Parties Pushing Nepal To Failed State Status

Yuba Nath Lamsal

The seven politi cal parties have mutually agreed to defer the Constituent Assembly election scheduled for November 22 this year. This is the second time that the election has been postponed. Earlier, the election was to take place in June. But it was postponed as the government failed to make the necessary preparations for holding the election. The government and the seven-party (now six-party) alliance were responsible for the election postponement in June.

Blame

Now the blame has now been put squarely on the Maoists by the six-party alliance for the postponement of the November election. However, the Maoists have denied the accusation and say that the government is responsible as it could not create the necessary conditions for holding free and fair polls.The peace process is intact as all the constituents of the six-party alliance and the Maoists apparently seem to be committed to the peace process. However, the political process on which the peace process has hinged appears to be tumultuous and shaky. The political process that was initiated to institutionalise the peace process is heading towards collapse.

The bottom-line of the political process is to establish a democratic federal republic and total restructuring of the state through an elected Constituent Assembly. This was clearly mentioned in the comprehensive peace agreement (CPA) reached between the then seven-party alliance government and the Maoists. The interim constitution and the interim parliament were also made in the same spirit.With the twice postponement of the Constituent Assembly election, a sense of doubt has crept in the minds of the voters that the Constituent Assembly election may not take place at all. It shows that all the political actors and forces are not committed to holding the Constituent Assembly election. It is so because these forces are not confident of their strength and position in the election.The problem started with the non-compliance of the comprehensive peace agreement and also the spirit of the interim constitution. The interim constitution had clearly stated that Constituent Assembly election should be held in the June of 2007. The government did not make any preparations to meet the deadline of the election set by the interim constitution.

The violation of the constitution and the CPA and breach of promise began right from this point. Later the constitution was amended to suit their interest in which the dates for the Constituent Assembly election were rescheduled for November 22.When it comes to non-compliance of the promise and agreement, the government again is in the forefront. It was agreed that several measures would be taken before going to the polls. The first responsibility of the state was to ensure perfect law and order so that the people could freely and fearlessly participate in the election. But the law and order situation continued to deteriorate. Several armed groups appeared in the Terai, and some hill-ethnic groups also sprang up threatening to take up arms if their demands were not met.The government has not been able to tackle these issues effectively and maintain law and order. The other issue of non-compliance is related to the allowances and conditions of the Maoist combatants living in the cantonments. The government did not release the allowances in time. The condition in the camps is so inhuman and poor that even UNMIN has raised this issue several times.

As far as the Maoists are concerned, they, too, cannot escape blame. They were part of the government and they failed to exert pressure on the cabinet to take necessary measures for the creation of a conducive atmosphere for the election. If the government failed, the Maoists, too, have a share in it. Their withdrawal from the government is not a solution.Moreover, there are certain things the Maoists have done that are not compatible with the CPA. On the eve of the election, the Maoists suddenly raised two political issues that ultimately caused the postponement of the election. The issues the Maoists have raised are genuine and they must be adhered to. However, the timing does not seem to be appropriate.The issue concerning a full proportionate electoral system was first raised by the CPN-UML when the interim constitution was being drafted. The provision of a proportionate election system could have been incorporated in the interim constitution, and the issue would have been solved long ago, if the Maoists had raised this issue when the constitution was being drafted. But the Maoists failed to realise it earlier, and they have raised this issue now which shows their political immaturity.

Moreover, the other parties were not fully prepared to go to the polls, although they had publicly expressed their commitment to hold the election on time. Had the parties been fully prepared and committed, they would have gone to the people with their election programmes. But the Maoist move has given an opportunity to other political forces to blame the Maoists for the postponement of the election.Internally, the other parties, too, are happy with the election deferral. The postponement of the election is a move to block the smooth political process. Although the Maoists appear to have blocked the November 22 election, all the political forces are in one way or the other responsible for this.Nepal has already suffered very badly due to political instability. The frequent postponement of the election and breach of promises by the political parties have raised serious questions about the legitimacy and credibility of the government in the international community.In the same way, people at home are slowly losing faith in the ability of the parties and their leaders. If the election is postponed frequently and the country is governed without a popular mandate, the chaotic situation will continue to grow, which would ultimately push Nepal towards the status of a failed state.

By agreeing to postpone the Constituent Assembly election, the seven political parties have agreed to make Nepal into a failed state. No political force can escape from the blame. All constituents of the seven parties as well as the Maoists are equally responsible. This situation has only benefited the Monarchists and regressive elements that do not want the election at all as the election, if held, would eliminate the monarchy from Nepal.The Constituent Assembly election was aborted in 1951 by the king. Now there is sufficient ground to raise the question whether the election would be held at all. It is the process of making a people's constitution and involving the people in the process. In the present political equation, the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and the Maoists are the chief actors.

Dignified presence

Making a constitution without the active participation of all these three forces would be a futile exercise. In this constitution making process, the parties must not think who will win or lose in the election. But arrangements should be made so that all these forces have a dignified presence in the Constituent Assembly. For this, the leaders of Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and the Maoists must act in a more responsible, liberal and rational manner.

Source: The Rising Nepal, October 17, 2007

Election Detour in the Himalayas

Brenda Norris

The Maoists were polite, but firm: no civic or voter education activities could be conducted until their national political demands were met. Hours of negotiation succeeded only in convincing the young men not to burn the voter education materials that our local partners intended to distribute. For the previous two hours we had watched our partners complete a two-day voter education training of facilitators and a mock election in the small classroom in Nepal’s Rasuwa District. The trainers were dedicated and professional, and were visibly excited to educate their fellow villagers about the upcoming Constituent Assembly election. With the memory of violence from Nepal’s ten-year-long Maoist insurgency still fresh in their minds, they watched as the Maoists ripped posters from the walls and carted all the voter education materials away. As we learned later, this heartbreaking scene in Rasuwa was being played out in districts all across Nepal, with voter and civic education activities being disrupted in scores of localities.

The Maoists succeeded in their goal of delaying the election. On October 5th, the Chief Election Commissioner announced that the Constituent Assembly election, scheduled for November 22nd, would be impossible. Nepalis were understandably baffled: Maoist insurgents had fought their guerilla war for a decade, and holding a Constituent Assembly election to redraw the country’s constitution and framework of governance had always been one of their central demands.

So why were the Maoists opposed to a November election date? In part, because they feared what many communist parties have traditionally feared: that they might not do very well in a free and fair election. They stated that two demands must first be resolved: replacing the mixed electoral system with full proportional representation, and declaring the country a republic prior to the election. But their reasons were also deeper. The Maoists have taken an increasingly hard-line approach in part, it appears, because they feel the government is not sincere in delivering on commitments it made in a series of peace agreements to downsize the army, integrate former Maoist combatants, and tackle difficult issues such as land reform and caste discrimination.

Now Nepal’s peace process stands at a crossroads. Before the country can begin voter education and related activities, the political parties, including the Maoists, must resolve their disputes about the electoral system and forming a republic. Those steps are crucial, but even they will not be enough to ensure a free, fair, and safe election. All parties need to take a hard look at themselves, and begin implementing the agreements they have already committed to. The Maoists need to leave their habits of violence and intimidation behind, just as the government must demonstrate that it is willing to change how it does business in a country that remains one of the most profoundly discriminatory – on the basis of gender, language, class and caste – anywhere in the world. In Rasuwa, and across Nepal, the people are eager to have their voices heard.

Source: The Asia Foundation, October 17, 2007

Nepal revolutionaries call on mass support to end monarchy

David Hoskins

Nepal’s communist revolutionaries walked out of that country’s interim government in mid-September and announced immediate plans to launch street protests. The walkout followed the government’s rejection of a 22-point set of demands by the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-M) that were meant to ensure free and transparent polls for planned Constituent Assembly elections in November.

Three weeks later, on Oct. 5, the government announced the November elections would be postponed.

The Nepali Congress Party and other reformist parties objected to two key points in particular. These basic points would have declared Nepal a republic before the polls, to ensure that the monarchy does not interfere with elections, and would have established a proportional representation-based election system. Nepal still has a king, despite massive protests against the monarchy last year.

The government’s rejection of these demands, say the revolutionaries, risks providing cover to the criminal supporters of King Gyanendra in the army and among underground terrorist units, allowing them to disrupt elections, and has created an unnecessary crisis in election preparations.

Other organizations have voiced support for the CPN-M’s electoral demands. Amik Sherchan, chair of the People’s Front Nepal, has stated that the 22 prerequisites were legitimate and that “the Maoists were left with no option but to launch a program of strong protests to establish a republic.” People’s Front Nepal is a semiunderground leftist organization and a member of Nepal’s interim government.

The CPN-M remains in Nepal’s interim parliament, where it has become the second-largest party since pulling out of the government. Three other groups, including the militant Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist), have merged with the CPN-M since it withdrew from the cabinet. The CPN-M has emphasized the need for a single revolutionary communist party to fulfill the aspirations of Nepal’s workers and oppressed.

Maoists call street protests; student organizations join

After all four Maoist ministers announced their resignations from the government, the CPN-M called for street agitation to begin on Sept. 25. Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, a leading party official, declared that, “Efforts to declare a republic from the parliament have failed. Now we will declare a republic from the streets.” The CPN-M has promised to hold actions in all of Nepal’s 4,000 villages and at every district administration office in order to advance their people’s agenda. The actions are being unrolled in carefully crafted phases. The first phase was held from Sept. 19 to 21, when the Maoists held a door-to-door public awareness campaign surrounding their demands. A week of rallies began in the capital on Sept. 22 and was planned to spread geographically. The revolutionaries are preparing to launch an exposure campaign to reveal corrupt government officials and business people.

Students, too, vowed mass participation in the street protests. The All Nepal National Independent Student Union-Revolutionary (ANNISU-R) laid out its own protest agenda. Public hearings in schools and universities began on Sept. 19 and were expected to continue until Oct. 3. Motorcycle rallies across the country began Sept. 29 and torch-lit rallies were to follow. More than 4,000 soldiers in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) had earlier walked out of their cantonments to protest in favor of the 22 demands raised by the revolutionaries. The PLA is the armed wing of the CPN-M and has voluntarily confined itself to a U.N.-monitored cantonment during the peace process initiated by the revolutionaries. More than 30,000 PLA soldiers are stationed in 28 cantonments around the country.

Revolutionaries champion people’s needs

Many of the government’s ruling parties fear an embarrassing setback in the polls at the hands of the revolutionaries. The popular program advocated by the Maoists and the revolutionary student and youth organizations has done much to earn the support of Nepal’s oppressed workers and peasants. The revolutionaries have consistently exposed corrupt landlords and held them accountable in People’s Courts set up around the country. For many of Nepal’s poor, this is the only system of justice available to them.

The revolutionaries have been in the vanguard of the fight to abolish Nepal’s brutal feudal monarchy. The CPN-M initiated 10 years of armed struggle which, combined with the street protests it helped coordinate, brought an end to King Gyanendra’s absolute rule late last year. He had clung to power with the support of the U.S., Britain and India. The revolutionaries continue to be the most consistent force advocating the total abolition of Nepal’s monarchy and the establishment of democratic republicanism with fair elections. Additional campaigns have established free health care in poor districts and the creation of a Health Team Project coordinated by the PLA’s medical department to create units of medical specialists and support staff in rural areas. In August the Young Communist League (YCL) mobilized 600 cadres over a course of three days to collect tons of garbage from the streets of Kathmandu.

Nepal’s poverty cries out for revolutionary change

Nepal is an impoverished country of 29 million people that until recently was ruled by a feudal monarchy dominated by the huge capitalist state of India to its south. Only 10 percent of Nepal’s population has access to electric power. More than 85 percent of the people live in rural areas without running water or basic sanitation. Malnutrition is rampant among children and at least one-third of the population lives below the official poverty line. While literacy runs a little less than 50 percent, it is only 39 percent among women. Meanwhile, Nepal’s infant mortality rate currently exceeds 63 deaths per 1,000 live births.

Nepal ranks among the 50 poorest countries in the world. The poor living conditions have fueled the militant consciousness of the masses and paved the way for revolutionary forces to enjoy a mass base of support for the armed struggle launched by the CPN-M in 1996. In light of the accomplishments of the revolutionary forces in providing for the basic needs of Nepal’s suffering people, it comes as no surprise that many in Nepal’s ruling parties are hesitant to compete with the CPN-M at the polls on a level playing field.

Source: Workers World, October 14, 2007

INDIA-CHINA PERSPECTIVE: NEPAL’S FALTERING PEACE PROCESS

Jan Sharma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Telegraph Nepal, October 17, 2007

Nepal Maoists start anti-Dalai Lama campaign

In a significant development, Nepal's Maoist guerrillas are mounting a campaign against the Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama. The Janadisha daily, the Maoist mouthpiece that reflects the party's views, said that a secret meeting had taken place in the Kathmandu valley to plan strategies for an anti-China secessionist movement from Dharamshala. Dharamsala, in Himachal Pradesh state in India, is where the Dalai Lama has his government-in-exile, which is not recognised by any country. The front-page report Monday, with a photograph of the red-robed Dalai Lama, said China's growing interest in Nepal's political developments had made "some forces" apprehensive, and they were trying to foment anti-China activities. It said that last month Christian groups from nearly 20 countries had held a nine-day conference at a resort in the valley.

It alleged that though the conference was ostensibly called to discuss religious issues, it meant to add momentum to the movement to free Tibet from China. Buddhist monks from India, Nepal, Japan, the US, Britain, Germany, Uganda, France, Israel, Argentina, Chile, Iraq and Tibet took part in the meet, it said. According to the report, the participants discussed fomenting a secessionist movement in Tibet so that Beijing would become preoccupied with retaining the annexed kingdom. This would enable India and the US to intervene in Nepal. Despite pledging commitment to multi-party democracy, Nepal's Maoists remain anti-religion, following the way of northern neighbour China. Maoist chief Prachanda has ruled out allowing the office of the Dalai Lama's representative in Kathmandu to re-open, saying his party would not condone any action that could displease China. Ironically, it was King Gyanendra, whom the Maoists opposed, who ordered its closure. The new government adheres to the China policy formulated by the royal regime even while it has overturned the king's other policies.

Last year, when the Maoists signed a peace pact mediated by India, they said they wanted the same harmonious relations with both their immediate neighbours, China and India. But since they quit the government, the Maoists have started hardening their stance towards Nepal's southern neighbour. They have flayed the recent visit to Kathmandu by India's special envoy Shyam Saran, who asked the government to hold the stalled general election at the earliest and not to abolish monarchy through a vote in parliament. The rebels have called his comments naked intervention by India. India's diplomatic policy towards Nepal has been floundering since it helped a multi-party government end King Gyanendra's regime and come to power. China, on the other hand, enjoys the best possible relations with Kathmandu though it supported the royal regime and sold it arms and ammunition to hunt down the Maoists.

Source: Hindustan Times, October 16, 2007