Page 1 of
2 Maoists face up to political
reality By Dhruba Adhikary
KATHMANDU - The choice of April Fool's Day
or All Fools' Day appeared unintended, but Nepal's
first interim government with Maoist participation
could turn out to be a bad joke.
It is
unclear whether a new chapter has actually begun,
as claimed by re-elected Prime Minister Girija
Prasad Koirala; it is equally uncertain whether
the landmark event will eventually turn out to be
"historic", as claimed by Maoist leader Pushpa
Kamal
Dahal
(aka Prachanda).
In 1990, under similar
circumstances, the government then-king Birendra
constituted on April 1 lasted for only six days.
Pro-democracy demonstrators suspected a king-size
conspiracy to deprive the people of their civil
rights and carried forward their agitation until
their demands were met later that year.
The situation this time, a year after an
uprising in April 2006, is qualitatively
different. The challenges are formidable and
varied, ranging from converting Nepal into a
secular republic to addressing the demands of
women, ethnic/sub-ethnic groups and those who
belong to the country's southern plains, called
Terai.
That Nepal should now opt for a
federal system and offer autonomy to provinces
formed on an ethnic basis and on regional
aspirations are issues that, if not tackled
conscientiously, could lead to the disintegration
of the country.
Many blame the Maoists for
issuing slogans that sound catchy but are
unhelpful in preserving Nepal's unity in the face
of its ethnic diversity. King Gyanendra, who is
currently a "suspended" head of state under an
interim charter enacted on January 15, has to take
his share of the blame. Had he agreed to restore
the democratic rights of the people he snatched
through a coup in February 2005, last April's
uprising would not have gone so far and created
room for new demands. These included the abolition
of the monarchy, removal of Nepal's identity as
the world's only Hindu country, and insertion of a
legal provision requiring the state to transform
itself from its unitary character to a federal
structure.
"It is still debatable whether
Parliament had the mandate to declare Nepal a
secular state," Devendra Raj Panday told the
Kathmandu Post newspaper. He was alluding to a
declaration the interim parliament adopted last
May 18. Panday, a former minister, currently leads
a citizens' movement that monitors the activities
(or lack of them) of the political parties.
Panday's view broadly represents opinions of those
who are keen to see Nepal as a republic, but are
in favor retaining the country's Hindu identity.
They cite a 2001 census indicating that more than
80% of the population follow the Hindu religion.
One other issue that the controversial
declaration included (and subsequently
incorporated in the interim charter) relates to
the government's proposal to liberalize
citizenship laws, thereby opening the door for
millions of Indian migrants to qualify for Nepali
citizenship. It is a belief that Koirala agreed to
back the proposition to drop Nepal's Hindu
identity on the suggestion of a powerful Western
lobby, and listed the subject of liberalized
citizenship laws at the behest of India. Two of
India's most populous states, Bihar and Uttar
Pradhesh, share a porous border with Nepal.
A panel of eminent citizens is already
working to force the government to cancel all
citizenship certificates issued after the adoption
of the controversial declaration made through the
interim parliament. "A mass awareness campaign to
foil the 'demographic invasion' from the south has
become a must," said analyst Madan Regmi, who is
also associated with the panel.
Ever since
they launched their "people's war" in 1996, Maoist
leaders have told Nepalis about their dream to
make a "new Nepal". What does it exactly mean?
Does it mean a truncated country? In the absence
of any credible scheme for a federal state, the
Maoist leadership's ability to convince the public
is rapidly receding. And some prominent ethnic and
regional groups have gone to the extent of
accusing the Maoist leadership of outright
deception.
And the tendency to express
wrath through violent attacks is on the rise. An
incident in the border town of Gaur in the
southern plains, for instance, on March 21
resulted in the deaths of 29 Maoist cadres and
sympathizers. Their leaders in Kathmandu alleged
that a splinter group carried out the assault,
using armed goons hired from across the border in
India.
Anyhow, the peace accords and
concomitant undertakings finally paid dividends
for the Maoists. On January 15, they took a
sizable number of seats in Parliament, and on
April 1 they became the eighth party of a ruling
alliance, securing five of the 22 ministries
through which the government functions.
Despite strong reservations from the West,
particularly the United States and the European
Union, Koirala formed the interim government just
hours before he left for New Delhi to attend a
summit of South Asian countries. While Maoist
ministers headed toward their assigned ministerial
offices, US Ambassador James Moriarty's office
issued a statement extending full support to the
peace process, simultaneously expressing doubts
about the Maoists' sincerity. This is how the
statement read, in part: "The Communist Party of
Nepal (Maoist), which to date has refused to
abandon violence, must finally do so. As a partner
in the interim government, the Maoists must now be
held fully accountable for their actions."
Recently, a senior US diplomat, Richard
Boucher, met with Koirala during a regional
conference in New Delhi and shared his view that
the Maoists, although a part of the government,
could not be trusted yet. "Our stance on the
Maoists has not changed," Boucher said. The
Maoists are still on the US watch-list of
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
