Nepali Revolution and International Relations

John Mage

A revolutionary civil war in Nepal ceased de facto with the popular triumph over King Gyanendra in April 2006, and de jure with the peace agreement reached in November 2006. The Royal Nepal Army ("RNA") now calls itself the Nepal Army, and the peace agreement requires its democratization under the authority of the new government that includes the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). As of the date of writing this has not yet occurred and the Nepal Army is still commanded by those, primarily of the quite literally feudal elite, who -- with U. S. "advisers" -- had pursued the civil war with lawless brutality and impunity. Yet it is important not to underestimate the extent of the revolutionary changes in Nepal. Today both Nepal Army and the revolutionary armed forces (the People's Liberation Army or "PLA") are given in substance equal status under a peace agreement negotiated by the Nepalis themselves, and administered with the assistance of the United Nations.

In the period following the June 1, 2001 massacre of the Nepali Royal Family, the People's War begun on February 13, 1996 by the underground CPN(M) moved from a regional insurgency in which local guerrilla forces battled police units but did not fight the RNA to a full-fledged revolutionary civil war. After the murder of King Birendra and his immediate family, the RNA was deployed against a mass-based revolutionary force that emerged nationwide, in control of substantial territory, and with a formally organized army, the PLA. The question was thus posed whether the contenders would be treated in practice as equals in the international arena.1

After "9/11" the United States intervened militarily in Nepal and sought to brand the revolutionaries as "terrorists" -- denying them not only legitimacy but (in the U.S. view) placing them outside the scope of universally recognized international law relating to armed conflict. The years since 2004 have seen the gradual acceptance by Nepal's neighbors of the legitimacy of the revolutionaries; the process corresponds to their gradual abandonment of the "terrorist" terminology. Maoists now participate in the government of Nepal and the United States alone in the world continues to call the CPN(M) "terrorists." Though manifest dangers remain, these developments constitute a vigorous reassertion of Nepal's independence in the face of foreign intervention in its affairs.

Entrance of the United States into Nepali Affairs: the Tibetan "Khampa" Guerrillas

Prithvi Narayan Shah (1723-1775), founder of the Nepali state unified under his rule in 1769, famously compared Nepal's geopolitical situation to a "yam" balanced "between two boulders." Nepal's history has justified this view: when China is weak Nepal has come under such overwhelming influence from India as to put its independence in question. During the century from 1842 to 1945, when Chinese unity and power collapsed, Nepal's international relations fell wholly under Indo-British control. The only foreign representative permitted in Kathmandu was the British resident. After independence the new Indian regime attempted with mixed success to assert the pre-existing Indo-British domination over Nepal. India imposed an unequal treaty upon Nepal in 1950, and for more than six years in the 1950s there was an Indian "military mission" ensconced in Kathmandu. But as the strength of revolutionary China grew, the room for Nepali initiative increased. By 1955 diplomatic relations were resumed with China, and thereafter Nepal joined the United Nations, and diplomatic missions were exchanged with the United States and the USSR.

In 1959 China reasserted its control in Nepal's neighbor Tibet, and the Dalai Lama fled from Tibet to a CIA-subsidized base of operations in India. In December 1960 Nepal's King Mahendra (1955-1972) staged a coup, dismissed the parliamentary government headed by Nepal Congress leader B.P. Koirala, and subsequently instituted a "partyless Panchayat" regime dominated by the Palace. India supported the deposed Nepal Congress leaders, and protested strongly when Mahendra proposed to China the construction of a motorable road linking Kathmandu and Tibet. In the fall of 1962 New Delhi imposed a blockade on landlocked Nepal. But very shortly thereafter the Border War with China broke out, and India -- desperate at the swift Chinese success and unwilling to confront Nepal as well -- terminated the blockade. The conflict with China brought India to seek assistance from the United States, then "Red" China's foremost enemy.

The United States is far from Nepal, has insignificant trade relations with Nepal, fewer of its citizens visit Nepal as tourists than from various smaller European nations, and yet in its assertion of global power has become the main source of foreign intervention in Nepali affairs. The first U.S. diplomatic contact with Nepal -- a mission headed by Joseph Satterthwaite, Deputy Director of the State Department's Office of Near Eastern and African Affairs -- occurred only in 1947, simultaneously with the end of British rule in India. Satterthwaite later characterized his mission as amounting to "the eventual end of the exclusive control of Nepal by the British." Although a second mission headed by senior State Department official Chester Bowles arrived during the Korean War in 1951 with the first "aid" program, no permanent legation was established until the Tibetan events of 1959.

Following defeat in the Border War, India dared not permit guerrilla operations against China from its territory. Nepal, impoverished and with a small and poorly equipped army, was unable to prevent the establishment on its territory of CIA-trained and -financed Tibetan anti-Chinese guerrillas. From the early 1960s until 1973 the U.S. and their CIA "Khampa" Tibetan contras occupied two districts in Nepal that bordered Tibet: Walanchung-gola in the east of Nepal and Mustang in the west. Only after the 1972 Nixon visit to Beijing, and the consequent U.S. abandonment of support for various anti-Chinese military operations, did the newly crowned King Birendra and the RNA dare to move against the Khampa contra camps. The arms and munitions recovered were all of U.S. manufacture.

The Foreign Policy of King Birendra (1972-2001) and the Start of People's War

Once the U.S./Khampa contras were suppressed, King Birendra quickly established a close personal relationship with China. His father had made one state visit to China, in 1961. Birendra visited as crown prince in 1966 and, as King, made visits in 1973, 1976 (including a visit to Tibet), 1978, 1979, 1982 (again visiting Tibet), 1987, 1993, 1996, and finally in 2001, three months before his murder. His relations with India were, in contrast, tense in the extreme. In 1989 Birendra's government had arranged a deal, over Indian protest, under which the RNA was to purchase Chinese arms. When the Tiananmen incident paralyzed China, India again imposed an embargo on Nepal and offered support for an insurrection. As tensions mounted and supplies of petroleum products grew scarce, the Indian Foreign Secretary arrived in Kathmandu with an offer to support the monarchy against the agitating political parties in return for adherence to a humiliating draft "friendship" treaty. Instead Birendra yielded his paramount power, and compromised with the growing democratic mass movement headed by a coalition of the Nepal Congress and various Communist parties, for the moment united in pursuit of a democratic regime.

Under the ensuing 1991 constitution, the King retained personal command over the RNA and a primary role in foreign affairs, but internal administration was turned over to a government of the political parties responsible to an elected parliament. The "parliamentary" governments of the post-1991 period quickly discredited themselves by crude lust for the profits of office. And the police continued to crush opposition with an enthusiasm comparable to that of the prior "partyless Panchayat" regime. The revolutionary Communists gathered in the underground CPN (Unity Centre) were represented in the parliament by nine members of the United Peoples Front, and in the impoverished districts of Rapti zone in mid-western Nepal the Front had won district and village elections. Elected leaders such as Jhakku Prasad Subedi, chairman of the Rolpa District Development Committee, were targeted for assassination by goons of the royalist and Nepal Congress parties. Protest meetings were attacked by the police, and speakers shot. An increasing number of party activists fled their homes, and the occasional act of retaliation against police attacks occurred.

In November of 1995 the government, a coalition of Congress and royalists, launched a police invasion of Rolpa code-named "Operation Romeo." Atrocities committed by police in "Operation Romeo" brought the villages of Rolpa to a fever pitch. On February 13, 1996, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), formed from components of CPN (Unity Centre) in 1995, launched People's War with attacks on the most notorious of the police outposts. In the next years guerrilla actions eliminated police outposts across Rolpa and Rukum districts, and in several other districts in other zones of the country as well. In late September 2000 hundreds of armed fighters moved out from the Rukum base area on a single file mountain track over a 13,000-foot pass to attack the police post in Dunai, the district centre of Dolpa. Local inhabitants did not warn the police, and the attack ended in victory for the revolutionaries. The post was captured with all its weapons, and political prisoners were liberated from the district prison across the river.

The Murder of King Birendra and the Royal Family

Birendra did not deploy the RNA. At Dunai there was an army post just a few hours' walk upstream that did not come to the help of the police. As attacks eliminated some of the last of the police posts in Rukum and adjoining districts, Birendra was besieged with demands that the RNA be thrown into the fight against the revolutionary youth in the hills. Yet Birendra refused, visited China, and was reported to have established secret contacts with the revolutionaries. On June 1, 2001, he was murdered along with all his immediate family. Nothing can be said with certainty about this crime, except that most Nepalis think the official story -- that Crown Prince Dipendra, high on alcohol and drugs and angry because he was not permitted to marry the woman he loved, slaughtered his entire family -- is false. The surgeon who operated on Dipendra in an unsuccessful effort to save his life stated unequivocally at the time that his bloods showed no trace of alcohol or drugs. And a surviving palace servant has recently come forward to say that she saw Dipendra shot through the head and prone, while the shootings continued.

The Chinese reaction of deep concern was immediate. Madan Regmi, chairman of Nepal's "China Study Centre," and at that time a confidant of Chinese officials, immediately visited China and gave an interview on his return to Nepal in July 2001. Though denying that his sources were official, Madan Regmi repeated the charge that the murdered royal family were victims of a plot caused by Birendra's close relations to China. He also quoted "reliable" (but unofficial) sources as saying that China in the immediate aftermath of the murders had "subtly" warned India against any military intervention.

Shortly after the accession of King Gyanendra -- who had been out of Kathmandu on June 1, 2001 -- the revolutionaries captured a major police post at Holleri in central Rolpa, taking 71 prisoners. Gyanendra, acting through Prime Minister Girija Koirala, ordered the RNA into action for the first time. But the local commanders of the RNA and the revolutionary forces were able to arrange a peaceful resolution, and Girija Koirala resigned. He was succeeded as Prime Minister by Sher Bahadur Deuba, also a leader of the Nepal Congress, and known to be close to the U.S. embassy. A cease-fire was arranged, and the revolutionaries in September 2001 organized massive rallies, and took steps to formalize their rule, holding the First National Convention of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and a National Convention of the United Revolutionary People's Council, a coordinating centre for an emerging alternate government in the areas cleared of police presence.

Gyanendra's new Deuba-led government took advantage of the cease-fire openly to begin preparations for bringing the RNA into action. Attacks on known and suspected Maoists began; local leaders were assassinated. The PLA responded on November 23, 2001, with a successful attack on Ghorahi, the district headquarters of Dang district, capturing a primary arsenal of the RNA. Two other district headquarters in other parts of the country were also successfully attacked. A State of Emergency was declared on November 26, 2001, and the full-scale deployment of the RNA ordered. These events marked the emergence of a qualitatively higher stage ("strategic equilibrium" in the Maoist lexicon) of the revolutionary conflict, in which two armies and two regimes faced each other in a nationwide civil war.

In the ensuing winter and spring of 2002 the Gyanendra regime was able to mobilize external support from all international forces. Then BJP Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh, on a visit to Nepal, was the first to term the Maoists "terrorist," a lead that the Nepal Congress government soon followed. Thereafter, India provided substantial military assistance. The Palace also took immediate steps to conciliate China, culminating in Gyanendra's state visit in July of 2002. The Chinese Ambassador to Nepal, Wu Congwong, had on May 11, 2002 already called the revolutionaries "terrorists" and said that China's policy was to describe the revolutionaries as "anti-government outfits" and avoid the use of the term "Maoist." The Ambassador then traveled to the revolutionary Gorkha district with his military attaché, said that the RNA was "doing a good job" and that China would provide "necessary assistance." In the aftermath of "9/11" China was eager not to antagonize an aggressive emboldened U.S. regime that now intervened in Nepal with military supplies and personnel.

The Rocca Period (2001-2004)

A new U.S. policy of active military intervention in Nepal commenced with the April 2001 nomination of Christina Rocca as the Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia. According to authoritative sources, Mrs. Rocca, a career officer of the CIA from 1982 to 1997, was closely involved in the CIA operations against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. She then supervised the buy-back by the CIA of the unused Stinger missiles they had themselves introduced. Rocca later served as legislative assistant to right-wing Senator Brownback of Kansas, known for his zealous advocacy of Tibetan independence and of a hard line towards China. With this outlook, the Rocca period (2001-4) was to see the close co-ordination of U.S. intervention in Nepal with the then BJP Indian government.

In June 2001, days after Birendra was assassinated, a U.S. "Office of Defense Cooperation" with Nepal was established in the Kathmandu embassy. Shortly following the resignation of Girija Koirala in late July 2001, Christina Rocca herself arrived in Nepal for meetings with "security" officials. Deuba had been prime minister only for days before his meeting with Rocca.

On January 18, 2002, less than two months after the resumption of warfare and the imposition of the State of Emergency, then U.S. Secretary of State General Colin Powell arrived in Nepal. He was accompanied, among others, by Christina Rocca, and by Vice Admiral Walter Doran, Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Powell met with Gyanendra, Deuba, and then Chief of the Army Staff General Prajwolla Shumshere Rana. Shortly afterwards the Bush administration announced it was seeking an initial special appropriation of $20 million for the Nepalese security forces, and a team of U.S. military advisers from the U.S. Pacific Commandarrived in Nepal, including a Colonel of the U.S. Marine Corps, the chief of the Logistic Plans Division and the Deputy Chief of Engineering. This group was followed by mobile teams that worked with RNA ground units on matters of military tactics. Programs that had for years brought RNA officers to U.S. military schools were greatly expanded. RNA officers were sent to the U.S. Army War College, the U.S. Army and General Staff Colleges, the National Defense University and the Asia Pacific Center for Strategic Studies. An immense U.S.-aided expansion of the Security Forces (RNA and the paramilitary Armed Police Force) began. By 2005 the pre-2001 force of approximately 35,000 had increased to above 100,000, with a proclaimed goal of 150,000 by 2008.

Gyanendra's Deuba-led government, flush with U.S. patronage, dismissed the elected parliament in the spring of 2002 when a parliamentary majority emerged in favor of ending the State of Emergency. But the policy of internal militarization with U.S. support did not yield the intended results; instead, the revolutionary movement spread rapidly to districts previously unaffected. The Palace now changed course, dismissed the U.S.-backed Deuba in October 2002, and installed royalist Lokendra Bahadur Chand as Prime Minister charged with seeking a truce and negotiations. An angry Christina Rocca arrived in December 2002 and immediately acted to abort the peace talks. In a public statement she termed the revolutionaries "terrorists" and compared them to Pol Pot. And as soon as she departed, the U.S. embassy in Kathmandu initiated the process of placing the revolutionaries on U.S. "terrorist" lists. Nonetheless a cease-fire was achieved on January 29, 2003. The royal government made the truce possible by agreeing to three conditions: to stop calling the Maoist led revolutionaries "terrorists"; to lift rewards offered for the arrest of the leaders; and to withdraw international police warrants for them.

From the first the United States opposed the truce and looked for ways to provoke a return to civil war. In January 2003, as the truce was being negotiated, a 49-member team of U.S. military "experts" arrived in Nepal to train with the RNA, and the first shipment of what was eventually to amount to more than 8,000 M-16 rifles arrived. On February 4th Christina Rocca was quoted by Reuters as looking on the newly announced truce skeptically: "maybe this is a reason for hope but the fact of the matter is it's a deteriorating situation," she said, "the situation in Nepal is really not looking very good." In May, as talks between Palace and Maoists got under way, the U.S. embassy announced that the Maoists were now formally designated "terrorists" and had been placed on two of the three U.S. "terrorist" lists. The RNA, with U.S. advisers at every elbow, then sabotaged the peace talks. The RNA command rejected the agreement reached by the government's peace negotiators that the RNA would not patrol further than 5 kilometers from their barracks. At the very moment that a critical round of peace negotiations commenced, on August 17, 2003, an RNA unit in the village of Doramba in Ramechap district murdered in cold blood 18 unarmed Maoist activists. A subsequent investigation revealed that "the dead persons . . . were all arrested in connection with a political meeting and while marching them with their hands tied at their back, they were lined up on the track and shot dead." The Doramba massacre by the U.S.-advised RNA terminated the truce. U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage then announced the finding that the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) "poses a significant risk of committing acts of terrorism that threaten . . . the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States" and their formal designation on the highest category U.S. "terrorist" list.

The resumption of civil war in the fall of 2003 saw the highpoint of U.S. military involvement in Nepal. Elaborate permanent quarters for U.S. "advisers" were constructed adjacent to RNA headquarters in the centre of Kathmandu. Through its International Military Education and Training Program (IMET), the U.S. trained the security forces in "special operations." There ensued "a policy to allow mass disappearances accompanied by tacit approval at the highest levels of state to use mass torture, extra-judicial killings and other gross abuses."ii The government announced a plan for "Village Defence Volunteers," based on Latin American paramilitary "death squad" models. This proved too much for the European Union Heads of Mission in Nepal, who up to this time had followed the growing U.S. intervention without adverse public comment. They warned, with diplomatic understatement, that in other countries such plans "have often been responsible for grave violation of human rights."

Christina Rocca's December 2003 visit was marked by a U.S. bid for RNA troops to be sent to Iraq (a request politely deflected by the Nepal government), a session with Gyanendra, and by a meeting with RNA chief General Pyar Jung Thapa, who reported to her on plans for the "Village Defence Volunteers" paramilitary vigilantes, asked for more weapons, helicopters, surveillance equipment that would enable the army to find and kill the revolutionary leadership, and the continuation of counter-insurgency training. At the start of March 2004 high-ranking U.S. security officials again arrived in Nepal. The team, led by J. Cofer Black, Coordinator for the Office of Counter-terrorism of the U.S. State Department, flew to the Mid-Western Division Headquarters of the Royal Nepalese Army in Nepalgunj. In April another group of U.S. soldiers arrived in Nepal to conduct "joint training exercises" with RNA's recently established "Special Forces" units such as the "Ranger Battalion," commanded by officers trained in, and specially selected by, the United States.

The BJP regime's Ambassador in Kathmandu, Shyam Saran, professed to see no change in India's Nepal policy in its acceptance of U.S. military intervention. Acquiescence vitiated the Indian interpretation of the unequal 1950 treaty as prohibiting Nepal from seeking military assistance from other states, but an emerging U.S.-Indian military co-operation took precedence. At the end of 2003 Saran was quoted as saying that India and the United States were "on the same wavelength."

Changes on the International Scene in the Spring of 2004

The April-May 2004 Indian elections unexpectedly turned out the BJP government and brought to power a Congress-led government that depended for its majority on the left parliamentary parties. The new government at first followed the existing policy of co-ordination with U.S. policy, and military assistance to the RNA continued. Ambassador Saran, personification of that policy, in June 2004 was promoted to Foreign Secretary, the top Foreign Service position in the Ministry of External Affairs.

A significant change in China's position was set out by its Ambassador Sun Heping in an address on May 28, 2004. Implicitly repudiating previous Ambassador Wu Congwong's assertion of two years before that the Maoist revolutionaries were "terrorists," he explained that calling them "anti-government forces" is not the same thing as the "terrorist" tag used by India and the United States. He emphasized that hostile activities by Tibetan separatists was China's major concern in Nepal.

This turn coincided with a major change in U.S. diplomatic personnel. The U.S. Ambassador to Nepal, Michael Malinowski, had played but a minor role. Policy was being made in Washington, and Christina Rocca was not hesitant to come to Kathmandu. In the spring of 2004 Malinowski was suddenly removed prior to the scheduled end of his term, and replaced by a far more powerful figure, James F. Moriarty, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Asian Affairs at the National Security Council and former Political Officer at the U.S. embassy in Beijing. Moriarty was well known for his advocacy of a policy of accomodation to China. U.S. support for its Tibetan clients was to be, as before, a bargaining counter.

Another career change occurred at this same moment. On May 14th, 2004, Rabinder Singh, the Joint Secretary handling South-East Asia in the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) abruptly went to Nepal, was issued a U.S. passport, and left for refuge under CIA protection in the United States. In RAW he had, reputedly, been responsible for Nepal. Thus an era, one that commenced with the murder of King Birendra, in which the CIA and Christina Rocca could manage the relations of both India and the United States with Nepal came to a close.

After the failure of the 2003 peace talks, Gyanendra again called U.S. favorite Deuba to head a war government. The United States put intense pressure on the parliamentary Communist Party of Nepal (UML) to join the Deuba government, in the belief that only a coalition of the Palace and the primary political parties would have the strength successfully to pursue the civil war. In the summer of 2004 this policy appeared to have succeeded, and the CPN (UML) joined the government. But this resulted only in the exodus of many of the remaining UML cadre, who by this time wanted no part of King, civil war, or the United States. The parliamentary political party government proved unable to exercise any control over the U.S.-advised security forces, and the civil service fought bitterly against the reappearance of spoils-seeking politicians.

The Royal Coup of February 2005

Believing from RNA intelligence that the CPN (Maoist) was on the verge of an inevitable and devastating split, in February 2005 Gyanendra formed a government based on the armed forces with royalist ministers personally loyal to the King. The leaders of the political parties, including the erstwhile ministers now charged with corruption, were placed under arrest. The Palace thought it could then resume peace talks with one or the other of the factions into which it believed the CPN (Maoist) had split, while retaining for the RNA the military assistance of India and the United States. These calculations were mistaken. The CPN (Maoist) did not split, indeed the vigorous internal debate gave rise to unity on a higher level. Attempts to resume negotiations were spurned. And the government of India under intense pressure from the left parliamentary parties suspended military assistance to a Royal autocracy that had discarded the last shreds of parliamentary legitimacy.

Given the necessity of reliance on the command of the RNA to effect the coup, and given the close relations of the RNA command with the United States, Ambassador Moriarty's denial of prior knowledge can hardly be credited. Far more likely is that the Palace had been given reason to believe in U.S. assistance, which was only denied after it became clear that the Palace had garnered neither internal nor Indian support.

Gyanendra then turned for arms to China, which had refused to condemn the February 2005 coup, terming it an "internal affair." A major gesture to China had been the January 2005 closing of the Tibetan Welfare Office in Kathmandu days before the coup, a move inconceivable before the new U.S. policy represented by the arrival of Moriarty. And China responded favorably, much to the anger of Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran who henceforth reputedly saw matters from a different perspective. In June 2005, five armoured personnel carriers arrived in Nepal from China. In September 2005, China was reported to have agreed to provide arms and ammunition worth approximately US$22 million. And in late November 18 trucks carrying military hardware from China were reported to have crossed the Nepal-Tibet border.

Meanwhile, the vigilante death squad plan was put into effect by the RNA . In February 2005 squads murdered several dozens of unarmed "pahadi" hill people and burned over 700 houses in Kapilvastu in the Terai, claiming the victims to be "Maoists." These semi-official communalist murders were immediately denounced by the European Union ambassadors and "Human Rights" groups. Moriarty, recalled to Washington for consultations, was reported to have pointed to these death squad activities as reasons for "optimism." Moriarty returned to Kathmandu in May 2005 and did not deny the report when confronted with it, merely stating that there was a "range of opinion" about the Kapilvastu death squad outrage. Moriarty said his main concern was that the RNA was running out of bullets. Not wishing openly to break ranks with India or the European Union on the question of military assistance to the increasingly isolated royal regime, the United States turned to its Israeli surrogate. In August a "huge cache" of 5.56 mm bullets for the U.S. M-16 rifles was reported to have been supplied to the RNA by Israel.

Christina Rocca soon followed Moriarty to Kathmandu on what was to be her farewell visit, along with a planeload of "non-lethal" military assitance. Rocca set out U.S. policy: pressure was to be put on the Palace to end the standoff with the parliamentary political parties, and to step up the civil war. Despite Tibetan anger there were no hard words for China, and tacitly a new co-operation emerged in arming the RNA: "non-lethally" by the U.S. and its U.K. satellite, and lethally by Israel and China.

The gradual divergence in Indian and U.S. policy that had commenced with the flight of Rabinder Singh and the arrival of Moriarty now broke into the open. The leaders of the parliamentary parties, except for Deuba who remained charged with personal corruption, were freed from detention in May 2005, and India now encouraged them to undertake an urban uprising against the Royal government. Indian intelligence correctly assessed that the Royal regime was now without any base outside the military. The leaders of the major parliamentary parties, long among India's most valued contacts in Nepal, could only hope to re-emerge as a dominant force by leading a uprising against the King in the cities, where the armed Maoist presence was slight and where the parliamentary parties still had cadre and active student organizations.

The popular response to the renewed agitation of the parliamentary parties was minimal, and leaders of the parties and their Indian interlocutors as well were driven to the realization that only by reaching agreement with the revolutionaries could an insurrectionary plan have any hope of success. "Terrorist" disappeared from Indian officials' vocabulary; within the year the declaration was made that the Maoists "are not terrorists." By late July 2005 local activists of the parliamentary parties were openly co-operating with the Maoists in the countryside, and suddenly the protests in the cities began to attract large crowds.

Conclusion

In August the PLA defeated the RNA in a frontal assault on a fortified base at Pili, in Kalikot district. The September 2005 meeting of the central committee of the CPN (Maoist) at Chunwang in the liberated district of Rukum set out the terms for agreement with the parliamentary political parties, and announced a unilateral three-month truce. Negotiators -- notably Bam Dev Gautam of the CPN (UML) and Comrade Prakash of the CPN (Unity Centre/Masal) -- traveled to the liberated district to prepare the groundwork for a formal pact. But the two primary leaders of the parliamentary parties, Girija Koirala of the Congress party and Madhav Nepal of the UML, refused to go to Rolpa -- in Nepal, but in liberated territory -- for the final negotiations, insisting on a foreign, Indian, venue. The Indian government was forthcoming, and successful negotiations between the revolutionaries and the political parties on a joint insurrectionary course concluded in November 2005 (the "12 Point Agreement").

The United States openly sided with the Palace in denouncing the agreement, insisting that the Maoists were "illegitimate" and not proper parties to a settlement. But events now moved quickly, and in short order it was Gyanendra and Moriarty who were isolated. In April 2006 a coordinated urban insurrection carried out jointly by the political parties and the Maoists challenged the security forces, the last remaining stronghold of the Palace. At length the command was forced to tell the King that their troops were no longer willing to fire on the citizenry, and the Palace gave in.

In a final move aimed at splitting the insurrectionary coalition, the long-expired parliament -- elected for a maximum five-year term in 1999, and in which the revolutionaries were not represented -- was recalled by the Palace. A government of the parliamentary parties, headed by Girija Koirala, was installed and tasked itself with reaching a peace agreement with the revolutionaries and meeting their demand for elections to a Constituent Assembly. A peace agreement, providing for a partial disarmanent to be monitored by the United Nations, was reached in the fall of 2006. The agreement in substance gave equivalent status to the Nepal Army and the PLA, and was welcomed by the international community. Moriarty, after an initial outburst of petulance, kept his silence. By early 2007 the carefully realistic Chinese were meeting with the revolutionaries, and the designation "Maoists" appeared in China's media. Even the British, slipping the leash, in March 2007 issued a visa to Chandra Prakash Gajurel, the foreign affairs spokesperson for the Maoists. On April 1, 2007, the Maoists entered the government.

The formidable U.S. military intervention in Nepal has, for the time, been thwarted. The United States continues to term "terrorist" -- and threaten criminal sanctions against -- the CPN(M) and its supporters. This is, at minimum, confirmation that hostile U.S. intervention in the internal affairs of Nepal keeps on. Yet, although the Nepal Army remains more under U.S. than Nepali command and covert actions aimed at a resumption of civil war in Nepal are certain to continue to occur, the worst of the danger has passed. U.S. global power is on the decline, that of China on the increase. A renewed Indian military intervention also would face difficulties. As Prithvi Narayan Shah understood at the start of a dynasty that is today in its final days, the stronger China the less Nepal has to fear from India.

The popular triumph of April 2006 and the subsequent peace agreement were accomplished by the Nepalis themselves. Despite the ongoing manipulation of communalism by both domestic and foreign enemies, the revolutionary forces in Nepal now have a breathing space to move toward a new democracy free of the most dangerous forms of foreign military intervention. This is a substantial achievement.

Source: Economic and Political Weekly, May 19, 2007

Maoists pushing nation to dangerous polarization

PRAJWAL SHRESTHA

Amid confrontations and clashes with opposing parties and also the police, the Maoists are moving ahead with the political programmes, which are bringing the country to a dangerous situation. What the Maoists have shown is that the party has done its homework and it has well made plans on how to move ahead. This can hardly be said of the other traditional parties like the Nepali Congress and the CPN (UML). They are in virtual political wilderness and it is difficult to see them making any impact, if an election is really held.

In fact the UML has just tried to follow in the Maoists footsteps by simply echoing what this extreme Left party has been saying. For example, the Maoists called for quick constituent assembly polls and the UML followed, then the Maoists called for a republican state and the UML again did the same, now the Maoists disturbed parliament proceedings and the UML is following suit. This party has done the same, regarding its stance about Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala. During all this time, the Nepali Congress, which calls itself the “biggest” political party, has remained a mute witness. Sporadic statements from leaders without mass base are just not enough for the party to counter the overwhelming political advantages the Maoists are gaining.

Meanwhile, the Maoists are pushing the nation to a dangerous situation by unilaterally calling for the nation to be declared a republic. Even a staunch communist like Nepal Workers and Peasant Party chairman Narayan Man Bijukche has criticized such a demand. He explained that more time should be given to replace an institution that had been in the country for more than 200 years. Instead, Bijukche accused the bigger parties in the eight party alliance of selling themselves to India. “When top level leaders go there to consult about even small decisions, what else can you say?”, he questioned in a TV interview.

It is unclear at whose insistence the Maoists are following their present stance of unilaterally calling for a republic, but, what is sure is, they are inviting a violent confrontation to the country by doing so. Like Bijukche, the leaders of the other parties in the eight party alliance must wake up to the threat being manifested by the Maoists. If these parties want their existence to continue, specially as democratic parties, then they must not allow the Maoists to trample over the rights of millions of Nepalese. Even after days of forceful campaigning, what could the Maoists do, just raise, what they claimed to be one million plus signatures. Critics have said that there were thousands of “repeated” signatures. But what all must be aware about is the politically effective manner in which they presented the signatures to the Speaker. But still, it was only a few so called mainstream media which like in the past, gave encouraging coverage to the event. Otherwise, most general people are fed up by the constant disturbances being created by the Maoists. The Americans have done well by not removing this group from its terrorist list. After all, the party at present, though in the parliament and also the government, is doing nothing but “terrorizing the prime minister, the other parties, security personnel and the people in general.

Source: American Chronicle, May 17, 2007

Rise of a party

MALLIKA ARYAL

In 1997, a group of madhesi intellectuals and students banded together to discuss their concerns and issues. There was no formal membership in this Biratnagar-based group and participants included leftists and members of other mainstream parties. The common denominator was their disenchantment with the big parties and the sense that their debates were largely ignored. The Madhesi Janadhikar Forum soon emerged as the most-respected, representative platform for madhesi issues.

In the same year, the Maoists celebrated their first anniversary underground by intensifying their struggle in the mid-west, Nepal had three unstable coalition governments, and the human rights situation deteriorated as scores were detained by the state. Ten years later, the Maoists have entered into the peace process, and the MJF has turned relatively violent. Both, however, are now registered as parties with the Election Commission and much of the fight for influence in the madhes is between these two fronts.

Insiders tell us that the Maoist leadership was sympathetic to the Forum at the start, and even instrumental in organising it. Around 1999 Upendra Yadav, then a regular member of UML, started becoming closer to the Maoists. In February 2004, Upendra Yadav, Maoist leaders Matrika Yadav and Mohan Baidya were arrested in Delhi. Upendra Yadav was let go after a couple of months, while Matrika Yadav and Mohan Baidya were handed over to Nepali authorities and were released in 2006. Those close to Upendra Yadav say that during the time of his arrest he was already trying to distance himself from the Maoists because of discrimination he felt in the ranks within the Maoist hierarchy and because he did not agree with the Maoist plan to divide madhes into ‘Madhes Autonomous Region’ and ‘Tharuwan Autonomous Region’. Vijay Kant Karna, chairperson of Jaghrit Nepal says, “No one was happy in the tarai with the Maoists because they called it Madhes Government but high ranks in their party were given to pahadis.”

After the 1 February 2005 royal takeover Upendra Yadav and Jaya Prakash Gupta, former general secretary of the MJF and present Nepali Congress MP started travelling back and forth between India and Nepal to prepare for a movement in Nepal. After last year’s April Uprising Upendra Yadav returned to Nepal and in the eight months after Jana Andolan II, the MJF had successfully held meetings in almost all the districts of Nepal. Since then, the forum and Yadav have been accused of both flip-flopping and forming alliances with Hindu fundamentalist groups in India, such as the Rastiya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). In December Yadav attended a meeting of rightwing Hindu groups in Gorakhpur and spoke out publicly about making Nepal a Hindu nation again. A month later he was leading the movement for a secular federal republic.

He can be highly influenced by others,” says Nepali Congress MP Amresh Kumar Singh, adding, “If you try to play with all the powers, you forget the cause you were fighting for.” Like most madhesi leaders who do not actively profess membership in the MJF, Singh too is said to have had a falling out with Yadav. Jaya Prakash Gupta, who is close to Yadav, says the accusations of alliances with the palace and Indian fundamentalist groups are misguided. “If mainstream political parties meet with big Indian leaders, no one calls that an ‘unholy alliance’,” Gupta told us from Biratnagar. Gupta said that since Gaur, Yadav has not been allowed to move freely or explain “his side of the story”.

That Gupta and other moderate madhesi leaders took a careful line on Gaur while speaking to us is an indication of the pan-madhesi appeal that the forum still has. On the one hand, they argued, Gaur was ‘retaliation’ for months of harassment and disruption of MJF meetings by the Maoists Tarai Mukti Morcha. On the other, most admit it was a tactical mistake. “If the MFJ had been willing to sit for talks right after the Madhes Uprising, they could have bargained their way into more madhesi representation and investigations of Lahan and Nepalganj, and pressured the prime minister to implement the promises made during his second address,” says Chandra Kishore, editor of Terai News Magazine in Birganj. “Now, after Gaur, everyone fears the forum as a criminal organisation.” Sarita Giri of the Nepal Sadbhawana Party-Anandi Devi, says the MJF is not in the least militant. “They are not armed, Gaur was retaliation against the Maoists because they had disrupted their activities in Bhairahawa and Nepalganj,” she argues.

Meantime, there is said to be a few faultlines showing in the forum, one between the more left-wing members and Yadav, and the other between Yadav’s supporters who believe this was the right time to register a party and Gupta’s group, which argues that fundamental issues need to be settled before deciding to contest elections. There are signs of a split in the ranks—an insider tells us that of the 25 members in the working committee, only 13 members’ names were on the list given to the Election Commission during registration. Gupta pooh-poohs this and says that though his proposal lost out, he will support the MJF as a party. Yadav gets the most publicity, but there are other prominent figures in the forum, such as veteran leftist leader Sitananda Raya, and MJF secretary general Ram Kumar Sharma. There are two vice chairmen Bhagyanath Gupta, a professor at Birganj’s Thakur Ram Bahumukhi Campus, and Kishore Biswas Tharu, a former member of Nepal Sadbhawana Party. “As a political party our agenda is pretty clear—we want democratic system of governance, autonomous federal structure, proportional elections, and we want Nepal to be a republic” says Jitendra Sonal, MJF’s secretariat member. Analysts say that given the lack of commitment seen on the part of the government to resolving madhesi issues, the MJF as a political party could take off stronger than those who call the forum irresponsible might imagine.

Source: Nepali Times, May 18, 2007

PLA should be inducted into security force: Madhav Nepal

General secretary of the CPN-UML Madhav Kumar Nepal said on Friday problems will arise if Maoist combatants are kept in cantonments for long."The combatants can be integrated into national security wings. Border security force or industrial security force can also be created to absorb them," he said.The registration and verification process of Maoist combatants and their arms would have been easier had the parties agreed to the one-man-one-weapon principle as suggested by security experts, Nepal said while releasing a book entitled "Shanti Vrta: Anterkatha" authored by journalist Subhas Devkota."Following the eight-point agreement on June 16, 2006, Maoist chairman Prachanda had agreed to the one-man-one-weapon principle. He had put the strength of People's Liberation Army (PLA) at 10 to 12 thousands. But they later invited youths to join the PLA as time elapsed," Nepal said.

Nepal urged the parties to speak clearly on monarchy and give others no room for suspicion. He reiterated the party's stance that there was no alternative to proportional representation system of election to address the issues of Madhesis, Janajatis, women and Dalits. He also urged the Maoists to return the seized property and abide by the rule of law.Devkota said he tried his best to cover the untold stories of the entire peace process, including the 12-point understanding, in the book.Dr Shekhar Koirala, Nepali Congress central leader and close aide to PM Girija Prasad Koirala, however, claimed that the peace process had moved ahead faster than had been expected initially.He also admitted having political deadlock among the eight parties when they were close to declaring the date for the constituent assembly election. "Such problems do arise when we reach close to our goals," Koirala said, adding that parties would sort out their differences amicably.

Koirala said the king's power can be further curbed by if the strength of the army deployed inside the Narayanhiti Royal Palace is halved and Gyanendra's property held in the capacity of the king and assets belonging to late King Birendra, Aishworya and their families are nationalised.He also suggested forming a high-level commission to recommend the type of federalism for Nepal. He said concrete measures should be taken within a month to ameliorate the plight of Maoist combatants living in camps.He suggested that top leaders of the eight parties should come up with a package solution to all the pressing issues.

'OLD COMMUNISM OBSOLETE'KATHMANDU: Nepali communist parties should adopt democratic norms and pluralism in keeping with the ever-changing society, Nepal said on Friday. "The conventional communism has become obsolete now," he said at a programme organised by the Madan Bhandari Foundation to commemorate the 14th death anniversary of CPN (UML) leaders Madan Bhandari and Jibraj Ashrit. Nepal said it will be wise to strike a balance of power among various political parties. He called on the Maoists to put people at the centre. — HNS

Source: The Himalayan Times, May 19, 2007

Nepal’s Maoists: Purists or Pragmatists?

Nepal’s Maoists have changed their strategy and tactics but not yet their goals. In 1996 they launched a “people’s war” to establish a communist republic but ten years later ended it by accepting multiparty democracy; their armed struggle targeted the parliamentary system but they are now working alongside their former enemies, the mainstream parties, in an interim legislature and coalition government. Their commitment to pluralistic politics and society is far from definitive, and their future course will depend on both internal and external factors. While they have signed up to a peaceful, multiparty transition, they continue to hone alternative plans for more revolutionary change.

Maoist strategy is shaped by a tension between purity and pragmatism. Although they stick to certain established principles, they have long been willing to shift course if they identify strategic weaknesses. Their changed approach was demanded by recognition of three critical flaws in their original plan: (i) they concluded their belief in military victory had been misplaced; (ii) they acknowledged they had misread the likelihood of determined international opposition; and (iii) they woke up to the failures that caused the collapse of twentieth-century communist regimes.
Despite having an authoritarian outlook, the Maoists maintained a culture of debate within their party; key issues have been widely discussed and hotly contested. From the end of the 1990s, they have moved gradually toward a more moderate stance. They changed positions in acknowledging the 1990 democracy movement as a success (they had earlier characterised it as a “betrayal”), in abandoning the immediate goal of a Mao-style “new democracy” and, in November 2005, by aligning themselves with the mainstream parties in favour of multiparty democracy.

Despite having an authoritarian outlook, the Maoists maintained a culture of debate within their party; key issues have been widely discussed and hotly contested. From the end of the 1990s, they have moved gradually toward a more moderate stance. They changed positions in acknowledging the 1990 democracy movement as a success (they had earlier characterised it as a “betrayal”), in abandoning the immediate goal of a Mao-style “new democracy” and, in November 2005, by aligning themselves with the mainstream parties in favour of multiparty democracy.

The Maoists have cultivated formerly hostile forces, such as the Indian government and the staunchly anti-Maoist Communist Party of India (Marxist), to the extent of alienating their foreign allies. Supporters such as the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement and Indian Maoists had backed their insurgency but have been vocally critical of the compromises made in the peace process. They think their Nepali comrades have betrayed fundamental principles and thrown away the practical advantages they had secured through their armed struggle.

For Nepal’s Maoists, however, the balance sheet at the end of ten years of “people’s war” is more complex. They believe they have secured some lasting advantages, from their own dramatic rise to influence (with a support base and military force hardly imaginable in 1996) to their reshaping of the national political agenda (promoting formerly taboo causes such as republicanism and federalism). But the course of the war persuaded most of their leadership that they could not go it alone and would have to be more flexible if they were to build on these gains.

The peace process has forced practical and theoretical rethinking. Leaders have tried to present a more moderate image as they balance complex equations of domestic and international support and opposition. Maoist ministers have to cooperate with colleagues from other parties and work with the bureaucracy even as they plan a possible insurrection and plot to isolate “regressive” opponents. Ideologically, they define the peace process as a transitional phase in which they can destroy the “old regime” and restructure the state. They justify this by saying their acceptance of a bourgeois “democratic republic” is only a stepping stone on the way to a true “people’s republic”. Leaders argue that they can create a new form of “peaceful revolution” that is true to their communist aims but reflects the reality of Nepal’s politics.

It is tempting to brand the Maoists as either rigid radicals or unprincipled opportunists but neither characterisation explains the whole picture. Their threats to revert to mass insurrection satisfy traditionalists in their own movement and cannot be ignored. But leaders who have fought hard to forge a new approach will be loath to turn their backs on the hard-won advantages they have secured through compromise. They know they face internal opposition but believe they can hold the line as long as the peace process maintains momentum and allows them to achieve some of their headline goals.

Their likely behaviour as the process moves forward, therefore, will depend upon the role of other political actors as much as their own decisions. If the mainstream parties keep up a strong commitment to the constituent assembly process, the Maoists will find it hard to back out. If this route is blocked, the Maoists may find their effort at controlled rebellion slipping into renewed conflict beyond their leaders’ control. If this were to happen, the Maoists themselves would be big losers. But so would the democratic parties and, even more so, the people of Nepal.

Source: Abstract from International Crisis Group, Report on Nepal, May 18, 2007

Nepal again heads for constitutional crisis

Chitra Tiwari

Nepal is heading toward a constitutional crisis June 15 after Chief Election Commissioner Bhoj Raj Pokhrel notified the interim government on April 12 that the commission would be unable to hold elections to a Constituent Assembly for lack of election laws and other technicalities. He asked that the elections be held 110 days after June 14, the date specified by the interim constitution for holding the elections. No new date for the elections has been announced, nor has there been any attempt to amend the interim constitution to allow for a new date. Proceedings of the Legislative-Parliament have been disrupted for more than a month by Madheshi legislators representing southern Nepal near the Indian border, and also by Maoists.

Madheshis live in the flatlands of southern Nepal, a region called Madhesh. They are fighting for equality in Nepal's government and society. While the Maoists have returned to the legislature seeking immediate declaration of a Nepal republic, the Madheshi legislators disrupt proceedings with demands to cancel the Election Constituency Delineation Commission (ECDC), announce the date for the Constituent Assembly elections, and a new census in the Madhesh region, among other issues. Consequently, the interim Eight-Party Alliance (EPA) government that includes the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), formed April 1, has become an April Fool's joke, and seems ready to collapse June 15 when its term ends. The Maoists don't want to be fooled, and their leader, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, also known as Prachanda, says eight-party unity has crumbled, because its basis was the commitment of the other parties -- especially the Nepali Congress party that heads the coalition government -- to hold elections to a Constituent Assembly within the constitutionally scheduled time frame.

Last Sunday, thousands of Maoists and their supporters formed a 3-mile-long human chain around Singha Durbar, a palace that houses the offices of Cabinet ministers as well as the Legislative-Parliament, seeking the immediate declaration of a republic by parliamentary decree. Participants turned over a petition with 1.5 million signatures to House Speaker Subash Chandra Nemang, demanding the immediate declaration of a republic. Prachanda, the Maoist leader, says the new basis of eight-party unity must be an agreement to have the Legislative-Parliament declare Nepal a democratic republic and then set the new date for elections. However, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala insists that declaring the republic must be left to the first session of the Constituent Assembly, as stipulated in the interim constitution.

The politicians are blaming each other for the government's failure to hold elections by the agreed date. All the leftist parties, which make up a majority in the interim legislature, accuse Mr. Koirala, 85, of dillydallying for fear his party will emerge from the elections in the minority because of the growing leftist influence in Nepal. His supporters say the Maoists are no less responsible for the government's failure to hold the elections because of their failure to abide by agreements to return the seized property of those who supported the royal regime. Under the 12-point agreement between the seven parties and the Maoist rebels, signed in New Delhi in November 2005, the Maoists agreed to return properties seized "in an unjust manner." What is a "just" or "unjust" manner remains a subject of debate. Local Maoist cadres have refused to return the seized properties of several hundred rich landowners, but allowed small landholders to return to their villages.

The Maoist rank-and-file say distributing land of rich landowners was a way to empower the landless poor, and so returning the land to its previous owners will disappoint their constituency, make the people feel cheated, and might lead them to switch sides, reducing the support base of the party. They have begun asking their own leaders how could they kill the spirit of the revolution by returning the land?

Nepal watchers say that with the exception of Mr. Koirala, who continues to insist the elections will be held sometime in November, all other parties and civic leaders now suspect the election of a Constituent Assembly will never take place -- recalling that a similar promise in 1951 never materialized, because of monarchical machinations.

Barsha Man Pun, also known as Ananta, deputy commander of the Maoist People's Liberation Army, threatened on May 5 that if there cannot be Constituent Assembly elections, and the Legislative-Parliament fails to declare the country a republic, "We, too, are not bound to stay in cantonments or continue to stick to our previous agreements."

Analysts say declaring Nepal a republic through parliamentary decree requires a political will on the part of the Nepali Congress party, but its leader, Mr. Koirala, is speaking tongue-in-cheek because of his love for ceremonial monarchy, since the latter could be an effective shield for Mr. Koirala's party against the communists. In fact, the late B.P. Koirala, founder of the Nepali Congress party, the first elected prime minister in 1959, and elder brother of the current prime minister, realized this long ago when he said that his and the king's neck were "welded together." Constitutional analysts say the interim constitution needs to be amended right away to allow the government to fix a new date for Constituent Assembly elections and to allow the Legislative-Parliament to abolish the monarchy. Maoists think they see a conspiracy in delaying the elections hatched by "international forces in league with domestic monarchical reactionaries placed within the seven parties." They think the intent is to keep intact the network of monarchical old boys and characterize Mr. Koirala as the long hand of the United States.

Meanwhile, civil unrest and violence in the countryside are on the rise, prompting the U.S. State Department to issue a travel advisory on May 7, saying: "Violent clashes between Maoists and indigenous groups have taken place in recent months in the Terai region, along the southern border with India, in one case resulting in 27 deaths. Ethnic tensions in the Terai region have spawned violent clashes with police, strikes, demonstrations and closures of the border with India. The U.S. Embassy strongly recommends against non-essential travel to this region. Clashes between Maoists and groups who oppose them also recently have extended into Katmandu." The ethnic civil unrest has spread throughout Nepal, a country inhabited by nearly 90 ethnic groups. A coalition of hill tribes has demanded federal restructuring of the state on ethnic lines, with the right to self-determination and proportional representation in the interim constitution before elections to the Constituent Assembly. It has called for nationwide protests starting May 17 and a general strike on June 1, 10 and 11.

The Madhesis have been agitating since mid-January, demanding autonomy. They have clashed with police as well as former Maoist militias now called the Young Communist League (YCL). The clashes have claimed nearly 60 lives, including those of 27 Maoists, and damaged Nepal's economy. Analysts say the peace process in Nepal has become a hostage of the government's failure to hold elections. The Maoists have refused until Nepal is declared a republic to cooperate the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) for the second stage of verification of their cadres, a new date for election is scheduled, living conditions in the U.N. supervised cantonments are improved and salaries and job guarantees to the combatants are assured. The U.N. representative Ian Martin says the Maoists' obligation to allow verification is unconditional and that the UNMIN cannot accept its linkage to any precondition. Analysts say the rising civil unrest, political bickering, parliamentary disruptions, and a decreasing level of political communication within the Eight-Party caucus indicate a diminishing chance for elections to a Constituent Assembly anytime this year. The situation appears to be ripe for yet another uprising that could settle the leftover issues of last year's unfinished revolution, namely, abolition of the monarchy and the passing of power to the Maoists, now rechristened "republican democrats."

Source: The Washington Times, May 19, 2007

Prachanda to talk with PM regarding monarchy's future

Maoist chairman Prachanda has said he would hold talks with the prime minister regarding declaring the country a republic from the House before the eight party meeting gets underway.
He said this while talking to reporters in Pokhara Friday where he is currently in to garner support for the republican proposal that Maoist MPs tabled at the parliament last Sunday .
"Except Nepali Congress (NC), other parties have already agreed to declare the country a republic from the house," the Maoist supremo told Kantipur daily, adding that he would talk with the PM about this issue after he returns to Kathmandu.

If congress (NC) agrees, then the institution of monarchy would easily be abolished, he added.
He also warned that if NC declines to declare the country a republic then the Maoists would take to the streets to step up pressure on the government for it.
During his stay in Pokhara, Prachanda had also met CPN-UML leader Bamdev Gautam and held discussion on a broad range of issues including establishing a republican set up and forging a leftist alliance. Prachanda is due to arrive in Kathmandu today.

Ethnic cleansing

New York-based Human Rights Watch has rightly assessed the gross violation of human rights in Bhutan. The Druk regime, which evicted over one hundred thousand people back in the 1990s, continues to deny the rights of minorities living there for centuries. Now, the fear is that the third country resettlement plan undertaken by the United States may further encourage the Druk dictator to evict the remaining Lhotshampas. And this is happening at the behest of India -- the largest democracy, which is backing Bhutan's policy of ethnic cleansing. Bhutan has adopted several ways to evict the Nepali minority. First, it has introduced a 'No Objection Certificate' system. It is a must for admission in schools, registration of any firm, running a business establishment for a living or employment. Issuance of such certificates has denied the basic education to the children of Lhotshampas. Second, Bhutan has no constitution as to ensure the rights of the minority. The royal edicts are the supreme law of that country. As a result, hundreds of innocent people have been languishing in the Druk jails for decades.

No country has committed such heinous crimes against its people. Bhutan has denied no objection certificates to the Lhotshampas, with a clear intention of evicting them gradually. It has denied the right of over one hundred thousand refugees to return to their homeland. Yet, some Western countries, which are defending democracy across the world, have funded development projects in Bhutan. India has gone to the extent of protecting the autocratic regime. Earlier, Northeast Indian states did so to uproot the Nepali settlement. Hundreds of thousand of people of Nepali origin were forcefully evicted from Manipur, Meghalaya and Assam states in the 1980s citing them as foreigners. Now, Bhutan has done the same thing as Northeast Indian states did in the 1980s.

Bhutan is planning to hold polls early next year to eyewash the international community. The refugees languishing in UNHCR-administered camps in eastern Nepal will not be allowed to participate in the elections. Although the Druk regime has admitted that the refugees are bona-fide Bhutanese citizens, it has refused to take them back. Besides, the mockery of Bhutanese democracy is that the regime has allowed no individuals to form a political party. While one-fifth of the population is languishing outside Bhutan as refugees, how credible and authentic would such elections be? Obviously, Bhutan has not given up its state policy of ethnic cleansing. It continues to adopt techniques to block the repatriation attempt and sweep the minority out of its territory. Bhutan could do so by taking the side of the largest democratic country, India.

Source: The Kathmandu Post, May 19, 2007

Put The House In Order

Ritu Raj Subedi

The continued disruption of the legislative-parliament has further complicated the ongoing political deadlock that emerged following the failure of the coalition government to conduct the constituent assembly (CA) polls as per the interim statute. The current interim parliament is an outcome of the popular April movement, which set the loktantrik process in motion. The House of Representatives, restored after the movement, made some landmark announcements, including the curtailing of the King's sweeping powers and establishing full-fledged democracy in the country. Although the present parliament contains most of old faces from the major political parties, it has, for the first time, been represented by a considerable number of Maoist lawmakers. All of them have not been there through a fresh mandate of the people, but they have a vital role in taking the nation towards sustainable peace by instructing the government, and formulating laws and regulations in line with the spirit of loktantra.

Protracted impasse

However, the importance of the parliament has been overlooked by none other than the lawmakers of the ruling parties. It has been in a limbo for more than a month. In the beginning when the Maoists were not inducted in the government, they halted the regular proceeding of the parliament, demanding the formation of a new government that included them. After a brief interval, they continued to create pandemonium in the House following the Gaur carnage and deferral of the CA polls. Then after, the Madhesi lawmakers from all the political parties represented in the parliament joined the fray to press the government into fulfilling their demands. More recently, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party has also joined the agitation in the House only to protract the impasse. One of the interesting features of the protest scenario is that all the Madhesi MPs are up in arms to meet their demands, giving birth to factionalism in the parliament on communal lines. They have threatened to defy the whips of their respective parties if they are told not to raise their demands in the House. Their postures have raised some questions: Why do these MPs fail to channelise their demands through their parties? Why are the major political parties represented in the House mere spectators to this scenario?

By continuously disrupting the parliamentary session, the Madhesi MPs have challenged the leadership of their respective parties in sorting out the problem. While they are unilaterally calling on the parliament to heed to their demands, reports of instigation of communal feelings in the Terai are trickling in. People hailing from the hills have been constantly under threat and intimidation there. Some armed outfits operating in the Terai belt are targeting the Pahade communities. The government employees of hill origin live in fear as Madhesi militant groups are out to displace them from the administration and other government bodies. This tension has been further intensified after a minister representing the Terai sparked a controversy by saying that the region should be led by Madhesi leaders, not by people of hill origin. Is it just a coincidence or is there a link between the House obstructions and the rising tension in the Terai? The century-old social and cultural harmony existing among the various castes and communities have been alarmingly disturbed, thanks to the Maoists who launched political slogans on racial, communal and geographical lines during their people's war some 11 years ago. They floated ideas of the right to self-determination for the Madhesi, ethnic and indigenous people to muster support for their insurgency. They succeeded in their mission, but it has left behind a dangerous legacy as reflected in the Terai movement and in the activities of the Terai outfits.

These activities have threatened the territorial integrity of Nepal created by Prithvi Narayan Shah who unified small principalities into a single state nation 237 years ago. The popular movement last year did not envisage a divided nation. It had a mandate for building a new Nepal wherein all the Nepalese irrespective of class, colour and caste would realise their aspirations. The April movement aimed at establishing a democratic state that cannot be achieved when the nation is torn, and social harmony is ruffled. In response to the Terai uprising, the government approved the federal structure of governance and agreed on restructuring the state, whose modalities will be fixed by the CA polls. The parliament should work to stop the disturbing activities in the Terai. The parliament is a place where the nation's burning problems are solved. By holding it hostage, the situation will only worsen. The House deadlock will definitely disrupt the process of the CA polls as some major laws are yet to be enacted. The CA polls offer an opportunity for all, including the Madhesi people, to have their demands fulfilled. This fact should be realised by the agitating MPs.

Sensible way

Speaker Subash Chandra Nemwang launched a series of consultations with different political parties to end the impasse but was unsuccessful. Frustrated with the continued obstruction in the House, Prime Minister Koirala even went to the extent of saying that the government might be forced to take harsh measures if the lawmakers failed to cooperate with the government for the smooth running of the parliament. People do not want any autocratic government. They want the eight-party leaders to find a sensible way to solve the impasse in the House and avert the looming danger that has surfaced in the Terai.

Source: The Rising Nepal, May 19, 2007

Emerging Role Of Human Resource Management

Dr. Shyam Bahadur Katuwal

Human resource management (HRM) has been given importance in the academic and professional fields because of the role it plays in enhancing organisational performance. Presently, organisations are successful on account of competent human resource. Thus, human resource management is a requirement in facing competition successfully rather than fulfilling the legal and mandatory requirements. The role of HRM in Anglo-American organisations is said to be action-oriented, individual-oriented and future-oriented. However, in the case of Nepal, although the scenario of human resource management has been gradually shifting from record keeping of employees and providing piecemeal solutions to HR-related problems, it has not improved to the extent desired. Hence, Nepalese organisations are unable to face HR-related challenges, achieve business strategies and make them competitive and advantageous.

HRM in NepalDeveloping and utilising human competencies for organisational effectiveness in Nepal has received low priority from people involved in managing HR. HR managers are happy performing routine work concerning personnel administration, record keeping, welfare, discipline, labour relations and other operational issues rather than developing and utilising human resources and integrating HRM activities as a part and parcel of the business strategy. Managing human resources, therefore, is preoccupied with the traditional functions of personnel administration. Even after the changes in the socio-eco-political and technological environment in the country, Nepalese organisations face problems of low productivity, poor motivation, morale and satisfaction, adverse labour-management relations and so on. Such problems are more serious in public enterprises because of the unstable political environment, short-term political vision and excessive political interference in the day-to-day affairs of the enterprises. As per the Public Accounting Report 1997, the government blames the top executives of public enterprise for only unpardonable inefficiencies of the public enterprises. Except in some forward-looking organisations, linkage of HRM, including human resource development (HRD), with organisational performance and corporate strategy is still neglected.

Factors for the slow pace of development of HRM in Nepal are centralised organisations, lack of trust between labour and management, frequent changes of executives especially in government organisations and public enterprises, over and understaffing due to lack of appropriate human resource planning, feeling of seniority complex and lack of budget for HRD. The other emerging problem for the underdevelopment of HRM in some organisations is the protective market. The organisations operating in a protective market environment do not feel any responsibility of developing the necessary human resources for competitive advantages. Although it is mandatory to hire a labour welfare officer, many large organisations prefer to appoint a personnel manager/officer to look into the recruitment of personnel, including managerial ones. Thus, innovative human resource practices that emphasise a people-oriented, participatory, progressive and committed approach to HRM is out of bounds for most of the Nepalese organisations.The growing internationalisation of business has its impact on HRM functions. In the contemporary business environment, Nepalese organisations are in a constant state of competition. As the intensity of competition increases, the need for organisations to continuously improve their performance is a compulsion for their survival. The significance of traditional sources of competition like natural resources, technology and economies of scale is decreasing because these resources are easy to imitate. Since HR is an intangible, irreplaceable and inimitable asset of an organisation, the importance of HR in global competition began attracting the attention of Nepalese organisations since the 1990s with the liberalisation of the economy.

Direct investment by multinational corporations for global competition has forced organisations to find effective means of developing and utilising quality manpower. This, being so, the effective management of human capital, not physical capital, may be the ultimate determinant of organisational performance. Competition from multinational and domestic companies has compelled many enterprises to resort to downsizing, acquisitions, mergers or divestitures. The reorganisation will have an impact on the employees. They experience anxiety and uncertainty about their job in the new organisation. Thus, retention of quality employees is another concern of present organisations.The growth of powerful trade unions after the advent of democracy in 1990, introduction of protective labour laws, and increasing value of professionalism in the field of HRM, increasing size of organisations and introduction of new technology have further given impetus to changing the traditional role of human resource management in Nepal.An important key to the success in the gobalisation of business is the management of HR. With the changing character of competition, changed expectation of the employees, interest of the weaker section of the society, demographic changes in the workforce (increasing number of working women, young employees and dual-career couples with increasing awareness and education among workers and decline of blue-collar employees), the role of HRM has been changing.

The role of human resource managers, as a line function, is to coordinate HRM policies, programmes, procedures and activities with the business strategies for the attainment of corporate goals. Consequently, in order to cope with changes in the business environment, innovative HRM practices like Internet recruitment, use of psychological and behavioural tests for selection of employees, participatory goal setting, team appraisal and 360-degree appraisal are required in the different organisations.Participatory career plans, job rotation, need based training, attitude and communication training, challenging job assignment, team rewards, performance linked bonus, family directed rewards, greater transparency, outplacement service, exit interview and retirement counseling make HRM proactive to the global changes. Evidences indicate that HR practices influence employee attitudes, behaviour, perceptions, organisational climate and other human resource performance measures, which in turn lead to human resource performance and thereby organisational effectiveness.

Skilled labourIn the changed economic structure and patterns of competition, managers including HR professionals are required to facilitate the process of organisational development in place of controlling people through traditional personnel management. They must work to develop specialised skilled labour, manage a flexible work environment, create organisational constellations and strike strategic alliances for regular exchanges of manpower and information among the constellations. Competitive pressure, changing social values and need of employees have encouraged organisations to bring innovative HRM. Except in some big private organisations, joint venture banks, multinational companies and INGOs, the role of HRM is not considered yet to be of strategic importance to attain organisational goals in Nepal. Yet, it is expected to play a strategic role in making Nepalese organisations competitive in the years to come.

Source: The Rising Nepal, May 19, 2007

Zone Of Peace

PRIME Minister Girija Prasad Koirala has called upon the teachers to have faith in democratic practice and sit for dialogue to resolve the problems in the academic sector. Receiving a memorandum from the agitating teachers of private and boarding schools in Kathmandu Thursday, Prime Minister Koirala said that problems can be solved through dialogue in a democracy and called upon the teachers and others to follow democratic and civic practices. The remarks and request of the Prime Minster carry special significance at a time when the private and boarding schools have been closed due to the agitation of the teachers. The teachers in the private and boarding schools have launched the agitation demanding salary and other facilities at par with the teachers in the government schools. In response to the demand of the teachers and staff, owners of the private boarding schools had also threatened to shut down the schools as some of the private schools were not able to meet all the demands put forth by the teachers and other staff. As the owners and the teachers locked horn on some issues, the schools were closed from Thursday, which has made the future of the hundreds of thousands students uncertain. The owners and management also need to give serious attention to the just demands of the teachers in private schools.

However, teachers also need to demonstrate civic sense and behavour. Activities like pressure tactics, protests and school closure do not suit teachers. Moreover, no one has the right to play with the future of students. Teachers should be more responsible and sensitive towards the future of students. So they need to return to work and simultaneously initiate dialogue for resolving their problems. This is the right approach. Similarly, the government also needs to intervene and solve the problem as early as possible. Although the private sector has played a very important role in the development of education in Nepal, there are complaints about the exploitation of teachers in some schools. The government has failed to properly monitor the private schools and make sure that schools provided reasonable salary and facilities to the teachers and other staff. Most of the private schools charge exorbitant fees to students but provide little facilities to the teachers and students. So the government needs to intervene here. It is urgent that all the sectors, as observed by Prime Minister Koirala, demonstrated a civic culture and behavour in order to solve the problems in the academic sector and ensure peace in the schools.

Source: The Rising Nepal, May 19, 2007

IT For Development

Information technology (IT) is the most important gift of science of the 20th century to humankind. This technology has brought in unprecedented comforts to the people by changing the world into a global village. Anyone with access to IT facilities can know what is happening in any part of the world within a few minutes no matter where he or she is living. You can listen to the sounds and watch images of any incident in front of a screen in your room. And if you happen to miss any of the programmes, you can watch them by just logging onto the Internet at any time. Indeed, Internet services have added further comfort to the people in the recent decades - you can send and receive messages from anyone from any part of the globe within seconds. Nepalese, too, have taken tremendous advantage from the boom in the IT sector. However, these facilities are confined mostly in the urban areas, and the people living in the villages are yet to take much benefit from it. Though we also made a tremendous progress in the field of information and communications, especially after the political change of 1990, they are still not enough, considering the population deprived of telephone and Internet facilities.

Before the change of 1990, many of the district headquarters even lacked telephone services. Today almost all the district headquarters and small bazaars have telephone services, although in some districts the services were disrupted when the insurgents damaged the communications towers during the decade-long violence. Today many people living in the district headquarters and nearby villages use mobile phones. In a least developed country like Nepal where more than 80 per cent people still lack access to electricity, expanding Internet services in the villages is not feasible. However, the villages could be connected through telephone services. The government has shown its seriousness in this regard. In a message delivered on the occasion of World Telecommunication and Information Society Day Thursday, Minister for Information and Communications Krishna Bahadur Mahara hinted that the government was preparing to extend telecommunication services to the villages within the next fiscal year. Certainly, the development of the IT sector is a must for the overall development of a nation, and the government has been giving top priority to its development. However, efforts of the government alone will not be sufficient in the proper development of the sector unless the people as well as other concerned stakeholders support the government in its endevour. Hope World IT Day will inspire all to work for the development and expansion of IT services in the villages.

Source: The Rising Nepal, May 19, 2007