Unlike Indians the Chinese keep up with their words and promises

Mohan Baidya Pokharel ‘KIRAN’

Senior Leader, United Maoist Party

On Threat of A counter Revolution

The people want to see a complete change. There are nevertheless, great challenges ahead of us in our fight for the preservation of our nationalism and total freedom. Mainly, the threats are emerging from the reactionary camps and foreign forces. In this situation, it is still not very clear if the people will emerge as victor. Thus we see that the threat of a counter revolution is still looming large. We are not afraid of the prevailing situation, I think it is rather, we have analyzed the situation quite well. And, also we are completely aware of the ongoing and possible conspiracies against us. We believe that the possibility of a counter revolution remain intact until we draft the new constitution. To clarify more, there is also the presence of reactionary forces in the Constituent Assembly who are conspiring through various means.

On Nepali Congress

The NC has both positive and negative sides. To stand against the monarchy and the stand for republic declaration is the positive part of the NC. But the major question where will the NC stand in the process of drafting the new constitution? In the Ethnic, Gender and Regional issues where will the NC stand, it will perhaps determine the inclination of the NC? To tell you frankly, over the issues of Nationalism and Republic, NC has been still stuck with the status quoist mindset. Surfacially, the NC also seems to be democratic outfit but internally it is not so. Thus we have been watching it very carefully.

On Foreign Interference and India

Clearly, the foreign interference is at an all time high. However, it is completely a false allegation that we came into the peace process with the foreign support. There was the Indian support in the Peoples uprising, there were other forms of support as well. Altogether, it does not and should not mean that we have no moral to raise the issues of national interest now.

There has been the tradition that Nepali politicos reach agreements in New Delhi. The 2007 B.S. agreement was reached in New Delhi. However, the 12-Point Agreement reached between the Seven Parties and the Maoists in New Delhi was made in the interest of Nepal itself but not in the interest of New Delhi.

Nevertheless, now, India is doing all it can to extract “compound interest” out of the 12-Points Agreements made in New Delhi. It is also visible.

Security wise, relation with neighbors is based on mutual trust. One must respect the other. The relationship is based on certain values. But, India has been adopting different principles. If our identity is threatened we will not remain silent. This is it. We must raise the issue of abrogating all the past unequal treaties with India including that of 1950 Treaty. Similarly, issues of land occupation in Susta, Kalapani, Pashupatinagar must also be raised. In the issues of Citizenship, water-resources and Security—we must stop abiding by the long drawn Indian strategy.

The world has changed lot, India must thus also revise its strategy and sign treaties with Nepal on equal basis. We want to have good relations with India but that relation must remain free from coercion.

On Strong ties with China, fears in India

Unlike Indians, the Chinese, on the other hand, keep up with their words and promises. The Chinese policy of non-interference is well practiced even as of today. Whereas the Indians have been using the transitional period in Nepal for their benefit, occupying our lands and unnecessarily interfering in our exclusive affairs. The Chinese would never do that. China is clear in its intent whereas India is still unclear.

On Broader Democratic Alliance

Our administration is set with either the erstwhile Panchayati or multi-party period mindset. Old mindset is still prevalent in our administration. We still practice old laws and regulations. However, the Maoists are the ones who advocate in favor of building new structure by demolishing the old redundant ones. Basically, this is what the people also want from us. But, we have been trapped by those plagued with old mindset and we have been paralyzed. Look at the difficulty, we have to continue with the old setup, yet have to bring something new as well. Unless we remove the old, how can we build a new one? We must need a breakthrough at this point. We are searching for the path where we can push our agenda. The people have sacrificed their blood for change but not to retract.

On Performances of Government

In reality, we are also not satisfied. There are various reason for this, however, it is also not that the government has already tied its hands and sitting in an idle mood. We are doing our best to make the government becoming more effective as demanded by the people at large. But, the UML- our partner, is taking on the turtle stance.

But, since we are already in government, the possibilities are either we fail or we succeed. Let me guarantee, we will not fail. And, it is not that we have to stick to power for long, we can take on the road to yet another revolution. If we can’t bring changes while being in the government, we will adopt revolutionary measures to achieve our set goals and objectives.

On whether Mohan Baidya has surrendered to Prachanda?

I have not surrendered to any one, Prachanda is our party boss thus I respect him. On ideological grounds, I have never surrendered. We always move ahead holding healthy debates and discussions. We have already devised our new strategies to run the party affairs. We did not limit ourselves to the “Democratic Republic”, we took the line to establish typical kind of Democratic Republican order. We favor a Peoples’ Federal Democratic National Republic. While adopting the line, no one has been defeated, the party has won. The People’s desire has been fulfilled.

We want our form of republican order immediately. The old model of republic can not address the problem of the people but only the peoples’ republic can which is what is our ultimate goal.

(Dristi Vernacular Weekly, 17 March 2009)

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

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

Breakfast in Nepal, lunch in India, daily

The border between India and Nepal is more than 1,750 kilometres long. For most of its length, you can walk across for dinner, and go back for the night and breakfast — completely unchallenged by anybody.
Last December, a clutch of young Maoists from Nepal crossed over into India in Bihar and planted their party flags, staking a claim to the area. Again, they were not challenged — on either side of the border. That’s how easy it is to cross this border.
But a breakfast or dinner is the last thing on the minds of millions of people who cross this border every day. And many of them are criminals like the kidney racket kingpin Amit Kumar. Or terrorists.
India has 7,000 km of seacoast, and shares 14,000 km of land borders with six countries. Portions of the land frontiers are fenced and impossible to breach. But the rest are invitingly porous for those who want to cross over.
Terrorists use Nepal to stage operations in India. Northeast militants are headquartered across the border in Bangladesh. Many evade arrest in India by simply slipping into Myanmar. Smugglers, of course, thrive.
And then there is the border with Pakistan which could be anything from porous to ant-proof depending on where you are. While the border in Punjab is fenced and electrified, it’s open in Rajasthan and in parts of Jammu & Kashmir.
Hindustan Times reporters take a fresh look at these borders, at the people on either side, the security arrangement — or the lack of it, in a series of reports from the frontier towns and villages.
In the first of this series, Manish Tiwari writes about how the security forces are fighting a losing battle on the Indo-Nepal border in Bihar. “It has become a dangerous place to live in,” a resident of the area told Tiwari.

Source: Hindustan Times, February 17, 2008

Nepal: The Coming April Crisis, and India’s Role

Sharply contending parties in Nepal agreed to have the future of the country contested in a elections for a constituent assembly. This has given rise to huge debate within Nepal, and among its people, over what kind of future to have, what kind of state and social system. Various forces (including the pro-Indian Nepalese Congress party NC) have repeatedly postponed and impeded those elections — leading the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) to point out that the future can also be settled by other means. There are (as several commentators note) two undefeated armies in Nepal — one belonging to the government, the other led by the Maoists. Currently the elections are scheduled for April — and there is great tension over whether they will be sabotaged again, and (if so) what will follow. India is accused of helping torpedo the elections by stirring up secessionist forces in the Terai, the strategic agricultural border area in southern Nepal. Possibilities include renewed Maoist armed uprising, broad mass protests, a crackdown by the Nepalese military, continued stalemated crisis and possibly an invasion by the powerful nearby Indian army — or various combination of these things. A piece from the Nepal Times follows.

Plan A…. India Doesn’t Seem to Have a Plan B on Nepal
by PRASHANT JHA in NEW DELHI (India’s Capital), Nepal Times: Sat Feb 16, 2008 5:39 am (PST)
New Delhi is confused and frustrated about continued uncertainty over elections in Nepal.
Nepal watchers here are convinced that missing the deadline yet again will mark the collapse of the peace process. They say they are working on politicians in Kathmandu to get their act together, but admit their leverage is limited.

An exasperated official told Nepali Times : “We can’t do much if Kathmandu’s myopic political class doesn’t want elections. They will create new excuses, and this time the excuse seems to be the Madhes.”
Indian agencies are said to be in touch with all Madhesi groups, but deny India is instigating trouble in the Tarai. “Why would we want to prolong instability and bloodshed in the Madhes when its first negative fallout is on our own side in Bihar and UP?” asked one official.

Delhi has alerted the Bihar authorities about the presence of Madhesi militants, but officials say without more engagement from Kathmandu it is unlikely that Patna will step up the heat on the extremists.
The policy thrust now is for a quick fix on the Madhes to enable polls to go ahead. It is a difficult balancing act of backing the larger process while maintaining influence over Madhesi groups. India is happy with the unity and alliance of Madhesi groups and the distilled six point demands.
“The government must sincerely reach out to the Madhes, and Madhesi groups shouldn’t allow themselves to be used as a pretext to cancel polls. They should consolidate and get votes,” said a senior diplomat, summing up Indian policy.

India is also keen on an understanding between the NC and Madhesi groups to strengthen ‘democratic forces’ so they can stand up to the Maoists. On her recent visit to Delhi, sources said US ambassador Nancy Powell warned her interlocutors that the Maoists were bullying their way through the process. There is concern here that the Maoists will use the YCL to intimidate voters and rig elections.
India doesn’t seem to have a neat Plan B in case elections do not happen. But one top policymaker told us, “We don’t even want to think of that scenario…it will be like a civil war.”
Meanwhile, the king is lobbying hard in Delhi to retain the monarchy. Son-in-law Raj Bahadur Singh was in town this week meeting the BJP’s Rajnath Singh and Jaswant Singh, among others. The message is that the Maoists plan a power grab, and only the monarchy can counter it. The royals were pleased about BJP prime ministerial candidate L K Advani launching a blistering critique of India’s Nepal policy last week.
Nepal is high on New Delhi’s agenda these days. Minister for External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee personally tracks Nepal and speaks regularly with Prime Minister Koirala. The visit to Kathmandu this week by senior Congress leaders Digvijay Singh and Verappa Moily is described here as testimony to the importance Sonia Gandhi attaches to the situation in Nepal.

Source: Nepal Times, February 16, 2008

The Madhesis of Nepal

K Yhome



Dramatic events in the past one year since the 2006 “April Revolution” in Nepal have been redefining the political landscape of the Himalayan nation in more ways than one. One important change is the visible rise of “marginalized” groups in national politics. The “excluded” groups - cutting across ethnic, religious and language lines - are demanding their due rights. In the midst of these changes is the rise of the Madhesis.2 This paper attempts to assess the response of the Nepalese government towards the Madhesi uprising, the shaping of the contours of the ethnic problem in the future, and its impact on peace in Nepal up in coming days and weeks and the prospects for peace in the country. The article ends with an assessment on India’s role in Nepal.

The Madhesis3

Madhesis are an important segment of the population in Nepal.4 They occupy economically the most significant region of the country with 70-80 per cent of the country’s industries being located in the Terai region. It accounts for 65 per cent of Nepal‘s agricultural production. Needless to say, the country’s economy depends heavily on the region. Strategically, the Terai belt constitutes the lifeline of Nepal. All the key transportation routes from India pass through this region, making it the gateway to the landlocked country. Almost all the country’s import and export takes place through this region. Given these factors, any disturbance in the region involving the Madhesis becomes extremely critical as it has the potential to seriously jeopardise the country.

With strikes, bans, and road blockades that continue to mark the unrest in Terai, economic activities have been brought to a virtual halt. Trade has been severely affected with goods worth millions of rupees stranded at border points and many manufacturing industries in Birgunj and Biratnagar shut down owing to crisis of raw materials. A recent report released by Nepal Rastra Bank, indicates that the country’s foreign trade recorded dismal performance during the first nine months of 2006/07, with 2.9 per cent fall in total exports. The report identifies the Terai unrest as one of the major factors for the poor performance of the export sector.

The size of the Madhesis has been a contested issue. According to the Population Census 2001 based on mother tongue for Village Development Committees (VBCs), the Madhesis population was 6781111.5 If one were to go by this figure, the Madhesis formed 29.2 per cent of the total population of Nepal in 2001. However, Madhesi political leaders, scholars, and activists have long questioned these figures. They claim that the Madhesis form 40-50 per cent of the total population of Nepal today. For instance, Jwala Singh, leader of the Janatantrik Mukti Morcha (JTMM-Singh) has claimed that Madhesis population is 14 million.6 While the truth is difficult to establish, one can safely say that the Madhesis constitute a major chunk of Nepal’s demography.

The Unrest in Terai7

Two issues need to be highlighted. First, the Madhesi issue is not a communal issue. Secondly, the Madhesi issue has not emerged in January 2007. The Madhesi question is not one of Madhesis (‘people of the plains’) vs Pahadis (‘people of the hills’). This misinterpretation of the Madhesi nomenclature by making it a community-based issue could have grave implications for the country.8 The Madhesi issue in Nepal relates to a movement against the state’s ‘discriminatory’ politics. It is a fight for recognition of rights - political, cultural as well as economic - and a struggle for equal representation and opportunity. 9

The current Madhesi protests began to surface in late 2006. The interim constitution became the rallying point, which the Madhesis claim, has failed to address the issues related to their rights. The trouble soon took a different turn when the country’s draft interim constitution came into effect on 15 January. Rapidly, the largely peaceful protests snowballed into widespread violent demonstrations, strikes and bans. Since then, the situation has only deteriorated. Three Madhesi outfits have been leading the agitations. The outfits are:

Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) or Madhesi Peoples’ Right Forum (MPRF) headed by Upendra Yadav. The outfit has been spearheading the ongoing Madhesi agitation in Terai. MJF’s main demands are: amendments to the interim constitution to include provisions for ethnic and regional autonomy with the right to self-determination and proportional representation based on ethnic population for the elections to Constituent Assembly (CA). Yadav has also been criticised from several quarters for his alleged ties with “palace forces”. The outfit’s student wing, Nepal Madhesi Student Front severed its allegiance in March accusing their leader of working with the “royalist” to subvert the CA elections.10 Interestingly, on April 26, the MJF submitted an application for party registration at the Election Commission and said that it will participate in the CA elections as a political party.

Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha (JTMM-Singh faction) led by Nagendra Paswan alias Jwala Singh. JTMM-Singh group is a breakaway faction of the Maoists that has been active mainly in Siraha and Saptari districts of Terai. The group spilt from JTMM led by Jaya Krishna Goit in mid-2006. The JTMM-Singh faction has been demanding for an autonomous and separate independent Terai state; equal participation of Madhesis in government security forces. In fact, on March 30, the outfit declared the Terai region a “Republican Free Terai State.”11 The group has been accused of fueling communal feelings between “people of hill origin” and “people of Terai region”, however, Singh reportedly claimed that his group is against the “system of unitary communal hill state power” and not people of hill origin.12

Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha (JTMM-Goit faction) led by Jaya Krishna Goit. Some of the conditions that the group has put forth for talks include declaring Terai an independent state, fresh delimitation of electoral constituencies based on populations, eviction of non-Terai officials and administrators from Terai region, among others. Both the JTMM groups want UN mediation in the talks. The group has been alleged of “divisive” campaign for its demand from industries to remove “people of hill origin” and replace them with Madhesi people or “people of plain origin” in eastern Terai region.13

Another outfit, Madhesi Tigers, a splinter group of the Maoists re-emerged in March after a long period of inaction. Madhesi Tigers is a splinter group of the CPN-Maoist formed a few years ago. Reportedly, its leader was killed in April 2005. According to the news reports, the Madhesi Tigers abducted eleven persons from Haripur area on March 1 but were released few days later.14 The past months have also seen emergence of new outfits. A group calling itself Terai Cobra has emerged in central Terai. Not much is known about this outfit. The first time it came out in public was on May 9, when it called a bandh in Bara, Parsa, and Rautahat districts in central Terai. Normal life was affected as markets and schools remain closed and traffic was disrupted.15 On 14 May, yet another outfit called Terai Army Dal, unheard of before, claimed responsibility of the bomb blast in Rautahat district that injured 14 people.16

Government Response

Has the government mishandled the Madhesi uprising? Arguably yes, if the worsening situation in the Terai is any indication. During the initial phase of violence in the Terai, the government perhaps failed to respond to the problem effectively. It was busy with other issues at hand, particularly, the peace process and the formation of government.17 The government’s indifference was compounded by differences between the government and the CPN-Maoist leadership (the Maoists joined the government in 1 April) over how to approach the problem. On 22 January a meeting of the eight-party alliance was called by Prime Minister GP Koirala to discuss the Terai situation. While the Prime Minister (PM) felt that the issues raised by the Madhesis and other groups can be resolved through dialogue, the CPN-Maoist chairman Prachanda and senior leader Babu Ram Bhattarai ruled out the possibility of dialogue with the Maoist splinter groups claiming that these groups were supported by “royalists elements and fundamental Hindu activists”.18

The Prime Minister’s address to the nation on January 31 and February 7, calling upon the agitating groups for dialogue evoked mixed reactions. While the PM’s address received positive response from some groups, it failed to improve the deteriorating situation. Under intense pressure from various quarters, the government formed a committee for talks with the agitators on February 2 under Mahanth Thakur, the Minister of Agriculture. Despite this initiative, the government was increasingly coming under criticism from both within the SPA and other political parties.19 Amid growing pressure from Madhesi and other communities, the government on February 2 decided to amend the two-week old interim constitution and assured the inclusion of all communities in the organs of the state.20 However, differences among the parties delayed the PM’s second address to the February 7. The eight-party alliance voiced its collective support to the PM’s address and signed a commitment paper that they were serious about the movement in Terai and would want to resolve it by addressing the Madhesi people’s demands and aspiration.

Meanwhile, the MJF responded positively to the PM’s second address by suspending their protest programme for ten days. On the other hand, the JTMM-Goit faction criticised the PM’s address. While the JTMM-Singh faction and the MJF initially showed willingness for dialogue, the JTMM-Goit rejected talks offer saying that the government has not created conducive atmosphere for talks. Soon the MJF followed suit and on 19 February, it said it would resume agitation alleging that the government did not show seriousness. The Thakur committee’s invitation for dialogue with the agitating groups never took off. Rather more conditionalities were put before the government to start the government for the dialogue. The interminable unrest in the Terai also pushed the NSP-A to take a tougher position, even threatening to pull out of the SPA if the government did not adopt the proposal to amend the constitution before March 6.

As though the rapidly growing tension and violence was not enough, the Gaur incident, in which a clash between the MJF and the CPN-Maoist aligned Madhesi Mukti Morcha (MMM) took place on March 21, 27 people were killed and many injured, further excerbated the tension.21 Reacting to the incident the eight-party alliance in a press statement said that the government must take stern measures against such acts and safeguard life and property of the people. In the wake of the Gaur incident and in the midst of CPN-Maoists demand to ban the MJF, the government prohibited any MJF programmes.

Efforts to curb the increasing violence remained ineffective as also the invitation for dialogue remained a non-starter. In the face of the deteriorating law and order situation, the government formed the Peace and Reconstruction Ministry and appointed a new three-member committee on April 11 headed by Ram Chandra Poudel entrusted with the task to hold talks with all the protesting groups. By appointing a new ministry and a new team for talk, the government wanted to send a message that it was serious about the issues raised by the agitators. In a significant development, the MJF and the government held their first formal talks on June 1 in Janakpur. It was reported that the two sides agreed on some of the demands raised by the MJF.22 However, a final agreement is yet to be reached.

While the government expressed its concern over the continued incidents of violence and called all agitating groups for talks, the situation in many parts of Terai remained chaotic with killings, extortions and strikes marking the protests. The violence has been taken a new direction with the rise in clashes between Madhesi outfits and Maoist sister organisations. This has further complicated matters.

Prospects and Recommendations

The situation in Terai remains grim with no signs of improvement. There is nothing to suggest that protests and violence will subside in the near future. Killings, strikes, demonstrations and clashes may continue. Even as the government insists on talks with the agitating groups, there has been a reluctance to address the core Madhesi problems and demands.

In the event of any outfit entering into an agreement with the government, the level of violence may be brought down. However, so long as other groups indulge in violent activities, the situation may only worsen in the coming weeks with serious implications, given the explosive nature of the issue. And now with new outfits emerging, the complexities are only growing for the government because even if any outfit enters into dialogue with the government, the possibility of dissidents joining the new groups to carry on their violent activities cannot be ruled out.
It is feared that the situation if allowed to deteriorate further, may result into ethnic riots. However, the recent incidents indicate that the danger seems to have been averted owing to the new dimension that the violence has acquired i.e. - the Madhesi vs the Maoists, which is as dangerous.
The urgent imperative is that all the agitating groups including the Maoists must desist from violence. The first priority of the government should be to seriously address the demands of the protesters. The Madhesi groups should not forget that their real cause is political. The present political situation in Nepal provides all ethnic groups the opportunity to resolve their problems amicably. Therefore, it would be folly on the part of the Madhesis to play the spoiler. The SPA and the CPN-Maoist also need to display more maturity.

India’s Role

India has been playing a constructive role in Nepal’s political transition. On several occasions New Delhi has expressed its desire to see Nepal resolve its internal problems and move towards establishing a stable democracy. On the development front, India has been engaged in education, infrastructure, and health projects in Nepal. Since India’s shares a long porous border with Nepal’s Terai, the trouble in the region is of great concern to it. Trade between the two countries depends on this region, as all the trading points are located there. Since violence has erupted in the Terai, India has shown serious concern over the volatile situation. Also of major concerns to India is the possiblity of the spill over of violence in Terai into India. The Indian government has been closely watching the developments in the Terai and has constantly been in touch with Nepal’s government.23

Notes:

1. The assessments in this essay are based on developments till June 2007.
2. Several other “marginalized” groups such as the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN), am umbrella organisation of 54 indigenous and ethnic groups, the Kirats; the Tharus; the Muslims among other groups have been protesting and demand the government to address the issues of ethnic groups.
3. The term Madhesi is derived from the word Madhesh meaning “mid-land” in Nepali and is defined as the lowland plains in the southern slopes of Nepal bordering Indian states of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Uttaranchal. It refers to the Terai region (See Figure I). The foothill of the Chure hill is considered the dividing line between the Pahar (the hills) and the Madhesh (the plains). Hence, the people occupying the Terai belt are called Madhesis. The name is a generic term and also a topographic reference. The Madhesis include different cultural and linguistic groups - Maithili, Bhojpuri, Awadhi, Tharu, Hindi, Urdu, and other local dialects.
4. There is currently a debate in the academic discourse on whether all groups in the Terai can be considered Madhesis. I have argued elsewhere that a Madhesi “identity” has came about as a result of long state “discriminatory” politics. See “Constructing Identity: The case of the Madhesis of Nepal Terai” Paper presented at Social Science Baha conference on Nepal Terai: Context and Possibilities in Kathmandu on 10-12 March 2005.
5. This figure included all the mother tongues spoken in the Terai - Bhojpuri, Maithili, Awadhi, Tharu, as also Hindi, Urdu, Bangla, Rajbansi, Santhali including Punjabi and Marwari (though their share is marginal).
6. See “The Himalayan Times”, January 15, 2007.
7. The origin of the movement can be traced back to early 1950s. Several political parties and organisations - the Terai Congress in the 1950s; the Nepal Sadbhavna Council in the 1980s and later the Nepal Sadbhavna Party (NSP) in the 1990s - emerged at different point of time to fight for the Madhesi cause. All these organisations have fought against state’s “discriminatory” laws of citizenship and language as well as recruitment policies to the armed forces and bureaucracy. However, the problems persisted undressed under different regimes for decades. It was in this context that when the “People’s War” of the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-Maoist) emerged in the mid-1990s some sections of the Madhesis joined the Maoists, which had promised political, economic and social rights. With this background, an attempt is made to understand the current Madhesi agitations in Nepal.

8. K. Yhome, “Madhesis: A Political Force in the Making?,” Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi, Article no. 2058, 5 July 2006
9. K. Yhome, “The Madhesi Issue in Nepal”, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi, Article no. 2228, 2 March 2007
10. See “Nepal News”, March 25, 2007, http://www.nepalnews.com
11. See “The Himalayan Times”, March 31, 2007.
12. See “The Himalayan Times”, January 15, 2007
13. See “Nepal News”, January 19, 2007, http://www.nepalnews.com
14.See “Kantipur Online”, March 1, 2007, http://www.kantipuronline.com; also see “Nepal News”, March 4, 2007, http://www.nepalnews.com
15.See “Nepal News”, May 10, 2007, http://nepalnews.com
16.See “Kantipur Online”, May 15, 2007, www.http://www.kantipuronline.com
17. A source close to the government told this author in March that the government had initially “underestimated the potential of the Madhesi uprising.” For political reasons the name of the source is keep undisclosed.
18.See “Kantipur Online”, January 24, 2007, http://kantipuronline.com; also see “Nepal News”, January 23, 2007, http://www.nepalnews.com
19.NSP-A on February 2 announced that it would participate only in those meetings that discuss Madhesi issues. The traditionally “royalist” party, Rashtriya Prajatankri Party (RPP) accused the government of not been serious toward the real issue of the Madhesis and that the attitude has been fueling more crises in the country. See “Nepal News”, February 3, 2007, http://www.nepalnews.com
20. On February 5, top leaders of five political parties, namely the Nepali Congress (NC), CPN-Maoist, Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML), Nepali Congress-Democratic (NC-D) and NSP-A agreed on three major political issues: the interim constitution would be amended with firm commitment to a federal structure of governance in future; the election constituencies will be delineated in proportion to the population with special provision for sparely populated districts in the hill region; and to express commitment for representation of people from all castes and creed in state organ. See “Kantipur Online”, February 3 & 5, 2007, http://www.kantipuronline.com/
21. See “Kantipur Online”, March 21, 2007, http://www.kantipuronline.com
22. See. “Nepal News”, June 2 2007. http://www.nepalnews.com
23. A Nepali delegation met India’s Prime Minister and External Affairs Minister in New Delhi on January 30 where both the Indian leaders expressed their concern over the violence in Terai. Again, India’s External Affairs Minister reiterated India’s concern to a delegation of Nepali politicians when the latter called on him in New Delhi on January 31, 2007. See “The Himalayan Times”, January 31 and February 1, 2007. A Nepali delegation comprising senior leaders of the eight-political parties came to New Delhi on May 31 to held talks with Indian leaders, see http://www.nepalnews.com May 31, 2007.

Source: Indian Defence Review, Vol. 22.3, Decemeber 4, 2007

Maoist will have a very cordial relation with India: Dr Bhattarai

Sarat C Das speaks to Bhattarai in Katmandu to understand the Maoists’ preparations for the election, their contribution to the peace process and willingness to make India a partner in the future development of the state.

Interview with Baburam Bhattarai, Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)

Nepal is rife with speculation about Baburam Bhattarai’s assuming the office of deputy prime minister in the interim government as Communist Party of Nepal (UML) agreed to the Maoist proposal for proportional electoral system.

You strongly believe in Mao Zedong and draw inspiration from “Revolutionary Internationalist Movement” and Peru’s left wing extremist guerrilla movement. What is your real ideology?

Marxism- Leninism-Maoism-Prachanda path is the guiding force of our ideology. However, when you draw a parallel with other communist movements such as Peru, we would find us different in terms of our adherence to the Prachanda path. Knowing Prachanda path would bring you closer to the historical importance of our movement.

There are many groups, both active and defunct, by a common abbreviation CPN (Communist Party of Nepal). Do you think this would confuse the identity of CPN (Maoist) during the poll?

There are various ideologies that creep into the communist movement at different points of time; hence there are splits and counter splits resulting in so many parties. However, there are two major forces — one is the reformist communist party known as CPN (Unified Marxist-Leninist) which believes in parliamentary form of democracy and other one is the revolutionist communist party known as CPN (Maoists) which believes in the revolutionary path for the development of society. Any layperson knows both parties; hence there should not be any confusion.

Do you think CPN’s (Maoist) membership with Revolutionary Internationalist Movement and the co-ordination committee of Maoist parties and organizations South Asia have paved the way for its greater international acceptability?

Marxist ideology is an international ideology. All the revolutionary movements in the world express their solidarity with us. However, they don’t have any impact on the current political movement of Nepal. We are chalking our own strategies.

You claim that Maoists People’s war always aimed at establishing a “new democracy” in Nepal through a historical revolt against federalism and imperialism. Then why are you not contributing enough to the peace process that can lead to early democracy?

We think we have hugely contributed to this ongoing peace process and somebody who thinks it is otherwise he or she is totally wrong. Our ultimate goal is socialism and communism and we believe it can be achieved through various stages of the development of democracy. We are trying to achieve a federal democratic republic as an immediate need of the society. For this we armed the people’s war and then led them to a peaceful movement.

Maoists initial memorandum presented to then Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba on Feb 4, 1996 demanded the abrogation of Mahakali treaty with India on distribution of water and electricity. Do you still stand by this?

We are keen to redefine our relation at the international level. Nepal’s current diplomatic relation with India stems from a strong British legacy in India. The unequal treaty, imposed on us in 1816 following Anglo-Nepalese war, is still continuing. Hence, we want this legacy to be done away with so that we have mutually agreeable and beneficial relationship. We want the abrogation of some of the treaties such as on distribution of water which is one of our major resources. However, it does not mean we would have an antagonistic relation with India as we understand India is our most important neighbour and it is difficult to progress without its support.

The abrogation of Mahakali treaty is a 40-point demand. Do you want all these demands to be fulfilled?

We would like to sit down and discuss and find a way out.

How do you foresee Nepal’s relation with India post-election?

We have always had a good relation. Unfortunately people of both countries have been exploited by the ruling class for their selfish interest. I think we will have a very cordial relation.

India insists that Nepal Maoists must delink themselves from Indian naxalites to pave way for a better political relation!

We only have ideological and political links with them but no military links. And we would never have military links. Various communist parties of the world have similar political links among themselves. So what is the problem!

But you have alleged military collusion with some radical naxalite groups such as ULFA!

We have come across some news claming our association with ULFA which is baseless. We don’t have any association with them and we can never have since they don’t believe in Maoism. These are various nationalistic movements in their own rights and we have nothing to do with them.

What role do you visualise for the King now?

We are for a democratic republic in which there is no role for the King even as a ceremonial head. However, his existence in the country would depend on how he cooperates with the new political system. If he chooses to live as an ordinary citizen he is welcome or else he would call trouble for himself.

You are an alumnus of India’s Jawaharlal Nehru University, which is a bastion of communism. How much has JNU influenced you in your revolt against the establishment?

JNU has had a great influence on me. I learnt my Marxism there not only in theory but also in practice.

Let us visualize the scenario post-election in April. Where do you see yourself in terms of political achievement?

The way we have supported various movements in the country such as dalits, women and janjatis, we think we will attain the majority in the election. It is based on a real assessment.
Would you predict a date for the elections?We always want elections to happen at the earliest. As of now it appears to be in April.

Do you want independent international observers to oversee the elections?

It was we who wanted independent observers from UN and elsewhere to ensure a free and fair election.

Would you want India to become a part of the international observers during elections?

People from civil societies and human rights groups in India are always welcome to become a part of independent observers.

Are you chalking out a bigger political role for your wife Comrade Parvati as the country is going into polls?

I don’t chalk out plans for her. She has her own independent contribution to the communist movement in Nepal. In fact we met during the struggle. She is capable to chalk out her career and she has contributed a lot to women liberation movement in Nepal.

Are you planning to contest in elections?

Definitely, yes. Our chairman has already indicated that all our top leaders will be in the electoral fray.

Can you give an estimate of the number of Maoist combatants, militia, cadres, hardcore followers and sympathisers?

There are 30,000 combatants and another 20,000-22,000 will soon be added to this list following verification. There are 50,000-70,000 people in our cadre and our hardcore followers and sympathisers are in millions. We have nearly 200,000 people as our followers from the trade unions of Katmandu.

Is this huge following going to translate into votes?

We are confident of emerging as the party with majority in the election. However, it is a little early to predict the exact number of votes.

According to a UN report Maoists have procured some 85 percent of weapons from Police and RNA during their struggle against monarchy. There are reports that the loot is still continuing. Is it true?

After the ceasefire there is no arm struggle.

Source: Hindustan Times, January 3, 2007