|
|
| Potential success of peace talk in Nepal: Beyond the influence of self-centric or unbalanced logic |
 PRINTABLE VERSION |
The real attempt to ensure the success of the peace talk involves being ready of both the government and the CPN (Maoist) to give up some of the second part of their demands to allow some of the second part of the demands of the other to exist. In the second round of the peace talk, only part of this real attempt was made by the CPN (Maoist). It is the government who should have made another remaining part of the attempt. The government did not become ready to give up any of its demands contained in the second part of its whole demands. It means it did not make the remaining part of the real attempt to ensure the success of the peace talk, despite the fact that the CPN (Maoist) made one part of that attempt. In the second round of the peace talk the then government should have given up its demand not to create a new constitution by a constituent assembly (the demand forming part of the second part of its whole demands) to give the demand of the CPN (Maoist) to create a new constitution by a constituent assembly (the demand forming part of the second part of its whole demands) a chance to be fulfilled. But it did not do so, and the result was that the peace talk failed.
In the end, I would like to say as the crux of this article that it is usually true to say that the end of armed conflict is subject to the agreement by both sides involved in the conflict on a set of things consisting of two sub-sets, the first including things one side has been being opposed to, and the second including things that another side has been being opposed to. The fact that the end of armed conflict through peace talk hinges upon such an agreement between both sides involved in the conflict forms the logic that the peace talk usually or even inevitably operates on. If peace talk is not allowed to operate on its own inherent logic, the peace talk can never end with concrete progress. It is more likely that both the government and the CPN (Maoist) endeavor to the best of their ability to replace this usually inherent logic with the kind of logic that is incompatible with this inherent logic and that is self-centric and therefore would benefit one side only. Therefore, it should not be forgotten that the peace talk between the state and the CPN (Maoist) should be allowed to operate on its inherent balanced logic but not on an intentionally created unbalanced logic.
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Ajit Rai
I take a deep interest in development and underdevelopment as well as in politics, especially in its relation to economics. Currently, I am undertaking systematic research, and intend to theorize about Nepalese development and underdevelopment from a socio-philosophical approach.
|
Comments
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
