Maoist Report Card

Uday Bajracharya

The 40-point demand of the Maoists before they took up arms in 1996 didn’t call specifically for the abolishment of the monarchy. However, Prachanda said in his interview to the BBC soon after Jana Andolan-2 that the combined effect of the forty points was abolition of the monarchy. Therefore, the Maoists will be judged on the basis of only one thing, i.e. whether or not they will be able to abolish the monarchy. Their demand for a constituent assembly can be seen as a means, not an end, to achieve other goals such as making the people sovereign and restructuring the state.

Although the Maoists started their ‘People’s War’ against an elected government, they joined hands with the ‘democratic’ parties in 2006 to launch Jana Andolan-2. True, this action resulted in making the monarchy almost powerless, at least temporarily, but it also catapulted the extremely weakened ‘democratic’ parties, especially Nepali Congress, to new heights, allowing them to claim full credit for the success of Jana Andolan-2.

The Maoists’ persistent demand for a constituent assembly resulted in the interim constitution including a clear deadline for an election to the CA. However, it is now clear that the deadline can’t be met. The Maoists had agreed to decide the fate of the monarchy by the CA, knowing full well that regressive forces would try to stop the election as they had done before when a CA promised in 1951 never materialised. The whole thing has now been thrown into uncertainty, including the fate of the monarchy.

It is interesting to note that the Maoists started their ‘People’s War’ soon after the US became the sole superpower following the collapse of communism in the former Soviet Union and other European countries. Similarly they ended the hostilities, locked up their arms and put their combatants in cantonments in 2007 when the US Empire is crumbling, mainly due to the war in Iraq, and when there is a lame duck president in the White House. They tried to negotiate a peace in 2001 and 2003 in view of the ‘global war on terror’, which was probably reasonable, but it is hard to understand the timing of their starting and ending the war.

Due to their starting the war at the wrong time and the ‘global war on terror’ following the 9/11 attacks on the US in 2001, the Nepal government could gather tremendous material support from the US, India and other countries for ‘their’ war on terror. Consequently, the (Royal) Nepali Army was transformed from a weak force focused primarily on earning money through international peacekeeping operations to a well-equipped 95,000-strong army. The Maoists are indirectly responsible for this. Even with weaker armies, the palace had staged coups before and had suppressed democracy for 30 years during the Panchayat regime. A strong (Royal) Nepali Army can be a constant threat to democracy if the monarchy is not abolished immediately.

The Maoists insisted on UN assistance in the peace process. Although the UN was created by the victors of World War II and has often been used by the US as a tool to dominate world politics, it has legitimacy in the eyes of most nations. The UN often uses a ‘one model fits all’ approach and can be inflexible in its working procedures. As a result, the people of Nepal have to watch helplessly as the UN representative declares that Nepal has to fulfill certain requirements before the elections can be held or that it will be no disaster if the elections are delayed. One can denounce the naked intervention in Nepali politics by the US or the Indian ambassadors but one can hardly defy the UN. This action of the Maoists has made Nepal dependent on the UN, which may be very hard to shake off.

The Maoists raised the disadvantaged people’s awareness of their rights, which is great. However, they also promised them ethnic and regional autonomies including the right to self-determination. This might have helped them recruit large numbers of party cadres but it also raised the expectations of various communities unrealistically, resulting in the on-going agitation by these groups. The Terai problem is particularly serious. Terai has a potential of seceding from Nepal. Should this happen, Nepal is going to be not only land-locked or India-locked but also Terai-locked, with disastrous consequences.

Different people see the end of hostilities by the Maoists differently. People like Girija Koirala and the ‘international community’ consider this as a case of bringing the ‘terrorists’ to the mainstream. The Maoists claim it to be the beginning of a new phase in their movement. However, recent activities of the Maoists have led most people to believe that the Maoists have realized the futility of the war and have now been trying for a safe landing into mainstream politics before achieving the main goal of abolishing the monarchy. A recent statement by Prachanda that they could end up with the fate of the Shining Path of Peru if they are not careful reinforces the above belief.

The Maoists have made mistakes but they can correct them by helping abolish the monarchy, that too before the CA elections. They have raised awareness for a republic to an unprecedented level. Having squandered the chances for abolishing the monarchy several times before, the people of Nepal know that they won’t get another chance for a long time if they don’t succeed this time. True, the republican forces face a tremendous challenge both from within and outside the country, but they can still do it because the people are with them on this issue like never before. Therefore, the Maoists have two options: Do whatever it takes to lead the republican forces for abolishing the monarchy and earn a place in history, or fail on this and face the punishment for raising false hopes of a republic and for immense social, political, economic and human costs, including the death of 13,000 people. The choice is entirely theirs.

Source: The Kathmandu Post, May 31, 2007