Maoists isolated over army chief By Dhruba Adhikary
KATHMANDU - Peace accords ended Nepal's jungle warfare in 2006, but former
Maoist rebels and the national army continue to clash. The latest evidence
being Prime Minister Prachanda's bid to sack the incumbent army chief on
charges of disobedience.
There is speculation that a section of the army could retaliate with move
amounting to a "soft coup". Some of the media have referred to a model
Bangladesh applied to prepare for a fresh elections late last year.
Much of what happened in the preceding week compelled Prachanda to postpone an
official visit to China that was to start on May 2. On Saturday, he summoned
the Chinese ambassador, Qui Guohang, to his residence and told him about his
inability to
embark on the trip for the time being.
The Maoist leadership was expecting the visit to be a rewarding one, as
Prachanda and his comrades believed the occasion would give them a chance to
improve ties and dispel Chinese suspicions over the Maoists' closeness to New
Delhi.
Prachanda himself had earlier admitted that he spent eight of the 10 insurgency
years (1996-2006) in hideouts scattered across India. Besides, Indian External
Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee's claim earlier this year that the Nepali
Maoists rose to power due to New Delhi's support has not been effectively
challenged by the Maoist leadership.
Currently, all of Nepal's politics - the left, right and center - have
concentrated on the national army. The party which sits on the opposition
benches in parliament, the centrist Nepali Congress, has vowed to continue
preventing regular house proceedings until Prachanda withdraws measures aimed
at removing General Rookmangud Katawal from the post of army chief.
There is resistance from other smaller parties. Even the main partner in the
interim coalition, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist -
UML), remains ambivalent about the Maoist determination to dismiss the army
chief.
Media reports say the Maoists are keen to appoint present deputy chief, General
Kulbahadur Khadka, to the post of chief in the belief that he would work
positively towards the planned integration of former rebels into the national
army. And unless he is promoted, Khadka is due to retire next month.
The Maoist-led government's intentions to sack the incumbent army chief became
palpable when he was served a notice to submit a written explanation, in 24
hours, as to why he disobeyed the orders issued by an elected civilian
government. The government perceives him as one of the main obstacles to their
proposed integration of former Maoist combatants, which number about 20,000 and
are currently sheltered in United Nations-supervised cantonments.
One of the three instances where the army chief allegedly erred is related to
the recruitment of about 3,000 soldiers to fill the army's growing list of
vacancies. Maoists argued that the peace accords did not permit the Nepal Army
to recruit new soldiers until the ongoing peace process was completed. The
issue later reached the country's Supreme Law Court, which approved the
recruitments made up to that time. To the Nepal Army, it is a settled case.
The second point, involving the army chief's recommendation to give three-year
extensions to eight retiring officers of brigadier's rank, is a sub judice
case (under the court's consideration). The third dispute is related to a
national sports event at which a Nepal Army-affiliated team staged a boycott
because the organizers admitted a Maoist team through Prachanda's peremptory
order at the last minute.
Katawal's submitted an explanatory note promptly. But the Maoist leadership
found it unsatisfactory. The general's contention that he could be dismissed
only by the president of the republic - who has to play a constitutional role
in the appointment of the Nepal Army chief - angered top Maoist leaders. Some
of their pent-up resentment spilled over into the public domain through both
print and electronic media.
Some of Prachanda's party colleagues have found it expedient to prove that
political parties claiming to have democratic credentials do not support the
idea of civilian supremacy over the armed forces in the state structure. The
Maoists have also expressed their displeasure over unnecessary interest shown
by some of the Kathmandu-based diplomatic missions.
Prachanda has invited top diplomats of eight from among two dozen missions to
tell them that all he wanted was to take action against one recalcitrant
officer, and that he did not intend to disturb the institution of Nepal Army.
Interestingly, while most of those present, including the Chinese and American
envoys, agreed that it was Nepal's internal challenge, the Indian ambassador
ostensibly had a different view.
Ambassador Rakesh Sood, who had earlier held separate meetings with Prachanda,
left for New Delhi for urgent consultation. An Indian Embassy media advisory on
that day, April 23, suddenly announced the cancelation of an event where Sood
was to meet Nepal's Minister for Water Resources Bishnu Paudel. The embassy
advisory did not provide any reason.
Maoist spokesman Dinanath Sharma told parliament on Sunday that Nepal's
sovereignty was in "serious danger" due to excessive external interference.
In between, Prachanda repeatedly met President Ram Baran Yadav, who urged him
to apply restraint to salvage the ongoing peace process. The prime minister's
party apparatus, however, remained unconvinced. Public utterances of some top
Maoist leaders offer a good indication of the scale of pressure from his party
Prachanda is bearing.
Finance Minister Baburam Bhattarai, who is one of Prachanda's senior deputies,
went to the extent of issuing a threat that the Maoists would quit the
government if they were not allowed to sack the army chief. This is a loaded
threat to indicate that they would re-start their armed insurgency.
To the Maoist party, it is a matter of prestige. And the party's rank-and-file
is purportedly dissatisfied and some of them tend to describe Prachanda as a
weak leader, uncharacteristic of the person heading a revolutionary party.
The emerging scenario is, political analysts say, a disturbing one. With the
Nepal Army in a visibly defiant posture and a revolutionary political
leadership poised to take drastic actions against it, the country is being
pushed, even if unwittingly, to the precipice.
"A new phase of conflict seems inevitable," said analyst Anaar Singh Karki. Who
among the immediate neighbors stands to gain by letting Nepal fall into turmoil
is a question that is exercising the minds of Karki and a number of
compatriots.
Meanwhile, the task of drawing a new statute for which a constituent assembly
was elected in April 2008 has ceased to receive priority by the parties who
take pride in converting an established monarchy into a republic - of an
unknown kind.
Dhruba Adhikary is a Kathmandu-based journalist.
(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
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
