Nepal elects its first President

In a historic move, the Constituent Assembly (CA) in Nepal elected the first President of the country--Dr Ram Baran Yadav of the Nepal Congress, backed by the Communist Party of Nepal-UML and Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum (MJF).On July 21, Dr Yadav secured 308 votes defeating Ramraja Singh, a Maoist-backed candidate, who secured 282 votes.

The election result had in fact become apparent when at the last moment, a new alliance of NC, UML and MJF emerged to challenge the Maoist plans to get their candidate elected.

The newly-elected President, Dr Yadav hails from a small village of Safai in Dhanusha district in south-eastern Nepal. Most of his schooling and higher education was completed in Kathmandu. He later studied medicine in India, completing his MBBS from Calcutta Medical College and MD from Post Graduate Institute of Medical Research (PGIMR), Chandigarh.

Despite a successful medical practice, he chose the political life and entered the Nepalese politics in the 1960s as a student leader. He led the anti-Panchayat demonstrations against King Mahendra. Since then, for more than three decades, he participated and spearheaded every pro-democracy movement in the country.

During the first general elections in 1990s, he was elected from Dhanusha constituency as a Nepali Congress candidate. He served for two terms in the government as Health Minister. He was the general secretary of NC before being elected as the President.

The presidential election has set the country’s political discourse on a sharp turn. The defeat of the Maoists’ candidate has changed the political dynamics in the country. The failure of the Maoists to work up a consensus on the presidential candidate and the sudden emergence of a rival coalition indicate a confrontational politics in the days ahead. Maoists have accepted the results of the presidential election, they see a foreign conspiracy in the outcome. They believe that it was part of the conspiracy to keep them away from forming the government.

The Maoists, rolling high after the unprecedented victory in the elections, have suddenly turned reticent about their participation in the government. The Maoist leaders maintain that they have lost the moral ground to stake claim for leading the new government. The victory of the NC presidential candidate has given a major blow to the Maoists who won the largest number of seats in the April assembly elections. Presumably, their decision to stay away from heading the government was not an unexpected move.

It is obvious that the new alliance of the NC, UML and MJF enjoys a majority in the House as compare to the Maoists and its chances of forming the new government have certainly brightened after Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala’s resignation. The Maoists, however, can stake the claim being the single largest party in the Assembly. Senior leaders of the alliance are keen to work with the Maoists and have approached them. It is too early to figure out the alliance’s objectives in first defeating the Maoist candidate and then making efforts to persuade them to lead the government.

These developments have certainly undermined the consensual politics which was emerging after the April elections. The political parties should review their rigid stands and work towards creating a New Nepal as they had promised to the people during the campaign. The Maoists should take the lead in playing a constructive role and take the initiative in forming the new government. They should refrain from creating any obstacles in the peace process and avoid delaying the Constitution drafting process.

There is an urgent need for the political parties to stay on the path of consensual politics and avoid confrontation among themselves, to steer the country through the tough times ahead.

Source: Observer Research Foundation, July 26, 2008

Koirala lets Maoists form government

Ending the month-long political stalemate and uncertainty, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala invited the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist Chairman Prachanda, also the leader of the single largest party in the Constituent Assembly (CA), to form a new government. But Koirala urged the Maoist chief to form the new government in accordance with the Interim Constitution. The Maoists applauded Koirala’s step and welcomed his move for creating a favourable political atmosphere.

Apparently, the three main parties- Maoists, Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-Unified Marxist Leninist (UML)—evolved political consensus and found a way out of a problem which has been dogging the formation of the new government. However, issues like amendment to the Interim Constitution, nomination of 26 CA members and appointment of ‘ceremonial President’ remain a matter of serious concern. Senior NC, UML and Madhesi Janaandhikar Forum (MJF) leaders had earlier agreed for a common stand on future power sharing but came out with pre-conditions at the negotiating table. The amendment proposal, which allows the removal of a government through a simple majority in the CA, is being strongly opposed by the Maoists. Eventually, even if they agree to the amendment, it is unlikely that they would give up both the posts of PM and President to other parties.

Source: ORF, May 27, 2008

Maoists to adopt liberal economic policy

The CPN-Maoists are clear about their economic agenda: they want an economic miracle in Nepal within 10 years. To achieve this objective, they have promised to adopt a liberal economic policy to boost the country’s economic development and revive the dormant industrial sector. Adopting a pragmatic approach, they have invited private and foreign investment in the country's economic development. They called upon the business community to join hands with the new government in creating a new Nepal and make investments in the country without any fear. They would be focusing on strengthening domestic industries and adopt policies aimed to boost production by promoting domestic resources available in the country.

This approach might lessen the fears of the Nepali business community which had been wary of the Maoists victory in the elections. The general fear was that a Maoist-led government might try to nationalise the private sector. The Maoist leaders were quick to dispel such notions in a series of meetings they had with the business community. The Maoists denied any such move. The Maoists, for the time being, are more concerned about fulfilling the people’s mandate and work towards creating a new Nepal which they had promised to the people during the elections. They are acutely aware of the immense challenges meeting such expectations would require. They are actively seeking the support of the private sector and foreign investors. At this critical juncture, their objective is to promote investments by attracting private investors and achieve an inclusive economic progress.

Source: South Asia Weekly, May 18, 2008

Prachanda on Indo-Nepal relations

Chairman of Nepal's Maoist party Prachanda speaks on the changes that will be brought about in Nepal after his party’s historical victory and its implication on Nepal’s relations with India. In an exclusive interview with Karan Thapar in Devil's Advocate programme in CNN-IBN, Prachanda speaks about the impact of Maoist victory on Maoists in India.

Karan Thapar: Mr Prachanda, because the Maoists are a relatively unknown entity, there are many people in India who are apprehensive about your coming to power. Can you understand their concern?
Prachanda: Yes, I think so because during the emergency, the kind of image and the propaganda that was there in the country was different. But we were always committed to multi-party competition and peace at that time. However, people did not know about our new political developments then.
Karan Thapar: So you are a prisoner of an image?
Prachanda: No not exactly.
Karan Thapar: But a little. People have a misunderstanding about your attitude.
Prachanda: That could be called a communication gap or something like that. Slowly and gradually, people understand our commitment to multi-party, peace and other things.
Karan Thapar: What sort of relations will you be looking at with India?
Prachanda: A new relation on a new basis. The new base has been laid down with the understanding from Delhi. A new unity with Delhi is already in process.
Karan Thapar: When you say a new relationship, do you mean a better relationship?
Prachanda: Exactly, a new relation means better relations, understanding and cooperation.
Karan Thapar: And closer to New Delhi?
Prachanda: Exactly. Yes, we want to come closer to New Delhi on the basis of new relations.
Karan Thapar: How does this equate to what you keep saying that you want equidistance from Delhi and from Beijing? To people in India this sounds as if you are demoting the relationship with India to the level of relationship with China.
Prachanda: But I always said that there is a special relationship with India, geographical and cultural, and therefore we should have a special relationship with New Delhi. No one can ignore this historical, geographical and cultural fact. What I am saying is that we will not side up with one country against the other. We will maintain equidistance in political sense and not in terms of cooperation and other things.
Karan Thapar: The culture, history, and geographical relationship that Nepal has with India, will remain intact?
Prachanda: Yes, it will remain. It is a historical fact and we will have to strengthen this relationship.
Karan Thapar: Let me discuss some problems that may arise. You said that you want to abrogate the 1950 Indo-Nepal treaty and you want to renegotiate it. What are the aspects of the treaty that you don’t like?
Prachanda: Our people have put forward this concern that they feel that the treaty lacks inequality and that it is not beneficial for Nepal. We thus want to review all the points of the 1950 treaty. And we want to revise it according to new necessity.
Karan Thapar: The 1950 treaty guarantees the open border with Nepal and it also says that people of Nepal have national citizen status in India. Do you want to revise it and rework that?
Prachanda: Not exactly right now. There are other provisions that we want to discuss in detail.
Karan Thapar: So you want to retain the open border and you want to retain national citizen status of people, but there are other provisions?
Prachanda: There are others which I don’t want to discuss right now in detail.
Karan Thapar: Is one of them the defence purchase provision which requires Nepal to consult Delhi and only then acquire arms. Is that one?
Prachanda: That also should be reviewed and should be made according to the necessity of the 21st century.
Karan Thapar: Let me tell you what your colleague, Babu Ram Bhattarai told Nepal Telegraph on May 10. He said it was only because of the open border that Nepal could not achieve economic prosperity. Do you agree with him?
Prachanda: In the transitional phase, right now with the processes going on, it is not correct.
Karan Thapar: So this view is not correct?
Prachanda: Right now it is not correct.
Karan Thapar: He expressed this roughly just a week ago.
Prachanda: I will have to discuss with him. I do not know in what context he said it.
Karan Thapar: One of the problems in renegotiating the treaty is that India may use the opportunity to look for better terms. Does that work for you? You want better terms for Nepal. India may want better terms for itself.
Prachanda: It is beneficial for both sides to review the treaty and upgrade it according to the new necessity. When Rana resigned, a lot of changes have come in Nepal and there has been a lot of change in India. Thus the 1950 treaty should be upgraded according to the new necessity.
Karan Thapar: You also said that you want to review all the other treaties to see what revisions or further enhancements can be made. Is that a decision to revoke the other treaties and renegotiate them or simply the desire to review them?
Prachanda: Yes, I want to have a general review on all the treaties. But specifically I want to review the 1950 treaty.
Karan Thapar: The 1950 treaty, you want to change, but others you want to just review generally?
Prachanda: Yes, we want changes in the 1950 treaty, others may be okay, or may be revised, but we want to generally review them.
Karan Thapar: People in India after they hear you, will say that Mr Prachanda on one hand wants a new and a better, closer and a stronger relationship, on the other hand, he wants to revoke the 1950 treaty, review all other treaties and he wants equidistance from China and India. Aren’t these two things contradictory?
Prachanda: It is not contradictory. According to me it will help in better relations, will strengthen relations, and have close cooperation with each other. By review, we mean, both sides will be there, and we will review the historical treaty to upgrade it and revise it according to the new necessity.
Karan Thapar: You also say that India can also look for new advantages and gain?
Prachanda: Yes exactly.
Karan Thapar: However, the problem is that when both countries start reviewing things, and when you start revoking treaties and you start changing relations that have been there for 50 years, you can end up creating problems and damaging Indo-Nepal relations. Does that not worry you?
Prachanda: No, that will not happen. When your intention is to strengthen relations for betterment, how can it then sabotage relations or even destroy them.
Previously, India vouched for a two-pillar theory and that monarchy should be there in Nepal. However, now that there will be no monarchy and many political changes will take place, then there has to be a change.
Karan Thapar: So you want to re-negotiate the relationship.
Prachanda: Yes.
Karan Thapar: So you are saying to the Indian people and government that I don’t want to renegotiate the relationship to destroy it.
Prachanda: Yes, and we want to strengthen relations by re-negotiating.
Karan Thapar: And you are saying that India should be looking to renegotiate also to look at advantages for itself.
Prachanda: Yes.
Karan Thapar: You are happy with that?
Karan Thapar: The fact that nearly 30,000 Nepali Gorkha soldiers are employed by the Indian Army. The Army has seven Gorkha regiments comprising 43 battalions. This is seen in India as an unbreakable link that binds Nepal with India. You want to stop this, why?
Prachanda: Yes, we want to discuss this issue. We don’t want to stop it right now. We want to review the whole history of the development and the implication on both countries. What kind of relation is created through this institution is what we want to review. We want to review and discuss it.
Karan Thapar: You said a very important thing. At this stage you don’t want to stop the Gorkha recruitment by the Indian Army. You want to review it and discuss it. At the moment you are not seeking to stop recruitment?
Prachanda: Yes.
Karan Thapar: Why do you want to review it? What is there to discuss?
Prachanda: I think this will be debated in our constituent Assembly. It is an important topic. Now we are about to draft a new constitution and that will guide us for Nepal’s vital interest.
Karan Thapar: In your eyes, do you see Nepali Gorkhas who get employed by Indian Army or the British army as mercenaries. Is that why you don’t like it because it is mercenary behaviour?
Prachanda: These are historical questions. We will have to review it in that perspective.
Karan Thapar: Today, tens of thousands of jobs are guaranteed by Indian Army and another 5,000 by the British army and other than that there are almost lakh of people who get pensions. You want to eradicate poverty and unemployment. Then why touch this. This is a source of employment. Why affect it?
Prachanda: Here in Nepal there was feudal autocracy as a political system. Now that we are changing that into a democratic system, and we are looking at rapid economic development so that our youth don’t have to look for employment in other countries. We want to change the political and economic scenario.
Karan Thapar: There is no danger that within a month or two you would stop recruitment?
Prachanda: No. It is also because we are right now in a transitional phase.
Karan Thapar: So what ever happens will happen gradually and slowly after debate and discussion.
Prachanda: Yes.
Karan Thapar: In 1996, when you drew your 40-point programme, you called for a ban on Hindi films. Is that also a part of your agenda still?
Prachanda: Right now the situation has changed as we participated in elections and we will lead the peace process and we will draft a new constitution. We are not going to put this question forward in that way.
Karan Thapar: So right now, there is no likelihood of ban on Hindi films?
Prachanda: Yes, you are right. Right now it is not possible because we have so many other compromises and consensus with so many political parties. We have to go forward in a particular way.
Karan Thapar: So you have no problem if Shah Rukh Khan’s film or Amitabh Bachchan’s films come to Nepal?
Prachanda: They are coming to Nepal and we have no ban right now.
Karan Thapar: And you have no problem with Manisha Koirala acting in Hindi films?
Prachanda: No, not at all.
Karan Thapar: Will you be looking to India for support and help in removing you from the terror list that the US maintains.
Prachanda: After the elections, I had a direct contact with USA, and I had a serious discussion with the Ambassador of US and I think that India has already helped us with the elections and constituent assembly. So, this way they have already helped us.
Karan Thapar: Can they help further. Can India speak to US President George Bush and ask him to stop treating the Maoists in Nepal as terrorists?
Prachanda: We may expect this, but we can't request India to do so.
Karan Thapar: Why can’t you request them?
Prachanda: I think we have direct access with the US.
Karan Thapar: But you would like India to do it?
Prachanda: We expect it and hope that India can create conducive atmosphere.
Karan Thapar: So you expect it and hope India listens to this interview and takes a hint.
Prachanda: Yes, exactly.
Karan Thapar: What will you think will be the impact on Indian Maoists by your coming to power in Nepal?
Prachanda: I think a strong message has already gone. After the elections, there was a wave in favour of our policy. After the elections, a Maoist has sent a letter to me congratulating me for this historical victory in elections. I think there will be a serious discussion and debate within the Maoist circles in India and we have already given a message to not only Maoists in India, but to all over the world.
Karan Thapar: Looking at your own experience in Nepal during the last two years and six months in particular, would you advice the Indian Maoists to give up the peoples war, to join mainstream, to use the ballot rather than the bullet as a way of acquiring power?
Prachanda: I think that I cannot directly address them, but our behaviour and our policy and our practices give out the message of the power of ballot.
Karan Thapar: One of the top Maoist leaders in India, Azad in an interview to The Hindu has said that the Nepali Maoists are unlikely to succeed and that the Nepali Maoists will soon realise that they have made a mistake.
Prachanda: Right now, the same person Azad has sent a letter congratulating me and that he thinks it is a very serious victory for the Maoists. I think it is before and after the elections, that he has evaluated it in a different way.
Karan Thapar: Many people think, Comrade Azad, as you call him, is saying two things. He says one thing to you in the letter and praises you and on the other hand, says another thing to the press and sounds sceptical and cynical. Is he double-faced?
Prachanda: Is there a written statement somewhere?
Karan Thapar: Yes, it is in The Hindu on Friday.
Prachanda: I see. I have not gone through that interview and statement.
Karan Thapar: So right now you are not aware that Mr Azad speaks with two voices. He says something to you and something else to the others. Does that worry you or disillusion you?
Prachanda: No, I have to go through that statement in detail. I cannot blame anything on anyone.
Karan Thapar: At the moment you will reserve your judgement.
Prachanda: Yes.
Karan Thapar: The party in India that is most worried about the Maoist victory is the BJP, which says that you will be anti-Hindu in your behaviour and actions. How can you reassure them that this is not going to be the case?
Prachanda: This is an illusion. We are not anti-Hindu or anti-Buddhist or anything like that. We are committed to a secular political system and state. We are also continuously upholding the religious freedom and we understand the phenomenon of Hinduism in Nepal.
Karan Thapar: If the BJP is to win the elections in 2009, is there a possibility that the relations between India and Nepal can suffer?
Prachanda: I do not think so. Even BJP is a very serious party of India. They will understand the dynamism and change in Nepal and will come forward according to the changed situation.

Source: CNN-IBN, May 18, 2008

Maoist optimist

SD Muni

When South Asia is experiencing a fresh democratic wave and peoples' power, Nepal's Maoists should be seen as a powerful, positive manifestation of rising popular aspirations

Almost none among the competitors of Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) — CPN (M), rival parties like the Nepali Congress (NC) and the Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) expected them to emerge as a dominant political force in the elections to the Constituent Assembly. Similarly, almost none among the international community, including India and China, expected the Maoists to perform so well as they have done. With the results, the process of coping with the newly emerged reality has begun.

There are conflicting voices among the political parties on working with the Maoists, within or outside a coalition government. There are strategies being crafted and redefined by the members of the international community to begin engagement with the Maoists so as to nudge them on the democratic roadmap and ensure that Nepal remains stable, peaceful and friendly.

There is no dearth of forces and factors within Nepal and outside that would want to see the Maoists goof up in governance and falter in Constitution- making, thereby get discredited and erode their newly acquired credibility and legitimacy. Such forces may be in for shock and surprise again. They have yet not objectively assessed the degree of prudence and resilience that the Maoists leadership is capable of and have been displaying regularly.

This is clearly reflected in the post-election promises by the Maoists: to work with all other political parties, deal with King Gyanendra softly — even while showing him the exit, respect the role of private business and industry in carrying forward new Nepal's economic agenda and seek a constructive engagement with the international community, particularly India.

The Maoist leadership is acutely aware of their internal political constraints in dealing with the unfolding challenges before them. Such constraints are inherent in the exploded aspirations behind the mandate in their favour, in the 10-year-old insurgency and impatience of their militant cadres who find it painfully slow to come to terms with the complexity and patience of the democratic competitive processes. Besides, the Maoists are short of absolute majority in the newly elected Constituent Assembly.

In looking at Maoist Nepal's unfolding relations with India, three myths carefully nursed so far — out of ignorance or vested interests — need to be shed off. The first is that they will soon become instruments of either the Chinese or Pakistanis to create security nightmares for India, as the discredited monarchical regime in Kathmandu had been used to in the interest of its own political survival. The China of Deng Xiao Ping and his successors have been embarrassed by all those who glorified Maoism. The China of Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao was an ally of the monarchy in Nepal and instrumental in crushing the Maoists militarily. The Maoists cadres seeking shelter or sourcing arms and herbal trade in China were chased away by the Chinese soldiers.

China is fast making up for its past slips and trying hard to cultivate the Maoists. But Chinese success would depend more on the failure of the rest of the international community — rather than artificially using the rhetoric of Mao's thoughts. The Maoists would accept a friendly and cooperative relationship with China but not at the cost of India's interests, that is, if India treats them with respect.

The second myth is about close operational links between the Nepal Maoists and Indian underground Naxalites. India's home ministry establishment has repeatedly denied the depth and relevance of such links. The Maoist and Naxalite leaders have openly exchanged bitter words during the past couple of years. The Maoists have declared that their political agenda has been fulfilled by the election results and what remains is their agenda of economic revolution in Nepal. Fanning the Naxal insurgency and helping them achieve power in India was never the goal of Nepal's Maoists. In meeting the challenge of their economic revolution, they cannot afford to alienate India by cozying up with the Naxalites.

The third myth is about Maoists being anti-India. Not many people know that the Maoist leadership has been ardently seeking understanding and goodwill of the Indian political class since 2002. They have been wanting engagement with the Indian leadership. Their 'anti-India' demands, including the revision of the 1950 Treaty, are not only their original issues but a compilation of such demands made by successive regimes and political parties in Kathmandu.

Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee has done well to reach out to the Maoist leadership soon after the flow of election results. India is hopefully taking the Maoists as a popular force, as the architect of a politically vibrant and socio-economically progressive Nepal. What the Maoists need from India is their acceptance and recognition as the leaders of a confident, self-respecting neighbour which is willing to build a mutually advantageous and cooperative relationship in areas ranging from economic growth, security concerns and people-to-people exchange.

India has earlier indicated its willingness to discuss the treaty of 1950 with Nepal. India changed its treaty text with Bhutan without hurting its long- term security interests. If need be, there should be no difficulty in doing the same with Nepal.

The Maoists know that their economic agenda cannot move forward without creative harnessing of the country's potential resources including hydro-power. They know that this cannot be done with out cooperating with India, and this is India's need as well. They also know that a growing India is an opportunity in the areas of trade, investment, technology and human resources development. In building cooperation, India should ensure a fresh approach. The old policy mindset has to be set aside in writing a new chapter of close relations with South Asian neighbours like Nepal.

India's approach towards the Maoists will considerably influence the attitude of the international community. With the arrival in Kathmandu of the new US ambassador, Nancy Powell, signs of change in the US assessment are already visible. After the elections, the US ambassador has assured that American assistance and cooperation with Nepal will continue even when it is ruled by the Maoists.

Even before the elections, President George Bush had expressed the desire that the Maoists will hopefully work in cooperation with other political parties, thus accepting to deal with them as partners in the government. Former US President Jimmy Carter held talks with the Maoists leaders after the results and accepted that keeping the 'terrorist' tag on them is not a correct approach. The UK and other European Union members have also shown strong inclination to engage with the Maoists.

Indian and international engagement with the new Nepal and its Maoist leadership is desirable and necessary in the interest of Nepal's stability and mainstreaming of the Maoists. The Maoists know that if they have to consolidate their power base among the people of Nepal, they have to deliver on the promises made. And this cannot be done without generous and sustained support from the global community.

Today, when South Asia is experiencing a fresh democratic wave and peoples' power, Nepal's Maoists should be seen as a powerful, positive manifestation of rising popular aspirations. Harnessing these aspirations to build strong democratic institutions within and extensive cooperation among the countries of South Asia is in the mutual interest of both the international community as well as the Maoists of Nepal.

The writer is Senior Visiting Fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, Singapore, and former Indian ambassador to Laos

Source: Hardnews, May , 2008

India's choices are limited

Paul Soren

Of the two demands already delivered to Delhi by the victorious Maoists, revision of the 1950 treaty seems more reasonable and India has no option but listen to the new powers in Kathmandu. But the other one, banning Gurkha recruitment in the Indian Army, would be counterproductive for Nepal.

The India-Nepal "Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1950" has always been a bone of contention between the two neighbours. Extensive discussion at different forums and platforms have been held and the issue analysed from all possible angles. Of late, the Nepali and Indian media have been widely fomenting the debate over the reviewing of the treaty.

The issue gained prominence after the recently concluded Constituent Assembly election, where the Maoists emerged as the single largest party and deemed to head the new dispensation. Maoist chairman Prachanda, in his first foreign policy statement, strongly articulated the need for reviewing of the treaty with India in the changed political context. Also, the Maoists wish to end recruitments of Gurkhas in the Indian Army, regulation of the India-Nepal border, restrict Indian vehicles entering Nepal and renegotiate the Mahakali treaty of 1996 on water resources. After the shift in political events in Nepal, the Indian establishment has been left with no other choice but cede to the long overdue demand of the Nepalese.

At the outset, Maoists always termed the treaty being 'unequal' and alleged it only served India's interest. The Maoists have expressed resentment over the treaty and said it questions Nepal's sovereignty. In their 40-point demands presented to the Government, the Maoists had demanded abrogation of the treaty. The demand for reviewing the treaty is not new and Nepal has always expressed discomfort over it. From the mid-1970s, demands for its amendment have been periodically raised. In the mid-1990s, Nepal's first Communist Prime Minister, Man Mohan Adhikary, insisted on reviewing of the treaty and sought greater economic sovereignty.

Apparently, the premise of relations between the two countries is governed by treaties signed with the Rana rulers of the 1950s. It is the foundation on which India-Nepal relations are built, as it addresses the security and economic imperatives of both countries. But Nepal has serious reservations on Clauses V, VI and VII of the 1950 treaty and has often termed it 'unequal'. According to the treaty, neither side shall tolerate any threat to the security of the other by a foreign aggressor and compelled both sides to inform each other of any serious issue or misunderstanding. It also provides equal opportunities for people on both sides to invest in business and other projects.

However, the treaty restricts Nepal to purchase military equipment from any third country without India's consent and stresses the need to do it through Indian territory. Over these years, these accords have strengthened the bilateral relationship between the two countries. It provided people of both sides economic and other benefits. But the Nepalese are in favour of reviewing the treaty based on modern and equitable principles.

The treaty is not completely lopsided but the existing ambiguities should be addressed through mutual consensus. The broad spectrum of relationship on political, economic and people-to-people contact should not be ignored. Due to the geographical closeness, open border system and close social interactions of people from both sides has led to a situation of mutual interdependence. This has pressed both sides to remain responsive and supportive of each other's concern. Complete scrapping of this treaty would result to uneasiness and suffering for people of both sides.

Nepal is undergoing acute poverty and any new dispensation there would find it hard to bring radical economic reforms in a short period. Therefore, Mr Prachanda's wish to see an end to Gurkha recruitment might probably not be seen as a right move and cause resentment. After tourism, the sector from which the country gets most remittances is from Gurkhas serving in India. Lakhs of retired Gurkha personnel depend on Indian Army pension. Besides, complete regulation of the border would bring stringent law and this would deprive people from both sides to travel freely across the border to earn their livelihood.

Currently, India has no option but to agree for reviewing the treaty under the present circumstances. India has responded aptly but it should not ignore her national interests. As India has numerous interests in Nepal and concerns tend to be apprehensive over any political developments in Nepal and especially instability in Terai. Equally, Nepal feels vulnerable if its national integrity is threatened by external concerns. This situation tends to put both sides on separate paths.

The recent statements from the Government that it is ready to review treaties with Nepal are an indication that India is willing. Also, it is time for India to chart a new era of bilateral relations by engaging constructively with the new Nepali establishment which has a popular mandate. India should also allay the apprehensions of Nepali people of pursing a 'big brotherly attitude' and show readiness to address some of the irritants embedded in India-Nepal relationship.

There is also a need to deal with the bilateral issues at various levels with a much broader spectrum to make it more meaningful.

Source: The Pioneer, May 3, 2008

India misses crunch time

Baleshwar Agarwal

The demand for revising the India-Nepal treaty is being foolishly entertained by India. At this rate, Nepal may be lost as a dependable ally.

The Maoist victory in Nepal, even though indecisive, is the end of an important chapter of India's relations with that country and the beginning of a new one marked by great uncertainty. I have been a follower of Nepal affairs since 1951, when I went there as a young correspondent to cover the Mahasamiti of the Nepali Congress. The country has gone through many deaths and rebirths since then, but this is an altogether new situation for me. The emptiness that I feel in my heart is perhaps a small manifestation of the national mood in India on seeing a Communist, demonstrably anti-Indian and pro-Chinese dispensation take over in Kathmandu. In the past, India counted in Kathmandu, whatever the vicissitudes overwhelming that country. But now, India is the diminutive.

At this historic crossroads, the role played by the Indian Government is most unfortunate. New Delhi seem to have lost the influence it wielded in Kathamandu through six decades. It can no longer leverage its economic and political clout. Yet, what is not easily realised is that possibilities still exist for India to play an important role in the process of appointing the next Prime Minister and important members of his Cabinet.

I will come to that later, but first, something most unfortunate and unanticipated has happened this week which, in the context of the emerging situation, diminishes India's prestige in her own backyard. The Maoists, who have got only 29.3 per cent of the vote, are being feted by New Delhi as the unquestioned rulers of Nepal. The new Indian Ambassador, Mr Rakesh Sood, has announced that New Delhi would be willing to work with a "Maoist Prime Minister". Whatever the Maoists want, even if voiced to the reporter of a TV channel, is being given the highest importance in the Indian capital. Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon has given the Maoists their much-needed credibility boost by publicly agreeing to talks on the India-Nepal Treaty.

By far, the biggest disappointment for me was former National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra's statement, given in an interview to Karan Thapar on April 29, in which he seemed to prepare the ground for the Foreign Secretary to recognise the Maoists' demand for treaty revision. It was strange that Mr Mishra, with his immense experience as a diplomat, did not even wait for the formal request to be delivered by the new Government in Kath-mandu. What was the reason for his decision to be so pro-Maoist? Only time will tell.

It is highly improbable to me that the Maoists would keep pressing their demand for revising the treaty. Nepal has more to lose than gain from the exercise because as it is the treaty is heavily tilted in her favour. The first Government of India had been extremely generous to Nepal. Today, India is home to more than six million Nepalese. Suppose India should now ask for an end to the era of free immigration for Nepalese? In the past, Man Mohan Adhikary, the first Communist Prime Minister of Nepal, had also voiced this demand. But, after some time, he stopped talking about it. Good enough for India.

Meanwhile, on the ground, Prachanda's chances of being Prime Minister are as good as any other contender's. Mr Sher Bahadur Deuba is the last India-friendly politician of any consequence. Mr Girija Prasad Koirala is, after all, a pro-India leader despite his reduced circumstances. The need of the hour is that India should recognise that anybody is preferable to the Maoists who represent a grave threat not only to India's security, but also the entire region.

It is for this reason that India should put its weight behind the other contenders for prime ministership.Mr Sher Bahadur Deuba,is enjoying the United States' support. Washington has rightly stood its ground that the Maoists are terrorists and refuse to be awed by their victory. Despite their 120 seats in the First-Past-the-Post system, the Maoists are still short of a majority. In the Proportional Representation system, the Maoists stand to get just 100 seats out of 335. The PR system will give a huge number of seats to the Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) and the three "Madhesi" parties. If they come together, then Prachanda would have to sulk as the Leader of the Opposition. Moreover, the CPN(UML) is unlikely to ever join the Maoists in any arrangement.

Why is India not seizing the situation? This is the biggest mystery. The two legs of any nation's foreign policy are national interest and ideology. Taking the latter first, there is every indication that Nepal is headed towards a dictatorship, and that too of the most brutal kind. As far as national interests is concerned, under no circumstances would having a Maoist Prime Minister favourable to India. Like Communists everywhere, their fundamental loyalty lies towards the fulcrum of world Communism, China. There was a time when Beijing dismissed Prachanda and his gang as romantic adventurers. Even in their wildest imagination the Chinese did not bargain for a Maoist victory in the Constituent Assembly election. But, now that the impossible has happened, China will not lose any time to play the "Communist" card to give Prachanda the respectability he so desires in the Communist pantheon. The manner in which Nepal suppressed Tibetan opposition to the Olympic torch relay should open India's -- and the world's eyes -- to the possibility of Nepal being reduced to a vassal state of China.

The situation in Nepal is going from bad to worse. People are leaving Kathmandu with their accumulated savings because nobody wants to continue life under a Communist regime. Business owners are transferring their funds to India. Prachanda is hoping to stem the tide by promising to run a "capitalist" economy, but there are few believers. Anti-India sentiments are bound to get a boost very soon because India has banned rice exports, followed by Bangladesh. Prices have touched absurd levels and the poverty of Nepal has become exacerbated. So, India should look at the possibilities.

Nobody won the Constituent Assembly election. It is still a political logjam in Kathmandu. The time is ripe for New Delhi to launch a new diplomatic initiative. But, at this dark moment, nobody appears to be willing to listen.

-- The writer is Secretary-General of Antar Rashtriya Sahyog Parishad and a reputed expert on India-Nepal relations

Source: The Pioneer, May 3, 2008

Lunatic diplomacy

Arabinda Ghose

Even before a new Maoist-dominated Government of Nepal could formally take office, we have before us the spectacle of regional superpower, India, bowing in deference to every whim and fancy of the self-proclaimed masters in Kathmandu. This week, we saw a succession of important personalities in Government and the strategic community of Delhi issue significant statements in agreement with Communist supremo Prachanda's wish that the India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship, 1950, be "revised".

Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon created a new precedent by agreeing to Prachanda's suggestion even before he could be sworn in as Prime Minister and draft a formal letter to the effect that Nepal wishes to replace the 58-year-old document. As usual, the rest of the strategic community fell in line. Even the redoubtable Brajesh Mishra, the National Security Adviser in the Vajpayee Administration, did not question the legitimacy of Prachanda's claim and helped create an ambient atmosphere for Mr Menon to make his acceptance speech.

Saturday Special, which has made Nepal a special area of focus for the past two years (devoting seven issues to the troubled nation), sees this as continuation of the blunders committed by the Manmohan Singh Government since 2005. The External Affairs Ministry must be aware that the formation of a new Government is an extremely uncertain and tricky affair and there is still some uncertainty whether Prachanda would be Prime Minister. Yet, everybody who is anybody on Nepal seems in a great hurry to kowtow to the man whose election victories has not freed him from the terrorist tag. They are using every forum to wax eloquent on India's readiness to convert Prachanda's wishes into commands.

In the lunatic world of jholawala (world) diplomacy, whispers abound that 'big brother' India has beaten Nepal into submission over the past six decades with an 'unequal' treaty. Hence, the great romantic hero, Prachanda, is justified in demanding 'equity'. But to anyone going through the text of the 10-article treaty and the letters exchanged over it on July 31, 1950, and signed in Kathmandu between Mohun Shumsher Jung Bahadur Rana of Nepal and the then Indian Ambassador, Chandreshwar Prasad Narayan Singh, it would be amply clear that the treaty is heavily balanced in favour of Nepal. And for good reason.

No Indian would have ever opposed the provisions of the treaty, because it treats Nepal as a friend and much more. Yet, ever since democracy was re-established in Nepal in 1990, every new Government that takes over in Kathmandu, raises the bilateral temperature by demanding either the abrogation or revision of this treaty. As a correspondent of various newspapers and news agencies in Kathmandu for over a decade, I have lost count of the number of times politicians there have raised the ridiculous demand, only to forget about it after settling down comfortably in office.

Of course, there are provisions with the potential to raise eyebrows. Article V says: "The Government of Nepal shall be free to import, from or through the territory of India arms and ammunitions or warlike material and equipment necessary for the security of Nepal. The procedure for giving effect to this arrangement shall be worked out by the two Governments acting in consultation." The reality is that Nepal does not import any armament without India's knowledge in consideration of India's security needs. Yet, in 1988, Nepal imported anti-aircraft guns from its northern neighbour, China, without bothering to intimate India.

Article VI says: "Each Government undertakes, in token of the neighbourly relation between India and Nepal, to give to the nationals of the other, in its territory, national treatment with regard to participation in industrial and economic development of such territory and to the grant of concessions and contracts relating to such development". However, in para 3 of the letters exchanged, it has been stated: "The Government of India recognise that it may be necessary for some time to come to afford the Nepalese nationals in Nepal protection from unrestricted competition. The nature and extent to this protection will be determined as and when required by mutual agreement between the two governments". This is an example of how the treaty is tilted in favour of Nepal, which sensible people of India support wholeheartedly.

Yet, for unknown reasons, this treaty continues to be demonised. In 1970, when a new Trade and Transit Treaty was due between the two countries, there was much frenzy generated in Kathmandu against its proposed provisions. Demonstrations were organised routinely in front of the Indian Embassy in support of unclear demands. Resultantly, the negotiations were postponed and a scheduled film festival was cancelled. Similar outbursts were observed prior to the finalisation of the Trade and Transit Treaty of 1990 as well. At that time, too, one heard that the "root cause" behind Nepal's poverty was the 1950 Treaty -- an instrument of Indian 'highhandedness'.

It must be stressed that in the past, the demonstrations had had taken place when Nepal was under a monarchy. A former Indian Ambassador famously commented on one occasion: "Not even a leaf can flutter without orders from the palace". But today, Nepal is on the path of becoming a federal democratic republic. One hopes the unseemly debate over the treaty issue will be forgotten and a new relationship with respect for each other's sovereignty and national interests is established for our mutual benefits.

Source: The Pioneer, May 3, 2008

No respite in violence

Paul Soren

With the election date coming nearer, violence between the parties has witnessed a steady rise, especially in the eastern and Terai region, threatening the electoral process itself. The government claims to have tightened the security situation but there are no signs of it on the ground. Even the political parties, the Election Commission (EC), international observers, civil society and members of the international community have expressed concern over the rising violence. The EC discussed the issue with senior leaders of the three major parties; Nepali Congress president Girija Prasad Koirala, Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (UML) general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal and Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-Maoist) chairman Prachanda. The commission urged the leaders to refrain from violating the code of conduct. The commission warned of serious consequences if the elections were to be deferred due to violence. The leaders assured their cooperation for holding the elections peacefully. They signed a 10-point agreement on April 1 to abide by the code of conduct and restrain from making provocative statements. They directed their cadres to refrain from anti-election activities. They formed a committee comprising members from civil society to monitor incidents of violence and violations of code of conduct. A three-member task force has also been formed with leaders from the three parties to oversee the implementation of the new agreement.

But there are already visible signs that despite such assurances, there is no sign of the party workers adhering to the code of conduct. The newly-formed civil society committee and the task force failed to prevent the Maoists- affiliated Young Communist League (YCL) cadres from openly flouting the code of conduct and preventing other parties from holding election campaign in their strongholds. Interestingly, the UML and NC cadres are also toeing the YCL line. Besides, some armed groups in the Terai are out to sabotage the election process. Repeated incidents of blasts inside a mosque premises in Biratnagar and serial blasts in Kathmandu on April 5 are indications of a worsening law and order situation merely five days before the elections.

Source: South Asia Weekly Assessment, ORF, April 8, 2008

Fate of monarchy linked to Nepal's poll

Dhruba Adhikary

KATHMANDU - Nepal on Monday appeared like a country finally heading towards an election of historical significance later this week. There is visible enthusiasm among voters - an atmosphere that was not to be found a week ago when candidates in the 601-strong Constituent Assembly conducted their campaigns amid fear and insecurity. Just days ago, uncertainty surrounded the poll, which is expected to pave the way for the Himalayan kingdom's transformation into a republic. After two postponements since last June, the interim government finally approved a date, April 10, and directed the Election Commission to make necessary preparations. Thousands of poll observers, including from Western countries, will be closely watching the voting for which over 17 million Nepalis are eligible. There are about nine thousand candidates for the election - to be based on a mixed system of first-past-the-post and proportional representation.

The men and women contesting the elections have had differing experiences, from disinterested crowds to candidates in far-flung districts being killed, abducted and intimidated, mainly by young militants associated with the Maoists. In April 2006, the Maoists agreed to be a political party - the Communist Party of Nepal - and joined electoral and competitive politics. The Maoists continue to draw widespread criticism for their cadres' crude and deadly behavior, ignoring their pledge to abide by provisions of the peace accord they signed to formally end a 10-year armed insurgency which claimed over 13,000 lives. Villagers in remote areas have complained that Maoist cadres routinely visit them and threaten retribution if they do not vote for their candidates and parties. Maoist cadres have made hundreds of villages inaccessible to other parties, forcing them to confine their campaigns to district centers. Responding to these complaints, the top Maoist leader publicly issued a directive for his group to behave like Indian non-violent spiritual leader Mahatma Gandhi for the remaining days of the campaign. His cadres at the village level, however, do not appear to have been paying attention.

Threats and hurdles

What happened on March 29 in Biraatnagar, the home town of interim Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala located in the southeast, provided an example of how precarious the law and order situation is across Nepal. Within hours after Koirala addressing local authorities on enhancing security services in the region, powerful bombs exploded at a neighborhood mosque, instantly killing two persons and inflicting serious injuries on others. The incident added a communal dimension to the existing problems in the Hindu-majority country. In its pre-election report issued on April 6, the special United Nations mission in Nepal alluded to a "climate of fear in which candidates and voters function". While appreciating pledges by leaders of three parties - among the seven political parties in the interim alliance - to conduct the campaign in a peaceful manner, the UN report continued to express frustration, saying that "these commitments need to translate into reality on the ground - which has too often not been the case". As if to prove this perception, Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal (also known as Prachanda) last week canceled all of his public engagements outside the capital for security reasons.

Ironically, he is also the head of the "People's Liberation Army" and is usually surrounded by scores of armed personnel around the clock. It is odd to see the Maoist leadership scared to move around in a country in which they say is 80% under their control. "Death has come to haunt its greatest purveyor," wrote a newspaper columnist. Prachanda's decision came in the wake of threats from some two dozen armed groups in the Terai region, mainly bordering the Indian state of Bihar, which have said they would disrupt the April 10 polls by "eliminating" candidates. Some of these groups are said to have political agendas and demands that their regions be declared autonomous with a right to self-determination. It is a widely held belief that New Delhi is behind this separatist movement. Meanwhile, political rivalry between the main contesting parties remains acrimonious.

Both the Maoists and the Communist Party of Nepal (UML), the more moderate of the two, depict the Nepali Congress, the party with centrist credentials, as a supporter of the status quo (meaning support for the monarchy) , even if the Congress leadership has agreed to their republican agenda. The Congress sees the Maoists as a party of anarchists. But the dual between the UML and the Maoists has been strikingly bitter, with each accusing the other of being royalist. Nobody knows what Gyanendra, whose days even as a "suspended" king are numbered, would have said about these verbal battles. But is Gyanendra still in a position to move or shake Nepal's political course at this decisive phase? Apparently not.

The country's army has ceased to be "royal" and there are no other visible domestic forces to salvage the monarchy, even in a ceremonial form. Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, a former prime minister and Koirala's rival while he was still in the Nepali Congress, is the only political personality of any standing to say that the monarchy is still needed. But since Bhattarai is no longer politically active, it is unlikely his statements will make any direct impact on the ongoing political process. Two of the 54 political parties in the fray have said openly they are in favor of a ceremonial monarchy. One of them is the Nepal National Development Party, which is headed by a Nepali citizen of Japanese origin, Takashi Miyahara. He thinks Nepal can take Japan as a role model and stresses that people forgave their emperor despite the loss of 2 million lives during World War II.

Some of the world's top 10 countries, he contends, are monarchies, such as Japan and in Scandinavia. Gyanendra has publicly said he has no plans to leave Nepal. Instead, the palace last week sent out customary cards with New Year's greetings from "Their Majesties the King and Queen". Nepal's new year, 2065, begins on April 13. Nepal's interim constitution and concomitant agreements between the seven political parties that make up the ruling coalition stipulate that the first meeting of the newly-elected assembly will "implement" a proposal to declare Nepal a republic. And the assembly has to meet for its maiden session within 21 days after the announcement of the last election result.

In election commissioner Neelkantha Upreti's estimation, all results will be out within three weeks of the poll, provided no re-polls are required. In other words, the 240-year-old monarchy which has remained a symbol of Nepal's stability will be relegated to the history books in a matter of weeks. Will Gyanendra quietly wait for that day without making a final attempt, be it overt or covert, to save his throne? Some politicians in the coalition have said they suspect the palace is behind the recent spate of violence. In private conversations, very few prominent politicians, including the Maoists, see the monarchy disappearing easily. They know they themselves are primarily responsible for the anarchy and chaos the country has witnessed since the successful pro-democracy movement of April 2006.

They are also aware they have alienated a large section of the population by declaring Nepal a secular state without putting the issue to a popular test. Similarly, leaders in the coalition hurriedly pushed through a citizenship law in the interim legislature, subsequently granting Nepali citizenship to about 4 million aliens, mainly Indians. Even the Maoists, who always claimed to be more nationalist than others, did not raise any objection while the "liberal" law was being enacted. "Maoists, too, showed that they are no different from others when it comes to vying for New Delhi's favor," said Somnath Ghimire, editor of Yugsambad, a Nepali language weekly. Widespread fear and indifference could lead to an unexpectedly low turnout of voters, with some estimates claiming it could be as low as 25%.

In the absence of a law requiring a minimum percentage of voters, even such an election could be declared valid by Nepal's election officials and endorsed by international observers. But will it achieve the political legitimacy needed to complete the current transitional process? This is a question that might be asked, among others, by Gyanendra, who earlier told the media the people alone had the right to decide the fate of the monarchy. Additionally, it is as yet unclear which of three main parties is likely to emerge as the winner. Some analysts say that despite splits and mergers, the Nepali Congress stands a chance to lead the other parties. Others believe the UML has brighter prospects.

The Maoists are not being viewed as the main winners. However, this is a prediction the Maoist leadership refuses to accept. Prachanda has publicly thundered that the Maoists will not accept the results if his party is denied victory, and thereby a chance to introduce revolutionary reforms. According to Prachanda, his party will take such a result as a conspiracy, compelling it to restart the armed insurgency. One senior Nepali Congress leader told Asia Times Online that the Maoists want to be in a win-win situation - either winning the majority and accomplishing the dream of "taking over" the country, or staying out of election without being seen as the main villain. Worrying trendsInstitutions tasked with analyzing emerging trends have made no secret of their concern. The latest report by the International Crisis Group predicts the post-poll period will be more "difficult and dangerous". In the words of the group's Asia program director, Robert Templer, "The turbulent aftermath would require cooperation and forward planning from the main parties." Will that be forthcoming if the Maoists decide to reject a defeating poll verdict and boycott the elected assembly thereafter? Recent events in Kenya and Zimbabwe do not offer encouraging messages. One school of thought has it that while communist slogans may be attractive to poor, illiterate and credulous people, the West-dominated international community would hate to see - or recognize - a Maoist regime in Nepal, which shares borders with Tibet, and thereby China. The US, for instance, has yet to remove Nepal's Maoists from its official list of terrorists. For the moment, the great electoral exercise remains on the threshold, although a section of Nepal's intelligentsia continues to view the mission as an enigma.

Source: Asia Times Online, April 8, 2008

Maoists fear losing elections

Paul Soren

The Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-Maoist) has warned of another phase of revolution if the party was not voted to power. While campaigning in the eastern part of the country, Maoist chairman Prachanda and other prominent leaders have strongly articulated that the party will not accept defeat in the coming Constituent Assembly elections of April 10. Prachanda said “the pro-palace elements, Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (UML), Nepali Congress and some foreign powers are conspiring against the elections``. The Maoists believe that anti-national elements in Nepal were making efforts to prevent them party from winning.

The Maoists have realised that the elections would not be a cake walk for them as their support base has reduced over the past few months. They are now getting restive and engaging in anti-election activities. The cadre has been defying the Election Commission’s directive to follow the election code of conduct. The Young Communist League affiliated to the Maoist party has been indulging in violence during the campaign. In remote areas, they are intimidating and preventing common people from attending political programmes of rival parties. In all, the Maoists seem to be in a desperate mood to win the elections and are likely to use any means to achieve their objective.

Source: ORF, South Asia Weekly Report, March 30, 2008

China keen to re-engage with Nepal

Paul Soren

China last week supported the April 10 Constituent Assembly (CA) elections and reaffirmed its support to the peace process and economic assistance aimed to bring peace and political stability in the country. Of late, China has begun taking a keen interest in the unfolding political developments in Nepal. On March 2, Chinese Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs He Yafei led a nine-member delegation to Nepal. During their three-day visit, the delegation met with Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, Chief of the Army Staff General Rukmangat Katuwal, Foreign Secretary Gyan Chandra Acharya and participated in the 7th consultative conference of Foreign Ministers of the two countries.
Although China had sent several high-level official delegations to Nepal last year, it was the first official foreign ministry delegation to Nepal. Through these visits China aimed to revive the dormant relationship between the two countries, stagnated primarily due to Nepal’s internal political instability and the active-presence of foreign powers in the region. China also promised to extend road and railway network and supply fuel to Nepal. The proposed rail link connecting Kathmandu to Lhasa will put the Chinese in a more advantageous position. This will reduce Nepal’s over-dependence on India. Furthermore, China promised to expand cooperation with Nepal and support Nepal’s cause in regional and international forum, including SAARC.
Earlier, China maintained a distance from the democratic forces and preferred to align with the monarchy. However, in the changed circumstances, China was keen to engage with the democratic forces and the new political dispensation. It would like to have a dispensation in Kathmandu which would benefit China’s national interest and support its policies on Tibet and Taiwan. More importantly, China would like to see the Indian influence and growing western presence in Nepal reduced.

Source: South Asia Weekly, March 9, 2008

Strife ends in Nepal’s Terai region

Paul Soren

With signing of an eight-point agreement reached between the government and leaders of United Madhesi Democratic Front (UDMF), an alliance of three Terai parties, Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum (MJF), Terai-Madhesh Loktantrik Party (TMLP) and Nepal Sadbhawana Party (NSP), the year long strife in Teria has partially come to an end. The UDMF also announced to withdraw its 16 day long agitation. The prevailing confusion and apprehension over holding of timely elections to the Constituent Assembly (CA) has also disappeared.

On February 28, 2008, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and UDMF leaders Mahanta Thakur, Rajendra Mahato and Upendra Yadav signed a pact in the presence of members from civil society, human rights and media. In addition, the government also signed a four-point agreement on March 1 with the Federal Republican National Front (FRNF), an alliance of nine ethnic groups. However, some affiliates of the FRNF, including Madhesi Jaanaadhikar Forum–Madhes (MJF-M) and Republican Madhesi Front (RMF) are dissatisfied with the agreement. The two Madhesi groups have further warned to intensify their agitation.

Apparently, the government has been able to address key demands of Madhesis which they have been deprived for over more than five decades. According to the pact, the government agreed to recognise Madhes and other federal states as autonomous region, provide equal representation to Madhesis in all sectors, proportional representation of Madheis in army, implement previous pact with MJF, compensate and provide medical treatment to people injured during Terai agitation and give martyr’s status to those killed and has agreed to talk to armed outfits from Terai. The cabinet meeting endorsed the agreement and asked the Election Commission (EC) to extend the deadline for election procedures.

In fact, the Terai problem seems to be resolved but this is only partially. In central Terai, security situation is fast improving and gradually returning to normalcy but agitations in eastern Terai remains a challenge. Similarly, the armed factions from Terai have not shown much inclination to participate in elections. Though, the government is trying hard to reach out to these groups but their response has been lukewarm. Eventually, if talks do not materialize with these groups it is certain that they will try to impede the election process. There are also few elements hatching conspiring against the elections and trying to derail the peace process. Likewise, security scenario in some parts of Teria still remains a matter of grave concern. The EC has also requested the government to tighten up security in some eastern hilly districts. However, despite all these hurdles and stumbling blocks, the government and parties look determined to hold the elections. The political parties have intensified campaign and mobilizing support for their respective parties. It is expected that this time the elections would not be deferred rather it would be held to provide a future roadmap for new Nepal.

Source: South Asia Weekly, March 2, 2008

Terai crisis may delay elections

The continuing crisis in Nepal’s Terai region poses a serious challenge for holding of timely elections to the Constituent Assembly (CA). The week-long general strike called by the United Democratic Madhesi Front (UDMF), an alliance of three Terai parties, Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum (MJF), Terai-Madhesh Loktantrik Party (TMLP) and Sadbhawana Party (SP) has only aggravated the situation. The UDMF has been pressurising the government to address six of its major demands, including, a separate Madesh province with right to self-determination. They threatened to boycott elections if their demands are not met. Subsequently, the Federal Republican Front (FRF), an alliance of ethnic groups in eastern hills has launched agitations pressuring for their demands. Apparently, the two separate agitations is Terai, has raised serious doubts of holding the elections on stipulated time.

The strike has adversely affected normal life in the region and Kathmandu valley. Many of the industries located in Terai have closed down due to shortage of raw materials. Most of the educational institutions have shut down and transport remained off road. The supply of basic necessities has been largely affected due to blockade of vehicular movement. There is an acute shortage of fuel and this impacted vehicular movement in Kathmandu. There are also stray incidents of violence and clashes reported between security forces and demonstrators in different parts of Terai.

The FRF’s acceptance to sit for talks has given some respite to the government. The government tried hard to strike a deal with UDMF leaders to hold elections on time. Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and Seven Party Alliance (SPA) leaders invited UDMF leaders for talks. This week, a series of meetings took place between UDMF and SPA leaders to find a political outlet. The government assured UDMF leaders that elections will address most of their grievances. Initially, the Madhesi leaders responded positively to government’s offer. However, the talks did not yield any results and the UDMF decided to continue with their agitations. Though, the government and other parties are gearing up for elections but the security and election scenario in Terai does not look favourable. Even, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP-Nepal) has decided to boycott the April 10 election. It is obvious that elections will not take place if, the Terai parties continue with their agitations and security situation does not improve.

Source: South Asia Weekly, February 24, 2008

India reiterates support for Nepali elections

India reiterated her support to Nepal for holding timely elections to the Constituent Assembly (CA) and expressed confidence that the elections would be held on April 10, 2008. Spelling out her position India also stated that it does not support any type of secessionist movement in Nepal. Rather India wants to support Nepal in her attempts to accomplish her democratic goals. In a goodwill gesture and to express solidarity to the Nepali government, the Indian National Congress (INC) party, key constituent in the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) sent a four member high-level delegation to Nepal. The delegation was led by Divijay Singh, accompanied by Veerappa Moily, Dr Shakeel Ahmed and Jitin Prasada. The delegation was assigned the task to take stock of political situation in Nepal and to extend India’s support to the Nepali people.

In Kathmandu, the delegation met with the Nepali Congress (NC) President and Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, Home Minister Krishna Prasad Situala, Minister of Peace and Reconstruction R C Poudel, Speaker of House, Chief Election Commission CEC), senior leaders of all political parties including the Maoists, leaders of agitating Terai parties and civil society representatives. The delegation extended all possible support for timely election. India also offered to mediate between the Nepali government and agitating groups in Terai, if both parties agreed to it. India hopes that the demands of the Madhesis and other agitating groups to be addressed within the framework of agreed principles.

Over the years, India has played a crucial role in assisting the Nepali government and parties in resolving political problems. During times of crisis and confusion it has been able to broker peace between conflicting parties. Thereby, India will continue to remain a major player in Nepal.

However, unfolding of events, deepening political crisis and eruption of violence in Terai remains a serious concern for India. It is concerned over the deteriorating security situation in Terai which might impinge upon India’s own security in states along the India-Nepal border. Besides, it is apprehensive that if the elections are delayed further the country will experience more chaos.

Source: South Asia Weekly, February 17, 2008

Maoist’s making tactical move

The Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-Maoist) is making desperate attempts to pressurise the Nepali government and to intimidate political rivals before the April 10 elections. Last week, in a major political decision, the Maoist party announced the revival of the United Revolutionary People's Council (URPC) people’s government. The Maoists re-constituted URPC central committee and appointed senior leader Dr Baburam Bhattarai as convener and Krishna Bahadur Mahara and Dev Gurung as deputy-conveners.

On February 6, Maoist party held a meeting of the URPC and decided to revive the people's government and resolve people’s problems at the district and local level. The Maoists claim that this will assist in holding of smooth elections and also extend support in development related works. Subsequently, the Maoists also announced to initiate model joint development projects in eleven autonomous regions.

According to the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) signed between the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) and Maoists in November 2006, the Maoists had agreed to dissolve their parallel government. The recent announcement of reviving local government is a gross violation of previous peace agreements. The Maoists decision has also drawn criticism from several quarters. All major political parties strongly reacted to it and raised suspicion over the Maoists move. The parties termed the decision as violation of the peace accord and other understandings signed in the past. The United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) assisting in managing the arms and monitoring peace process termed the decision violation of earlier accords and questioned the rationalization behind it.

Over a period of time, the Maoists have lost their popular support base across the country and there is a growing realization that they may fair badly during the elections. Thereby, the Maoists are attempting to maneuver the local government by reviving their local body. Though, the Maoists have rhetorically stated to cooperate and participate in elections but their recent move has left scope for suspicion about their sincerity towards the peace process and elections.

Source: South Asia Weekly, Febryary 10, 2008

King Gyanendra breaks long silence

Paul Soren

Finally, emerging from a long isolation, King Gyanendra spoke out his mind. He said his silence was not a sign of withdrawal or defeat but action. He argued that he remained silent so that the peace accord signed between the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) government and Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-Maoist) could succeed. Last year, in a significant decision, the SPA government and Maoists had stripped the King of all his executive powers, privileges and seized all his royal properties.

On January 30, in an informal interview with Hari Lamsal, editor of a vernacular Nepali weekly Rastra Bani, the King said the Nepali people have a large heart and can accommodate all Nepalis including the monarchy. He also refuted rumors of fleeing the country and asserted that the Nepali people were aware of the significance of the institution of monarchy and will not undermine it. In his interview, King Gyanendra urged people to gauge the current political situation in the country and said they must peak out rather than keeping quiet.

Interestingly, the King claimed to have reached a secret understanding with the political parties. He declined to provide full details about the deal but said the parties know about it and if it didn’t work out then he will come out in public. The King’s statement at this juncture is a calculative move; he is testing the waters and gauging people’s reactions. Interestingly, some section of the Nepali people, pro-monarchy parties and some political leaders are also in support of the institution of monarchy in some form or the other. Recently, the Interdisciplinary Analysts (IDA) group carried out a countrywide survey and reported that over 49.3 percent of Nepalis supported the continuation of the institution of monarchy in some form in the new set-up. Are these developments an indication that monarchy might just come to stay in Nepal, albeit only a shadow of the glorious past?

Source: South Asia Weekly, February 2, 2008

All attention on the Army

Being one of the two primary institutions that founded the Nepali State, the Army bears a moral, historical, and institutional obligation to salvage the faltering state. Now, the question remains: when and with which partnership will the Army act?

Chiran Jung Thapa

Rookmangud Katawal
Once again, the Army has become the centre of attention. First, it was the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Rookmangud Katawal's salvo against the integration of the Maoist rebels that caused a stir. Then immediately following his remarks, the Maoists accused the Army of plotting a "democratic coup." And now, the hottest debate underway is about the idea of mobilizing the Army to provide security for the putative Constituent Assembly elections (CA).

It was the COAS' non-accommodative remarks that started the wave. Hinting at the issue of Maoist integration into the Army, General Katawal had strongly opined that no politically indoctrinated individual or group should be inducted into the national army. While the Prime minister and most other political leaders concurred with Katawal's sentiments, the Maoist boss - Pushpa Kamal Dahal aka Prachanda lambasted Gen. Katawal questioning his authority to make such remarks on integration.

But the fussing did not stop there. The Maoist retorted by making an even more sensational allegation. Dahal and his second-in-command - Baburam Bhattarai accused the Army of plotting a "democratic coup." Dahal has even claimed that the foreign powers were hatching a conspiracy to install a military-backed government like in Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Repeatedly, Maoists have proved themselves to have mastered the art of crying wolf. But, some reckon that their allegation could possibly hold some semblance of merit this time around.

The element that has provided some weight to the Maoist allegation is the induction of Sujata Koirala (the daughter of the Prime minister) into the cabinet. Ms Koirala was recently appointed as a minister without portfolio. Given her ailing father's dwindling abilities, many reckon that she is taking charge of his portfolios - which happens to include defence. And it is said that her relationship with the Army top brass has warmed up quite a bit in recent times. Apparently, she was also in Delhi at the same time when Gen. Katawal was there. These turn of events added weight to the Maoists’ claim that her lucid preference for constitutional monarchy has resonated well with the Army top brass and a “democratic coup” is in the offing.

But even before the dust settled, Army was again dragged into the limelight. This time, it was about mobilizing the Army to provide security for the putative elections. Although the Army has remained tight-lipped over the issue, all divisional commanders were recently called into Headquarters to discuss the issue. As for the political leaders, they have been voicing their preference to mobilize the Army almost on a daily basis.

The Army has become the primary choice for the security provision because it is still the largest and the strongest security apparatus in the country. At a time when the security situation has deteriorated critically and that the other security apparatuses have become utterly debilitated, Army remains the only robust hope for the purpose.

Army's power
Perhaps the main reason why the Army has received so much attention is because of its undeniable power. A recent report, released by the Brussels based International Crisis Group (ICG), positions the Army as the most powerful institution in Nepal. There is more than a grain of truth in ICG's assessment. With a total strength of six divisions comprising of 95,000 personnel, the Army is certainly the largest and the most powerful public institution.

The Army derives its power not just from the sheer numbers, but also from the public faith in the institution. According to the most recent nationwide survey titled "Nepal's contemporary situation" conducted by Sudhindra Sharma and Pawan Kumar Sen, the Army enjoys the highest public approval rating amongst the primary government institutions (legislative parliament, Cabinet, Civil service, Nepal Police, and Judiciary). Even the NGOs, Civil society, and Human rights activists’ were unable to override Army’s approval ratings.

Another opinion poll conducted by Nepalnews/Nepali Times had yielded similar results. In response to the poll question, "In light of the recent developments what is your opinion of the Nepal Army?”, 79% of the respondents indicated that they held the army in positive light.

The public’s faith on the Army stems mainly from its unfaltering discipline and cohesiveness. Unlike the blatantly brazen violations of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) committed by its signatories, the Army has strictly abided to all its terms and conditions. And the Nepali people have taken notice to this fact. Also, until date, the Army has remained remarkably subservient to the Transitional Governing Authority’s (TGA) authority and staunchly adhered to the constitution. In stark contrast to the fissiparous political parties that have all endured splits at least once in their political history, the Nepal Army has remained intact and very loyal to its chain of command too.

It is also the financial capability that has provided the Army with an additional oomph. Not only does it receive a budget allotment from the government, but it also earns a substantial amount from the UN Peace keeping operations (PKO). As the fifth largest troop contributor, the amount the Nepal Army rakes in from the PKOs is almost equal to the amount it receives from the national budget. One estimate even has it that about thirty percent of the capital circulating in Nepal's financial markets comes from the Army's funds.

But the variable that makes the Army so potent and powerful is undoubtedly its fighting prowess. Despite having fought an onerous insurgency for years, the Army still appears indefatigable. Although some have denigrated the Army for its inability to crush the insurgency, others have credited the institution for preventing a complete military takeover by the rebels. Many political pundits also believe that it was primarily the Army’s unyielding resilience that compelled the rebels to shift their strategic gears and opt for the Delhi compromise.

In the transitional period, analysts reckon that the Army has actually increased its potency. Pointedly, the number of personnel in the Army stands at its peak. Training has been made more frequent and more rigorous. It is even believed that it has greatly strengthened the capability of its special forces which comprises of one airborne battalion and one Ranger battalion.

Even more tellingly, the previously throttled supply of military hardware has resumed. The COAS' recent trips to India and China are believed to have revitalized the military ties. Presumably, COAS’ trips have opened more doors for military hardware procurements. Some Nepali news agencies have even reported sightings of two US Air Force C17 Globemasters, delivering a large consignment arms and ammunition to the Army at Tribhuvan International Airport. In sum, what makes the Army irrefutably powerful is a combination of pubic faith, financial capability and its fighting prowess.

Army's impending role
Today, most eyes rest on the impending role of the Army. Will the Army take the risk of absorbing the rebels? Will it completely severe its conjugal ties with the institution that is attributed for its naissance? Will it be mobilized to provide security for the putative elections? And more importantly, what would happen if it tilted in favour of one political force?

It remains to be seen as to how the Army’s role will play out. But, one thing is unmistakably certain: the Army is greatly perturbed by the rising insecurity and especially alarmed by the eroding state sovereignty. As it considers itself ordained with the task of safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity, it is easily discernable why the downward spiral trend has been unsettling.

But more importantly, it has seemingly sensed its inevitable role. It has detected that the burden of cleaning up the political slag will once again be heaped on its shoulders. Either by being mobilized to provide security for the elections or deployed against the anti-establishment elements, it foresees itself springing into action sooner or later.

The Army, however, faces another formidable task as well. For the Army, more challenging than defusing the stray UXOs (unexploded ordinances) and IEDs (improvised explosive devices), will be the task of striking a balance between its historical institutional values and forces of modernity. Since other political forces have harped about the institution's conjugal relationship with the Monarchy, it has had to repeatedly counter these jaundiced outlooks. But by conforming to the universal norms like human rights, democratization and operating under a civilian authority, it is increasingly dispelling most doubts.

At a time when pervasive threats are undermining the existence of the State, however, many believe that it would be foolhardy for the Army to overlook the significance of its entrenched historical values and ties.

Being one of the two primary institutions that founded the Nepali State, the Army bears a moral, historical, and institutional obligation to salvage the faltering state. Now, the question remains: when and with which partnership will the Army act?

Source: Nepalnews, February 25, 2008

Pragmatism Must Prevail

The much-awaited parley between the government and the United Democratic Madhesi Front (UDMF), an alliance of the Terai Madesh Democratic Party, Madhesi Janadhikar Forum and Nepal Sadhbhawana Party (Mahato), failed to yield the expected results the other day. The people who were eagerly waiting for the fruitful outcome of the meeting throughout Friday were once again disappointed when the media reported that the meeting ended inconclusively. The people, badly hit by the indefinite closure called by the UDMF from 13 February and curfews across the Terai, had expected that the meeting would end their woes and pave the path for the constituent assembly elections as they knew well that both sides had done adequate homework before sitting at the table. But it could not happen as there was no agreement on the UDMF�s demand for �one Madhesh, terai, one province�, which is impractical and against the national integrity. With the inconclusive outcome of the meeting, the Nepali people as well as the economy of the country are sure to suffer more. The movement of people and essential goods like fuel and food has already been affected throughout the country by the indefinite bandh. The serpentine queues of vehicles in front of the petrol pumps are a common sight in the valley. Moreover, the failure of the meeting has put the entire peace process at risk as it would be incomplete without holding the CA polls in the absence of peace in the Terai or in any part of the country. This has created some amount of uncertainty. If the seven political parties and the UDMF do not sort out the outstanding issue immediately, there is a danger that the CA polls, the process of which is already underway, might have to be postponed possibly for the third time. Therefore, UDMF should be more serious about the safe and bright future of the country and give up the demand which the present interim government cannot fulfill. It wold be the most logical step in order to free the nation from the present chaotic situation. No one should forget that dialogue is the best weapon to arrive at a solution to any problem. At the same time no one can compromise on national integrity and the wellbeing of the people at large. It is time that flexibility be resorted to in taking the country on the forward looking path in the interest of the people and the country.

Source: The Rising Nepal, February 25, 2008

Strike, Scarcity Linger RJP

Ritu Raj Subedi

Life in the capital city and elsewhere is becoming more difficult with the acute shortage of fuels, increasing load-shedding and skyrocketing prices of essential commodities. Crisis triggered by the short supply of POL products and irregular electricity has triggered other problems: dwindling water in the taps and chaotic transport services. Power cut has hampered the water supply body to pump out groundwater and distribute it. Absence of cooking gas and kerosene has made the condition of housewives pathetic. Travelling in the public transport equally offers one with harrowing experiences. The widespread shortage of everything is a glaring example of the failure of current governance system in the transitional period. Despite this unbearable situation, the public has not revolted against the government. This sense of greater endurance is a testimony of Nepalese for the greater cause of the nation, namely the constituent assembly elections.Legitimacy It is common knowledge that the existing fuel crisis has been unleashed by the Terai bandha that was called less than two months ahead of the CA polls. At this time, any activity that obstructs the polls process can be interpreted as anti-election move. The legitimacy of the incumbent government largely rests on its capacity to hold the elections as scheduled. However, the alarming thing is the demand of the agitating groups to establish a separate Terai province. This disruptive demand must have sent a chill down the spines of the people and forced them to be patient at the time of crisis because no genuine Nepali can accept such a demand. To meet this key demand, the Terai groups are giving continuity to closures across the southern belt crippling general life from east to west. Whatever the outcome of the negotiation between the government and the UDMF, the strike has created doubts over the election. At the same time, the move of UDMF has ironically consolidated the unity of Seven Party Alliance (SPA). The three major parties � Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and CPN-Maoist �,which are often engaged in squabbling over trifle issues, have evoked a unified and coherent voice in addressing the Terai issues. The chiefs of the three parties have discussed the Terai�s problems and held common stance on the matter. The SPA unity is vital to conduct the polls and subsequently to draft a new constitution. Many have raised eyebrows on the moves of the Front when its leaders defied the government�s call to solve the issue through talks and issued conflicting remarks regarding the election. On one hand they claim the Terai strike has been organised to make the CA polls a success. On the other, they argue the CA polls can�t be held until their demands are met. The contradictory statements have cast doubt over the sincerity of Madhisi leaders in backing the resolve of the nation to hold the polls that will formally abolish monarchy, restructure the state and institutionalise the federalism. Giving a sudden U-turn, Rastriya Janashakti Party (RJP), a pro-palace group, decided not to participate in the elections on the pretext of the ongoing Madhesh agitation. The dramatic move by its chairman Surya Bahadur Thapa has taken all by surprise. This has generated questions: Does his step support the ongoing political process or has a negative connotations? Is he a genuine sympathiser of Madhesi people? What did he actually do for the welfare of Madhesis when he was the prime minister several times? He led the governments under the Panchyat system for years that often played pahades against madhesis. Divide and rule was the mantra of the panchayat regime. Thapa was its skilful executer. Known as �a pancha in crisis,� Thapa, in the capacity of the then prime minister, earned notoriety when his government allegedly rigged Nepal�s first referendum in favour of partyless panchayat regime in the late 80s. To this end, But, the move of ex-soft pancha at the crucial hour of Nepalese politics will only help those waiting to fish in troubled waters. ChallengesIf there were any connection between Thapa�s poll boycott and UDMF�s refusal to register its closed list of candidates at the EC office for the proportional election, it will be a wake-up call for the SPA that there are formidable challenges on the path of the CA polls. Amidst the widespread uncertainty, over three dozens political parties have submitted their closed list to the EC. This has certainly aroused the hope that CA polls process will go on as scheduled and meet the key deadlines. Realising the gravity of situation, the EC has extended the period of submitting the closed list by today. By participating in the polls, Madhesh will not lose anything but strengthen its position through the restructuring of the state.

Source: The Rising Nepal, February 25, 2008