Maoist trouble at border

India might have had its own share of problems due to border disputes with China and Pakistan for decades, but Nepal could well prove to be an additional concern, with Maoists joining the Girija Prasad Koirala government recently.
India, on Tuesday woke up to an attempt by around 200 Maoist ultras from Nepal trying to stake a claim on a stretch of the “no man's land" after crossing the porous international border touching Uttarakhand. They tried hoisting red flags in the area, close to Banbasa town in the border district of Champavat, before they were accosted. “Previously, border pillars with numbers 3 and 3-A used to mark the border with Nepal. However, they were uprooted due to various reasons. Of late, there have been efforts to conduct a joint survey by the two countries of the nearly 300-km stretch of the Indo-Nepal border to identify areas where the border pillars are missing and to restore them," said superintendent of police of Champavat MS Bangyal.

Bangyal said the Nepali Maoist ultras, who tried to hoist the flag belonged to the Young Communist League, a wing of the Nepal Communist Party. "Although the Nepali Maoist ultras' bid to hoist their red flag was foiled by the security forces they had a design behind that," the official said. "They tried their best to provoke the security forces to open fire on them, as any casualty on their side could become an international issue," he added.

Stating that the security forces showed restraint and pushed the Maoist ultras back to Nepal, the SSP said. "They tried to enter the 'no man's land' from Gadda Chowki area near Banbasa town. We had information from Nepali authorities that they would try to enter through Brahamadev town of Nepal," he added.

Source: Hindustan Times, December 27, 2007

Nepal: India’s “Design Next”

Niraj Aryal

Kathmandu, Niraj Aryal: It’s hardly been two weeks Nepal’s Army Chief, Rukmangad Katuwal returned home from the Indian pilgrimage wherein he was reported to have been offered a “red carpet welcome” by the Indian establishment. Reportedly, Nepal’s Army Chief met the Prime Minister, Home Minister, Defense Minister and India’s national security advisor, to name a few in the list of the movers and shakers of India’s politics whom he met during his short stint there, though he was also reported to have traveled to South to get a glimpse of the living Indian deity Sai Baba- whose followers could well be found here in Nepal. More importantly, Katuwal, unsubstantiated though reports, met the outgoing chief of India’s notorious intelligence agency RAW (Research and Analysis Wing), Ashok Chaturvedi, two times in merely fifteen days, first in New Delhi and the next meet took place right here in Kathmandu, when the later had sneaked into Kathmandu for a four day stint, last week. The RAW chief reportedly, stayed at the Hyatt regency Hotel in Kathmandu.

It could be a mere conjecture only but Katuwal’s return home coincided with the Nepal Army refuting claims made by some newspapers in Nepal. The newspaper reports quoting the Maoists’ leadership had it that talks were on in between the Maoists leadership and the Nepal Army’s high ranking officials to initiate steps towards integrating the Maoists’ militias within its domain. However, to the dismay of the Maoists’ leadership, the NA in its refusal statement held that, “…it was merely a ploy to malign the credentials of the National army”. The question is thus as to whom from the two camps were lying? Obviously, the Maoists who have the habit of making false revelations now and then would be adjudged making fool of the people more so, the media. “But there are proofs of such meets taking place at least three times in the past between the two rivals of by gone era”, said Padma Ratna Tuladhar-the leftist rights activist, talking to a local FM radio station here in Kathmandu, Monday, December 24, 2005.

Now, the point is that if the statement coming form the Army camp is not just a mere conjecture and according to Mr. Tuladhar a false claim, then there must be something underneath. The point here is that such views were being aired by the Maoists’ leadership since long, at least from over a month or so, but the NA statement came only after Katuwal returned home from Delhi trip, obviously a delayed statement. What does this indicate then, perhaps only that India does not want the National Army to unite with the Maoists’ Militias- makes no difference that agreements were made in between the real stakeholders of Nepali politics in the past in regard to the integration of Militias into the National Army? Which, say analysts, the Indian leadership might have aired Katuwal when they met him in India. Obviously, they needed that as well, only because they might have started feeling the brunt of elevating the ranks of the Maoists in Nepali politics and that too at a time when the Militias were possibly, though only limited in theory, being integrated into the Nepal Army. The Militias who have been indoctrinated of the anti-India sentiments by their leadership throughout the rebellion period and even asked to build trenches to fight the real enemy-India (sic Maoists’ leadership), India does not want that to happen either.

Back to Katuwal again, if Indian leadership can talk differently to different Nepali political leadership, it is anybody’s guess that Katuwal too was told something completely different. What the leadership there told Katuwal verbatim is difficult to comprehend but it is for sure that strong “NO” signal to the possible NA-Maoist Militia merger was whispered into Katuwal’s ear. If not, why the NA was claiming that their much publicized meeting with the Maoists’ leadership was false?

To add to the point as to why India does not want NA-Maoist Militias merger, it might also be because India in the past had submitted proposals to then rulers to minimize the size of the security personnel here only to hand over Nepal’s security stakes to India. Such Indian designs only became public after such successive regimes failed to prevail in Nepali politics. Take for instance, what the then Prime Minister Marich Man Singh had told during a mass meet in Kathmandu. Mr. Singh had claimed that India had submitted a proposal to King Birendra for handing over Nepal’s security matters to India, be it the security issues, internal one or external both, if the system of Panchayat was to continue. After few years as Gyanendra-most probably Nepal’s last monarch, took over after King Birendra got killed in an inner family feud, he too was forwarded with a similar proposal which were only but rejected on both the occasions. Gyanendra toeing his brother Birendra’s footstep rejected such an offer, which could have otherwise ensured longer life for his unpopular regime in the country.

The point here is that with the possible integration of the Maoists Militias with the National Army, the strength of the National Army will be enhanced numerically. This, in essence, is what India does not want in any pretext or the other. And that is also against India’s age old doctrine outlined by none other than Jawahar Lal Nehru- India’s first Prime Minister.

Then, all of a sudden and that too close on the heels of Katuwal’s India visit, the outburst of India’s PM Man Mohan Singh against the Maoist rebels operating in India comes. Mr. Singh, otherwise, a lame duck prime minister, making sharp comments against the Maoists even called their movement as the single biggest security threat to his country and also dubbed the Maoist as a "virus".

Singh was addressing a conference on internal security attended by the chief ministers’ of the Maoists affected States in India last week wherein he vowed to take stringent measures against those involved in Naxal activities. However, only few years’ back, Mr. Singh while addressing a similar conference had said the same thing but in the mean time the Naxal movement there only got amplified with the working class exploited more as a result the development indices rose sharply and also unexpectedly.

Now that there are concrete proofs that the Nepal Maoists are indulged in activities aiding their Indian counterparts (so claim Indian media reports), it is only but natural that India would love to see a quick downfall of the Maoists in Nepal. But to the utter dismay of the analysts here, how India proceeds in its “Design Next” in Nepal is difficult to comprehend at least for the moment…however, it is simple to say that as the return of Kingship in Nepal is becoming more and more difficult, the NA might be lured instead in the future to counter the Maoists.

Source: Telegraph Nepal, December 26, 2007

Unstable Nepal poses security threat to India

Centre feels feuding parties in the Himalayan kingdom will precipitate crisis along border

Seema Guha

NEW DELHI: India has officially welcomed Nepal’s decision to hold national elections by April next year, but privately there is serious concern that the Himalayan kingdom’s feuding political parties may not be able to sustain the current arrangement leading to a fresh crisis in its vulnerable eastern border.
Nepal has been a constant cause for worry for India’s policy planners ever since the strain within the political parties surfaced earlier this year. New Delhi realises that an unstable Kathmandu is a major security concern for this country which shares a long and unguarded border with Nepal.

Apart from security, India is not happy with the growing presence of the United Nations in the region and wants the international agency to wind up its mission as soon as possible. Prime Minister GP Koirala has for the moment been able to cobble together a 23-point agreement among the seven warring political parties. In the process, he had to give in to the Maoist demand for the abolition of monarchy by the parliament.
The prime minister and his party had wanted to play by the book and had plans to bring in constitutional changes only after fresh election gave a democratic mandate to Parliament. But the Maoists had walked out of the government and refused to yield ground, leading to the prime minister finally caving in to the Maoists.

Source: DNA, December 26, 2007

Nepalese army chief seeks resumption of supply of arms

New Delhi (PTI): Nepalese army Chief Gen Rookmangud Katawal on Wednesday met senior Indian politcal leaders and is understood to have sought resumption of arms shipments from India to his country. On a two-day official visit here, Katawal met External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukurjhee, Defence Minister A K Antony and held extensive discussions with his Indian counterpart Gen Deepak Kapoor.

India had suspended arms supplies to Nepal earlier this year on the request of the new government which included the Maoist party, following the popular upsurge against the monarchy. India has supplied the Nepalese army with helicopters, light artillery guns, night vision devices and light arms and Kathmandu now wants the arms supplies and spares to be resumed with the situation in the country having stablised, army sources said.

Katawal and Kapoor, they said, discussed at length the mutual security concerns. The Nepalese army chief was also given an extensive briefing on Indian security perespective. The Nepalese Chief also met Defence Secretary Vijay Singh, Naval Chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta and Air Chief Fali Homi Major. He would meet National Security Advisor M K Narayanan and Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon tomorrow. His engagements would be rounded off with a meeting with the Prime Minister's special envoy Shyam Saran.

Source: The Hindu, December 13, 2007

NEPAL: FRATERNAL RELATIONS TO BIND NEPAL MAOISTS AND CPC?

Kathmandu: Visibly, the Maoists paraphernalia appear to be all prepared to keep a comfortable distance with the Indian establishment contrary to what they have had in the past or being presumed to be. Clearly, the Maoists hobnob with the Chinese establishment in the recent months and weeks hint that the Maoists in Nepal have come to their senses and that they just want to bring into effect a what could be best described as a “paradigm political shift” in their relations with India.

Its corollary would be that the Nepali Maoists “under compulsion or being guided by certain strategies” want to redefine their relations with India and begin a new chapter in their relations with Nepal’s northern neighbor. That the Chinese establishment too wishes to expand its sphere of political influence in Nepal and have formal “ties” with the Maoists party became visible when the visiting Chinese high flying Chinese authority Dr. Wang Jiarui and the members in his delegation spent some good three hours with the top-hats of the Maoists party at the Dwarikas Hotel Monday morning.

The meet of the Maoists leaders with the Chinese high level authorities and vice versa does clearly explain that both the sides are and were willing to “meet” each other and initiate on how such an “unclear” relations be legitimized. In effect, the meet in itself provides a sort of “recognition” to the Nepal’s Maoist party by the Chinese establishment as Dr. Wang is a very powerful man in the Chinese political hierarchy.

Thus the Maoists have been already recognized by the Chinese side and soon the two are expected to announce their formal linkages with each other on party lines. What political impact such a Chinese recognition would have then upon the Maoists? This is very important question indeed. Firstly, such recognition to the Maoists by the Chinese side would automatically distance the Maoists relationship whatever they have had in the past or is at the moment with the Indian communist parties. This is for sure.

To recall, though the Indian communist parties were close to the Maoists, however, in practice what has been well recorded is that when it comes to the preservation of the Indian national interests, the communist parties in India too do not spare their Nepali counterparts. “They tend to squeeze in tune with the Indian government’s structured policy towards Nepal that is to “weaken, smash and finally grab”, opine analysts.

However, such a new relationship with the Chinese Communist Party will act as a “political deterrent” to the Indian designs against Nepal. After such recognition by the Chinese communist party, the Maoists party can fairly adopt an “equi-proximity” policy if not that of the “equi-distance”. To recall, India disproves the equi-distance policy in the conduct of relations of Nepal with India and China.

Thus with the new relationship, Maoists will have abundant choice on how to proceed with their party agenda and will be rather more free in defining their relations with India. In such an eventuality, the Indian grip over the Maoists will lessen to a considerable extent. The second political impact on the Maoists would be positive one, say analysts. According to them, the moment Chinese Communist Party recognizes the Nepalese Maoists party, a sort of “fraternal” relations would be in existence which instantly would press the some what errant Maoists to “behave” as a communist but a democratic party.

Since the recognition would be a binding one upon the Maoists’, the latter would have to abide by the norms and the universal values of a democratic system. This would mean that such recognition in some way or the other will have profound impact upon the Maoists political behaviour and they will have to shun their previous aggressive and at times violent stances. In sum, though the two sides have not yet formally recognized each other as a fraternal party but yet the rumors are there that it would be declared soon.

In such an eventuality, the Maoists will have to change their present political credentials what they have at the moment and transform themselves into a fairly democratic party that would be demanded of them. Finally, such recognition would surely distance the Maoists with the Indian establishment. India will be the loser. In addition, such recognition by the Chinese establishment will automatically bring the now cornered “nationalist” forces together, including the monarch. In such an eventuality, the political equation will definitely see a sea change.

It is in this light, the would-be Indian annoyance in the pipeline should be viewed. Notably, the UML leaders, Bam Dev Gautam and Jhal Nath Khanal deliberately distanced themselves from the meeting, when their own boss held meetings with Dr. Wang and his delegation members. Gautam and Khanal are considered to be new “converts” for reasons unknown to the analysts.

Source: Telegraph Nepal, December 5, 2007

Politics stands still

Yubaraj Ghimire

As hopes fade of an early election that is free and fair, Nepal’s crisis shows no signs of abating. What can India do?

External recognition, it seems, is a much more important factor in Nepal’s politics than internal legitimacy. In October 2002, the international community including India, endorsed King Gyanendra when he sacked an elected prime minister for his failure to hold elections to Parliament on schedule. But in April 2006, the international community decisively rejected King Gyanendra’s complete takeover bid.

In fact, this turned into a major morale booster for the demoralised political parties that came together and mobilised people against the king. G.P. Koirala, who became prime minister after April 2006 following the success of that mass movement, is now fast losing crucial international support as he has missed two deadlines to hold elections to the Constituent Assembly (CA). Besides, the country’s law and order situation is in a shambles.

In the absence of an election in the near future, international support has become all the more crucial for Koirala’s survival. So long as key international players — India, US, China, European Union and United Nations — were agreed about assisting in charting out Nepal’s future political course (through the CA elections), things seemed to be moving in the right direction. But there are visible differences in the approach of international players towards Koirala’s failure to hold elections, though they are all clear that a fair and fearless election is urgent.

In the last few days, Koirala has intensified his meetings with diplomats, following Shyam Saran’s visit as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s special envoy, soon after the CA polls were postponed indefinitely. His advice was simple enough -- an early election, as early as December. But given Nepal’s poor law and order situation, it is hard to swallow. It also implies that the prime minister should be prepared to go for polls without the Maoists if they continued to insist on their ‘unreasonable demands’. Their new demand for abolition of the monarchy immediately and a complete switch to the proportional representation system of elections for the CA polls, barely a fortnight before the nomination process, was clearly intended to derail the entire election process.

Yet, going to the polls without the Maoists will minimise, to a large extent, the prospect of a foreseeable end to the 12-year old Maoist-led insurgency that has taken a toll of 13,000 lives. It’s equally challenging to hold them to their earlier pledge in Delhi, under a government initiative (in which Saran played the key role), that they would renounce the politics of violence and partake in competitive parliamentary politics. In the current context, however, it was as much a failure on the part of Indian government to not be able to assess that elections were not going to take place on November 22.

India’s Nepal policy seems to have failed. Similarly, there is a debate going on about whether the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN), headed by the Secretary General’s Special Representative Ian Martin, should be allowed to stay (with an enlarged mandate) beyond January 22, when its current tenure ends. While the government of Nepal is likely to write to the security council to have its tenure extended by another year, it is unlikely this will happen. UNMIN has been involving itself in Terai problems, where apart from peacefully agitating groups, more than a dozen armed groups, most of them based across the border, are demanding more political rights and inclusion in the decision making process.

India has backed the demands of the Terai groups, but the lack of consensus among the political parties in Nepal has delayed any action by the government. At the same time, China has been warning Nepal that the threat to the country’s stability because of the failure of the peace process will be a matter of special concern in the northern neighbourhood.

A delicate imbalance in the approach of the key international players, coupled with total domestic failure, has the potential to point Nepal in a new direction. But its destination is more confused than ever before.

Source: The Indian Express, October 30, 2007

INDIA-CHINA PERSPECTIVE: NEPAL’S FALTERING PEACE PROCESS

Jan Sharma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Telegraph Nepal, October 17, 2007

India for legitimate poll process in Nepal

Kathmandu, (PTI): India would support any political system chosen by the Nepalese people as long as it is through a legitimate election process, Indian Prime Minister's envoy, Shyam Saran, said here Friday, stressing full support to the peace process in the Himalayan nation. India would support whatever political system the people of Nepal would decide, Saran said, adding that the best way to get the mandate of the people is through the legitimate means of election.

India regards holding free and fair constituent assembly election of central importance for ensuring lasting peace and multi-party democracy in Nepal," said Saran, who held high-level discussions with a wide range of political leaders including Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, CPN-UML general secretary, Madhav Kumar Nepal, and Maoist chief Prachanda among others.
"In India's view, election is the only way for the people of Nepal to choose their future, including the manner in which they want to be governed," said Saran, a former Indian Foreign Secretary.
The special envoy of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is on a three-day visit to Nepal to assess the political situation and convey the message of the Indian leader after the crucial November constituent assembly elections were postponed.

India remained committed to help the peace process in every way possible to achieve the goal of a democratic, stable and prosperous Nepal," the former Indian Ambassador to Nepal told mediapersons ahead of his departure for New Delhi Friday. Saran's remarks came at a time when the Maoists have walked out of the government, forced the postponement of the polls and registered a motion in the interim Parliament seeking the abolition of the monarchy and adoption of a proportional-based electoral system as precondition for participating in the polls.
Indian envoy Saran said he is "optimistic" that the current political crisis facing Nepal can be resolved on the basis of an understanding among the major political parties.

"There is no reason why the peace process should fail, we should look towards the positive achievements of Nepal made over the past two years," he said. "We would like to see this peace process and electoral process remain on track," Saran said. "The sooner the elections are held, the better it would be for progress of the peace process." He repeatedly stressed that it is the right of the people of Nepal to decide how they want to be governed and what type of political system they want, and the only legitimate way of doing so is holding the Constituent Assembly elections at the earliest. "India will support whatever mandate the people of Nepal will give and the international community believes that election is the only credible way to get the people's mandate," he noted. Saran also stressed that the genuine demands of the Terai region must be addressed while resolving the political issues in the country.

"But we must be able to distinguish between the genuine political demands of the Terai groups and the criminal activities being carried out by some groups taking the advantage of the open border," he said. Nepal's six-party alliance running the interim government has been insisting that a fresh mandate was necessary to decide the fate of the 238-year old monarchy in a legitimate manner. The Maoists and their allies command only 85 seats in the 330 seat parliament and their motion cannot be endorsed without the support of the other parties in the ruling alliance.

Source: The Hindu, Chennai, October 13, 2007

NEPAL: INDIA IMPOSE TRAVEL RESTRICTION ON MAOISTS

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

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

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

Source: The Telegraph Nepal, September 27, 2007

NEPAL: YCL DEMANDS ABROGATION OF 1950 TREATY

It appears that the Maoists and the Indian establishment are playing a “hide and seek game”.
Analysts admit and others too perhaps must admit that the Maoists became Maoists of what they are today thanks to the Himalayan contributions of the Indian establishment.
The Maoists though reluctantly admit that they have had tacit arrangements with the Indian establishment at time of the 12 point agreement signed on November 22, 2005 in Delhi which provided them not only “recognition” and a bit of “legitimacy” too which facilitated their “smooth” entrance into the mainstream politics to the extent that without having faced the elections the party of the ex-rebels could secure some eighty plus seats in the “King restored” parliament.

However, of late there has been a trend slowly creeping in the Maoists paraphernalia wherein the party “suspects” the very Indian designs and concludes that the Indians in one way or the other wish to corner the party of the ex-rebels in the country’s politics for reasons that yet remains to be substantiated by the party itself.
Nevertheless, the party of the ex-rebels do give the impression through their lectures and statements that India was a country that had no love for Nepal, neither for democracy nor for peace, instead all that India wanted from Nepal and its leaders is the preservation of its national interests and in the process been luring the leaders of all parties until its goals and objectives were served.
But then India will not have a free ride in Nepal’s politics, as much is visible from the fresh political overtures coming as it does from the party of the ex-rebels.
It appears that the Maoists too have come to their senses, thanks better late than never.

To begin with Prachanda,
The commander of the Maoists party more often than not is seen deriding at the Indian establishment.
Prachanda appears to have got the point as to why India primarily supported them while in the jungles or say in Delhi basically at time of theirs being underground.
Prachanda’s mentor, Mohan Vaidya alias KIRAN is blunt in saying that India is all pervasive in Nepal’s politics and has been imposing its dictates in the internal affairs of this country.
Dev Gurung, a Maoists leader and a Minister in Koirala cabinet the other day lambasted at the Indian establishment saying that the Indian maneuverings in bringing the MJF closer to the government was a foul act and that the “friendship” in between the two will not long last.
Remarkably, Dr. Babu Ram Bhattarai, the deputy in the Maoists party hierarchy chews his words and remains ever cautious as and when he has to speak against India. This is puzzling as to why Dr. Bhattarai appears reluctant in criticizing India when he has some valid points to lambaste at India?

The most vocal are the “naughty” but courageous “boys” of the Maoists-the Young Communist league cadres- in exposing India in the recent times thus provoking their own leadership and others as well to remain ever vigilant in safeguarding Nepal’s genuine national interests.
The otherwise brilliant Nepali media ignored this time a very unusual but very “nationalistic” issues that had been “pinching” the entire Nepali population since decades and decades.
Why the Indo-pendent intelligent media ignored is though a open “secret”, however, analysts here do not want to embarrass them. After all they are our “professional” colleagues.
The fact is that the “naughty” boys of the Maoists, the YCL this time collected the courage to handover a list of demands to the India elevated Koirala which are basically nationalist in nature but “anti-Indian” in the eyes of the Indian establishment.
Analysts say what the “illustrious” Nepal’s India backed and affiliated “Loktantric” leaders should have told has come from the some what “undisciplined boys” of the Maoists-the Young Communist league cadres very recently.

The boys are thus who speak in favor of preserving the national interests could in no way be called as bad boys. At least for us at this paper would rather encourage them if they did it so time and again to jolt their leaders first and then to the party that more often not takes pleasure, indeed a sadistic one, in twisting the arms of its smaller neighbors, for example, Nepal the prime victim of Independent India after the colonial Raj came to an end in 1947.
The Young Communist League Cadres- have lately voiced their real and serious concern over what constitutes the real Nepali concern. They have demanded, among others contained in the said list , “the abrogation of all "unequal" treaties with India, including the '1950 Peace and Friendship Treaty'.
The members of Youth Communist League, Maoists' Youth wing on 23rd August this month demanded abrogation of Sugauli treaty of 1816 signed between British India and Nepal Government and the 1950 Peace and Friendship treaty with India.
This is not all they even demanded the immediate removal of Indian armies from the Kalapani area, near India-Nepal-China border in far-west Nepal and thorough investigation of the alleged border encroachment by India in different places and demolition of dams in the border areas causing submersion of Nepalese territory during the recent flood.

This they demanded from none less than Prime Minister Koirala who is number one “friend” of the Indian establishment or else why should he have been elected/nominated the prime minister of the country? Certainly, he assumed this post under the “cover” for down sizing the King who is no where on the country’s political scene, thanks the EPA plus the South Block tacit arrangements.
The important news that went ignored does tell that the YCL courage would be a mere cry in the wilderness. But then yet, the YCL in doing so has at least proven that the League is aware of the Indian designs.
The million dollar question is thus whether the YCL did this under the instructions of their top-hats or they themselves raised this national issue?
If they were given instructions from their elders, then it does indicate that the Maoists-India relationship at its lowest ebb.
Some intelligent analysts also claim that the Maoists did it so to bag people’s sympathy at time of the CA polls as other left forces do it mostly at time of the elections.
Be that as it may, the event though remained ignored but does amply tell that the Maoists party too possesses a huge number of nationalists-yet another headache for India that it is by all accounts.

Source: Telegraph Nepal, September 6, 2007

Hindu righteousness

Not this king, but India’s religious right still wants the monarchyc

Prashant Jha

India’s Hindu right which has been traditionally sympathetic to the monarchy and opposed to Nepal going secular is split about Nepal policy. There are differences in approach between the Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). about the political approach to Nepal. The RSS is reassessing its past policy on the future of the monarchy and say putting all their eggs in the royal basket was not a wise move. Besides being a Hindu king, they believed only the king could fight the Maoists. Now, senior RSS leaders admit the erosion of the king’s credibility in Nepal has damaged them as well.

We depended on proximity with the king for our influence, now with the king gone we have lost our strength on the ground,” one senior RSS leader told us. Despite this, the RSS would like the institution of monarchy to remain. While more radical groups in the Vishwa Hindu Parishad still hope for an active monarchy, most in the Hindu right in India know that the days of an assertive king are gone.

"We would be quite happy if the institution remains, it is a symbol of unity and is the only Hindu monarchy in the world. We know Gyanendra and Paras are unacceptable but then the grandson formula could work,” says an RSS leader who has tracked Nepal for decades. BJP leaders, including Atal Bihari Vajpayee, have said they will not actively push for retention of monarchy, and will decide on their stance based on the public mood in Nepal. The rightwing in India has kept the channels of communication open with king Gyanendra who has met three intermediaries in the past few months: a former minister from Tamil Nadu close to the RSS, a journalist with a Delhi-based pro-BJP paper, and a former intelligence official. All have returned with the impression that the king is relatively calm but at a loss about what steps to take. It appears he has been advised that a four month retreat, possibly a pilgrimage to India, would be in his interest as this would take the sting off criticism that he is obstructing elections.

More than saving the monarchy, the RSS wants to contain and curb Maoist influence and begin a political campaign in favour of reverting to a Hindu state. It is on these two issues they are willing to invest energy and capital, not on the monarchy. Utterly convinced of Maoist insincerity, the Indian right is, contrary to popular perception, keen on constituent assembly elections. The RSS is convinced that the Maoists would fare miserably and see the polls as the right way to expose them. They believe that Maoists are keen on derailing polls and using the ensuing uncertainty to organise violent street agitations. Like many others in India, the RSS was happy with the madhesi movement because it eroded Maoist support along the border. On the ground, especially in Raxaul and Gorakhpur, some RSS activists provided support (political, logistical, and possibly, limited financial help) during the movement through the Seema Jagaran Manch, a front organisation. Upendra Yadav has met senior BJP leaders in Delhi through RSS interlocutors.

But this support is limited and they neither have the will nor capacity to drive the movement. “We realise there is limited benefit for us out of the madhesi agitation. There is a crisis of leadership. Upendra Yadav is playing too many games with too many people and can’t be trusted. No madhesi group is willing to boldly say they are for a Hindu state. "What’s in it for us?” asks an RSS activist. The RSS’ opponents tend to over-estimate its strength, and even the RSS leaders know their capacity to influence domestic politics in Nepal is limited. But its leaders are aware there is strong sentiment in Nepal opposed to secularism. For now, the Hindu right in India is waiting for a strong anti-Maoist leader with a popular base who can publicly declare he is for a Hindu rastra.

Source: Nepali Times, Issue No. 363, August 24-30, 2007

The Growing Foreign Concern for Nepal

With the development of peace building process foreign concern in Nepal has increased in massive Level. Each and every country directly or indirectly related to Nepal is concerning about Nepal and its peace building process according to their global and regional influence. But the critics say that it is foreign intervention upon internal politics of Nepal. China, which often remains silent in Nepalese politics, has also been showing its concern since April movement of 2006. Especially it has seen in massive scale when Chinese ambassador to Nepal, Zheng Xianglin said any foreign intervention in Nepal "will not be tolerable for China," in an interview published in Nepal magazine, last month. Though China has not faced any charge from critic about intervention. But it is said that America and India have been playing vital role in Nepalese politics. Among the many Countries America, India and china are mainly have seen on the scene in Nepalese diplomacy. It is not new of American and Indian concern but in the latest day's Chinese concern has created a new wave.

Nepal is surrounded by India in east, west and south and by China in north. So she has geopolitical relationship with India and China. And, located between two large Asian countries China and India, America wants to gain the benefit of geopolitical and strategic significant from Nepal-U.S. relationship.Directly or indirectly these three country want to keep continue their relationship with Nepal in high level to maintain their political and economical impulse. America always wants to look through Indian eyes to Nepal; and India also does not make any different idea to look Nepal rather than American interests. Now, going on federalism and abolishing the monarchy are main political issues of Nepalese political ground. On the issue of abolishing the monarchy has disputes in the country. And it is charged that America and India want to keep continue the monarchy in Nepal, so, before a month some cadres of Young communist league, a sister organization of Nepal communist Party (Maoist) had hurled stone to James F. Moriarty, the American ambassador to Nepal.

India and Nepal have a geographical nearness and open boarder. There is monopoly of India in Nepalese commercial market too. So India wants to secure her dominant role in Nepalese market. And a few decades ago India was battled and defeated with china and it has remained a bit fear to India of China. This is why Nepal is important "northern frontiers" of India. Though, China and India have improved their relationship into fair competitive commercial partner from traditional enemy.China doesn't tolerate the activities about free Tibet in Nepal which happened sometimes. And, some analyst especially leftist says that the America is trying to encircle China through Nepali territory. So, it is said that china's relationship with Nepal is also a bit more strategic on the prospective of security. Even though Chinese ambassador to Nepal has said that it is not the time of cold war and china-America relations witness a smooth and healthy development. Nowadays China also wants to buildup the formal relationship with CPN (Maoist) which is said by Chinese ambassador in a press interaction, last week, organized by Reporters club. But America and India still doubtfully look to Maoist. And it is said that the Maoist's president Prachanda will visit to China after few months.

Besides located between India and China, America has another issue in Nepal of their interest. That is doctrine issue. America always hates communist. So, the entering of Maoist into government and their open politics has been challenging to America. America has still tagged to Maoist as terrorist. The out going ambassador Moriarty often talk about Nepalese politics in different programme and scold Maoist and her sister organization YCL. India has begun to invite to Nepalese party to visit India. Nepali congress and CPN UML has already visited India. Likewise many political mission and team of different western country come to Nepal to observe and talk about politics in Nepal. And they directly talk to Nepalese prime minister too. Last time American Former President had come to Nepal and met with prime minister and leaders of political parties including Maoist president Prachanda. These influential countries envoy frequently meet to the Nepalese prime minister directly and talk about Nepalese politics.

But critics say that it is not the right system to meet prime minister directly. Professor and political analyst Dr. Lokraj Baral said, "They must go through joint secretary of foreign ministry." Critics accuse that the foreign diplomats are being over smart in Nepalese politics out of their ethics. Some critics believe that our leader themselves give the environment of such type. Bhim Bhurtel, A political analyst says that if the political leadership believes on people rather than power center the foreign concern automatically reduce. He said, "in this situation Nepal should adopt the dynamic foreign policy in spite of accusing to foreign diplomats."

Source: Ohmy News International, June 30, 2007

NEPAL: ENTER CHINA, EXIT INDIA?

N.P.Upadhyaya

Kathmandu: Gone are the days of Indian hegemony in Nepal, it appears. The self-proclaimed “big-brother”-India-now will have yet another “real big brother” in Kathmandu to counter the Indian hegemony.
If one were to believe what the freshly appointed Chinese Ambassador to Nepal, Zhen Xianglin, has said to a vernacular fortnightly the other day, what appears to be for sure is that China will henceforth not tolerate any Indian hegemony and dictates imposed on this India-locked country.
Ambassador Xianglin appears to have understood the inner problems and the issues plaguing this country in details though his stay in Kathmandu has not even exceeded two months time.

However, the manner he has understood the political events currently unfolding in this country and the way he has expressed his country’s views in a firm and determined style does hint that now onwards China too would be a “player” in Nepali politics which is what Comrade Prachanda too prefers.
This means that China as a “traditional and trustworthy neighbor of Nepal” will have its own axis in Nepal that will comprise of a single country-China itself.
Judging at what the Chinese Ambassador has told to the vernacular fortnightly, what becomes abundantly clear is that China will be more interested now onwards to safeguard her own political interests in this country that are aplenty, to say the least.
The Chinese envoy assuring Nepal in a subtle manner authoritatively says that China has not yet deflected from what Marshal Chen Yi as back as in 1961 October 2 had told of Nepal.

To recall, Marshal Chen Yi during a visit to Kathmandu had said, in his own words, “China will not tolerate if there is any aggression against Nepal by any country”.
The Chinese envoy’s emphasis and reassurance to the Nepalese people that China still valued what Marshal Chen Yi said long time back must force some countries in Nepal’s neighborhood to pull their hairs.
The countries near and far dictating Nepal to do this or to do that must not have taken these fresh Chinese sentimental attachments towards Nepal in good taste.
Now what is more than clear is that China will show its presence in this country which so far remained in what has been called as a “low profile” status.
Beijing, better late than never, appears to have realized that any political disturbances in Nepal and its adjoining areas might have a profound impact upon its own under belly-Tibet autonomous region. It is perhaps these factors which prompts the Chinese envoy to suggest the Nepali establishment to sort out the political issues plaguing the Terai/Madhesh at the earliest fearing probably its impact might reach up to the bordering town of China.

However, China says, no external interference should be there while sorting out the Terai issues. This is significant in more ways than one. The message should be loud and clear to those who have been poking their nose in Nepal’s what the Ambassador says, “Internal affairs”.
The Chinese Ambassador appears more than happy with the Nepalese authorities who have assured him and his country that any anti-China activities will not be allowed to occur in the Nepali soil.
In effect, this is what China wants from Nepal and in lieu China is more than willing to contribute to the development of this country by what ever means it can. Chinese grand assurance comes once again in the form of a million dollar assurance wherein its commits itself that China will come into action the moment she concludes that Nepal’s territorial integrity and national independence were in jeopardy.
However, what is bewildering some analysts is that such similar statement both in content and nature had emanated in Kathmandu early last year when a Chinese State councilor Tang Jiaxuan-a comparatively higher authority in the Chinese state hierarchy-too had assured the then ruling regime but when it came to the crunch, the expected Chinese support was “missing”.

Look what Mr. Tang had said then, “We consistently support Nepal in its effort to safeguard sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. Nepal is a sovereign country, and its internal affairs shall not be interfered with in any way by any outside forces. We believe that the Nepalese government and people have the political wisdom and capabilities to solve their own problems.
How and which factors/forces converged together and managed the ouster of the Royal regime is any body’s guess. The naked Indian interference that was visible then is not a thing that any one could presume that the Chinese authorities did not know or understand.
The Royal regime definitely had counted on Chinese support more so after the Tang’s speech made right here in Kathmandu. The Chinese silence acquired then is yet shrouded in a mystery

Should this mean that China will even now allow Indian South Block mandarins to impose their heinous dictates in an uninterrupted manner and would only come into full action or play when India infringed upon Nepal’s territorial integrity and sovereignty? At least this much becomes visible from the Chinese Ambassador’s interview. However, surprising though it may appear to some, more so to the chagrin of the Americans, the Chinese envoy sees a friend in the Maoists. He says since they have been already a part of the interim government that enjoys people’s mandate and legitimacy so nothing could be said of the Maoists. He further says that “looking the Maoists might differ from one country to the other hinting that China does not bother what the Americans see the Maoists. Hmmm….
In a subtle manner, the Chinese envoy possesses some soft corner for the Maoists for reasons unknown to analysts here. But some intelligent brains here conclude that China would keep the Maoists close to them in order to distance the India’s all pervasive political interference in this country.

To put it in another words, China would want the Maoists to act like a deterrent against the Indian hegemony in Nepal which others have failed so far.
No wonder, some top Maoists leaders have already traveled to China in order to build conducive political atmosphere in their favor.
Reports have it that Comrade Prachanda together his son-Prakash-will be visiting Beijing some where around October-November.
This is no less disturbing news for Indian authorities.
Added reports say that one Chinese professor Wang Hoi mediated the China-Maoists friendship. Prof. Wang is considered to be a brain on South Asian affairs.
Be that as it may, with China’s forceful assertion that it would have its presence felt in this country bodes well for this India-locked country for a variety of seen and unseen reasons.

No less important is the Chinese envoy’s admission that his country was ready to supply petro-products to Nepal if properly requested.
Analysts presume the Chinese political influence, in that eventuality will be, mathematically speaking, inversely proportional to that of the self-proclaimed big-brothers’ influence in Nepal.
Not a bad news. It’s time that the South Block mandarins begin pulling their hairs! However, Indians are not that fools. They have several cards under their sleeve and countless stooges working day in day out funded by the notorious RAW-Research Analysis Wing. Which card they will use to counter the fresh Chinese enthusiastic political overtures will have to be watched and how in such an eventuality, the Chinese retort back will be no less entertaining-speaking on political terms.

Source: The Telegraph Nepal, June 14, 2007

Late elections to help regressive forces regroup

Aditi Phadnis

Interview with Madhav Kumar Nepal, General Secretary, Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML)

When do you see elections being held in Nepal?

November this year. There are many opinions on this. Some say the reasons that prompted postponement from June to November may be cited as an excuse to postpone the elections again. They say action should be taken first against those who prevented elections from being held in June. I agree that mistakes were made but I don’t believe we need to take action against the prime minister. Elections must be held in November because there is no other way. We currently have an interim parliament with an interim constitution. Questions could be raised about the nature of an essentially nominated body that has no authority, constitutionality or legality. And when people doubt the credibility quotient of the government, it could pave the way for spent, regressive forces to resurface and consolidate. That is why my firm belief is that the interim period of transition should be as short as possible and we must have elections no later than November 23.

What is the schedule going to be like ? Will the elections be held all over Nepal on one day?

The Cabinet will decide that in consultation with the Election Commission but my feeling is that the elections cannot be held on one day. Last time, the Election Commission said it needed 110 days to hold the elections. More than five months are left. Parliament has to clear Bills on how the elections will be held. How will a proportional representation system be put in operation? Will it be a closed or open list? Will the names on the lists be final or will it be possible to change them? These are all political questions.

But my gut feeling is we can hold the elections in November. I don’t understand why the prime minister is unable to maintain law and order.

Constitutionally, this government is the most powerful in the history of Nepal. They enjoy enormous public support without having faced an election. Yet it is the weakest government in the history of Nepal. I asked the prime minister: ‘Why do you feel so weak? Why don’t you take the initiative?’

What did he say?

He said ‘I will. I will not tolerate this any more’. Some say the Nepali Congress would like to see the UML and the Maoists fight so that they can gain the advantage in the elections. But this is only what people are saying. This is not the case.

When you met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, did he tell you that you have to work with the Nepali Congress?

No, he said, ‘You must strengthen the seven-party alliance, unity must be maintained among democratic forces’. Not that we should work with the Nepali Congress. He said, ‘You have the Maoists on board now. That is a big advantage’.

What was the main theme of your talks with other Indian leaders?

We met all the leaders – Atalji, Soniaji, Dr Singh, and of course, our colleagues from the Left parties in India. All of them had the same view, that the decision of the Nepali people, no matter what, is acceptable to India. They voiced apprehension about the elections but insisted they should not be delayed. They wanted to know what Nepal wanted from India.

Did they appear to be satisfied about reports from Kathmandu about the activities of the Young Communist League (YCL)?

There are some concerns about the YCL. We have told them (the Maoists) that if you have two sets of structures in a party you will begin to have problems. We told them: ‘Do you remember the raja (king) and his mandale (lumpen groups that claimed they were acting on authority of the king)? This dual structure will create problems for you and act as a pressure group from inside. These young men and women will get involved in extortion, they will get into buses and demand money from working people… after all, gun represents power. When one has a gun, one has to have the means to keep it. The YCL could become a weakness in the movement.

Recently, a vigilante group caught hold of an individual who has charges of embezzlement of public funds and beat him up. If such events take place, the difference between forces of the state and private armies blur…

I know about the incident. Anyone who has embezzled public money must be punished. The state must act.

We hear there is a division among the Maoists: Some are for the elections but there are some who oppose it....

There is apprehension that the YCL in camps is telling grassroot level workers that they have not surrendered all their weapons, that the people should vote for them. But ultimately, the loss is the Maoists’. Intimidation will only tarnish their image. We can already see people rising up in rebellion against this in Bardia, in Dang.

There are concerns in India over Terai

Like issues relating to dalits, women, jana jatis, Terai should also be considered by the government. Communal harmony is crucial. We know the palace is behind these events. Religious fundamentalist forces are behind the events in Terai.

But there are some genuine people also. However, violent action should not be supported. The king might try to come back if there is violence. We have envisaged a system of democratic federalism. If some ethnic group has a grievance, they should raise it so that it it be addressed constitutionally. Those whose aim is to wage an armed struggle in Terai should desist. No one should give them sympathy and support.

Are they using Indian territory?

Yes, there are some reports that they are.

How can you be sure that the polls will not be disrupted by state and non-state forces?

There is an understanding among eight parties that the Constitution needs to be revised to protect Nepal if the King tries to disrupt the struggle for a republic. So, according to an amendment that is coming in Parliament, if the King tries to disrupt, a simple majority of the current Parliament present and voting can turn Nepal into a republic. As for other forces, if any other forces take the same path, they will be resisted. Each of the eight political parties are clear about this.

Source: Business Standard, June 11, 2007

Row over ‘Indian advice’ is now over: Prachanda

Maoist chairman Prachanda today said the suspicion that arose after the media reported that India had advised the UML to tie up with the Nepali Congress has now been cleared. “We want to make clear that we [parties] now don’t have mutual suspicion that arose after the Nepali media reported that India, a country whose positive role is specially expected right from the signing of the 12-point agreement to the entire peace process and the CA election, had advised for special relation between the UML and the Nepali Congress,” Prachanda said in a statement issued after a meeting with Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala. He, however, didn’t clarify on the issue.

The Maoist chairman had immediately objected to the India Prime Minister’s ‘advice’ to a senior UML delegation for unity between the UML and the Congress. However, the UML leaders had refuted the reports of such an advice, but they revealed that the Indian side had expressed concern over the forceful activities of the Maoists. Prachanda in his statement also stressed that the eight-party unity must hold in the current fragile situation. He said his party was firm in its commitment to holding constituent election for establishing democratic republic. He said today's meeting between him and PM Koirala had ended on a positive note. He also indirectly admitted the wrongdoing by his cadres in some cases, but claimed that the stoning of American ambassador’s vehicle in Jhapa recently was something his party “does not even think of doing”. He said his party had already asked the government to take action against those involved in the attack.

Source: Nepalnews, June 10, 2007

Maoists hold out white flag to India

Less than a week after Nepal's Maoist guerrillas accused India of meddling in the kingdom's internal affairs and trying to weaken them, their chief Prachanda held out a white flag to the southern neighbour, saying his party's fears had been allayed.

Following a lengthy meeting yesterday between Maoist leaders and Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, the guerrillas softened their stand, opting for a reconciliatory attitude. There had been growing diplomatic outrage at the rebels after their recent attack on a vehicle carrying the US ambassador to Nepal.

In a statement issued after a long hiatus, Maoist chief Prachanda said the fear raised in his party after Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's call to visiting Nepali politicians in New Delhi to forge deeper ties between the two parties had been laid to rest.

Prachanda referred to the positive role played by India when his underground party reached an understanding with the seven-party opposition, that paved the way for the ouster of King Gyanendra's regime and a formal end to the decade-long armed insurgency. He also recalled India's positive role during the ongoing peace negotiations as well as New Delhi's pledged assistance to the key election, to be held in November.

Offering a tacit apology for the attack on American envoy James F. Moriarty's vehicle by Maoist cadres, Prachanda said that his party had never attacked any foreigner during the 10-year uprising and did not plan to deviate at a time it was poised to take part in the election. "We have urged the government to take action against the culprits," he said. Soon after Prachanda's meeting with Koirala, Maoists called off their indefinite shutdown in Kapilavastu district in southwestern Nepal, enforced from Saturday, to pressure the Nepal Army into pulling out of the area.

Source: The Peninsula, June 11, 2007

India to help UN on Nepal's transition to democracy

India has told the United Nations that it will strengthen its hands to help Nepal's transition to democracy, Indian diplomats said here Thursday.At a meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the two sides discussed the situation in Nepal in terms of the ensuing elections in the Himalayan country, arms management and the UN resolution 1740.

'Both the prime minister and the secretary general said that they looked forward to helping Nepal to achieve her democratic transition in a peaceful and orderly manner,' Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon said after the meeting. 'UN has an active role in Nepal,' he said and added that India will also extend all the help it can in helping its South Asian neighbour that is slated to elect its constituent assembly in November. After being criticised by the international community for delaying the crucial election, regarded as the key to peace and stability in Nepal, the ruling eight-party coalition had announced last week that the polls would be held in November.

Manmohan Singh and Ban also discussed other issues like climate change and felt that the right forum to raise the issue should be under the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change. The secretary general, who has served in India in the past, proposed a meeting of world leaders, ahead of the General Assembly in September, to discuss climate change.

Source: Malaysia Sun, June 7, 2007

Prachanda tells India to keep hands off from Nepal

A series of meetings between top Indian officials and leaders of two of Nepal's biggest political parties in New Delhi has given rise to deep unease among Maoist guerrillas here, with their chief Prachanda lashing out at "Indian interference". Maoist supremo Prachanda, who was touring the Terai plains as top leaders of the Nepali Congress and Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (UML) were in New Delhi to attend a conference of MPs from South Asia, on Wednesday accused India of trying to suppress the Maoists by playing a divide and rule game. "India has no right to say which Nepali parties should come close or which ones to stay away from," the Maoist leader said.

The anger was caused by a meeting on Tuesday between Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and UML chief Madhav Kumar Nepal, who was also accompanied by two former deputy prime ministers, K.P. Oli and Bharat Mohan Adhikari. The Maoists are smouldering at the Indian prime minister reportedly urging close ties between the UML and the Nepali Congress, two of their biggest rivals in the upcoming November elections. Though Maoist MP Dinanath Sharma is also taking part in the parliamentarians' conference, he had not been included in the meetings between UML leaders and the Indian authorities, including Congress president Sonia Gandhi and External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee. The Delhi meets come at a time there has been a fresh war of words between the Maoists and Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala. Earlier this week, Maoist cadres handed over to the police a businessman wanted for nearly a year for defrauding a bank of about Nepali Rs.200 million.

The "arrest" of wanted businessman Sitaram Prasain, who is considered close to Koirala's Nepali Congress party, triggered an angry reaction from Koirala, who called the cadres of the Maoist Young Communist League the 'Young Criminal League'. The comment has given rise to widespread anger and criticism, both among the Maoists and the public, who are accusing Koirala of shielding corrupt businessmen. Maoists MPs on Wednesday threw a challenge to the prime miniser in parliament, saying he should ban the YCL if it was a criminal organisation, or else, apologise. Information and Communications Minister Krishna Bahadur Mahara, who is the government spokesperson as well as one of the top Maoist leaders, said Koirala's comment smacked of bias towards criminals.

Source: The Peninsula, June 8, 2007

NEPAL: MAOISTS TO REVISE ITS INDIA POLICY

With Shyam Saran-the former Indian Foreign Secretary, gone, the Indian establishment appears to have now shifted its sympathy from the Maoists to the unity in between Nepali Congress and United Marxist-Leninist, the UML-party. It was none less than the Indian Proxy Prime Minister Dr. Man Mohan Singh who “instructed” the visiting UML delegation led by Madhav Kumar Nepal to forge a sort of alliance with the Nepali Congress led by Girija Prasad Koirala. Now that the Indian PM has said so, the UML, as a good student of India since a decade or so, would go by the Indian instructions. Naturally, the news itself is a disturbing one for the Maoists.

Reacting to this fresh Indian political overture aimed at “cornering” the entire Maoists paraphernalia, Comrade Prachanda sees an Indian “design” in the instructions provided to Comrade Madhav Nepal the other day. “If this is so, then we are also free to frame an entirely different policy on India”, said a fuming Prachanda today. Prachanda made these declarations upon listening to the changed Indian stance in Butwal. Analysts say that the Indian politics in Nepal has ever remained “divide and rule” which they copied from their colonizers.

Now that the UML and the NC would certainly come closer as per the Indian sermons which mean that the Maoists will be left in the cold. An extension of this would mean that India wants now the unity among the SPA but not the EPA. The Maoists are not fools, any way. They know how to tame India. Kalapani, the continued land encroachment and the Susta issues are some, among others, which would be more handy for the Maoists to torture India in Nepal. The stage is thus set for Maoists-India face to face. No wonder one fine morning India could even declare that it has revived its “Three-Pillar Theory”.

Source: The Telegraph Nepal, June 6, 2007

BJP in favour of democracy in Nepal

New Delhi: Expressing itÂ’s concern over the growing Maoist problem in the neighbour Himalayan Kingdom Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP) said on Thursday that the party would support a democratically elected government in Nepal. The gesture came from the party president Rajnath Singh after a meeting with Madhav Nepal, chief of Communist Party of Nepal, who is on a visit to India.

The two leaders discussed about the ISI activities and the Madhesis' problem. The Communist leader also discussed with Rajnath Singh the agitation of Madhesis, people of Indian origin living in the Terai region of Nepal, and assured the BJP leader that he would convey his suggestions and concerns to his party colleagues. Notably a five member delegation from BJP had visited Nepal in January 2007.

Singh also emphasise the importance of conserving the religious and cultural identity which has been the foundation of relationship between two countries. Indirectly cautioning the newly formed government in Nepal to take proactive steps in order to preserve the Hindu and Buddhist heritages in the country.

Source: Headlines India, June 7, 2007