Nepal revolutionaries call on mass support to end monarchy

David Hoskins

Nepal’s communist revolutionaries walked out of that country’s interim government in mid-September and announced immediate plans to launch street protests. The walkout followed the government’s rejection of a 22-point set of demands by the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-M) that were meant to ensure free and transparent polls for planned Constituent Assembly elections in November.

Three weeks later, on Oct. 5, the government announced the November elections would be postponed.

The Nepali Congress Party and other reformist parties objected to two key points in particular. These basic points would have declared Nepal a republic before the polls, to ensure that the monarchy does not interfere with elections, and would have established a proportional representation-based election system. Nepal still has a king, despite massive protests against the monarchy last year.

The government’s rejection of these demands, say the revolutionaries, risks providing cover to the criminal supporters of King Gyanendra in the army and among underground terrorist units, allowing them to disrupt elections, and has created an unnecessary crisis in election preparations.

Other organizations have voiced support for the CPN-M’s electoral demands. Amik Sherchan, chair of the People’s Front Nepal, has stated that the 22 prerequisites were legitimate and that “the Maoists were left with no option but to launch a program of strong protests to establish a republic.” People’s Front Nepal is a semiunderground leftist organization and a member of Nepal’s interim government.

The CPN-M remains in Nepal’s interim parliament, where it has become the second-largest party since pulling out of the government. Three other groups, including the militant Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist), have merged with the CPN-M since it withdrew from the cabinet. The CPN-M has emphasized the need for a single revolutionary communist party to fulfill the aspirations of Nepal’s workers and oppressed.

Maoists call street protests; student organizations join

After all four Maoist ministers announced their resignations from the government, the CPN-M called for street agitation to begin on Sept. 25. Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, a leading party official, declared that, “Efforts to declare a republic from the parliament have failed. Now we will declare a republic from the streets.” The CPN-M has promised to hold actions in all of Nepal’s 4,000 villages and at every district administration office in order to advance their people’s agenda. The actions are being unrolled in carefully crafted phases. The first phase was held from Sept. 19 to 21, when the Maoists held a door-to-door public awareness campaign surrounding their demands. A week of rallies began in the capital on Sept. 22 and was planned to spread geographically. The revolutionaries are preparing to launch an exposure campaign to reveal corrupt government officials and business people.

Students, too, vowed mass participation in the street protests. The All Nepal National Independent Student Union-Revolutionary (ANNISU-R) laid out its own protest agenda. Public hearings in schools and universities began on Sept. 19 and were expected to continue until Oct. 3. Motorcycle rallies across the country began Sept. 29 and torch-lit rallies were to follow. More than 4,000 soldiers in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) had earlier walked out of their cantonments to protest in favor of the 22 demands raised by the revolutionaries. The PLA is the armed wing of the CPN-M and has voluntarily confined itself to a U.N.-monitored cantonment during the peace process initiated by the revolutionaries. More than 30,000 PLA soldiers are stationed in 28 cantonments around the country.

Revolutionaries champion people’s needs

Many of the government’s ruling parties fear an embarrassing setback in the polls at the hands of the revolutionaries. The popular program advocated by the Maoists and the revolutionary student and youth organizations has done much to earn the support of Nepal’s oppressed workers and peasants. The revolutionaries have consistently exposed corrupt landlords and held them accountable in People’s Courts set up around the country. For many of Nepal’s poor, this is the only system of justice available to them.

The revolutionaries have been in the vanguard of the fight to abolish Nepal’s brutal feudal monarchy. The CPN-M initiated 10 years of armed struggle which, combined with the street protests it helped coordinate, brought an end to King Gyanendra’s absolute rule late last year. He had clung to power with the support of the U.S., Britain and India. The revolutionaries continue to be the most consistent force advocating the total abolition of Nepal’s monarchy and the establishment of democratic republicanism with fair elections. Additional campaigns have established free health care in poor districts and the creation of a Health Team Project coordinated by the PLA’s medical department to create units of medical specialists and support staff in rural areas. In August the Young Communist League (YCL) mobilized 600 cadres over a course of three days to collect tons of garbage from the streets of Kathmandu.

Nepal’s poverty cries out for revolutionary change

Nepal is an impoverished country of 29 million people that until recently was ruled by a feudal monarchy dominated by the huge capitalist state of India to its south. Only 10 percent of Nepal’s population has access to electric power. More than 85 percent of the people live in rural areas without running water or basic sanitation. Malnutrition is rampant among children and at least one-third of the population lives below the official poverty line. While literacy runs a little less than 50 percent, it is only 39 percent among women. Meanwhile, Nepal’s infant mortality rate currently exceeds 63 deaths per 1,000 live births.

Nepal ranks among the 50 poorest countries in the world. The poor living conditions have fueled the militant consciousness of the masses and paved the way for revolutionary forces to enjoy a mass base of support for the armed struggle launched by the CPN-M in 1996. In light of the accomplishments of the revolutionary forces in providing for the basic needs of Nepal’s suffering people, it comes as no surprise that many in Nepal’s ruling parties are hesitant to compete with the CPN-M at the polls on a level playing field.

Source: Workers World, October 14, 2007

INDIA-CHINA PERSPECTIVE: NEPAL’S FALTERING PEACE PROCESS

Jan Sharma

India’s long-standing policy towards Nepal seeks to:

(a) Engage all political forces, including the CPN-M as well as the monarchy,
(b) Install a government friendly to India,
(c) Forestall any government unfriendly to India,
(d) Promote Indian political, economic and security interests,
(e) Thwart any attempt to challenge Indian supremacy and domination in Nepal, and
(f) Prevent Nepal diversifying sources of arms other than India. India’s interests in Nepal are extensive – from security to water resources for irrigation.

Nepal also shares a 1,880 km border with India to the east, south and west, and the best military talents among the Nepali hill people are recruited in the Indian Army estimated to be over 100,000. India has also refused to recruit a single Madhesi Nepal in their army obviously on grounds of their inferior military qualities. In addition, there are over 115,000 Indian government pensioners in Nepal whose welfare is the responsibility of the Indian Army Ex-Servicemen Welfare Organization (IEWON). It’s a huge network, given the number of family members and dependents, most of them in remote hills where CPN-M has its sway. The conflict-induced exodus of young Nepalis in India is estimated at 4 million and rising.

Top CPN-M leaders operated from India, giving credence to popular perception that the so-called “people’s war” was in fact a tool of Indian diplomacy. The meeting between Prachanda and leaders of communist parties represented in Parliament at Champasari near Siliguri in India in August 2001 and again in Lucknow on November 20, 2003 and March 29, 2004 was a huge embarrassment to India. In the context of the 9/11, Minister for External Affairs Jaswant Singh of India in September 2001 described the Maoists as “terrorists,” and pledged full support to Nepal to fight it. His successor Yashwant Sinha during his visit to Nepal in August 2002 expressed “concern over the clandestine use of the Nepali soil by Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence for anti-Indian activities.” Indian Chief of the Army Staff General N. C. Vij visited Nepal in April 2002 to discuss military cooperation.

India nabbed Chandra Prasad Gajurel, Maoist Politburo member, at Chennai airport in India on August 19, 2003 and formally charged him of traveling under a fake document to Europe. Some saw it as a “major rethink” of India’s policy [Josse, 2004]. Unlike Gajurel, Matrika Prasad Yadav and Suresh Ale Magar arrested in Lucknow in India on February 8, 2004 were handed over to Nepal without formal charges. The arrest of Mohan Vaidya, second highest ranking in party command after Prachanda, in Siliguri on March 29, 2004 was described as a “consequence of the alliance and bargaining between the Indian and Nepali feudal rulers against Nepal’s rivers and other natural resources” [Prachanda, 2004]. Indian security officials seized important documents, including maps outlining planned Maoist attacks on security targets in Nepal.

It was reported that CPN-M was creating bases in Bihar to target security forces in Nepal and that international terror group and “a country hostile to India” may use them to create disturbances in the area and thus had “security implications” for India [TOI, 2003]. Instead of a military solution, India wanted a political solution, as indicated by its suggestion in November 2003 for the formation of a national government in Nepal to resolve conflict:

The Prime Minister of India expressed concern over the serious security situation prevailing in Nepal and stressed the need to take up urgent broad-based measures to deal with it. In this context, the Prime Minister reaffirmed India’s consistent position that a national consensus needs to be evolved based on the principles of multi-party democracy and constitutional monarchy. This would require both the institution of monarchy as well as the political parties to demonstrate flexibility and reach a consensus to address the challenges posed by the Maoist insurgency. A representative government with the participation of all parliamentary parties, working in close cooperation with the monarchy, would assist in evolving a national response to the situation [Sarna, 2003].

The Indian policy has undergone subtle shift since a Left-backed Congress-led coalition of Manmohan Singh was installed in May 2004. Minister for External Affairs Natwar Singh of India visited Nepal in June 2004 even as Prime Minister Deuba had not even formed his Cabinet. Singh gave an unsolicited advised to Nepal: “It is only a representative multiparty government, working in close concert with the institution of constitutional monarchy, which can restore political stability in Nepal. This would also pave the way for holding elections to new parliament and tackling the insurgency through peaceful negotiations” [EoI, 2004].

After the royal coup in February 2005, India suspended arms supplies and asked China to refuse arms to Nepal. New Delhi also successfully worked on a strategy to unite Prachanda and Bhattarai within the CPN-M, then cemented the SPA to oppose the king, and finally engineered SPAM “understanding” in what was a tactical shift to an alternative to the king from its earlier stand that constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy [India Today, 2005]. There was also suspicion that a prolonged freeze on military assistance would dilute traditional military cooperation between India and Nepal.

An Indian pro-establishment scholar argued for a “practical engagement” with the CPN-M to ensure Nepal’s stability, a “democratic monarchy” and “its internal autonomy preserved from the growing Western and other undesirable influences” [Muni, 2003]. India has been successful in pleading that “no arms should be given to Nepal which are more sophisticated than those in the Indian armoury” because India does not want “the level of conflict in Nepal to be upgraded” [Outlook, 2003]. India after the royal takeover of February 2005 was no more talking about constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy but was seeking “alternative” to the king [India Today, 2005].

India in a sense punished King Gyanendra not because of his assault on democracy and freedom but because of his audacity to challenge India’s supremacy at the summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in Dhaka where it threatened to veto entry of Afghanistan as a new member unless China was simultaneously invited to join as an observer. The summit concluded with Afghanistan became the eighth member, and both China and Japan admitted as observers. China without even being present at the summit just tore up India’s Monroe doctrine [Mohan, 2005]. The summit declaration noted that “small states require special measures for support from all concerned for safeguarding their sovereign independence and territorial integrity” and that “protection of small states should be firmly rooted in scrupulous adherence to the UN Charter, rule of law, the strict adherence to universally accepted principles and norms related to sovereign rights and territorial integrity of all states, irrespective of their size” [Dhaka Declaration, 2005].

China

China has traditionally lent strong and unequivocal support to the monarchy but is likely to have friendliest of relations with anyone in the saddle of power. China would like to have a stable and strong regime in Nepal because it borders Tibet, its soft underbelly. China is wary of hostile environment in the neighborhood, and is watching closely the activities of a large Tibetan population in Nepal. It has also been recently stressing on integrating the economies of Nepal and Tibet. It is for these considerations that Beijing described the royal coup as Nepal’s “internal affair.” At the same time, it has categorically disassociated itself with the CPN-M, saying “neither the communist party nor any entity of the government of the People’s Republic of China has any link with and support for the terrorists of Nepal.” The official Chinese position has always been that the Nepal government would “properly handle its domestic issues” [Zhang, 2001]. It subsequently accused self-styled Maoists, which it described as “anti-government forces” of “usurping the name of the leader of the Chinese people. China supports Nepal’s fight against the anti-government forces and hopes for peace, stability and economic development for its neighbour” [Liu, 2002].

During his first state visit to China in July 2002, King Gyanendra reassured President Jiang Zemin that Nepal “will not allow the emergence of elements ruining against the development of Nepal-China ties. It will not permit within its borders any activities that undermine China’s interests” [People’s Daily, 2002]. The reference was clearly Tibet, which Nepal recognizes as an inalienable and integral part of China. Beijing, which shares a 1,400 kilometer border with Nepal, is worried by the presence of an estimated 35,000 Tibetans in Nepal who have fled from Tibet and could launch anti-China activities from Nepal, as was the case with the Khampa insurgency in the 1960s and crushed by the Nepal Army in 1974. It is for this reason that it has been maintaining a close watch on the movement of Tibetans in Nepal, especially since the flight of Karmapa to India in the summer of 2000. In a major policy departure, the royal regime arrested 18 Tibetans, including eight minors, fleeing China into Nepal and handed over to the Chinese authorities in Kathmandu in July 2003.

Beijing welcomed the move but Washington deplored Nepal’s handling of the issue which “not only violates international norms and practices regarding the humane treatment of asylum seekers, but also tarnishes the Government of Nepal’s long-standing and well-deserved reputation for tolerance and hospitality.” Nepal subsequently closed down the office of the Dalai Lama’s Representative in Kathmandu near the royal palace. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also stopped providing travel documents it had been providing since 1990 to Tibetan and Bhutanese refugees for third country travel. Nepal gave “unequivocal” support for the Chinese anti-secessionist law in 2005 authorizing the use of force against Taiwan [People’s Daily, 2005].

President Hu Jintao visited South Asian capitals in February 2005 but skipped Nepal. Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing visited Nepal March 31-April 1, 2005 when he described the king’s direct rule as Nepal’s “internal matter which has nothing to do with China. Nepali people have full authority to tackle their internal politics and development.” Li quoted the king as saying, “Nepal appreciates and supports the important role that China has been playing in the international affairs” [Xinhua, 2005]. China and Nepal also agreed to promote military cooperation. An agreement was signed on military cooperation under which China was to provide Nepal eight million yuan (Rs.72 million) to promote “stability, development and peace in Nepal” and “combat internal and external terrorism.” The Sino-Nepal military cooperation alarmed India.

Since the regime change in 2006, the Office of the Dalai Lama is back in business, as are pro-Tibet rallies. For example, in March 2007 a free-Tibet protest rally was held at Bouddha and Swayambhu, the two areas with a heavy concentration of Tibetan refugees, and a group set ablaze the Chinese national flag at Bhat Bhateni close to the Chinese Embassy. Celebrated Hollywood star Richard Gare, a well-known free-Tibet campaigner, addressed the Tibetan community to urge them to liberate Tibet. Then there was an American Everest Expedition, which demonstrated a banner urging solidarity for the "liberation" of Tibet. While the Nepal government has maintained a total silence on these developments, Chinese are worried by the changes and currently engaging major political parties.

Source: Telegraph Nepal, October 17, 2007

Nepal Maoists start anti-Dalai Lama campaign

In a significant development, Nepal's Maoist guerrillas are mounting a campaign against the Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama. The Janadisha daily, the Maoist mouthpiece that reflects the party's views, said that a secret meeting had taken place in the Kathmandu valley to plan strategies for an anti-China secessionist movement from Dharamshala. Dharamsala, in Himachal Pradesh state in India, is where the Dalai Lama has his government-in-exile, which is not recognised by any country. The front-page report Monday, with a photograph of the red-robed Dalai Lama, said China's growing interest in Nepal's political developments had made "some forces" apprehensive, and they were trying to foment anti-China activities. It said that last month Christian groups from nearly 20 countries had held a nine-day conference at a resort in the valley.

It alleged that though the conference was ostensibly called to discuss religious issues, it meant to add momentum to the movement to free Tibet from China. Buddhist monks from India, Nepal, Japan, the US, Britain, Germany, Uganda, France, Israel, Argentina, Chile, Iraq and Tibet took part in the meet, it said. According to the report, the participants discussed fomenting a secessionist movement in Tibet so that Beijing would become preoccupied with retaining the annexed kingdom. This would enable India and the US to intervene in Nepal. Despite pledging commitment to multi-party democracy, Nepal's Maoists remain anti-religion, following the way of northern neighbour China. Maoist chief Prachanda has ruled out allowing the office of the Dalai Lama's representative in Kathmandu to re-open, saying his party would not condone any action that could displease China. Ironically, it was King Gyanendra, whom the Maoists opposed, who ordered its closure. The new government adheres to the China policy formulated by the royal regime even while it has overturned the king's other policies.

Last year, when the Maoists signed a peace pact mediated by India, they said they wanted the same harmonious relations with both their immediate neighbours, China and India. But since they quit the government, the Maoists have started hardening their stance towards Nepal's southern neighbour. They have flayed the recent visit to Kathmandu by India's special envoy Shyam Saran, who asked the government to hold the stalled general election at the earliest and not to abolish monarchy through a vote in parliament. The rebels have called his comments naked intervention by India. India's diplomatic policy towards Nepal has been floundering since it helped a multi-party government end King Gyanendra's regime and come to power. China, on the other hand, enjoys the best possible relations with Kathmandu though it supported the royal regime and sold it arms and ammunition to hunt down the Maoists.

Source: Hindustan Times, October 16, 2007

Erosion of our Democratic Values and Unconcern of Political Parties

Chaturanan Mishra

Despite the fact that more and more downtrodden people have begun to exercise their right of casting votes and there is a new consciousness among Dalits, tribals, women and Other Backward Castes which deepen the roots of our democracy, this in itself does not result in strengthening the rights of the people. More Dalits are killed in India than what happened to the Blacks in South Africa during the apartheid period. Even elected Dalit Presidents of village Panchayats in Tamil Nadu are not allowed to function. Untouchability persists. Now the OBC people are launching more offensives against Dalits. Something new has happened in UP: Brahmins accepting the leadership of Mayawatiji; but it is too early to assess how far the Brahmins in general agree to end untouchability and give social respect to the Dalits. This has to be watched. More girl children in pregnancy are killed. There is no political movement for social reform though the society itself is reforming slowly. Gandhiji mixed political movement with social reform also to some extent.

The bureaucracy is uncontrollable. The colonial tradition of bureaucrats as the rulers and people as the ruled is continuing. Corruption even at the local level of administration has increased so much that people do not get even one-fourth of what is budgeted in Parliament and Assemblies for them. Rajiv Gandhi said people get only 16 per cent of what is allotted in the Budget for them. People are unable to check it. It has spread even to village Panchayats. The police has become more tyrannical. Lathicharges and shootings by the police are quite common. Even the Left Government of West Bengal is now no exception after what happened at Nandigram. In 2005 alone, 44 persons were killed in police firings. Between 1990 and 1999 the police opened fire 5994 times resulting in 1753 deaths and 6886 injuries. The same police is unable to check criminals who rule in cities also. Children are kidnapped and killed if firauti is not paid to them. Even in the central Capital of Delhi women are not safe. The days of Pattam Thanu Pillai, when he was forced to resign for firing, are gone. Politicians are party to it. There is a general feeling that all politicians, barring a few, are for making money. The old respect for politicians is no longer there. Similar is the feeling about political parties since now they don’t go to the people to solve their problems. This is the most dangerous feature since healthy political parties and politicians are a must for the strengthening of democracy. Members of Legislatures change parties for personal benefit. Politicians behave in such a manner as to prove that they have no ideology.

Though in our Constitution every citizen has the right to be elected to Parliament and Assemblies, as the election now costs a crores of rupees ninetyfive per cent of our citizens can’t think of contesting elections. Our janatantra is becoming dhanatantra. Though the Election Commission has recently taken some strict reformist measures, political parties are voicing their protest. Due to casteism, fear and communalism more and more veteran criminals are elected to Parliament and Assemblies as candidates of political parties. It is not safe to oppose such criminal candidates. Parliament is helpless in the case of Gujarat where thousands of Muslims, including women and children as well as even pregnant women, were massacred and so our janatantra is becoming gun-tantra.

Courts can help to provide some remedy and in fact the Supreme Court acted sometimes but courts are so much overburdened with a number of cases that it takes years to have a final judgement. It is so time consuming and costly that the mass of people don’t go there. Rich people use it to harass the poor. It is happening since the days of British rule and continues till today.

Political parties are a must for democracy. The old national parties are getting weakened and caste based regional parties are coming up. This gives us coalition governments. Though the formation of regional parties take democracy to so far unawakened people, the absence of a national party can weaken the Centre. This danger is there. However, so far regional parties have helped to strengthen federalism.

National parties failed to understand the new feeling of the caste people. Different castes of people want their development through their own caste or group of castes. National parties are dominated by high-caste leaders and they run the government. Backward castes united to change this and this they did through caste or group of castes organisations. While Hindu castes were earlier based on religious faith, now they are based on politics and they are changing their position from time to time. This may lead to weakening of the caste system. This problem needs to be tackled in the national interest. Now Dalits strongly protest and what happened in Rajasthan for reservation of Gujjars as tribal people is a serious warning. The tribal people’s position is worse than even the Dalits and poor Muslims. All over India except the North-East they are coming under the influence of Maoists. Very often policemen are killed by them. Terrorised government officials, contractors, truck owners pay them levy. They are equipping themselves with modern arms. They are spreading now in the plains too. Farmers are also paying them do kathia, that is, the produce of two kathas per acre. With its present policy towards the poor the government cannot stop this development.

The poor people are unable to maintain themselves in the rural areas due to the agricultural crisis; they are coming to cities and get shelter in slums making jhopris. Now the government and even the courts are evicting them without giving shelter. No political party takes up their cause and ultimately they may go over to the Maoists. Farmers are in a serious crises. According to 59th National Sample Survey, a majority of small and marginal farmers are unable to make both ends meet. In the post-liberalisation period and after India joined the WTO, production and productivity of agriculture has been heavily reduced. The growth of agriculture has reduced from 3.08 per cent in 1980-90 to 2.65 per cent in 1991-2000 due to reduction of the Plan outlay in agriculture and also in public sector work in agriculture like irrigation and scientific research etc. While the input price of agriculture has heavily increased, the price of agricultural produce has been reduced. Because of this condition, 40 per cent of farmers have desired to leave agriculture if they get an alternative job. As many as 48.6 per cent of farmers are debt-ridden; of them 42.3 per cent are indebted to moneylenders at high interest and forcible realisation. We are again dependent on import of food at higher prices. Starvation and malnutrition have become commonplace for a long time. Now thousands of farmers commit suicides every year. No political party takes up their cause seriously to force the government to act. On the nuclear agreement with the USA political crisis has been created but on the issue of peasant suicides or for unorganised workers or against price rise no such political crisis was engendered.

There is a vast and big population in the poverty zone of Bihar, Jharkhand, UP and Orissa etc. Despite our high national GDP growth, they are becoming poorer. Every year floods from Nepal destroy them. Nepal being a foreign land it is the Central Government’s constitutional responsibility to tackle the problem but it does not. One can be certain that a time will come in the near future when this poverty zone will rise against the Centre and the Centre will be unable to suppress it.

Our people have deep faith in democracy but such issues as mentioned here are fast eroding that faith. It is time that political parties reform themselves to restore the people’s faith in democracy. At present people are highly frustrated and angry. Frequent spontaneous violent outbreaks are taking place. The police is the target. This has no backing of any party. If these violent outbreaks are coordinated which the Maoists can, then it will result in a countrywide or Statewide violent attack directed against the democratic set-up.

Source: Mainstream, October 16, 2007