too, understands Nepal’s desire and its vulnerability.
In other words, it is China’s desire to help Nepal’s economic development. There are many areas in which China is desirous and can help for Nepal’s development. Nepal is currently seeking desperately foreign invest in its infrastructure development especially in hydropower which requires huge fund. Nepal has tremendous possibility of hydropower development and it can leap forward in economic development if the hydropower potentials are duly harnessed. However, it has so far not been able to do so in the absence of necessary fund. China may step into this field which may transform Nepal from a poor country to a moderately developed one. Tourism is yet another area in which Nepal and China can cooperate. Both countries have tremendous prospect for tourism growth and development. China has already shown interest in helping Nepal’s tourism.
There were days when Nepal and China faced geographical barrier for promoting bilateral cooperation to the best of their expectation as the Himalayas stood tall between these two countries as a border. Despite barrier, Nepal and China have been making their best efforts for having best of heir relations.  As a result, contacts and bilateral relations had been established between Nepal and China right from  the ancient time. The bilateral relations that exist between these two Asian neighbors are not new phenomenon but existed since time immemorial. In fact, Nepal and China have long history of political, social and cultural bonds and contacts that date back to as early as the time of Nepal’s Lichhivi period and even before.
With the scientific and technological advancements and innovations, these barriers are being slowly overcome to a great extent. The Himalaya is no longer a barrier between these two countries but a great connecting point as well as symbol of good neighborly relationship. With this fact in mind, China and Nepal are now effortful in ensuring that their relations are beneficial to the peoples of both countries in practical terms as well as it contributes to regional peace. China seems to be more serious on this issue as Beijing wants its prosperity also benefits its neighbors. China is aware that its prosperity will be sustainable and meaningful only when there is peace and prosperity within neighborhood as well.

Friday, January 3, 2014

Revolution and democracy



Yuba Nath Lamsal
Revolution is change and so is democracy. Democracy and revolution are inseparable. Democracy always has scope for change, reforms and innovation, which is also called democratization process. If change and innovation are restricted, democracy ceases to exist. Perpetual changes and continuous reforms and innovation make democracy vibrant, well-functioned and progressive. Democracy is the product of revolution and democracy alone keeps the torch of revolution alive. Resistance to change is status quo and attempt to undo the change is regression.
Nowhere in the world, is there perfect democracy. From the ancient Athenian democracy to present form of liberal system, a lot of change has taken place and much reforms and innovation effected in what we call democratic polity. Democratization is the continuing process that never comes to an end. The democratic system always leaves scope for change and innovation as and when it is required to suit the taste of time. It is with this process of change, reforms and innovation, democracy gets reformed and refined.
A true democrat is never opposed to change. Those who are opposed to change are often called conservative, orthodox, rightist and status-quoist. And people aspiring and advocating for change are revolutionary. But the world revolution and revolutionaries is often taken as a bad connotation in the definition of western capitalist or liberal democracy. In the lexicon of Western democracy, revolutionaries are often condemned as communists. But, in essence, communism is not against democracy. According to Marxism, communism is the most advanced social, economic and political system in which classes do not exist and it ensures classless society completely free from exploitation. Going one step further, communism is the global and stateless system in which the world will be a one single community of human being with no discrimination, which communist call as the highest form of democracy. But this is a utopian concept, which may not be possible in the foreseeable future.
The champions of western liberal democracy are often resistant to radical change and they want status quo. They seek change only within a set of political mechanism, which can be called as cosmetic change. In such a situation, people are not allowed to go beyond that political mechanism, which is contradictory of the notion and fundamental principle of democracy. Democracy should allow continuous change—change in policy, change in the political mechanism and even thinking. The world is changing so is human feeling. Democracy must respect the feelings, sentiments and choices of the people and it has to build a valid ground for that. However, in the present mechanism of liberal democracy, one is, often, not allowed to go beyond certain limits and boundaries the system has set. It may be justified to a certain extent as it does not allow going to the extent of degeneration. Any kind of attempt to go back to undo what has been done through revolution or in the process of evolution is counter revolution.  Counter-revolution attempts to deprive the people of their rights and deny change, reforms and innovation. Thus, any kind of counter revolutionary plans and plots must be checked well in time, which is necessary for the protection of people’s rights and overall interest of the society and the country. But forward march and reforms should by no means be restricted, be it either systemic change or simply cosmetic one. When society and system is decayed, it needs systemic or radical change out of which a brand new and innovative mechanism evolves. 
In the long history of human civilization, the world has seen both revolutions and counter revolutions of various forms and manifestations. As regard to the political system and its development in Nepal, there have also been many ups and downs—some are more tumultuous than others. We have seen both revolutions and counter revolutions. We have also experienced systemic as well as superficial changes ever since Nepal came into existence as a nation state, which have their own unique impact on Nepali society. But Kot Parva or Kot massacre deliberately planned by Jung Bahadur Rana, the founder of the 104-year Rana oligarchic rule, was the gravest one that totally turned the political course to a different direction. The Kot Parva put a brake on the political evolution in Nepal for over a century only to crumble in 1951 on the face of a popular revolution inspired by mainly India’s liberation movement. The collapse of Rana’s oligarchic regime ushered in a new democratic era in Nepal, which was a major systemic change in Nepal’s political history.
History tells us that there were several implosions within the system even prior to Kot Parva and also after. As feudal political system in general and monarchical one in particular survives and thrives on intrigues, Nepali monarchy’s fundamental objective was to divide different clans and groups under the conspiracy theory. Such a theory least works only in open and democratic society and system.  During the Rana’s oligarchic dispensation, there had been some plots devised by certain groups within the Rana clans and groups under the system. But those initiatives could hardly bring about any change in the regime and impact on the society because they were not meant for systemic change but just to consolidate power and position by a certain group, family and clan and individuals. The only organized effort to bring about the systemic change in Nepali political spectrum was the anti-Rana revolution behind which was the force of political and democratic consciousness.  It was a cause that brought all people together, no matter whatever political orientation and leaning they might have belonged to and also it garnered international recognition and support.
Yearning for change is human. It is the human nature to see change. Only the desire for change and reforms lead the society towards progress. Nepalese people too are always desirous for change—positive and progressive change. It is this fundamental human instinct that has brought about major changes in the world including Nepal. And this is the same human instinct and mass psychology that heralded 1951 systemic change in Nepal’s politics, thus, making the people masters of their own destiny for the first time in history. But this tempo of change was hardly maintained and visualized by the leaders and rulers of Nepal, as a result of which the country had, at times, to suffer political regression.
Leaders, rulers and others who remain in the helms of public affairs must visualize the hunger for change that remains inherent in the heart and mind of the people and manage it accordingly. The political leader who visualize this and act in advance in accordance with the wish and demand of time, becomes a real statesman. Those who fail to feel the pulse of the people are ultimately dumped into the garbage of history and are subject to condemnation by the next generation, which is exactly the case in point as regard the political development of Nepal. In the case of Nepal’s history, there has, so far, none to be adored as a statesman. BP Koirala, the founder leader of the Nepali Congress, was close to becoming a statesman and by his intellect and international recognition, he deserved that status. However, he, too, failed to acquire that position because of some inherent weaknesses that was mainly seen during the time of national referendum in 1979. BP’s either unwillingness or failure to bring all forces that were opposed to the Panchayat regime or, to that matter the communists, under one umbrella of his leadership in a campaign for multi-party system was primarily responsible for this. His communist phobia largely played the role as the dissidents remained disintegrated whereas Panchayat centralized and concentrated all its strength and efforts, ethical or otherwise, against the multi-party supporters. As a result, Panchayat was declared the winner.
But the Ganesh Man Singh later succeeded where BP had failed. Singh in 1989 realized that it might not be possible to overthrow the tyrannical Panchayat and institutionalize people’s desire for change without the collective efforts of the anti-Panchayat forces and he brought together the Nepali Congress and the leftists in one place to spearhead the joint movement that overthrew the Panchayat. The Jana Andolan II was also the expression of the joint movement that not only restored once snatched rights of the people but also ushered in a republican era by abolishing feudal monarchy. This is a realization on the part of our leaders that people’s desire for change must be respected. However, in the aftermath of the 2006 mega change, parties and leaders have failed to keep this spirit going and political forces, whose unity played crucial role in bringing about the change, appear to be far apart when the time to institutionalize those gains has come. The November 19 verdict of the people is a message of people for unity among the change-maker political forces to institutionalize the changes and achievements of the people’s movements. In this backdrop, parties are expected to once again practically demonstrate larger and more meaningful unity to ensure that the gains of 2006 people’s movement are formally institutionalized by delivering a people' constitution.

Can 2014 a promising year for Nepal?

By Yuba Nath Lamsal
The year 2013 has come to a close and a brand new year—2014 is with us with new optimism for a better, safer and peaceful world. One cannot predict what would transpire in the next 12 months of 2014. But on the basis of the events we saw, observed and faced during the last 12 months, it can be said that the year 2013 was twilight of joy and sorrow and accomplishments and setbacks.  Many key events took place during those 12 months which have sent both positive and negative messages having a long term impact on the humanity as a whole.
 So far as Nepal is concerned, most of the period during 2013 remained rather pessimistic as the whole year witnessed a height of instability, uncertainty and political bickering among our key political players negatively impacting on all sectors including national economy despite the drama staged for a fresh election meant for the formation of the new Constituent Assembly. After a prolonged transition for over six years due mainly to the failure of the Constituent Assembly to deliver the new constitution which had been thought to be the basis for peace and stability, it had been expected that the political forces would broker a new power deal to herald in a new kind of stability and peace in the country. However, the parties failed to act on their own and instead worked at the behest of external forces.
The decision for a new kind of mechanism to hold the fresh election to the second Constituent Assembly is particularly in point. The parties agreed to have a non-party government to hold the election despite
protest from some political parties, which proved to be the source of new conflict in the country. Although the election was held in which the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML emerged winner rendering the
earlier largest party the UCPN-Maoist into the status of distant third position with mere 80 seats out of 601 in the new Constituent Assembly, it, too, failed to instill any enthusiasm in the political life of the country. With this shocking election results, the UCPN-Maoist has claimed that elections were rigged especially after the voting process ended and prior to the beginning of the counting process. According to the UCPN-Maoist, ballot boxes were changed in cohort with domestic reactionaries and external forces after the voting process closed. However, the government, the Election Commission, the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML have dismissed the Maoist allegation and claimed that the elections were completely free, fair and peaceful without any kind of fraud. Whatever the claims and counter claims, the election is over and parties have already accepted the results.
Although the election was dubbed as a historic one to dawn a new era of peace, stability and prosperity in the country, the new power equation does not tell so and it is less likely that the constitution
would be written and promulgated within the period parties have promised. In the first place, there is a slim chance of unity and consensus among the parties on some key issues. In the absence of consensus, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML along with some other rightist parties may try to pass the constitution with majority votes, which they have in the present Constituent Assembly. On the issue
concerning the federal model, parties are sharply far apart, The Madhes parties, although they do not have strong presence in the Constituent Assembly, would stand for one Madhes State and they may
not compromise on it simply because of their dwindling base in the Terai. Similarly, the UCPN-Maoist is championing for identity-based federalism, which is being backed by some other ethnic parties. But
the Congress and the UML are neither willing to accept one Madhes state nor the demand of identity-based federalism. This is where clash and conflict is likely to come up among the parties that may again
create the situation that failed the last Constituent Assembly. Apart from that, some parties are outside the Constituent Assembly as they did not participate in the November 19 election. Even if the constitution was promulgated, it may not be accepted by all political forces and people. In such an eventuality, a new round of conflict appears to be inevitable.
Against that background, onus lies on the parliamentary parties especially the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML to bring the disgruntled parties like Mohan Vaidya-led CPN-Maoist on board if the
new constitution is to be promulgated and peace dawned in the country. However, the CPN-Maoist has already condemned the election process saying that it was a drama staged at the behest of the external
forces. Its support for the new Constituent Assembly seems to be virtually impossible as the CPN-Maoist has already demanded the dissolution of the CA and start a new process to end the present
political crisis, which parliamentary parties are not likely to accept. In such a situation, the crisis may deepen in the country. Thus, the 2013 was the year of political uncertainty, instability and
crisis. But the 2014, too, does not appear to be promising as new round of crisis may likely to appear. It will have a far-reaching impact on Nepal’s political future as well as national economy. Already stung hardly, the Nepali economy is likely to slide downward if the political crisis was not managed and measures not taken to manage the brewing conflict that may erupt anytime in future as some parties are harping on protest for their political gains.
History is in the process of its repetition in Nepal. This is because our political parties and leader do not seem to have learnt lessons from the history. In 1996, when the then CPN-Maoist, which was later renamed as UCPN-Maoist after unification with the CPN-Unity Center, had also rehearsed similar type of political activities as the CPN-Maoist has been doing now. In 1996, the Nepali Congress was in the government with its leader Sher Bahadur Deuba in the seat of the Prime Minister and the CPN-UML was main opposition party in parliament. The Maoists team headed by Dr Baburam Bhattarai went to the Singha Drubar to submit 40 points of demand to the government as a prelude to their protracted war but it was not allowed to do so. Instead, the Maoist team was treated with baton charge in front of the Singha Durbar gate. The power equation is almost similar to that of the 1996 as the Congress is the largest party and the CPN-UML the second largest one. The CPN-Maoist is out of the present political process and there would not be its participation in the constitution making process. The demand for the dissolution of the newly formed Constituent Assembly could also be a prelude to the its already declared insurrection.
Thus, the days ahead in our political spectrum are not bright and smooth. If the Nepali Congress and CPN-Maoist make a slight mistake and if they do not take both  the UCPN-Maoist and the CPN-Maoist on board in the constitution making process, the entire political purpose would be defeated and the country would once again enter into a new round of conflict. So far as the UCPN-Maoist is concerned, it appears to be willing to play a constructive role in the constitution making process. But that too solely depends upon the behavior and attitude of the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML. If the UCPN-Maoist, too, feels alienated in the present political process due to highhandedness of the Congress and the CPN-UML, it, too, may walk out of the constitution making process, which may be followed by some other ethnic parties and Madhes-based outfits. In such an eventuality, the constitution-making and political process may be further complicated. Thus, the future course of Nepal’s politics is very complex, which needs to be dealt with caution and sensitivity. In this, the role of the two larger parties namely the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML is more important. If they fail to act responsibly rising above their petty and partisan interest, the history would always condemn them as they are primarily responsible for the last ten years of Maoist armed conflict in which more than 15,000 people were killed. If the Congress and the UML do not learn lesson from the history and their past mistakes, they will have to pay a bigger price in future. Perhaps, they would not repeat those mistakes and it is expected that the Year 2014 would see better future of the country and the people of Nepal.