The year 2006 was a hopeful year. In an unprecedented move, Maoist and non-Maoist parties came together to topple an absolute monarch though a Jana Andolan 2 that saw tens of thousands of Nepalis come out on the street; political parties established themselves firmly at the centre stage of Nepali life. There were some initial hiccups but things seemingly begin to settle further during the run-up to the 2008 CA polls. Outgoing British Ambassador Andrew Hall, who arrived in Nepal only a few months after the successful movement in 2006, talks with Akhilesh Upadhyay and Sudheer Sharma about the early euphoria, recent disappointment with the political parties and the new doubt about the peace process.  

When you came to Nepal four years ago, things were looking up, the country was hopeful and so were the people. You leave at a time when the political parties are once again deeply polarized and the peace process is seemingly in tatters.

When I came here in July 2006, there was certainly some optimism, but there was also a fear that the situation was very fragile. It could easily have slipped back. There was a ceasefire but no Comprehensive Peace Agreement, no Interim Constitution. So when I first came there was a sense that it might all collapse at any moment. But moving into 2007, things began to settle down. People became confident that the peace process is here to stay. The peace agreements set out a very good agenda of all the things you needed to do. It all culminated in the CA election in April 2008. But since 2008, that sense of national purpose and national unity in terms of common goals is beginning to increasingly fracture. People are questioning why the agreements have not been implemented. That has left an increasing sense of doubt now that the process is stuck.

Nobody has walked away from it. Nobody has talked of walking away from it, which is the good news. But they seem to have lost the track to implement the agreements, to bring the peace process to fruition. That is a big challenge. The political leaders will have to find a way out of this increasingly circular argument like 'this can only happen if that happens'. Actually, they need to go back to the first principles that were agreed upon on Nov. 21, 2006. It's about rededicating themselves to those goals. And that can still be done as there is no alternative roadmap.

As someone who has observed Nepali politics closely, where do you think we went wrong? 

It's difficult to pinpoint any particular thing that went wrong. Obviously, moving away from the obligatory consensus government idea to allowing the possibility of a majoritarian government opened up competition between political parties; competition in normal times is exactly what you would expect. But maybe that competitive nature of politics is not what you need halfway though a peace process where you need people to put aside their narrower political interests and focus on the common objectives. That is what all the governments' post 2008 should have been about. But the parties have lost sight of that.

From the political perspective, there was a high point for the international community before the 2008 CA elections. But post election, the politics fractured and even sections of international community started to be perceived as biased. How do you view this development?

It is unfortunate that the fracture you describe did perhaps lead different political actors to claim that they had international support while others didn't. That was completely wrong as there was never any change from my perspective in the impartiality of our support for the peace process.  That I believe is absolutely true of UNMIN as well. The UN does not play politics in the countries where it goes to assist the peace process. The charges of UNMIN in some way being impartial are ridiculous. Since the parties have not been able to settle the issues, it is not UNMIN's fault that the job is not done.

Let us change the track a bit. Are we beginning to see the fallout of regional politics in Nepal's own internal politics? There is a growing perception that contending powers are asserting themselves.

I don't know if I am qualified to speak on that topic. People will try and attribute motives to some of Nepal's larger neighbors. But maybe the issues derive from the domestic base rather than foreign capitals. But there is also a positive development in that both your major neighbors have stepped up on the development front.

India has played a big role in Nepal's peace process. Is there any coordination between your country and India on the process?

There is certainly constant dialogue between us. We do keep in very close touch with the Indian government to discuss Nepal issues and as far as possible to make sure that there is a joint approach to them. We are more powerful when we are speaking the same lines or singing the same tune. Thus dialogue with Delhi is a constant process.

The new political rhetoric from sections of the Nepalese is that Europeans are meddlesome. Why are we hearing this now?

Maybe some politicians don't like some of the things they are being told. But why would anyone attribute bad motives to what are basically development partners-the EU has close to zero political role in the country. It seems extraordinarily odd that the very people you have invited to help you are in some way accused of meddling in domestic affairs, which is the last thing the United Kingdom or any EU partner would wish to do. But one should be able to speak frankly with friends. We may see some things differently. 

One of your government's top priorities has been human rights. How happy are you with Nepal's human rights situation?

I think there is a lot still to be done. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement has laid out a good roadmap on justice for conflict victims. If you are really to deal with the aftermath of the conflict and prevent it from happening again, you do have to look back at what happened during the conflict and consider justice for the victims. The truth and reconciliation commission is one way of tackling the issue. The CPA had provisioned for a disappearance commission as well as various other commissions. But the progress has been patchy. Why have we waited four years to see the truth and reconciliation commission and the disappearance commission? It is important for Nepal that these things are not brushed under the carpet. These things come back and bite you if they are not dealt with. There is more work to be done to get those commissions functioning. But not a single person has been put on trial for human rights abuses during the conflict. If you have this climate of impunity, you foster a culture where new rights abuses are committed.  

Some are questioning: Why, despite so much advocacy from the European and American governments, there is no progress on the ground?

It think because it is painful, because it is difficult. People don't want these things looked into. Who knows what happens once you start opening up cans of worms? How far the chain of responsibility goes? At the moment, it is a conspiracy among

all parties that this is going to be painful and difficult so we don't want to do it.

Maybe the likes of the UK, the US and the EU have pretty decent political leverage in Nepal but they are not willing to exercise those leverages enough?

But I am not sure I agree that there is political leverage (of the kind you are talking about). There is a moral obligation to urge Nepal, which is a very good member of the international community, to play a certain role. But Nepal at the moment is not playing that role. There is a moral obligation for us to put forward certain arguments that for Nepal's reputation, for you own internal interest and for the security of the peace process, it needs to do certain things. But as I said, it is a moral argument, something that is not enforceable.

On the other hand, there is also this perception in sections of Nepali life that Europeans are very prescriptive and not really helpful.

I don't agree. I don't think they are very prescriptive at all. Possibly Europeans should be more prescriptive. It is not prescriptive to say that for the help of your peace process, you would do well to do X, Y and Z whether it is on human rights issues, or demobilizing former combatants. That is stating the obvious. At various points, for various politicians, being told the obvious may not be welcome because they don't want to do those things.

Post-2008, there was this school of thought that you should push for issues like human rights and good governance. Your approach has been almost defensive of late.

It is difficult to know where you are pushing in certain respects. Again you come back to the instability and the short-term nature of governments. The short-term of the last couple of years is a bit of an obstacle to tackling these issues successfully. But there has not been any permanent change in the European approach, which is to lend the kind of help the Nepal government needs. When we look back we will see that the last few years have been highly contested in terms of the peace process and even the domestic politics. Harsh words may have been spoken here and there but they were of no long-term significance.

Any personal things that you would like to share with our readers after having lived in the country for four years?

I have been coming to Nepal for the last 40 years. My first visit was as a backpacker in 1969. I lived for a year in Rasuwa district just next to Langtang during my research during the 1970s. I saw a very-very different Nepal in those days. A Nepal with no democracy and virtually no development. You could walk for four days from Kathmandu and come upon a village with no government official at the health post, the school was there but there was no teacher. The government was absent. Development was absent. Political freedom was absent. I was again back in the 1990s and now again for four years. I have seen enormous changes in Nepal over that time. By and large, they have been changes for the better.

Like I said, there are issues to be settled. But if you take a longer perspective: how Nepal has evolved from an undemocratic to a democratic society, and if you look at the contrast in development in that period, particularly developments in maternal health care, child health, Nepal being on track for most MDGs, new opportunities that have started to open up for people-in all those aspects, I think we will continue to see big changes in the right direction in the next five, 10 or 20 years.

(Source: The Kathmandu Post)