Delhi durbars come under Maoist fire

Sudeshna Sarkar

Kathmandu, June 7: A series of meetings between top Indian officials and leaders of two of Nepal's biggest political parties in New Delhi has given rise to deep unease among Maoist guerrillas here, with their chief Prachanda lashing out at "Indian interference".Maoist supremo Prachanda, who was touring the Terai plains as top leaders of his rival Nepali Congress and Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (UML) were in New Delhi to attend a conference of MPs from South Asia, Wednesday accused India of trying to suppress the Maoists by playing a divide and rule game."India has no right to say which Nepali parties should come close or which ones to stay away from," the Maoist leader said.The anger was caused by a meeting Tuesday between Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and UML chief Madhav Kumar Nepal, who was also accompanied by two former deputy prime ministers, K.P. Oli and Bharat Mohan Adhikari.

The Maoists are smouldering at the Indian prime minister reportedly urging close ties between the UML and the Nepali Congress, two of its biggest rivals in the upcoming November elections.Though Maoist MP Dinanath Sharma is also taking part in the parliamentarians' conference, he had not been included in the meetings between UML leaders and the Indian authorities, including Congress president Sonia Gandhi and External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee.The Delhi meets come at a time there has been a fresh war of words between the Maoists and Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala.Earlier this week, Maoist cadres handed over to the police a businessman wanted for nearly a year for defrauding a bank of about Nepali Rs.200 million.The "arrest" of wanted businessman Sitaram Prasain, who is considered close to Koirala's Nepali Congress party, triggered an angry reaction from Koirala, who called the cadres of the Maoist Young Communist League the 'Young Criminal League'.

The comment has given rise to widespread anger and criticism, both among the Maoists and the public, who are accusing Koirala of shielding corrupt businessmen.Maoists MPs Wednesday threw a challenge to the prime miniser in parliament, saying he should ban the YCL if it was a criminal organisation, or else, apologise.Information and Communications Minister Krishna Bahadur Mahara, who is both the government spokesperson as well as one of the top Maoist leaders, said Koirala's comment smacked of bias towards criminals.The growing rift between the prime minister and the Maoists may have growing implications in the days to come, especially since Nepal is in the process of amending its new constitution.Once the amendment comes into force, the prime minister can be removed if two-thirds of the MPs support a no-trust vote.The king, whose powers and privileges have been suspended by the new statute, can also be removed by a two-third majority vote and Nepal be declared a republic well ahead of the November election, an action that the Maoists are gunning for.

Source: IANS, June 7, 2007

Peace process Need for an independent monitoring body

Birendra P Mishra

The peace process has been going on without any kind of monitoring. The constitutional assembly (CA) was accepted as the meeting point of the insurgents and the government. But the prospect of CA polls still hangs in the air. The last meeting of the eight-party alliance (May 31) has authorised the government to fix a date no later than December 15, 2007. Originally, the CA polls were to be held by mid-June. Later, it was changed to June 20. Who is to be blamed for such frequent changes?The Maoists declared a three-month-long ceasefire on April 26, 2006 after the King’s midnight proclamation on April 24, 2006, ceding all his powers and reinstating the House following the 19-day people’s movement. The government reciprocated the Maoists’ move by declaring an indefinite ceasefire on May 3. The government and the Maoists formed their Negotiating Teams (NT), which signed the 25-point Ceasefire Code of Conduct on May 26. Subsequently, the NT formed the National Monitoring Committee for Ceasefire Code of Conduct (NMCC) on June 15, which was reconstituted on June 26 with the fixing of its Terms of Reference and Powers.

The main function of the NMCC was to monitor the activities of the warring sides — the government and the Maoists — and report them fortnightly. Significantly, the NMCC had to transcend the limits set by the 25 points as its very preamble directed the NMCC to act in a way that the ceasefire was to be transformed into lasting peace and problems were to be solved only through dialogue. It was quite specific about the commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, International Human Rights Laws and other fundamental human rights doctrines and values. The NMCC was asked to abide by the spirit of the 12-point understanding, 8-point agreement and any agreement to be signed in the future.

The NMCC had to go beyond human rights monitoring as it had to see to it that the ceasefire agreements were not breached and the two armies not allowed to resort to guns again and spoil the peace process. Moreover, there were rights organisations, both national and international, to monitor the human rights violations, hence reducing the responsibility of the NMCC. The NMCC could submit only three reports incorporating the weaknesses of the government and the Maoists to the NT.

As per the agreed upon provisions, the NT had to form a joint committee to study and act upon the reports of the NMCC. But unfortunately it was not formed even till the last date the NMCC was supposed to work up to despite its repeated verbal and written requests. The Maoists were insisting on the implementation of the 8-point agreement saying that they would dismantle the people’s courts and stop abduction and extortions when the political issues were settled. Ultimately, the NMCC resigned en masse finding no place for it in the proposed Peace Accord and subsequently the NT dissolved it.

The peace process took a concrete shape with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) on November 22, 2006, replacing the Ceasefire Code of Conduct signed by both sides on May 26, 2006. With the signing of the epoch-making CPA the peace process began to move forward. It took nearly six months to sign the CPA. As per the agreement reached by the eight parties on November 7, 2006, the CPA was to be signed by November 16, the Interim Government (IG) to be formed by December 1, the Interim Constitution (IC) to be finalised by November 21 and the Interim Legislature (IL) to be formed by November 25. Regretfully, all these could not happen as stipulated in the meeting, and the dates were rescheduled. Accordingly, the first stage of the peace process was to commence with the constitution of an IL, the second was the adoption of the IC and the last was the formation of the IG. The first two stages were completed on January 15, 2007, one after another about one and a half months behind schedule as the eight-party alliance signed the IC only on December 16, 2006. The leaders of the eight-party alliance formed the IG three months later on April 1, 2007, after signing of a Common Minimum Programme (CMP).

It is apparent that there has been unusual delay at every stage and there is no independent monitoring body to assess the delay and pinpoint the weaknesses of the alliance partners or the government or any other institutions. Interestingly, the CPA does not envisage any independent monitoring body. The NHRC has been assigned to monitor the violation of human rights with the help of international and national human rights organisations. It is urgently required to have an independent monitoring body, which should be beyond the influence of the government. Such a body will definitely be able to dispel the doubts or uncertainty over the CA polls and the forward movement of the peace process.

Source: The Himalayan Times, June 7, 2007

Nepal Media Still Under Fire: RSF

Kathmandu, June 7More than a year after the fall of King Gyanendra's absolute regime, Nepal's press continues to be under fire from armed groups, media watchdog Reporters Without Borders said.The attacks have intensified in the Terai plains in the south, the epicentre of fresh unrest in a kingdom bedevilled by a 10-year communist uprising and decades of political instability, where at least 72 journalists have been assaulted or threatened since January, the Brussels-based watchdog said in a statement issued on Wednesday.

Expressing alarm at the continued attacks on the media, especially with elections scheduled for November, the press freedom organisation urged the eight-party government to ensure security for journalists.'This is alarming,' it said. 'Armed militants are harassing journalists with the aim of silencing them or turning them into propagandists. The authorities, especially the interior and information ministries, must do everything possible to put an end to this climate of open hostility.'The government has a duty to ensure that the press is able to work, especially in the run-up to elections.''Death threats have become commonplace in the southern provinces,' the media organisation said.

The media watchdog has also come down on the Maoists, now part of the government, saying their youth wing, the controversial Young Communist League, has been reported to be involved in harassing a journalist working for Nepal1, last month.It also cited at least three instances of journalists being harassed without any group taking responsibility.'Journalists think they bear the hallmarks of Maoist groups,' Reporters Without Borders said.The group said it was particularly calling on the minister to 'quickly intercede with all affiliated organisations in order to get them to stop the attacks and threats against journalists'.

For 15 months from 2005, when King Gyanendra seized power with army backing, Reporters Without Borders had marked Nepal as one of the bleakest places for journalists with a high incidence of arbitrary arrests, closure of critical media organisations and a draconian ban that prevented journalists from criticising the royal family or the royal government.Though the royal regime ended due to a public uprising and the new government pledged to restore media freedom, the emergence of new dissenting groups now poses a fresh threat to the media.

Source: The Himalayan Times, June 7, 2007

One Year After King's Rule, Nepal Media Still Under Fire

More than a year after the fall of King Gyanendra's absolute regime, Nepal's press continues to be under fire from armed groups, media watchdog Reporters Without Borders said.The attacks have intensified in the Terai plains in the south, the epicentre of fresh unrest in a kingdom bedevilled by a 10-year communist uprising and decades of political instability, where at least 72 journalists have been assaulted or threatened since January, the Brussels-based watchdog said in a statement issued late Wednesday.

Expressing alarm at the continued attacks on the media, especially with elections scheduled for November, the press freedom organisation urged the eight-party government to ensure security for journalists.'This is alarming,' it said. 'Armed militants are harassing journalists with the aim of silencing them or turning them into propagandists. The authorities, especially the interior and information ministries, must do everything possible to put an end to this climate of open hostility. 'The government has a duty to ensure that the press is able to work, especially in the run-up to elections.'

Though the Maoists signed a peace pact with the government last year and joined the ruling alliance in April, formally signalling an end to their armed revolt that has killed over 11,000 people, their success with the gun has inspired the emergence of new armed groups in the Terai, some of whom are led by their former comrades.Nearly nine armed groups have become active in the plains, continuing the extortion, abduction and killings once started by the Maoists.Journalists are especially vulnerable in the plains where the government has little control.'Death threats have become commonplace in the southern provinces,' the media organisation said.

In one of the most recent cases on June 1, members of the Jantantrik Terai Mukti Morchha (JTMM), a band of former Maoists, threatened the employees of two private radio stations -- Narayani FM and Radio Birgunj -- for not broadcasting any reports about a closure enforced by them.Earlier, the faction took under their control two journalists of the Auzzar National Daily, Rajendra Rai and Dewaan Rai.'In some cases, they criticise journalists for producing reports that highlight their abuses,' Reporters Without Borders said. 'In other cases, their motive for attacking journalist is the lack of coverage of their activities.'

The Madhesi Janadhikar Forum, a group that calls itself unarmed and this month began talks with the government, has been branded as the most aggressive towards journalists. 'It alone has been responsible for at least 16 cases of threats or violence against journalists since the start of the year,' the statement said.'Its members attacked reporters Ram Sarraf, Dhruba Sah, Bhuwan Jha and Kiran Pande in January and threatened to kill any journalists who tried to cover the rioting then taking place.'The Forum, however, says it is a victim of biased reporting by the Nepali press dominated by people from the hill community, who have been exploiting the plains people and ignoring their plight.

The media watchdog has also come down on the Maoists, now part of the government, saying their youth wing, the controversial Young Communist League, has been reported to be involved in harassing a journalist working for the Indian TV channel, Nepal1, last month.It also cited at least three instances of journalists being harassed without any group taking responsibility.'Journalists think they bear the hallmarks of Maoist groups,' Reporters Without Borders said.The statement comes at a time Nepal's Information And Communications Minister Krishna Bahadur, who is also the government spokesperson, belongs to the Maoist party.

The group said it was particularly calling on the minister to 'quickly intercede with all affiliated organisations in order to get them to stop the attacks and threats against journalists'.For 15 months from 2005, when King Gyanendra seized power with army backing, Reporters Without Borders had marked Nepal as one of the bleakest places for journalists with a high incidence of arbitrary arrests, closure of critical media organisations and a draconian ban that prevented journalists from criticising the royal family or the royal government.Though the royal regime ended due to a public uprising and the new government pledged to restore media freedom, the emergence of new dissenting groups now poses a fresh threat to the media.

Source: News Post India, June 7, 2007

India caught in a ring of fire

Dhruba Adhikary

KATHMANDU - Reflecting growing anxiety in New Delhi about ongoing conflicts in the neighborhood, a leading Indian publication, India Today, led its May 28 edition with a cover report headlined "Neighbors on fire". Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal are four countries covered by the magazine. Although they are very much part of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), the publication has conspicuously left out three countries: Afghanistan, Bhutan and Maldives. Perhaps New Delhi thinks these three can't afford to antagonize the rulers of India.

Political instability of an unprecedented kind has gripped the South Asia region, and the reasons for this range from armed insurgency to communal animosity and political obduracy thereof. Fears are being expressed that rapidly unfolding events and trends might place the basic principle of - and popular faith in - democracy at risk. Does India, the world's largest democracy, stand to gain from such a scenario? How will it be useful to India, not very far from China, to watch transparent political systems turning into opaque regimes in countries in its vicinity? Anyhow, when its immediate neighborhood is on fire, what should be India's reaction?

New Delhi, of course, could take some pleasure if it were discreetly assisting those responsible for setting the fires in the neighborhood. The other alternative, as the publication suggests, is to start worrying about the fallout for South Asia, where India is a dominant power. "India must ensure," said Aroon Purie, the chief editor of India Today, "that it plays a part in making sure its neighbors are able to put out their fires." In other words, India should help neighbors to help themselves - confine its role to that of a facilitator. It should play the role of mother India, not that of a big brother. But it seems unlikely the Indian establishment will do this, and New Delhi is sensitive whenever issues in public debate involve the Ministry of External Affairs and the Ministry of Defense.

This is explained in a book, Making News, published in 2006. In a chapter contributed by Rajdeep Sardesai, a noted television journalist, there is a description of how journalists who do not want to toe the official line have to run the risk of being called anti-nationals. He tells how journalists are expected to "follow hook, line and sinker what the ministry is saying". Unlike other issues, matters involving foreign relations are not regularly discussed in Parliament. Officials find it expedient to convince their political masters that it is beneficial to keep issues in the domain of external relations and diplomacy secret, in effect taking the agenda away from the public on whose behalf the government is expected to be working. This is what India is today, decades after renowned American scholar John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006) said India was a functioning anarchy. (He also served as US envoy in New Delhi under president John F Kennedy.)

India Today has culled the opinions of experts criticizing the authorities for "ad hoc-ism". One is Brahma Chellaney, a strategic analyst, who said, "It is odd that Delhi does not have a clear neighborhood policy." It means that India has conducted its relations in the neighborhood in a haphazard manner without any coordinated, clear-cut policy since it ceased be a British colony in 1947. These include the wars with Pakistan, the clash with China, support to the movement to "liberate" Bangladesh, the annexation of Sikkim, and the landing of Indian troops in Sri Lanka to protect the Tamil population. And, in a more recent case, pitting Maoists, democratic parties and the monarchy against one other - thereby destabilizing Nepal. Indian Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon admitted, in front of a New Delhi audience on April 10, that South Asia "remains one of the least integrated regions in the world".

Should not India, the largest country in the region - and currently the chair of the SAARC - do some introspection where its measures have failed to create a conducive atmosphere to build "interdependencies", as Menon alluded to in his speech at the Observer Research Foundation? There is a need for dispassionate study to find out why India's relations with Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal have remained less than cordial. Surely, India alone cannot be right and others all wrong. As has been pointed out by experts - and tacitly admitted by authorities - New Delhi is working without a policy on its neighborhood. It ostensibly is guided by assumptions, presumptions, perceptions and intelligence reports that are inherently flawed because of preconceived motivations. Menon, as quoted by India Today, said diplomacy "is to get other people to do what I want but get them to think that I am doing what they want".

Since Menon is the head of India's diplomatic service, it would be fair to assume that the country's envoys - be they in South Asian capitals or elsewhere - perform their roles on this basis. This leads one to consider what Indian Ambassador Shiv Shankar Mukherjee in Kathmandu - and in the border town of Birgunj - has been doing. In earlier times, the Maoist leadership waging a war against the Nepali government was led to a believe that Delhi was acting for their benefit. Once the Maoists decided to join mainstream politics and become a part of Parliament as well as the government, Indian diplomats found it expedient to entice one or two breakaway Maoist factions and extend them support, on the basis of which they have launched a separatist movement in the southern plains called Terai. One of the leaders at the forefront of this "Madhesi" movement, Upendra Yadav, is a Maoist renegade who in 2004 was arrested on Indian territory with two of his comrades.

New Delhi quietly handed over the two to Nepali authorities but set Yadav free while he was still in Indian territory. There is a widely held perception that Yadav, who physically resembles the people of the nearby (to Nepal) Indian state of Bihar, is being used to sustain a hate campaign against Nepalis of "hills" origin. This is presumed to be based on an Indian interpretation that most Maoists are of "hills" origin, and that by getting them evicted from the plains India can keep its porous borders safe and also prevent the Maoist movement from spreading to adjoining Indian states. Clearly, it is an attempt to create a buffer within a buffer - which is Nepal. It is becoming clear that Yadav is being groomed to take a role akin to that of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam leader Vellupillai Prabhakaran's in Sri Lanka.

If Prabhakaran can obtain Indian support for his fight for a separate Tamil state, Yadav's expectations for similar support from New Delhi for a "Madheshland" look logical. Some analysts tend to see these initiatives as an example of the double standards that India has applied for decades, citing military repression in Kashmir, the northeast and elsewhere to quell separatist movements. The Indian stand on the Maoists has been inconsistent. When the Indian Foreign Office was led by Jaswant Singh, New Delhi labeled the Maoists as terrorists. Later, it reversed this approach and started to assist them, despite their violent methods. More than 13,000 lives have been lost in the decade-long insurgency that began in 1996.

Yet New Delhi was instrumental in making them a party to a 12-point agreement with the Nepali Congress-led front of seven political parties. One agreement led to another, and eventually the Maoists fully joined the constitutional process, finally becoming a part of the interim government on April 1 this year. But now India sees them as a deadly menace, a sort of Frankenstein's monster. But the stinging question is: Who supported them so that they could be where they are now? The Maoists have ambition, as is evident from this observation of top Maoist leader Pushpa Kamala Dahal, aka Prachanda, reproduced in the May 18 report of the International Crisis Group: "Even if we are a small country in South Asia, we think our revolution can have impact all over the world."

Prachanda stresses the "great" experiment Nepal is about to undertake, saying that the country will be a beacon of hope for the rest of the world. Communism may have died elsewhere, and the Shinning Path movement in Peru isn't there to provide them inspiration any longer, but Nepali Maoists claim that they have become a force to be reckoned with. In a broader context, Indian is jittery over possible Chinese inroads into Nepal through the Maoists; here the interests of New Delhi and Washington converge. That the United States and India consult on Nepal has been made public by their officials on numerous occasions. In response to a US Congress committee query on March 22, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice conceded that "our closest international partner in working on affairs in Nepal is India".

She also described Nepal's conditions as "somewhat tenuous", at the same praising her ambassador, James Francis Moriarty, for his performance in Nepal. Rice's remarks serve as an indicator that Moriarty and his Indian counterpart Mukherjee are working in tandem. Their frequency of visits, conducted separately, to the residence of interim Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala create enough room for conjecture that the external influence on crucial decisions he makes is pervasive.

Apparently, Delhi has argued with Washington as well as with countries in the European Union that they should remain in touch with the Indians whenever the West intends to make substantive offers to Nepal. The reason: it is India that has to face the resulting consequences, pick up the pieces. Moriarty and Mukherjee could, if they wanted, have met Koirala and the chief of the Nepal Army, General Rookmangud Katawal, at the same time. Analysts say Mukherjee wants to protect himself from embarrassment because the government in India is based on a coalition to which communist parties provide important support.

This leaves the task of condemning Maoist violence to Moriarty, who receives condemnation for being the meddlesome ambassador of an "imperialist power". Maoist leaders no longer publicly denounce India, which used to be seen as an "expansionist power". (In private conversations, the Maoists, like any other political leaders, resent New Delhi's growing interference in Nepali politics.) In the words of analyst Upendra Gautam, the Americans' approach to issues is usually direct and straightforward - they say what they accept and what they reject. The Indian style is different, and it is often difficult to fathom what New Delhi means or wants.

"There is a visible lack of sincerity as well," Gautam said, referring to the usual Indian hesitation in implementing various agreements on trade, transit and water resources with Nepal. Gautam also agreed with those who think that while the Indians and Americans may be working jointly to contain China, India often goes further and goads the US to do things for which it has to face public anger. One recent incident in eastern Nepal provides an example. Outside a Bhutanese refugee camp, Moriarty faced a stone-throwing crowd he had gone to meet to make an offer for resettlement of about 60,000 refugees. Mukherjee, on the other hand, has not encountered any hostility, although it is his country, India, which has assisted the Bhutanese royal regime in evicting the more than 100,000 Nepali-speaking Bhutanese nationals who have taken shelter in United Nations-run camps since the early 1990s. (The diplomatic corps in Kathmandu issued a statement last weekend expressing concern for the safety of diplomats accredited to Nepal.)

A news report published in The Australian newspaper on April 12 said the central plank of India's impatience and concern stems from a perception that the Chinese influence on Nepal is on the rise - not only through the Maoists, who have joined the government, but also by China's reported interest to extend its Tibetan railway to Nepal. Since India enjoys a close and improved relationship with China, especially after Beijing recognized Sikkim as a part of India, there is apparently no ground for New Delhi to be over-sensitive. Meanwhile, Nepal remains politically unstable as interim government leaders and feuding political parties work overtime to find a date for proposed November elections for a constitution-making assembly.

There are rumors that New Delhi is contemplating sending in troops, as it did in Sri Lanka in the 1980s. Speculation also includes a possible bid to dispatch Indian soldiers under UN command. But there are hurdles. How will, for instance, the 50,000-plus Nepalis currently employed by the Indian Army react when they know that their motherland is being invaded by Indian forces? Observers mention such aspects to discount fears of direct military intervention by India, also because the mission to Sri Lanka turned out to be a fiasco (and led to the assassination of prime minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991). The other important deterrent is China, which obviously does not want to see undesirable activities in a country bordering Tibet.

Beijing's concerns of instability in Nepal may not be found in the daily media, but it would be wrong to presume that the Chinese are indifferent toward happenings in the vicinity of Tibet. Unlike India, China does not take too much interest in who comes to power in Nepal; its policy has been to deal with whoever has been accepted by the people of Nepal. In the past, China maintained contacts with the monarchy; since April 2006 it has worked with first the caretaker and then the interim government headed by Koirala. In a concomitant gesture, China changed its ambassador after Nepal's interim constitution in effect suspended King Gyanendra by way of transferring his official responsibilities to the prime minister.

By directing its new ambassador, Zheng Xianglin, to present his credentials to Koirala (April 19), Beijing issued a pithy message that its past linkage with the monarchy was not a permanent one, or that it would go against the wishes of the Nepali people. Zheng became the first ambassador accredited to Nepal to break the tradition of seeking an audience with the king for the said purpose.In addition, Beijing has invited Koirala to pay an official visit to China, this is likely to be next month. Meanwhile, a number of delegations, including official ones, have arrived from China in the past few months. And a senior member in the Maoist hierarchy, Barshaman Pun (aka Ananta), has been to China twice in the past six months. Media reports said in recent weeks that if approached by Nepal, China could make arrangements for a limited supply of petroleum products for Nepali consumers who have to date been fully dependent on supplies from India. Some of these developments seem to have set off jitters in New Delhi, prompting it to look for alternatives.

What could these be? First, India has to develop an integrated foreign policy for the neighborhood with a specific pledge to support democratic processes in all countries. Second, it needs to stop getting involved in internal political competitions, and develop friendly and transparent relations with governments elected by the people. Third, it could lift all restrictions on trade and transit facilities and begin treating neighbors on the basis of equality and respect. By taking such measures, India would win the goodwill required to project itself as a genuine regional power. This is preferable to entertaining the idea of coups to install "friendly" regimes.

Source: Asia Times, June 6, 2007