Rise of a party

MALLIKA ARYAL

In 1997, a group of madhesi intellectuals and students banded together to discuss their concerns and issues. There was no formal membership in this Biratnagar-based group and participants included leftists and members of other mainstream parties. The common denominator was their disenchantment with the big parties and the sense that their debates were largely ignored. The Madhesi Janadhikar Forum soon emerged as the most-respected, representative platform for madhesi issues.

In the same year, the Maoists celebrated their first anniversary underground by intensifying their struggle in the mid-west, Nepal had three unstable coalition governments, and the human rights situation deteriorated as scores were detained by the state. Ten years later, the Maoists have entered into the peace process, and the MJF has turned relatively violent. Both, however, are now registered as parties with the Election Commission and much of the fight for influence in the madhes is between these two fronts.

Insiders tell us that the Maoist leadership was sympathetic to the Forum at the start, and even instrumental in organising it. Around 1999 Upendra Yadav, then a regular member of UML, started becoming closer to the Maoists. In February 2004, Upendra Yadav, Maoist leaders Matrika Yadav and Mohan Baidya were arrested in Delhi. Upendra Yadav was let go after a couple of months, while Matrika Yadav and Mohan Baidya were handed over to Nepali authorities and were released in 2006. Those close to Upendra Yadav say that during the time of his arrest he was already trying to distance himself from the Maoists because of discrimination he felt in the ranks within the Maoist hierarchy and because he did not agree with the Maoist plan to divide madhes into ‘Madhes Autonomous Region’ and ‘Tharuwan Autonomous Region’. Vijay Kant Karna, chairperson of Jaghrit Nepal says, “No one was happy in the tarai with the Maoists because they called it Madhes Government but high ranks in their party were given to pahadis.”

After the 1 February 2005 royal takeover Upendra Yadav and Jaya Prakash Gupta, former general secretary of the MJF and present Nepali Congress MP started travelling back and forth between India and Nepal to prepare for a movement in Nepal. After last year’s April Uprising Upendra Yadav returned to Nepal and in the eight months after Jana Andolan II, the MJF had successfully held meetings in almost all the districts of Nepal. Since then, the forum and Yadav have been accused of both flip-flopping and forming alliances with Hindu fundamentalist groups in India, such as the Rastiya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). In December Yadav attended a meeting of rightwing Hindu groups in Gorakhpur and spoke out publicly about making Nepal a Hindu nation again. A month later he was leading the movement for a secular federal republic.

He can be highly influenced by others,” says Nepali Congress MP Amresh Kumar Singh, adding, “If you try to play with all the powers, you forget the cause you were fighting for.” Like most madhesi leaders who do not actively profess membership in the MJF, Singh too is said to have had a falling out with Yadav. Jaya Prakash Gupta, who is close to Yadav, says the accusations of alliances with the palace and Indian fundamentalist groups are misguided. “If mainstream political parties meet with big Indian leaders, no one calls that an ‘unholy alliance’,” Gupta told us from Biratnagar. Gupta said that since Gaur, Yadav has not been allowed to move freely or explain “his side of the story”.

That Gupta and other moderate madhesi leaders took a careful line on Gaur while speaking to us is an indication of the pan-madhesi appeal that the forum still has. On the one hand, they argued, Gaur was ‘retaliation’ for months of harassment and disruption of MJF meetings by the Maoists Tarai Mukti Morcha. On the other, most admit it was a tactical mistake. “If the MFJ had been willing to sit for talks right after the Madhes Uprising, they could have bargained their way into more madhesi representation and investigations of Lahan and Nepalganj, and pressured the prime minister to implement the promises made during his second address,” says Chandra Kishore, editor of Terai News Magazine in Birganj. “Now, after Gaur, everyone fears the forum as a criminal organisation.” Sarita Giri of the Nepal Sadbhawana Party-Anandi Devi, says the MJF is not in the least militant. “They are not armed, Gaur was retaliation against the Maoists because they had disrupted their activities in Bhairahawa and Nepalganj,” she argues.

Meantime, there is said to be a few faultlines showing in the forum, one between the more left-wing members and Yadav, and the other between Yadav’s supporters who believe this was the right time to register a party and Gupta’s group, which argues that fundamental issues need to be settled before deciding to contest elections. There are signs of a split in the ranks—an insider tells us that of the 25 members in the working committee, only 13 members’ names were on the list given to the Election Commission during registration. Gupta pooh-poohs this and says that though his proposal lost out, he will support the MJF as a party. Yadav gets the most publicity, but there are other prominent figures in the forum, such as veteran leftist leader Sitananda Raya, and MJF secretary general Ram Kumar Sharma. There are two vice chairmen Bhagyanath Gupta, a professor at Birganj’s Thakur Ram Bahumukhi Campus, and Kishore Biswas Tharu, a former member of Nepal Sadbhawana Party. “As a political party our agenda is pretty clear—we want democratic system of governance, autonomous federal structure, proportional elections, and we want Nepal to be a republic” says Jitendra Sonal, MJF’s secretariat member. Analysts say that given the lack of commitment seen on the part of the government to resolving madhesi issues, the MJF as a political party could take off stronger than those who call the forum irresponsible might imagine.

Source: Nepali Times, May 18, 2007

PLA should be inducted into security force: Madhav Nepal

General secretary of the CPN-UML Madhav Kumar Nepal said on Friday problems will arise if Maoist combatants are kept in cantonments for long."The combatants can be integrated into national security wings. Border security force or industrial security force can also be created to absorb them," he said.The registration and verification process of Maoist combatants and their arms would have been easier had the parties agreed to the one-man-one-weapon principle as suggested by security experts, Nepal said while releasing a book entitled "Shanti Vrta: Anterkatha" authored by journalist Subhas Devkota."Following the eight-point agreement on June 16, 2006, Maoist chairman Prachanda had agreed to the one-man-one-weapon principle. He had put the strength of People's Liberation Army (PLA) at 10 to 12 thousands. But they later invited youths to join the PLA as time elapsed," Nepal said.

Nepal urged the parties to speak clearly on monarchy and give others no room for suspicion. He reiterated the party's stance that there was no alternative to proportional representation system of election to address the issues of Madhesis, Janajatis, women and Dalits. He also urged the Maoists to return the seized property and abide by the rule of law.Devkota said he tried his best to cover the untold stories of the entire peace process, including the 12-point understanding, in the book.Dr Shekhar Koirala, Nepali Congress central leader and close aide to PM Girija Prasad Koirala, however, claimed that the peace process had moved ahead faster than had been expected initially.He also admitted having political deadlock among the eight parties when they were close to declaring the date for the constituent assembly election. "Such problems do arise when we reach close to our goals," Koirala said, adding that parties would sort out their differences amicably.

Koirala said the king's power can be further curbed by if the strength of the army deployed inside the Narayanhiti Royal Palace is halved and Gyanendra's property held in the capacity of the king and assets belonging to late King Birendra, Aishworya and their families are nationalised.He also suggested forming a high-level commission to recommend the type of federalism for Nepal. He said concrete measures should be taken within a month to ameliorate the plight of Maoist combatants living in camps.He suggested that top leaders of the eight parties should come up with a package solution to all the pressing issues.

'OLD COMMUNISM OBSOLETE'KATHMANDU: Nepali communist parties should adopt democratic norms and pluralism in keeping with the ever-changing society, Nepal said on Friday. "The conventional communism has become obsolete now," he said at a programme organised by the Madan Bhandari Foundation to commemorate the 14th death anniversary of CPN (UML) leaders Madan Bhandari and Jibraj Ashrit. Nepal said it will be wise to strike a balance of power among various political parties. He called on the Maoists to put people at the centre. — HNS

Source: The Himalayan Times, May 19, 2007

Nepal’s Maoists: Purists or Pragmatists?

Nepal’s Maoists have changed their strategy and tactics but not yet their goals. In 1996 they launched a “people’s war” to establish a communist republic but ten years later ended it by accepting multiparty democracy; their armed struggle targeted the parliamentary system but they are now working alongside their former enemies, the mainstream parties, in an interim legislature and coalition government. Their commitment to pluralistic politics and society is far from definitive, and their future course will depend on both internal and external factors. While they have signed up to a peaceful, multiparty transition, they continue to hone alternative plans for more revolutionary change.

Maoist strategy is shaped by a tension between purity and pragmatism. Although they stick to certain established principles, they have long been willing to shift course if they identify strategic weaknesses. Their changed approach was demanded by recognition of three critical flaws in their original plan: (i) they concluded their belief in military victory had been misplaced; (ii) they acknowledged they had misread the likelihood of determined international opposition; and (iii) they woke up to the failures that caused the collapse of twentieth-century communist regimes.
Despite having an authoritarian outlook, the Maoists maintained a culture of debate within their party; key issues have been widely discussed and hotly contested. From the end of the 1990s, they have moved gradually toward a more moderate stance. They changed positions in acknowledging the 1990 democracy movement as a success (they had earlier characterised it as a “betrayal”), in abandoning the immediate goal of a Mao-style “new democracy” and, in November 2005, by aligning themselves with the mainstream parties in favour of multiparty democracy.

Despite having an authoritarian outlook, the Maoists maintained a culture of debate within their party; key issues have been widely discussed and hotly contested. From the end of the 1990s, they have moved gradually toward a more moderate stance. They changed positions in acknowledging the 1990 democracy movement as a success (they had earlier characterised it as a “betrayal”), in abandoning the immediate goal of a Mao-style “new democracy” and, in November 2005, by aligning themselves with the mainstream parties in favour of multiparty democracy.

The Maoists have cultivated formerly hostile forces, such as the Indian government and the staunchly anti-Maoist Communist Party of India (Marxist), to the extent of alienating their foreign allies. Supporters such as the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement and Indian Maoists had backed their insurgency but have been vocally critical of the compromises made in the peace process. They think their Nepali comrades have betrayed fundamental principles and thrown away the practical advantages they had secured through their armed struggle.

For Nepal’s Maoists, however, the balance sheet at the end of ten years of “people’s war” is more complex. They believe they have secured some lasting advantages, from their own dramatic rise to influence (with a support base and military force hardly imaginable in 1996) to their reshaping of the national political agenda (promoting formerly taboo causes such as republicanism and federalism). But the course of the war persuaded most of their leadership that they could not go it alone and would have to be more flexible if they were to build on these gains.

The peace process has forced practical and theoretical rethinking. Leaders have tried to present a more moderate image as they balance complex equations of domestic and international support and opposition. Maoist ministers have to cooperate with colleagues from other parties and work with the bureaucracy even as they plan a possible insurrection and plot to isolate “regressive” opponents. Ideologically, they define the peace process as a transitional phase in which they can destroy the “old regime” and restructure the state. They justify this by saying their acceptance of a bourgeois “democratic republic” is only a stepping stone on the way to a true “people’s republic”. Leaders argue that they can create a new form of “peaceful revolution” that is true to their communist aims but reflects the reality of Nepal’s politics.

It is tempting to brand the Maoists as either rigid radicals or unprincipled opportunists but neither characterisation explains the whole picture. Their threats to revert to mass insurrection satisfy traditionalists in their own movement and cannot be ignored. But leaders who have fought hard to forge a new approach will be loath to turn their backs on the hard-won advantages they have secured through compromise. They know they face internal opposition but believe they can hold the line as long as the peace process maintains momentum and allows them to achieve some of their headline goals.

Their likely behaviour as the process moves forward, therefore, will depend upon the role of other political actors as much as their own decisions. If the mainstream parties keep up a strong commitment to the constituent assembly process, the Maoists will find it hard to back out. If this route is blocked, the Maoists may find their effort at controlled rebellion slipping into renewed conflict beyond their leaders’ control. If this were to happen, the Maoists themselves would be big losers. But so would the democratic parties and, even more so, the people of Nepal.

Source: Abstract from International Crisis Group, Report on Nepal, May 18, 2007

Nepal again heads for constitutional crisis

Chitra Tiwari

Nepal is heading toward a constitutional crisis June 15 after Chief Election Commissioner Bhoj Raj Pokhrel notified the interim government on April 12 that the commission would be unable to hold elections to a Constituent Assembly for lack of election laws and other technicalities. He asked that the elections be held 110 days after June 14, the date specified by the interim constitution for holding the elections. No new date for the elections has been announced, nor has there been any attempt to amend the interim constitution to allow for a new date. Proceedings of the Legislative-Parliament have been disrupted for more than a month by Madheshi legislators representing southern Nepal near the Indian border, and also by Maoists.

Madheshis live in the flatlands of southern Nepal, a region called Madhesh. They are fighting for equality in Nepal's government and society. While the Maoists have returned to the legislature seeking immediate declaration of a Nepal republic, the Madheshi legislators disrupt proceedings with demands to cancel the Election Constituency Delineation Commission (ECDC), announce the date for the Constituent Assembly elections, and a new census in the Madhesh region, among other issues. Consequently, the interim Eight-Party Alliance (EPA) government that includes the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), formed April 1, has become an April Fool's joke, and seems ready to collapse June 15 when its term ends. The Maoists don't want to be fooled, and their leader, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, also known as Prachanda, says eight-party unity has crumbled, because its basis was the commitment of the other parties -- especially the Nepali Congress party that heads the coalition government -- to hold elections to a Constituent Assembly within the constitutionally scheduled time frame.

Last Sunday, thousands of Maoists and their supporters formed a 3-mile-long human chain around Singha Durbar, a palace that houses the offices of Cabinet ministers as well as the Legislative-Parliament, seeking the immediate declaration of a republic by parliamentary decree. Participants turned over a petition with 1.5 million signatures to House Speaker Subash Chandra Nemang, demanding the immediate declaration of a republic. Prachanda, the Maoist leader, says the new basis of eight-party unity must be an agreement to have the Legislative-Parliament declare Nepal a democratic republic and then set the new date for elections. However, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala insists that declaring the republic must be left to the first session of the Constituent Assembly, as stipulated in the interim constitution.

The politicians are blaming each other for the government's failure to hold elections by the agreed date. All the leftist parties, which make up a majority in the interim legislature, accuse Mr. Koirala, 85, of dillydallying for fear his party will emerge from the elections in the minority because of the growing leftist influence in Nepal. His supporters say the Maoists are no less responsible for the government's failure to hold the elections because of their failure to abide by agreements to return the seized property of those who supported the royal regime. Under the 12-point agreement between the seven parties and the Maoist rebels, signed in New Delhi in November 2005, the Maoists agreed to return properties seized "in an unjust manner." What is a "just" or "unjust" manner remains a subject of debate. Local Maoist cadres have refused to return the seized properties of several hundred rich landowners, but allowed small landholders to return to their villages.

The Maoist rank-and-file say distributing land of rich landowners was a way to empower the landless poor, and so returning the land to its previous owners will disappoint their constituency, make the people feel cheated, and might lead them to switch sides, reducing the support base of the party. They have begun asking their own leaders how could they kill the spirit of the revolution by returning the land?

Nepal watchers say that with the exception of Mr. Koirala, who continues to insist the elections will be held sometime in November, all other parties and civic leaders now suspect the election of a Constituent Assembly will never take place -- recalling that a similar promise in 1951 never materialized, because of monarchical machinations.

Barsha Man Pun, also known as Ananta, deputy commander of the Maoist People's Liberation Army, threatened on May 5 that if there cannot be Constituent Assembly elections, and the Legislative-Parliament fails to declare the country a republic, "We, too, are not bound to stay in cantonments or continue to stick to our previous agreements."

Analysts say declaring Nepal a republic through parliamentary decree requires a political will on the part of the Nepali Congress party, but its leader, Mr. Koirala, is speaking tongue-in-cheek because of his love for ceremonial monarchy, since the latter could be an effective shield for Mr. Koirala's party against the communists. In fact, the late B.P. Koirala, founder of the Nepali Congress party, the first elected prime minister in 1959, and elder brother of the current prime minister, realized this long ago when he said that his and the king's neck were "welded together." Constitutional analysts say the interim constitution needs to be amended right away to allow the government to fix a new date for Constituent Assembly elections and to allow the Legislative-Parliament to abolish the monarchy. Maoists think they see a conspiracy in delaying the elections hatched by "international forces in league with domestic monarchical reactionaries placed within the seven parties." They think the intent is to keep intact the network of monarchical old boys and characterize Mr. Koirala as the long hand of the United States.

Meanwhile, civil unrest and violence in the countryside are on the rise, prompting the U.S. State Department to issue a travel advisory on May 7, saying: "Violent clashes between Maoists and indigenous groups have taken place in recent months in the Terai region, along the southern border with India, in one case resulting in 27 deaths. Ethnic tensions in the Terai region have spawned violent clashes with police, strikes, demonstrations and closures of the border with India. The U.S. Embassy strongly recommends against non-essential travel to this region. Clashes between Maoists and groups who oppose them also recently have extended into Katmandu." The ethnic civil unrest has spread throughout Nepal, a country inhabited by nearly 90 ethnic groups. A coalition of hill tribes has demanded federal restructuring of the state on ethnic lines, with the right to self-determination and proportional representation in the interim constitution before elections to the Constituent Assembly. It has called for nationwide protests starting May 17 and a general strike on June 1, 10 and 11.

The Madhesis have been agitating since mid-January, demanding autonomy. They have clashed with police as well as former Maoist militias now called the Young Communist League (YCL). The clashes have claimed nearly 60 lives, including those of 27 Maoists, and damaged Nepal's economy. Analysts say the peace process in Nepal has become a hostage of the government's failure to hold elections. The Maoists have refused until Nepal is declared a republic to cooperate the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) for the second stage of verification of their cadres, a new date for election is scheduled, living conditions in the U.N. supervised cantonments are improved and salaries and job guarantees to the combatants are assured. The U.N. representative Ian Martin says the Maoists' obligation to allow verification is unconditional and that the UNMIN cannot accept its linkage to any precondition. Analysts say the rising civil unrest, political bickering, parliamentary disruptions, and a decreasing level of political communication within the Eight-Party caucus indicate a diminishing chance for elections to a Constituent Assembly anytime this year. The situation appears to be ripe for yet another uprising that could settle the leftover issues of last year's unfinished revolution, namely, abolition of the monarchy and the passing of power to the Maoists, now rechristened "republican democrats."

Source: The Washington Times, May 19, 2007

Prachanda to talk with PM regarding monarchy's future

Maoist chairman Prachanda has said he would hold talks with the prime minister regarding declaring the country a republic from the House before the eight party meeting gets underway.
He said this while talking to reporters in Pokhara Friday where he is currently in to garner support for the republican proposal that Maoist MPs tabled at the parliament last Sunday .
"Except Nepali Congress (NC), other parties have already agreed to declare the country a republic from the house," the Maoist supremo told Kantipur daily, adding that he would talk with the PM about this issue after he returns to Kathmandu.

If congress (NC) agrees, then the institution of monarchy would easily be abolished, he added.
He also warned that if NC declines to declare the country a republic then the Maoists would take to the streets to step up pressure on the government for it.
During his stay in Pokhara, Prachanda had also met CPN-UML leader Bamdev Gautam and held discussion on a broad range of issues including establishing a republican set up and forging a leftist alliance. Prachanda is due to arrive in Kathmandu today.