Red Army in the Dragon Kingdom

Deepak Adhikari

Another Maoist insurgency is going to rock yet another country in South Asia, if the statements made by the leaders of the Communist Party of Bhutan Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (CPM MLM) are anything to go by. “Preliminary preparations for an insurgency are over. We are going to launch it soon,” says Vikalpa, nom-de-plume of CPB MLM General Secretary.

Bhutan is holding its parliamentary elections in March and April 2008. But, prior to the election date, CPB MLM plans to launch its ‘People’s War’ in the Himalayan kingdom.
The goal: Abolition of monarchy and establishment of a republic.
Following the footsteps of Nepali Maoists who had submitted a 40-point demand to the then Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba before launching a ‘People’s War’, CPB MLM faxed a 13-point demand to the Royal Government of Bhutan on March 22, 2007.

The letter stressed the need to “introduce people’s democracy in the place of absolute monarchy.” The party has asked for multi-party democracy, repatriation of the refugees to their original homes with honor and dignity, release of all political prisoners and to introduce the land reform act etc.

Vikalpa (literally, alternative) says that fulfillment of the demands would have paved the way for a peaceful resolution. “But, the government, rather than taking it seriously, has unleashed terror by arresting commoners, and this has prompted us to wage an armed struggle,” says CPB supremo Vikalpa.The Druk regime is yet to respond to these demands.

The unfolding events suggest that South Asia’s only active monarchy that is ruling the so-called ‘Last Shangri-La’ is likely to take the country into Maoist violence. The eruption of militancy in northeastern South Asia will not only push Bhutan into turmoil but the two biggest Asian power i.e. India and China will have to deal with yet another insurgency in their backyards.

Source: Toriganthe TV, September 25, 2007

The Political Stand Off In Nepal

Harsh Dobhal

This week, Maoists have resigned from the government after most governing parties opposed their demand that the monarchy be abolished before the elections scheduled in November. They have clearly accused PM Koirala and his Nepali Congress of trying to protect King Gyanendra and have warned to start a new "people's revolt" for the abolition of monarchy. Maoists were quick to gather that conservative elements in political parties are gathering together. Other coalition partners contend that the decision about Nepal's future political system should be decided by a special assembly after the November elections.

Having suffered for decades at the hands of a brutal, Royal Nepalese Army, armed police and king's other security forces, the people of Nepal rose in millions during the April revolution last year with a clear objective in mind: abolition of the centuries-old monarchy.
Despite American, Chinese and Indian chess games of diplomacy, the people of Nepal succeeded in putting their stamp on history and the king was forced to retreat and give up his absolute and unlimited powers. As in all revolutions, there was always the danger that the forces of reaction would regroup and old hawks of Nepali politics will try to have their way.

After over a decade of underground struggle, Maoists came over ground, disarmed and joined the government with the Seven Party Alliance. They put forward a series of unprecedented proposals for the restoration of true democracy, the disarming of the militia and drafting of a new Constitution. It was a brave decision by Maoists to outline the roadmap for a brave new Nepal.
Maoists, as much as the people, were always clear that monarchy should have no place in Nepali politics, that the country should be immediately declared a Republic. They never had any doubt that Nepal needs a general election, having abolished monarchy where the most marginalized - the dalits, the adivasis, madhesis, vanvasis, women, minorities and other weaker sections - will have adequate representation.

At that time the move was seen as an end to their armed rebellion and this little, beautiful Himalyan nation appeared to be on the threshold of a new era. This week, Maoists have resigned from the government after most governing parties opposed their demands that the monarchy be abolished before the elections scheduled for November.
They have clearly accused Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and his Nepali Congress of trying to protect King Gyanendra and have warned to start a new "people's revolt" for the abolition of monarchy. Other coalition partners contend that the decision about Nepal's future political system should be decided by a special assembly after the November elections.

The Maoists had earlier joined the interim government in April 2006, after signing a peace agreement with the government. The new developments simply signify the fact that Nepal's politics has been slowly but steadily lapsing into complacency from such momentous changes that were paving the way for not just consistent and lasting democratisation of the State but also its secularisation from a declared only Hindu State.
Maoists were quick to gather that conservative elements in political parties are gathering together. However, these forces would be compelled to come to negotiation with Maoists as the tide might rise once again. Maoists may have lost some ground after April Revolution of last year, but they have enough base to win back that ground. And they know it, for otherwise none is going to be as hard hit by new developments as Maoists who had laid down their weapons at a time when the mood in Nepal was upbeat.

The crisis that had been gathering over Nepal howsoever surreptitiously during past few months bode ill for the Maoists. And, they had no option but to take a strong decision to quit the government. Koirala had sadly been missing this till the Maoists decided to part away with his dispensation. Even if the country goes to polls on November 22, the appeal of the Maoists would be powerful, as they have raised more basic issues than merely electing legislators. So it is in the best interest of the government and the people to see as to how the Maoists' participation in not just polls but the political process is won back.

India has come under Nepalese ire, for Koirala has been blamed of toeing New Delhi's line. Yet, the fact is that the Manmohan Singh Government is grappling with its own crisis where the Left is miffed by it over the nuclear issue and it lacks the kind of cohesion that it had until last year when the Nepal crisis was solved.
India can facilitate in solving a crisis in a neighbouring country like Nepal, but it can only ill afford to dictate anything to any one. The move by Maoists has raised fresh questions about the peace process and stability in Nepal. Will the feudal, pro-monarchy forces and their external patrons come together for maneuver? Does the political mainstream of Nepal now belong to these elements or to radical forces?

Is the spirit of the April revolution still lingering in the hearts of Nepalese people? Are some of the parties engaging in a conspiracy against the peoples' aspirations and demands? The answers to these and many other questions will unfold in coming weeks and months.

Source: Counter Currents.Org, September 25, 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

Why the king must go

Billy Briggs

In an exclusive interview, Billy Briggs talks to the Maoist commander who may soon determine his country’s fate

Chairman Prachanda sits on a leather sofa and glances out at the torrential rain of Nepal's monsoon season. We are in his office at the Maoist headquarters in the capital, Kathmandu. On the wall above his head are framed photographs of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Chairman Mao. "They were all great men, but I particularly admire Lenin's political dynamism," says the leader of Nepal's Maoists and commander of a rebel army that waged war in the Himalayan nation for more than a decade.

The insurgency, an attempt to establish a communist republic, claimed 13,000 lives, ending only last year after protests forced King Gyanendra to end his dictatorship and restore democracy.
Prachanda, a nom de guerre that translates as "the fierce one", was the man who signed a historic peace deal last November. He agreed to return 30,000 People's Liberation Army fighters to the jungle in camps monitored by the UN, a move that took the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) - CPN (Maoist) - into a transition coalition government. The Maoists joined the interim parliament in January, gaining 83 seats out of 330, and in April secured cabinet posts. "The rebellion was justified and we have embraced democracy," says Prachanda, whose real name is Pushpa Kamal Dahal.

Nepal's nascent peace process has been fragile, however. The Maoists continue to demand the abolition of the monarchy and that a republic be declared ahead of constituent assembly elections due to be held on 22 November. The poll is designed to elect a body that will rewrite Nepal's constitution and decide if the monarchy should stay or go, part of the peace deal agreed last year. But despite signing up to this, the Maoists recently stormed out of the coalition after the government refused to bow to their demands, throwing the process into crisis. I ask Prachanda why he reneged on the accord and will not allow the Nepalese people to vote on the future of the king.

"The masses took part in a rebellion against the king, so they have already given their mandate for Nepal to be a republic," he says. He claims that supporters of Gyanendra, and the king, already stripped of direct power and his status as head of state, would probably sabotage any election. Prachanda's critics say the Maoists are scared of a vote because popular support for the party has fallen in recent months as a result of rising violence across Nepal, much of it blamed on the youth wing of CPN (Maoist) - the Young Communist League, which appears to have embarked on a campaign of terror. At least 60 people have died in fighting between various political factions, but Prachanda denies Maoist involvement. "There have been problems with armed groups, and this is why we feel the environment is not conducive for an election at the moment. But we are not organising the violence."

The Maoists' strategy, he says, will be to appeal to the masses to demonstrate peacefully, adding that his party will not prevent the vote taking place and will fully respect the outcome. Although many in Nepal feel Prachanda is holding the nation to ransom, with a ballot box in one hand and a rifle in the other, he insists his party will not break the ceasefire. "We will not resort to violence . . . unless the demonstrations are forcibly put down." The US ambassador, James Moriarty, has reiterated America's position that the Maoists remain on Washington's list of terrorist organisations. The EU and the UN have also condemned the recent violence. Prachanda laughs. "How can the US accuse anyone of being terrorists when it is they who export violence to places like Iraq and Afghanistan? Who are they to talk about morals?" he says.
Ethics are certainly a concern for Prachanda, who is puritanical in his determination to outlaw alcohol, gambling and "vulgar literature" from India and the US.

Let's talk morals, then: what about the recruitment by the People's Liberation Army of thousands of child soldiers, many of whom have not yet been returned to their families? He denies that any such policy ever existed, despite strong evidence to the contrary, presented in February by Human Rights Watch. "I do not know why people are afraid of us," he says. I point out that a stated aim of the Maoists is to export communism to the world through a global revolution. Prachanda nods, and says he looks forward to an ideological debate with the west.
"Would the revolution you envisage involve an armed struggle?" I ask. "That would depend on the masses," he replies.

Prachanda admits there are direct links between Nepal's Maoists and the Indian Naxalites fighting for communism in impoverished states such as Andhra Pradesh. He also supports the repatriation of more than 100,000 refugees from Bhutan who have languished in camps in eastern Nepal for 17 years. Bhutanese Maoists, with whom he says local groups "may have a relationship", are active in the camps. There have been rumblings about an armed struggle in emulation of the Nepalese Maoists.

Does he still advocate the execution of the king? Prachanda replies that a "people's court" should decide the monarch's fate, adding that his adversary is responsible for the deaths of many innocent people. I counter that the Maoists tortured and summarily executed many people during the conflict and that as leader, pursuing his own logic, Prachanda is surely as guilty as the king. "Ours was a mass movement, a mass rebellion of the people," he says. "So it was all completely justified."

Source: New Statesman, September 27, 2007

Sounding the red alert

SD Muni,

With the Maoists quitting the government, there is a real risk of the peace process in Nepal going astray. Though the leadership has promised to keep the struggle peaceful, the country faces a serious crisis

The decision of Nepal’s Maoists to quit the Eight-Party Alliance government and launch a ‘peaceful’ agitation for the establishment of a republican Nepal even before the Constituent Assembly (CA) elections is, on the face of it, a breach of their commitment. In their Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of November 2006, with the G.P. Koirala-led Seven Party Alliance (SPA), the Maoists had agreed to let the elected CA decide on the issue of monarchy or republic in its first meeting. The Maoists have also reversed their earlier decision to opt for the elections on the basis of a mixed system of direct and proportional voting. Now they want a wholly proportional basis for the elections. These are the two principal demands in their 22-point charter that the SPA has refused to accept.

The Maoists are driven by three motives. The first is that they have genuine concerns over the ‘regressive forces’ led by the monarchy that will not allow smooth, free or fair elections, only to ensure that the republican agenda is thwarted. The role of these forces in fuelling the Terai violence, instigating the recent blasts in Kathmandu and vandalism in the Terai region are cited by Maoists to justify their fears. In their assessment, the present king and his coterie, though politically redundant, have enough resources to create mischief. They refer to the June 2007 amendment to the interim constitution which says that if the king is found to be disrupting the peace process, the interim parliament may, by a two-third vote, declare Nepal a ‘republic’. But the Maoists suspect that sections of the SPA, as well as countries like India and the US, would still prefer a ceremonial monarchy over a republic.

Second, the Maoists complain about being shabbily treated by the interim government and that they were kept out of the key ministries of home, finance, foreign and defence. None of the important ambassadorial assignments, in India, China, US and Britain, were given to them. In other critical administrative and political appointments, they were not offered adequate representation. Their cadres have not been given promised facilities. They also allege attempts to marginalise them politically. The turning of the Madheshi movement against the Maoists that seriously dented their political base in Terai is pivotal to this impression. The Maoists have a real fear that the drive against them will lead to a serious slump in their electoral prospects. They have, accordingly, been asking for an assured share in the winnable seats in the elections.
The internal divisions within the Maoist organisation have deepened. There has always been two viewpoints among the Maoists: those who want to get into the democratic mainstream and the rest who want to carry on with their ‘struggle’ until all their demands were met.

Prachanda and Bhattarai can ignore the 22-point demand charter at the cost of their credibility within the organisation. The Maoists, however, are conscious that their move will lead to sullying their public image and international reputation. They were desperately seeking a face-saving mechanism to solve their political dilemma. They proposed a parliamentary resolution to declare Nepal a republic before the elections, but subject to final endorsement by the elected CA. Prime Minister Koirala refused to concede that, as that would have made the elections appear to have ben fought on a Maoist agenda, giving them huge political mileage.

The Maoists’ action has raised serious questions on the peace process as a whole. They have threatened to withdraw from the CPA as well as various understandings worked out with the SPA. There is a real possibility of accidental violence as well as a possibility that hardliners among the Maoists can instigate violence. Though the Maoist leadership is committed to keeping the struggle peaceful, but there is real risk of losing control.

The Maoists may realise that it will be impossible for them to achieve their political goals through an armed struggle particularly under an internationally supported democratic government. The regressive forces and all those who have stakes in disrupting peace and stability in Nepal may also exploit the opportunity provided by the Maoist agitation. This can only serve to worsen the suffering in the poorly governed mountain nation. A further loss of credibility of the democratic experiment will only frustrate the aspirations of the Jan Andolan-II of April 2006.

All those who have stakes in a stable and democratic Nepal, particularly India, need to ensure that the narrow political space still available to resolve the crisis is harnessed constructively.

SD Muni is visiting scholar, IDSA and Editor, Indian Foreign Affairs Journal.

Source: The Hindustan Times, September 20