Page 1 of 2 Nepal rhetoric warms to violence By Peter Lee
Nepalese Maoists have been conducting a month-long mass action to capitalize on
their plurality in the Constituent Assembly and to achieve state power. At the
end of November, it appeared that the Maoists were poised to succeed as the
result of a deal struck with their leader, Prachanda, and Girija Prasad
Koirala, the elder statesman of the leading democratic party, the Nepali
Congress.
The deal collapsed because of a rebellion inside Koirala's party.
Since then, the political situation has taken a lurch for the worse, courtesy
of India's unwillingness to see a hostile Maoist government take over Nepal and
tilt its foreign policy away from New Delhi and toward Beijing.
It appears inevitable that Nepal's slow-burning political crisis will
gain heat as a proxy struggle between India and China for the upper hand.
Today, with the encouragement of India - and, apparently, the endorsement of
the United States - the anti-Maoist attitudes of the main democratic parties
have visibly hardened.
Active Indian backing is necessary if Nepal's government is going to disregard
the battle-hardened Maoists' superior military, political and propaganda
capabilities, and ignore the rather dismal and blood-soaked performance of
Nepal's army in battling the insurgency.
China, which as recently as two weeks ago was anticipating the return of the
pro-Chinese Maoist forces to power, must now decide what assets, if any, it can
deploy to counter India's moves in the Himalayan republic.
The Maoists, who have devoted 15 years to the insurgency and its political
endgame, are not sitting on their hands. As they see the opportunity closing
for peaceful seizure of power with the acquiescence of the democratic parties,
they are threatening an escalation of pressure beyond the current round of
largely non-violent mass protests.
There is talk of provocative declarations of local autonomy and establishment
of parallel governments in districts under Maoist control on December 11,
followed by a national bandha or general strike, if the Maoists'
parliamentary agenda is not met.
This could easily be construed as a violation of the shaky Comprehensive Peace
Agreement (CPA), which governs dealings between the democratic parties and the
Maoists, and signal a return to the insurgency.
In an effort to put their squabble with the government on a more revolutionary
footing, and as a demonstration of the powerful and frequently violent forces
at work in Nepal, the Maoists orchestrated the move of thousands of landless
squatters onto a tract of real estate abutting a highway near the far-western
district of Kailaali.
The national government responded by sending in the police, clearing the camps,
and burning 1,500 shacks to the ground. During the operation, at least four
squatters and one policeman were killed, giving the Maoists another
justification for another nationwide bandha and a high-profile grievance
that might lessen the onus on them for undermining the CPA.
Politicians of the democratic parties in Kathmandu are increasingly vocal in
their unhappiness at having to defer to the Maoists and their supposed popular
and reformist/revolutionary mandate. There are calls for the army and even a
restored monarchy to put the Maoists in their place.
The leader of the anti-Maoist block in the Communist Party Nepal (United
Marxist Leninist - CPM-UML), K P Oli, is openly daring the Maoists to return to
the insurgency. [1]
"If you think that your rebellion was Great and Glorious why don't you re-enter
the Jungles and if you do so then the county will not lose any anything [sic],"
Oli suggested bluntly to the Maoists' at the weekend when addressing his own
followers. "What a double standard ... the Maoists teach their cadres to make
sacrifices yet the leaders live a luxurious life."
Oli is closely identified with Indian interests inside the CPN (UML). His "make
my day" anti-Maoist bravado indicates that New Delhi is preparing itself and
its allies inside Nepal for armed hostilities with the Maoists.
In a move that appears very much in line with Washington's efforts to reassure
New Delhi that it is not in Beijing's pocket by adopting a pro-Indian tilt in
Afghan and South Asian affairs, the US Embassy in Kathmandu publicized on
Saturday remarks critical of the Maoists by its charge de affaires, Randy
Berry, the new US ambassador having not yet taken up his post, with a press
release stating:
According to the US embassy here, [Berry] also
expressed concern that recent Maoist actions, such as the on-going obstruction
of parliament, the planned declaration of "autonomous states", and the
continuing seizure of crops and land throughout Nepal, are inconsistent with
the stated Maoist commitment to the peace process, the rule of law, and
democratic practices.
To be sure, India is the dominant factor
in Nepali internal politics as well as its foreign relations. If India favors
armed confrontation with the Maoists, there is a good chance Nepal's otherwise
risk-averse democratic parties would go along.
New Delhi is openly encouraging the current government to import arms from
India and muscle up against the Maoists, thereby providing a riposte to the
perpetual threat of a resumed Maoist insurgency - and also exposing China to
Kathmandu's politicians as a distant and ineffectual participant in Nepalese
affairs.
Arms sales are a significant statement in Nepalese politics, indicating both
the government's geopolitical tilt and the imminence of counter-insurgency
activity (needless to say, Nepal's army is incapable of national defense
against either China or India and is only deployed in United Nations
peacekeeping operations or against domestic enemies).
China usually comes out the loser in these contests.
In 1989, India imposed a crippling economic blockade on Nepal, partly in
retaliation for King Birendra's new-found assertiveness in considering arms
purchases from Beijing. As a result of the subsequent domestic unrest, the king
was forced to surrender his absolute powers and Nepal became a constitutional
monarchy.
When King Gyanendra purchased Chinese arms in an unsuccessful attempt to tamp
down the Nepalese Maoists (who at the time were considered by New Delhi to be a
useful pressure point against the uncooperative Nepalese monarchy) in 2005,
India brokered an alliance between the democratic parties and the Maoists that
culminated in the collapse of the monarchy.
Reviewing the Nepalese government's current request for military assistance
from India, the Telegraph Nepal commented:
While India wants to teach a
lesson to the Maoists now, for their excessive hobnob with the Chinese regime,
the domestic pro-India politicos favor importing arms from India to downsize
the Maoists. They have had enough of Maoists' repeated threat for resorting to
arms ...
The fresh import of Indian arms, as India calculates, by Nepal will have two
pronged targets: the first being the taming of the Maoists and the second to
send some political signals to Nepal's Northern neighbor which has of late made
a place for itself in Kathmandu's politics.
The Indian
government also agreed to assist in the "construction" of an airfield in the
heart of Maoist-controlled territory in the district of Surkhet. There is
already an airfield at Surkhet - one of the three permanent airbases used by
the Nepalese army - so it is more likely that the current airfield is being
upgraded.
The only real business of the air arm of the Nepalese military is operations
against the Maoists. Upgrading the airfield at Surkhet looks like a way of
putting the Maoists on notice that the government is planning for increased and
improved air operations if and when the insurgency resumes.
In the unlikely event that the Maoists go ahead with their threat to declare
autonomous local governments, construction of an airfield on behalf of the
Nepalese central government by Indian contractors in a Maoist stronghold -
perhaps even defended by India's Indo-Tibetan Border Police, the same outfit
that protects Indian projects in Afghanistan - might be an interesting riposte
to the Maoist program of local autonomy.
An ironic twist to this tale of escalating aggressiveness towards the Maoists
comes with leaks concerning the agenda of Nepal Prime Minister Madhav Kumar
Nepal's planned visit to Beijing in late December.
The prime minister is reliably anti-Chinese and, in clear contrast to
Prachanda's unprecedented decision during his brief term as prime minister to
make Beijing the destination for his first state visit, Nepal made the more
customary pilgrimage to New Delhi before checking in with his neighbors to the
north.
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
