Thirty years ago, a small faction of Nepal's communist movement launched what it called a “People's War.” The attacks, starting on February 13, 1996, took place in four different parts of the country. At the time, newspapers reported them as minor law-and-order incidents. Few imagined that the assault led by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) would last a decade and alter the Nepali state.
The armed rebellion, led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda), went on from 1996 to 2006. Nearly 13,000 people were killed. Around 1,300 were forcibly disappeared. Thousands were tortured. What began as a splinter movement grew into a national force that eventually entered mainstream politics.
Today, the insurgency's impact is visible in Nepal's Constitution and in the unresolved demands for justice.
How The Maoists Rose To Political Power
When the Maoists joined open politics after the conflict, they won a strong mandate in the first Constituent Assembly. Many believed they would lead to structural change in land reform, inclusion and social justice.
Instead, the leadership was said to have become absorbed in power struggles. The party split several times. Allegations of corruption surfaced against some leaders. The image of a revolutionary movement was replaced, for many, by that of a conventional political party competing for office.
At the same time, the insurgency forced issues into the mainstream that had long been ignored.
What Changed The System
In the late 1990s, mainstream parties had shown little urgency on social reform. That began to change as the Maoist movement spread and attacks on state forces intensified.
In 2001, a government led by Sher Bahadur Deuba announced an “Eight-Point Reform Initiative for Socio-economic Transformation.” It proposed land reform, an end to untouchability, rights for women, Janajatis and Dalits, and emancipation of bonded labourers.
After King Gyanendra dismissed Deuba in 2002, political parties, sidelined by the palace, put forward their reform agendas.
These included 33 per cent representation for women, greater inclusion of Dalits and Janajatis, citizenship rights in the Tarai, and an end to discrimination based on caste, ethnicity, language and religion. Even the royal government later promised positive action.
Within a few years, federalism, inclusion, secularism and republicanism moved from the margins to the centre. These principles were institutionalised in the Constitution of Nepal, which replaced the 1990 charter.
Few can deny that without the Maoist insurgency, this pace of change would have been unlikely.
Why The Insurgency Spread
Maoists are largely believed to have grown only because of fear. During the conflict, many communities saw violence from both rebels and security forces. Though fear alone cannot explain how the movement expanded into remote districts.
There were long-standing grievances related to caste discrimination, land inequality, gender exclusion and regional neglect. The Maoists used armed force to enforce control, but they also mobilised people who felt excluded from state power.
Three decades later, many of those structural grievances remain, even if the armed struggle has ended.
The war formally ended with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, signed on November 21, 2006, with three main goals: integrate Maoist fighters, secure peace through a new Constitution, and deliver justice to conflict victims.
The first two were largely completed. Former combatants were integrated or rehabilitated, and a new constitutional order came into force in 2015.
Justice, though, has fallen behind. The agreement required both sides to publish within 60 days the names of those killed or disappeared. Nearly 20 years later, that has not happened.
