Is politics imploding?

BY ABHI SUBEDI

Nepali politics in less than one year has opened up many avenues of change. But judging by some developments over the months, we can make wild speculations about its future. But the hope that a new era of stability, equality, freedom and prosperity will alight like a glorious morning on the Nagarkot heights from a special clear sky once the elected jumbo Constituent Assembly (CA) writes a new federal republican constitution of the land is slowly fading. But we should approach this problem without harbouring any preconceived notions about any political parties or organisations, and close or not-so-close friends of this land.
Some of the landmarks of the chaos are the virulent battles among the youths of this land. We ordinary teachers who have witnessed the dynamics of youth for decades have always warned that the seeds of belligerency planted by political parties among the young people of this land will grow to such an extent that political party leaders will have to define their actions according to the degree of casualties that the youngsters inflict on each other in the skirmishes that will happen on a regular basis.

An example is in order. The assassination of a member of the United Marxist Leninist (UML) Youth Force member Prachanda Thaiba in Butwal allegedly by a Maoist YCL cadre on March 26 has even threatened the very existence of the coalition government. The Maoists are asking the UML and the Nepali Congress (NC) not to politicise this event, but nothing short of “decisive action” against the killers is likely to save this uneasy alliance.
The CA session opened in Kathmandu on March 29 with a note of obituary, just a day after the prime minister of the beleaguered government Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda left for a visit of the Nordic countries to curry economic and trade favours that Nepal needs urgently for its economic stability. It is commonplace to hear the litany of what happens when the prime minister leaves the country at a time when it is plunging into chaos. But the CA has commenced like a wartime parliament where the predominantly male voices in the House create a choric song with contrapuntal variations of different styles and modulations. The CA session this time is going to be a pandemonium, one can guess. Parties want to settle scores with the Maoists who will get a chance to review their own occasional misfires. Some parties are overtly expecting this session to pull down the Maoist-led government and create a new coalition. But that will not bring a more stable government and far less a more stable situation in the country. The country can slowly plunge into civil war, at worst.
Implosions have begun to occur; ideological boundaries of simulation and reality kept up by Nepal's social democrats and communists are getting erased. They have begun to curry the favour of external powers to replace that loss. The psychological projection of India as a power that can put leverage on the political parties to change the power equation here is one example. Former monarch Gyanendra tried his own round of this psychological game by meeting Hinduism stalwarts like Narendra Modi, L.K. Advani and others in the third week of this month. This visit of Gyanendra clearly and timely organised by his supporters and Hindu parties was a reactionary exercise more than anything. Just see the reaction of the people here and also there appears to be the motto of this visit.
Indian writers and journalists asked me mind-boggling questions at the Agra SAARC writers' meeting in the second week of March about the possibility of restoring the Nepali throne to the erstwhile king's grandson for the sake of unity in a chaotic land. Girijababu's concurrent visit was linked to the former king's visit. I said that there could be no such political possibility at all. I even spoke publicly about that. Ironically, by overreacting to Gyanendra's India visit and his meetings with Indian politicians, the political parties and the media are giving him and his men what they have precisely wanted to achieve from this visit.
Nepali politicians and the people know very well that it would be a futile attempt to revive the influence of the Hindu monarchy in Nepal either as a symbolic institution or a symbolic presence in the form of a party favoured by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and other Hindu parties of Nepal and India. For India, Hinduism is a social construct, which, in the postcolonial context, has become a subject of political study. The Hindu nationalist movement known as Sangh Parivar was created concurrently with the secular Congress party in the 20th century. Though Hindutva could not gain tremendous influence, it remained an important religio-political construct in Indian politics.
In Nepal, the Hindu aristocracy has a different historicism. When Jung Bahadur Rana visited Britain and France in 1850 as a so-called “Hindu prince”, which is an interesting postcolonial study of mimicry, the British colonial rulers did not have much idea of what a Hindu religious designation would be like. They established Hindu as a religious group only 21 years after Jung's “'Hindu prince”' visit to Britain, i.e., after the census of 1871. The Indian Hindutva used and has been using strong rhetoric, terror and violence to create its niche. The leaders of the BJP that formed the national coalition government in 1998 made no secret of their camaraderie with the RSS and Bajrang Dal that carry the legacy of Sangh Parivar.
The confusions that the politicians in Nepal and India make about the so-called symbolism of the Nepali monarchy (of the past) is that the people of this country through a very powerful political process and consensus have overthrown a feudal order, and with it the institution of so-called Hindu monarchy. They have shown the world that the Nepali political experience and history does not need to emulate the Indian politicised Sangh Parivar legacy of Hinduism in Nepal. The monarchy was not in any way related to that Indian Hindu political experience, and for the Indian Hindutva politicians to try to use a very Westernised erstwhile monarch to contest the Maoists, the leftists and other republicans would be a futile political exercise. Any future Indian government will find it worthwhile to establish links with the leftist political parties and the NC on a pragmatic basis to solve political problems not only in Nepal but also in India and Bhutan. And the seasoned Indian politicians know that reality very well.
The political parties of Nepal are mainly responsible for the political chaos that reigns in the country now. However, what they cannot escape is their existentialism. They are united by agreements; they are brought together by the CA; they have put their heads together over problems that they can solve only jointly. I feel that the politics of Nepal is not changing; it is only seeking new dynamics. But the problem is that political leaders are not showing magnanimity, openness and democratic commitment that are in short supply in Nepal now.

Posted on: 2009-04-01 00:07:19

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)

“To Have A Federal Structure Or Redefine The State Boundaries Based Upon Janjatis Is A Dangerous Situation” - Sona Khan

Senior advocate of Supreme Court of India SONA KHAN is a well known lawyer of the region. As Nepal is in the process of constitution making, Khan addressed a gathering at CONCOI. Khan spoke to KESHAB POUDEL on various issues regarding federalism and constitution making process. Excerpts:

How did India come up with pluralistic constitution?

Without the presence of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar in the constitution committee of India, I don’t think the preservation of pluralism would have been as effective as it survives today. The role of Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru with vision cannot be ignored. But the master were not the people but were these two elite gentlemen who had the opportunity to be educated in the western system and they brought the concept of justice and equity along with them.

Why is the state so important?

One of the purposes of the existence of the state is to deliver equity and justice in an equitable fashion. There is the crux to preserve the dignity of the individual. How do you go about it is the frame work whether that is parliamentary form of government or presidential form of government is immaterial. The ultimate aim of the state is to deliver the dignity to individual in just and equitable manner.

How is it possible to have absolute pluralism in a country with so many castes, and so many people with different persuasion of culture?

That is the craft of the constitution. Various constitutions have been tried and western society has found just an easy way out. They conceptualized the secularism minus religion. They thought they have created a civil society and they have brought everything out of the religious sanctity. But, this is not so in south Asia. In South Asia religion and culture is the way of life. We cannot live without religion and culture. I am talking about the concept of pluralism in the South Asian constitution.

How would they like a society to consider and explore the possibilities of preserving the common heritage and common culture?

Here it is very important to understand that the ownership of the pluralism belongs to no political section of the society, religion, castes or creeds. It is a collective property of the nation and that collective ownership evolves upon all of us the possibility to preserve it with the state duty.

How important are pluralism and harmony?

I would humbly, with great respect to all of you, say that pluralism has to be recognised but at the same time the harmonious aspects should be respected to survive as a sovereign republic democratic notion. One would need to generate harmony. That harmony will come by bringing to preserve your individual rights by recognizing the pluralistic culture. In the case of India, for political appeasement purposes often pluralistic constitution is very handy. The supreme court of India has been playing very important role to sustain the constitution by interpreting.

How do you see the impact of globalization in all this?

The globalization which will determine the global forces determines their own equity, I don’t know what can happen in Nepal but in India very soon our politicians will be irrelevant. Why? Because the economic forces will generate another dharma and that dharma will be superior than the political agenda. Political agenda so far has been only catering to the narrow vision of the political parties. They have not gone above the party politics. They interrupt the country which is the paramount Dharma. In my opinion globalization and gender issue are undergoing a very definite change. Since the globalization will convert the burden of state into a social capital. The hunger and poverty which is the burden of the state will be harnessed into the social capital by the economic forces.

What about the effects of migration?

The migration of labour forces from one part to another would provide employment and access to economic resources. May be standard differs from one place to another. But at least, it takes care of hunger and poverty. The importance of that part is recognition of that pocket. Road, water, housing, health care and education are primary role of the country. Any regional and national party which is unable to provide this will not last for too long. Now the water cannot be pursued by the concept of Janjatis solidarity, religious solidarity or regional solidarity. The consumers set the condition for globalization. The availability of goods and comfort change the mindset. That is the phenomenon and no one can stop it.

How do you see the WTO in the context of globalization?\

The WTO norms which are part of international federalism are alluding to it. These elements are more important legal tool including the convention of international law and various other protocols which the governments of today have necessary to agree and enter. And the moment they agree and enter, the country is part of all these laws. Once the concerned government signs such protocols and conventions, they are the part of law of particular countries. But there are certain aspects which cannot be changed. For example, the fundamental rights cannot be amended, new rights may be added. Preservation of pluralism is important. The guarantee of pluralism is the guarantee of understanding and delivery to the constitution.

How do you see the concept of federalism?

Indian experiences are different. For example, the Sri Lanka and France have different federal structures. Indian federalism started with unitary federalism. The federalism has two forces - there is gravity towards the center or gravity towards the autonomous state. Both have their own merits and demerits. In my opinion, the interest of the country is paramount. The purpose of federalism is to deliver the mandate of the people and others. Functioning of the government should be proper.

How do you see federalism under the basis of caste and ethnicity?

To have a federal structure or redefine the state boundaries based upon Janjatis is a dangerous situation. You are abdicating your responsibilities or state to bring them to mainstream. It is easy for politicians but it is not conducive for the country. Because they will be happy for the moment for the autonomy but what are they going to do with that autonomy. The reason is not driven by patriotism or nationalism or regionalism but reasons are driven by economic forces. Each country has to craft and fascinate its own system. But however the ultimate key will be to make sure that you are able to be around the mainstream of development. Supposing Nepal wishes to exercise its national identity as Nepali. If you start to say, I am just Janjati and not Nepali, it may come down to people. It is not in the larger interest. What cab the Janjatis autonomy deliver in today’s context of globalization. It is only going to deliver psychological satisfaction.

What is important then?

The important thing is delivery of dignity. Janjatis are after all the citizens of Nepal. Do you think they are going to be happy with the identity without any education provision made for them or without any job provision made to them, surplus of land or reclamation of land, local sustainability, without fertilizer or without water for irrigation? Identity serves very limited purposes.

How do you satisfy all?

For example, schedule cast and schedule tribe banks have purpose to deliver the loan as micro credit banks did in Bangladesh. The purpose remains same whether you give name of schedule cast bank or micro credit bank. The description has to be differed. However, the identity base is a very dangerous thing.

If ethnic federalism will not work, what federalism is going to work?

You can list the Janjatis in constitution itself so that identity is preserved. Recognize them in constitution which was not recognized in earlier. Have a separate commission to look at them but not an ethnic commission. You have to clothe it and you have to find out your own wordings. For example, justice at door step. You have to make temple of justice. Like the case in Philippines and Indonesia, they have their own system. In South Asia, all the countries have various castes and ethnicity. Don’t encourage them to destabilize the government. You need to allocate fund to generate the goodwill. We have divided the states on various models. For instance, the Uttar Pradesh is a very big state and there is now Uttaranchal State. Jharkhand comes out from Bihar. I want to share with you the case of Punjab. For instance, Haryana was never a state as it is today when India became independent. There was referendum to see who is Punjabi or other speaker. Many people said they don’t speak Punjabi so they created Haryana. It is actually the economy which determines the state.

Source: Spotlight, VOL. 28, NO. 24, March 20, 2009

Nepal elects its first President

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Observer Research Foundation, July 26, 2008

Koirala lets Maoists form government

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

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

Source: ORF, May 27, 2008

Maoists to adopt liberal economic policy

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

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

Source: South Asia Weekly, May 18, 2008

Prachanda on Indo-Nepal relations

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

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

Source: CNN-IBN, May 18, 2008

Maoist optimist

SD Muni

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Hardnews, May , 2008

India's choices are limited

Paul Soren

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: The Pioneer, May 3, 2008

India misses crunch time

Baleshwar Agarwal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: The Pioneer, May 3, 2008

Lunatic diplomacy

Arabinda Ghose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: The Pioneer, May 3, 2008

No respite in violence

Paul Soren

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

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

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

Fate of monarchy linked to Nepal's poll

Dhruba Adhikary

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

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

Threats and hurdles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Asia Times Online, April 8, 2008

Maoists fear losing elections

Paul Soren

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

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

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

China keen to re-engage with Nepal

Paul Soren

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

Source: South Asia Weekly, March 9, 2008

Strife ends in Nepal’s Terai region

Paul Soren

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

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

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

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

Source: South Asia Weekly, March 2, 2008