Stalemate in Nepal

Padmaja Murthy, INFA

Nepal appears to be heading for turmoil once again, with the Maoists quitting the interim coalition Government led by Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and threatening to return to the streets if the country was not declared a republic immediately. The first casualty of the Maoists action seems to be the disruption of the year-long peace agreement between the CPN- M and the political parties. With the election process already on uncertainty now looms large on whether the 22 November elections to the Constituent Assembly will go ahead as scheduled. Given the Maoists threat to derail the poll plans. It appears that the Maoists action was dictated by the feedback that they may not get a sizeable share in the seats Assembly and they had started having second thoughts on the entire political process initiated in the last few months. In fact, the Maoists wanted some dramatic shift like the abolition of the monarchy to swing votes in their favour. With the ruling Nepali Congress unwilling to go along with this type of change it has resulted not only in a stalemate between the Party and the Maoists but also put a question mark on the election process.

The genesis of the problem has it roots in the Jan Andolan II of April 2006 which forced King Gyanendra to restore the House of Representatives, dissolved in May 2002.When the House met in late April, it committed itself to holding the elections for a Constituent Assembly and a Government under Prime Minister Koirala was formed. The HOR declared itself a 'sovereign,' 'secular' and 'supreme' body, brought the army under civilian control, dissolved the royal Privy Council and cut the power and privileges of the King. A 25-point Code of Conduct was also drawn up between the Maoists and the Government during the ceasefire period. In November 2006, the Maoist Chairman Prachanda signed a historic deal with the Seven Party Alliance (SPA). The SPA consists of the Nepali Congress, Nepali Congress (Democratic), Communist Party of Nepal (UML), Jan Morcha Nepal, Nepal Workers and Peasants Party, Nepal Sadbhavana Party (A) and United left Front. Among other things, it called for elections to the Constituent Assembly (CA). Having had their way, the Maoists had successfully changed the political agenda in Nepal. Thus began the transition process in Nepal. With a clear goal to hold the Constituent Assembly elections.

The CA so elected would then draft a new Constitution which would transform the socio-politico-economic structure of Nepal, making it both democratic and inclusive. Given the consensus, the CA would also declare Nepal a republic. Prachanda also signed the historic Comprehensive Peace Agreement which declared the end of war that had been going on since 1996 between the Maoists and the Government. The tri-partite agreement on arms management of both the Nepali Army (NA) and the Maoist People's Liberation Army (PLA) was concluded between the UN, the Government and the CPN-(Maoist). In January this year, an interim Constitution promulgated by the SPA and the Maoists set-up a 330-member interim legislature which included 73 from the CPN (Maoist). The 22-member Cabinet which included 5 Maoist was headed by Prime Minister Koirala. From being branded as terrorists the Maoists were now partners in the Government.

The transition period, so far, has seen instances of great statesmanship and flexibility. Sadly, what stands out is the extreme violence, use of arms, abductions, extortions, killings and rigid stands taken by various groups. Resulting in serious reservations about whether the Constituent Assembly elections would be held at all as scheduled on 22 November 2007. Nepal, a country with a population of over 30 million has more than 100 ethnic/caste groups and over 93 languages. Post Jana Andolan II, many of these ethnic/caste groups - some old and some new are asserting for their rights once again. They believe that unless they have enough representatives elected in the CA, their political space will not be guaranteed which in turn will determine their economic and social space. While the interim legislative Parliament agreed on a mixed electoral system, they are now demanding complete proportional system for the CA elections.

The demand on the nature of federalism and autonomy and self determination varies from group to group. They want assurances on all these aspects before the CA elections are held. What has complicated matters is that these groups, like the Maoist insurgents, have adopted extreme violent means to put forward their demands. The agitations in Terai have become a major cause of concern .The Government held four rounds of talks with the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) but could not reach an agreement on key issues. It has called other agitating groups in the region for dialogue. The Janatantrik Mukti Morcha (Jwala Group) has ordered officials, hailing from the hills to leave the Terai plains, thereby vitiating the already tense atmosphere. Moreover, some of these groups have violent conflicts among themselves and also with the Maoist affiliated Madhesi groups. The Chure Bhawar Ekta Samaj has been demanding security and protection of rights of people of hilly region living in Madhesi region and an autonomous status for Chure Bhawar region.

The Government has held several rounds of negotiations with the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NFIN). It has also agreed to at least one representation of the 59 listed ethnic communities. The NFIN too has climbed down from its demand for a fully proportional representation based elections to the CA. The indefinite bandh called by Sanghiya Limbuwan Rajya Morcha and Khumbuvan Rashtriya Morcha (KRM) continue to paralyse life in eastern districts. There are agitations by the Dalit Civil Society Movement calling for 20 per cent reservation for the Dalit community in the Constituent Assembly. On the other hand the Maoist affiliated Young Communist League is engaging in indiscriminate abductions and torture. Going back on its earlier consensus, the Maoists now want a Republic declared before the CA elections. They are also demanding a fully proportional electoral system and not the mixed electoral system agreed to by them earlier.

The second round of verification of the Maoist combatants and arms by the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) is also facing problems due to non-compliance by the Maoists. In sum, all these issues need to addressed before the Constituent Assembly elections. The agitating groups need to realize that the CA elections will benefit them. For that law and order needs to be maintained. Importantly, the Constituent Assembly elections are a means to an end and not an end in itself. Only when the process of drafting a new Constitution concludes can Nepal be said to be out of the transition period. It is the only real chance of stability in Nepal. Between Jana Andoaln I and Jana Andolan II, the politico-socio-economic agenda of Nepal has permanently and positively changed. Whoever comes to power has to address the legitimate grievances of the marginalized sections of society. The CA elections will institutionalize the gains made so far and take the transition process further. If the civil society in Nepal is any indication, they will choose stability to anarchy. Further with the support from international actors, it is a task which needs to be accomplished.

Source: Central Chronicle, September 24, 2007

Q&A: Nepal's future

Former Maoist rebels in Nepal say they are pulling out from the interim government in protest over its failure to abolish the monarchy ahead of constituent assembly elections due to be held in November.

Why do the Maoists say they want to quit now?

The Maoists accuse Nepal's interim coalition government of failing to function in the spirit of the agreements reached earlier this year, when they say it was agreed that the monarchy should be abolished before the constituent assembly elections. Other parties in the interim government deny there was such an agreement.
In a list of demands submitted to the government, the Maoists called for Nepal immediately to become a republic instead of a constitutional monarchy. They also want the country to adopt a proportional representation system of elections, and for the vote itself to be delayed.
They have demanded that a commission should be established to investigate the disappearances of their supporters during Nepal's decade-long civil war, as well as better salaries for their former fighters, who they say are not being properly integrated into the country's army as agreed earlier this year.
Some observers say the Maoists have only threatened to withdraw because they fear they will not perform well in the 22 November elections.
So will they really leave the government?
The prime minister has not yet accepted the resignation of the four Maoists in the cabinet. Some analysts say that in tendering their resignations, the Maoists might just be trying to exert pressure on the prime minister and his allies to bow to their demands.

Are the Maoists likely to return to armed conflict?

The rebels have currently given no indication that they will return to arms, and have insisted that following last year's ceasefire with the government, they are committed to the path of peace.
Correspondents say that one option they may follow is to pursue a coalition agreement with the mainstream Nepal Communist Party (United Marxist-Leninist) - one of Nepal's mainstream political parties - and in so doing gain a significant share of power in the constituent assembly administration.

What is the point of the constituent assembly?

Under the terms of last year's peace deal, the future of the monarchy was supposed to have been decided by a democratically elected constitutional body, or constituent assembly, which will decide the country's future by devising a new constitution.
Critics of the rebels say that the issue of the monarchy was resolved in earlier negotiations with the rebels. At that time they said that their declared aim was for Nepal to become a communist republic, and that they would respect whatever the constituent assembly decided about the future of the monarchy.
All this comes amid a rise in ethnic and religious tension in Nepal, as different regional and political groups strive to assert their authority in advance of the polls.

Why did the Maoists suspend their armed struggle in November 2006?

The Maoists called a ceasefire after King Gyanendra ended his controversial direct rule in April 2006 and restored parliament.
The king backed down after weeks of strikes and protests against his rule which saw huge demonstrations against him.
Political parties who were then in opposition, and are now in government, had promised to work with the Maoists as a prelude to bringing them into government.

Why did the king back down and agree to reconvene parliament?

The short answer is the sheer size of the demonstrations against him - some of the biggest that the country has ever witnessed.
Faced with this vast display of people power, analysts say that the king had no choice but to back down or the country would have descended into anarchy.
Observers say with international pressure mounting on him and the mood among his opponents at home hardening, particularly after the deaths of a number of protesters at the hands of the security forces, the king had few other options.
The current parliament has now effectively reduced the monarchy to a ceremonial role. It has also ended Nepal's status as a Hindu state and turned it into a secular state.

Why did the king seize power in February, 2005?

He accused Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba's government of failing to win the support of the Maoist rebels for a deadline for peace talks and of failing to prepare the ground for elections in the spring of 2005.
However, analysts suggest the king might have been using these issues to strengthen his own role in Nepalese politics, perhaps seeking to create an absolute monarchy.
Whatever his intentions, his plans backfired and he finds himself in a much weaker position now, having in effect catalysed his opponents and the rebels into forging peace.

How strong are the Maoists?

At the height of their insurrection, the Maoists were virtually in control of most of rural Nepal, although the authorities disputed this.
They were frequently capable of launching enforced blockades of major towns and cities, showing they had the power to paralyse the economy.
As part of the ceasefire deal, both the rebels and the army agreed to put their arms beyond use under UN supervision, with former rebels confined to their bases at cantonments across the country.
Some analysts argue that the emergence in recent months of around a dozen armed groups in the south of the country - all extremely hostile to the former rebels - has meant that their hold over this populous part of the country has been weakened. In the cities, their support has never been strong.
But the rebels have remained capable of holding large-scale rallies across the country, and have threatened to use this tactic again on a large scale if their latest demands are not met.

Where do the Maoists derive their ideology?

The Maoists claim to be inspired by Chinese revolutionary leader Mao Zedong and want to establish a communist state.
Their shadowy leader's name, Prachanda, is translated as "the fierce one". The group is modelled on Peru's Maoist Shining Path guerrillas.

What was the human cost of the conflict?

More than 13,000 people were killed in violence in Nepal when the insurgency began 10 years ago, many of them civilians caught in cross-fire with security forces.
Both sides in the conflict were frequently accused of carrying out human rights abuses.

Source: BBC NEWS: September 18, 2007

Maoists 'short of options' in Nepal

Dhruba Adhikary

Nepal's interim government faces its first major setback after former Maoist rebels announced their decision to recall their ministers from the cabinet.

The withdrawal of a major partner from the coalition comes just two months before the country goes to crucial polls to elect an assembly tasked with drawing up a new, democratic constitution.
The Maoist announcement, however, was neither sudden nor unexpected.
While Prime Minister GP Koirala was familiar with Maoist discontent, he and leaders of other political parties in the government did not actually believe that the former rebels would leave the team before the task was completed.

The rebels had, after all, ended a decade-long armed insurgency in order to be a part of mainstream politics.
When Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai announced that all four Maoist ministers had resigned from posts they had occupied since April, he accused leaders of other coalition groups of not taking their well-publicised 22-point list of demands seriously.
Maoist leaders have also been saying that two of their demands are important if the polls set for 22 November are to be a meaningful exercise.

Monarchy row

Their first main demand is that the feudal institution of the monarchy be abolished ahead of the polls, to be replaced by a republic.
The second is that the traditional first-past-the-post electoral system be changed to one of proportional representation.

The Maoists consider this essential to give space to traditionally marginalised groups in society.
Maoist leader Bhattarai sought to offer reassurances that, although the former rebels opposed the November vote, his party would not withdraw their commitment to the peace process.
He also said that Maoist combatants now sheltered in UN-monitored cantonments would remain where they have been living for the past few months.

The written understanding reached previously to work with the coalition of seven parties, Mr Bhattarai said, would not be cancelled.
But it is not clear how reliable such assurances are, given that the Maoist leadership has already issued directives to their comrades across the country to launch a "peaceful" agitation with a view to preventing the forthccoming elections - which from their standpoint would be a farce.

Maoist vote fears

Elections cannot be free and fair as long as the monarchy is allowed to survive with possible support from a loyal army, goes the Maoist theory. Independent political analysts suspect that the Maoists' decision to stay away from the polls is because they now realise that it is simply not feasible to expect to gain a majority of votes from people who were terrorised by them in the past.
But the Maoists do not agree with this viewpoint and say they have been forced to change their position in the context of growing conspiracies.
They accuse external powers (mainly India and the US) of not wanting a stable and prosperous Nepal with China as its northern neighbour.

Prime Minister Koirala and other coalition leaders appear disappointed by the Maoist attitude over the monarchy.
They say they have all publicly expressed their commitment to opt for a republican set-up after the November polls, and there was no need for the Maoists to cast doubt on the sincerity of other partners who worked together to bring about the political changes which ended palace rule in April 2006.

Left coalition?

Mr Koirala and other party leaders want the Maoist leadership to honour the agreements they signed - and say they face losing credibility as a political party if they do not.
Some of the leaders are angry with the Maoists for trying to deprive other parties of their due credit for having played a role in the continuing changes.
Analysts say that the Maoist have limited options.
The chances of their going back underground are slim in view of the sea change in overground politics in the past year.

Crossing the border into India is not easy either, especially in view of Delhi's changed policy towards the Maoists.
Indian authorities are also concerned over the growing Maoist menace that some of its states have been facing in recent years.
One possible way out for the Maoists would be to settle for some kind of coalition politics with other left-wing parties.
In fact, some of the smaller left-leaning parties have already started to receive feelers from the Maoists about forging an alliance.

Source: BBC, News, September 18, 2007

Red Army in the Dragon Kingdom

Deepak Adhikari

Another Maoist insurgency is going to rock yet another country in South Asia, if the statements made by the leaders of the Communist Party of Bhutan Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (CPM MLM) are anything to go by. “Preliminary preparations for an insurgency are over. We are going to launch it soon,” says Vikalpa, nom-de-plume of CPB MLM General Secretary.

Bhutan is holding its parliamentary elections in March and April 2008. But, prior to the election date, CPB MLM plans to launch its ‘People’s War’ in the Himalayan kingdom.
The goal: Abolition of monarchy and establishment of a republic.
Following the footsteps of Nepali Maoists who had submitted a 40-point demand to the then Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba before launching a ‘People’s War’, CPB MLM faxed a 13-point demand to the Royal Government of Bhutan on March 22, 2007.

The letter stressed the need to “introduce people’s democracy in the place of absolute monarchy.” The party has asked for multi-party democracy, repatriation of the refugees to their original homes with honor and dignity, release of all political prisoners and to introduce the land reform act etc.

Vikalpa (literally, alternative) says that fulfillment of the demands would have paved the way for a peaceful resolution. “But, the government, rather than taking it seriously, has unleashed terror by arresting commoners, and this has prompted us to wage an armed struggle,” says CPB supremo Vikalpa.The Druk regime is yet to respond to these demands.

The unfolding events suggest that South Asia’s only active monarchy that is ruling the so-called ‘Last Shangri-La’ is likely to take the country into Maoist violence. The eruption of militancy in northeastern South Asia will not only push Bhutan into turmoil but the two biggest Asian power i.e. India and China will have to deal with yet another insurgency in their backyards.

Source: Toriganthe TV, September 25, 2007

The Political Stand Off In Nepal

Harsh Dobhal

This week, Maoists have resigned from the government after most governing parties opposed their demand that the monarchy be abolished before the elections scheduled in November. They have clearly accused PM Koirala and his Nepali Congress of trying to protect King Gyanendra and have warned to start a new "people's revolt" for the abolition of monarchy. Maoists were quick to gather that conservative elements in political parties are gathering together. Other coalition partners contend that the decision about Nepal's future political system should be decided by a special assembly after the November elections.

Having suffered for decades at the hands of a brutal, Royal Nepalese Army, armed police and king's other security forces, the people of Nepal rose in millions during the April revolution last year with a clear objective in mind: abolition of the centuries-old monarchy.
Despite American, Chinese and Indian chess games of diplomacy, the people of Nepal succeeded in putting their stamp on history and the king was forced to retreat and give up his absolute and unlimited powers. As in all revolutions, there was always the danger that the forces of reaction would regroup and old hawks of Nepali politics will try to have their way.

After over a decade of underground struggle, Maoists came over ground, disarmed and joined the government with the Seven Party Alliance. They put forward a series of unprecedented proposals for the restoration of true democracy, the disarming of the militia and drafting of a new Constitution. It was a brave decision by Maoists to outline the roadmap for a brave new Nepal.
Maoists, as much as the people, were always clear that monarchy should have no place in Nepali politics, that the country should be immediately declared a Republic. They never had any doubt that Nepal needs a general election, having abolished monarchy where the most marginalized - the dalits, the adivasis, madhesis, vanvasis, women, minorities and other weaker sections - will have adequate representation.

At that time the move was seen as an end to their armed rebellion and this little, beautiful Himalyan nation appeared to be on the threshold of a new era. This week, Maoists have resigned from the government after most governing parties opposed their demands that the monarchy be abolished before the elections scheduled for November.
They have clearly accused Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and his Nepali Congress of trying to protect King Gyanendra and have warned to start a new "people's revolt" for the abolition of monarchy. Other coalition partners contend that the decision about Nepal's future political system should be decided by a special assembly after the November elections.

The Maoists had earlier joined the interim government in April 2006, after signing a peace agreement with the government. The new developments simply signify the fact that Nepal's politics has been slowly but steadily lapsing into complacency from such momentous changes that were paving the way for not just consistent and lasting democratisation of the State but also its secularisation from a declared only Hindu State.
Maoists were quick to gather that conservative elements in political parties are gathering together. However, these forces would be compelled to come to negotiation with Maoists as the tide might rise once again. Maoists may have lost some ground after April Revolution of last year, but they have enough base to win back that ground. And they know it, for otherwise none is going to be as hard hit by new developments as Maoists who had laid down their weapons at a time when the mood in Nepal was upbeat.

The crisis that had been gathering over Nepal howsoever surreptitiously during past few months bode ill for the Maoists. And, they had no option but to take a strong decision to quit the government. Koirala had sadly been missing this till the Maoists decided to part away with his dispensation. Even if the country goes to polls on November 22, the appeal of the Maoists would be powerful, as they have raised more basic issues than merely electing legislators. So it is in the best interest of the government and the people to see as to how the Maoists' participation in not just polls but the political process is won back.

India has come under Nepalese ire, for Koirala has been blamed of toeing New Delhi's line. Yet, the fact is that the Manmohan Singh Government is grappling with its own crisis where the Left is miffed by it over the nuclear issue and it lacks the kind of cohesion that it had until last year when the Nepal crisis was solved.
India can facilitate in solving a crisis in a neighbouring country like Nepal, but it can only ill afford to dictate anything to any one. The move by Maoists has raised fresh questions about the peace process and stability in Nepal. Will the feudal, pro-monarchy forces and their external patrons come together for maneuver? Does the political mainstream of Nepal now belong to these elements or to radical forces?

Is the spirit of the April revolution still lingering in the hearts of Nepalese people? Are some of the parties engaging in a conspiracy against the peoples' aspirations and demands? The answers to these and many other questions will unfold in coming weeks and months.

Source: Counter Currents.Org, September 25, 2007

NEPAL: INDIA IMPOSE TRAVEL RESTRICTION ON MAOISTS

Latest reports have it that the Indian establishment has issued a ban order against the Maoists in Nepal from entering into their Territory. To recall, it was India that sheltered the Nepali Maoists for over a decade when they were waging a revolt in their homeland and were categorized as terrorists across the globe. The US has yet to lift the terrorist tag from the Maoists.

Now, the Maoists after joining the main stream politics consider themselves as a democratic force and prior to that signed an agreement in New-Delhi with the main stream political parties in Nepal, this Indian move to stop the Maoists is rather perplexing, say analysts. To recall, the Indian establishment brought the leaders of the then agitating seven parties in Nepal in Delhi and managed a “12-Point Treaty” with the Maoists on November 22, 2005 which facilitated the Monarch to step down from power.

As reported, some Maoists’ leaders along with their cadres who were trying to cross the border from somewhere in Baitadi district were stopped by the Border Security Force saying that they have orders to stop them from entering into India.

Source: The Telegraph Nepal, September 27, 2007

Why the king must go

Billy Briggs

In an exclusive interview, Billy Briggs talks to the Maoist commander who may soon determine his country’s fate

Chairman Prachanda sits on a leather sofa and glances out at the torrential rain of Nepal's monsoon season. We are in his office at the Maoist headquarters in the capital, Kathmandu. On the wall above his head are framed photographs of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Chairman Mao. "They were all great men, but I particularly admire Lenin's political dynamism," says the leader of Nepal's Maoists and commander of a rebel army that waged war in the Himalayan nation for more than a decade.

The insurgency, an attempt to establish a communist republic, claimed 13,000 lives, ending only last year after protests forced King Gyanendra to end his dictatorship and restore democracy.
Prachanda, a nom de guerre that translates as "the fierce one", was the man who signed a historic peace deal last November. He agreed to return 30,000 People's Liberation Army fighters to the jungle in camps monitored by the UN, a move that took the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) - CPN (Maoist) - into a transition coalition government. The Maoists joined the interim parliament in January, gaining 83 seats out of 330, and in April secured cabinet posts. "The rebellion was justified and we have embraced democracy," says Prachanda, whose real name is Pushpa Kamal Dahal.

Nepal's nascent peace process has been fragile, however. The Maoists continue to demand the abolition of the monarchy and that a republic be declared ahead of constituent assembly elections due to be held on 22 November. The poll is designed to elect a body that will rewrite Nepal's constitution and decide if the monarchy should stay or go, part of the peace deal agreed last year. But despite signing up to this, the Maoists recently stormed out of the coalition after the government refused to bow to their demands, throwing the process into crisis. I ask Prachanda why he reneged on the accord and will not allow the Nepalese people to vote on the future of the king.

"The masses took part in a rebellion against the king, so they have already given their mandate for Nepal to be a republic," he says. He claims that supporters of Gyanendra, and the king, already stripped of direct power and his status as head of state, would probably sabotage any election. Prachanda's critics say the Maoists are scared of a vote because popular support for the party has fallen in recent months as a result of rising violence across Nepal, much of it blamed on the youth wing of CPN (Maoist) - the Young Communist League, which appears to have embarked on a campaign of terror. At least 60 people have died in fighting between various political factions, but Prachanda denies Maoist involvement. "There have been problems with armed groups, and this is why we feel the environment is not conducive for an election at the moment. But we are not organising the violence."

The Maoists' strategy, he says, will be to appeal to the masses to demonstrate peacefully, adding that his party will not prevent the vote taking place and will fully respect the outcome. Although many in Nepal feel Prachanda is holding the nation to ransom, with a ballot box in one hand and a rifle in the other, he insists his party will not break the ceasefire. "We will not resort to violence . . . unless the demonstrations are forcibly put down." The US ambassador, James Moriarty, has reiterated America's position that the Maoists remain on Washington's list of terrorist organisations. The EU and the UN have also condemned the recent violence. Prachanda laughs. "How can the US accuse anyone of being terrorists when it is they who export violence to places like Iraq and Afghanistan? Who are they to talk about morals?" he says.
Ethics are certainly a concern for Prachanda, who is puritanical in his determination to outlaw alcohol, gambling and "vulgar literature" from India and the US.

Let's talk morals, then: what about the recruitment by the People's Liberation Army of thousands of child soldiers, many of whom have not yet been returned to their families? He denies that any such policy ever existed, despite strong evidence to the contrary, presented in February by Human Rights Watch. "I do not know why people are afraid of us," he says. I point out that a stated aim of the Maoists is to export communism to the world through a global revolution. Prachanda nods, and says he looks forward to an ideological debate with the west.
"Would the revolution you envisage involve an armed struggle?" I ask. "That would depend on the masses," he replies.

Prachanda admits there are direct links between Nepal's Maoists and the Indian Naxalites fighting for communism in impoverished states such as Andhra Pradesh. He also supports the repatriation of more than 100,000 refugees from Bhutan who have languished in camps in eastern Nepal for 17 years. Bhutanese Maoists, with whom he says local groups "may have a relationship", are active in the camps. There have been rumblings about an armed struggle in emulation of the Nepalese Maoists.

Does he still advocate the execution of the king? Prachanda replies that a "people's court" should decide the monarch's fate, adding that his adversary is responsible for the deaths of many innocent people. I counter that the Maoists tortured and summarily executed many people during the conflict and that as leader, pursuing his own logic, Prachanda is surely as guilty as the king. "Ours was a mass movement, a mass rebellion of the people," he says. "So it was all completely justified."

Source: New Statesman, September 27, 2007