Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Lilamani Pokharel For Continuous Movement


I just got off the phone with Lilamani Pokharel. I must be getting a reputation among these seven party top dogs.

This was the first time I ever talked to Pokharel. He has the reputation of being an intellectual. He lived upto it. I mean, these are people I have been meeting in the newspapers for a long time now. And now I am working with them.

My first curiosity with him was to do with the 12 point agreement between the Maoists and the seven parties that is the talk of the town. (Prachanda Statement) I told him I saw two points of contradiction. One was that the seven parties were for House revival, and the Maoists were not. Another was that the document envisions there still being two standing armies in the country when the country goes through a constituent assembly.

He said this document was only the first step. The dialogue will go on. The understanding will be further polished. He said even on the House revival issue the Maoists were okay with the fact that we might have two different starting points as long as the end goal is a constituent assembly.

This is early stage work, he emphasized. He said it was historic that all the political forces in the country had come around to the idea of bringing an autocratic monarchy to an end. Another was that the Maoists had formally come around to the idea of peaceful contests with the other parties.

The separate tracks to a constituent assembly are not a matter of contention between the parties and the Maoists, he said. He said the biggest reason for the House revival stand was to make sure there was no constitutional vacuum when the country goes to a constituent assembly.

I honed in on this House revival issue. He confirmed my suspicions that the House issue was the pet agenda of the Nepali Congress. The other six parties are not insistent upon the idea. But all are behind it for the sake of seven party unity.

On the other hand, he said, there is a growing feeling among the seven parties that reviving the House can play into the hands of the Monarchists and those who are totally opposed to the idea of a new constitution for the country. A revived House might end up being a boon for the king, he said.

His party, the People's Front, has been for an interim government and a constituent assembly for four years now, he said. The Nepali Congress is for House revival. The UML is for an all party government. The People's Front is for an interim government. The latter two are legitimate departure points. But despite the differences the seven parties are united behind the House revival idea.

Then he uttered a sweet phrase: continuous movement. As opposed to a casual movement. I asked him to define the concept, to elaborate upon it. He talked of a total embargo of the state machinery, of bringing it to a total standstill. There would be a total mobilization. It would be a daily movement, not just a movement where you show up one afternoon a week for a mass meeting.

I strongly feel the seven parties need to come around to this idea. Only such a movement will unseat this regime. Ladies and gentlemen, meet Gyanendra.

I asked why the UML and the Congress have been holding separate mass meetings. Is that a show of disunity among the seven parties? He said that was not the case. This was early stage, and they needed to do that to mobilize their cadres. But come December 10, all seven parties were going to go ahead together. Then the movement will really take off.

I asked about the February 8 elections. He said the agreement was to actively work against it. I asked if this regime can be brought down before February. He said an attempt can be made, but it would be unwise to have a deadline. He said the leaders were fully aware the king is trying to legitimize his illegitimate rule through these elections, and he is also trying to say to the world he is for democracy after all.

I asked him how the Nepali diaspora could contribute. He said you do that primarily by shaping world opinion. Spread the word. Foreign aid has to be stopped to shake this regime. Economic sanctions have to be looked into.

Then he uttered another sweet phrase. He mentioned moral as well as logistical support was needed. I have been in disagreement with those who think only moral support is needed. I informed him of the efforts already underway at this end. I suggested we build a formal structure between the seven parties and the diaspora efforts to raise funds. He said he will get to it right away. It has to be a seven party thing.

He said the seven parties are helping the Maoists shed the terrorist tag. That is a major achievement.

Then I inquired upon his personal health because I had read in the news reports after he got arrested after 2/1 that he was having issues. He said working on his health and working on the movement had to go together.

Phone Talk With Madhav Nepal, Hridayesh Tripathy
Prachanda Audio Interview, A First

The 12 Point Agreement Succeeds The 4 Point Program




Audio Video
Logistics To Bring Down The Regime
Madhesi
Dinesh Wagle, 7 Leaders, 27 Questions
Roadmap
The Endgame
3 Scenarios
Gameplan

After the 12 point agreement became public, Moriarty went to meet Madhav Nepal in person. He wanted to know if the Maoists say one thing when talking to the parties and another when talking among themselves. That is a valid concern, and I am glad at least someone is asking such questions. What do I think? I don't think that is happening. It is not that the Maoists are hiding things. It is more that we have not been paying enough attention to all they have been saying. So even the misgivings I have now I get them from statements the two top Maoists have made recently and stand by them.

This 12 point agreement has to be seen as a milestone. This agreement succeeds the 4 point program of the seven parties. But this is not the final agreement. A lot of homework remains doing. (Phone Talk With Madhav Nepal, Hridayesh Tripathy)

Too many people though do not realize how historic this agreement really is. For the Maoists to take a leap from the goal of a communist republic to that of a democratic republic is huge. As early as this year, Baburam Bhattarai ran afoul of his party's leadership when he suggested the party shoud perhaps move towards the goal of a democratic republic. He was sent into "protective custody" for "purification." I think it is remarkable that the Maoists have healed that rift in such a creative way and come forth to where they are today.

Baburam: Prachanda's Best Bet, Litmust Test, And Only Option
To: Prachanda, Baburam, Mahara, Badal And The Rest Of The Maoist Leadership

There is a major difference between an armed group fighting for a democratic republic, and one fighting for a communist republic. There is a huge difference. But then the Maoists have also taken anothe huge leap. They are willing to disarm.

Like it or dislike it, but there is no denying this 12 point agreement is of a huge historic importance. All those who made it possible have to be commended. They have done some very difficult work in some very difficult circumstances.

Another key point is that this is still very much work in progress. This is the first step. There will be several more steps. You have to take into account the backdrop.
  1. The Nepali Congress was for a constituent assembly five decades back. But that was then. This past decade it has been opposed to the idea. Or the insurgency might have seen a positive outlet back in 1999, perhaps.
  2. The seven parties formally came openly for a constituent assembly only after 2/1. The Nepali Congress did not ditch its House revival stance, but it expanded its agenda by accepting the idea of a constituent assembly.
  3. For the first half of this year, the Nepali Congress and the UML were not even willing to touch the Maoists with a barge pole. There was this huge mistrust. Now they are talking.
  4. The UML is officially for a democratic republic. The Nepali Congress is no longer tied to the idea of a constitutional monarchy.
The key point is that progress is being made. You have to commend the progress made so far. That helps. That makes it possible for more progress to be made.

Just like the 4 point program became a 12 point agreement. Now that 12 point agreement perhaps has to be turend into a 10 point agreement. The best thing that could happen is if the Monarchists were to join the conversation. But right now I am not counting on that. The pressure has to be built for that to happen. And if enough pressure is built, there can be a positive resolution even if the king does not budge. (Pyramid Of 10 In Kathmandu)

In the next round of talks, I think the seven parties and the Maoists should both seek to compromise some more. The parties should let go the House revival stand. The Maoists should agree to integrate the two armies before the constituent assembly elections not after.

If the two forces were to take that additional step, then it becomes less important as to what the king does or not.

Prachanda Audio Interview, A First
Baburam Bhattarai Interview
Prachanda Statement

Prachanda:
What we have been saying is after the constituent assembly election results are out, according to those results, the two armies should be integrated, and one unified army has to take shape.

Human society develops through such revolts. Hundreds of thousands have been sacrificed in other circumstances. This can not be measured emotionally, it has to be measured scientifically, factually.

Baburam: The 12 point agreement is a high point of the last 50 years of the democracy struggle in Nepal.

This agreement is a beginning. A greater understanding will be furthered through dialogue down the line.

As far as the House revival stance is concerned, that is from so far back it time, a revived House will create problems more than offer solutions. There are no legal and constitutional options, there only are political and revolutionary solutions left. If the seven parties are honest about going to a constitutional assembly, there are no legal ways to get there. We should instead be looking at an interim constitution and an interim government.

We are committed to accepting the verdict of the constituent assembly.

A People's War is a people's way of getting its rights. If such a war will stay relevant or not depends on how successful the people will be in achieving the rights. After all rights are achieved, the war comes to a halt. It can take shape again down the line in another form if the need might arise. That is the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line and we are committed to it.

We are committed to a democratic republic framework after the demise of the feudal monarchy and its mercenary army.

Our party has never talked of a one party dictatorship.

The Maoist People's Liberation Army has to be accepted as the legitimate army of the state.

Our attempt is to have a joint revolution.

We are not going to compromise on anything less than a democratic republic.

We launched the revolution with one rifle 10 years back. Today we have seven divisions.

Where we differ with the parties is that we think there will be state repression on peaceful protestors, and when that happens we would want them to pick up arms. Let that be absolutely clear.

This is no longer the time to be talking to the king. Now is the time for a decisive struggle.

There never has been any "peaceful transformation" in world history and there never will be. The old has to be destroyed, the new has to be created. Use of force becomes necessary. This is true for both the physical and the social worlds. The quantitative transformation is peaceful, but the qualitative transformation is always violent. Our cadres are capable of both.
Our party unity has attained new heights.

The 12 point agreement is along the lines of our 40 point demand from 1996.

12 Point Agreement: The agitating seven political parties are fully committed to the plan to reinstate parliament whose decision will lead to the formation of an all-party government, hold talks with the Maoists and go for an election to a constituent assembly...... The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has made the commitment to organise a national political convention of democratic forces. The meet should decide on the formation of an interim government and hold elections for a constituent assembly to achieve the agreed goal.


There has been an understanding on keeping the Maoists’ armed forces and the Royal Nepali Army under the supervision of the United Nations during the elections of the constituent assembly, conduct elections in free and fair manner, and accept the results of the elections—all these after an end of the autocratic monarchy.

Prachanda in 2000: From a practical point of view, the People's War in Nepal is contributing to making and accelerating this new wave of revolution. And it is contributing to the organization of the international communist movement on a Maoist basis. And Maoism should be the commander of this new wave of world revolution. The People's War in Peru has done a good job of establishing Maoism. We also think that the RCP,USA has done a good job, ideologically and politically, to fight against revisionism and establish Maoism. And our party and the People's War in Nepal is also accelerating this process. (RW ONLINE:Red Flag Flying on the Roof of the World)

In The News

Govt. asks Radio Sagarmatha not to re-broadcast BBC NepalNews
UN OHCHR to monitor UML rally
Maoists attack MI-17 Chopper of RNA
Court orders Radio Sagarmatha to resume transmission
Thapa warns government of severe consequences
BBC 103 FM returns to airwaves
CPN-UML warns Govt. of ICC action
Maoists express commitment to multiparty democracy
Issue passport to women without discrimination: SC
Their Majesties inspect Nepali peacekeeping force in Burundi
Banned Nepal station back on air BBC News, UK
Court victory for Nepal's women BBC News, UK
Royalists Not Keen to Resolve Maoist Problem: Nepal NewsLine Nepal, Nepal
Communist Party of Nepal (UML) requests the UN body to monitor the ... United We Blog, Nepal

The Four Major Powers India, China, America And Dipta


Dipta Shaha is someone I personally know. He was a few years junior to me at high school. And I also bumped into him at the ANA convention in Washington DC during the summer of 2002. And we exchanged pleasantries like always. I have always liked him personally, and we have always been just fine between us. And by now he has some pretty impressive degrees in international relations. And I respect that. And I have refrained from locking horns with him, although I have read several articles of his that have been from across the aisle this year. I have been less careful about another Shaha, Shaubhagya. But now is the time to change gears. This is a difference in opinion, not a personal attack.

Ahobhagya Shaubhagya: Confusion InThe Monarchist Camp
Shaubhagya Shah: Autocracy 101 At Harvard

This article by Dipta in Scoop is lucid. It exhibits a depth of knowledge and a grasp of nuances of global politics that I wish were being put to the service of the democratic cause, but they are not.

Dipta can not deny the historic, positive importance of the 12 point accord between the Maoists and the Democrats, and he does not, but he is offended that it came about, and he is even more offended that Indian mediation might have made it possible. As in, Dipta loves the outcome but is offended by the process. That fundamental contradiction is what throws water over the promise of the article.

Would Dipta have liked it better if the mediation work instead had been done by the king and his people? Would he? Well, the king and his people still can if they want to. It is the king who does not know the ways of dialogue. He lacks democratic political skills. He can not listen. He can not make room. It is his feudal rigidity that has been responsible for much of the bloodshed in the country.

But it is not too late still. The king can still come to the table. He can still hold an open, unconditional dialogue with the other two forces in the country. But then he does not even recognize the Maoists as a political force. The huge power that Dipta describes India to be does, but the king does not. That is to be in denial. How is it possible to reason with someone in such a total denial?

China is not a pro-king power. I say that because China is not going to be hostile to the all party government. It is not going to be hostile to the democratic government. China has tried its best to stay neutral. China's foreign policy is economic pragmatism more than anything else.

America is not a pro-king power. It is just that it has been scared Nepal might become a Cambodia. And there have been times when I have felt those potential trajectories myself. Make no mistake, these Maoists have meant business. And it is precisely that American fear - call it the Moriarty fear - that should make you commend the leaders of the seven party alliance who have managed to get the Maoists to formally come around to the idea of a multi-party framework. That is a huge ideological shift that has been made. And it could not have been possible without dialogue and engagement. You can not responsibly like the outcome and denounce the process.

And India is not an anti-Nepal power. If it were, why would it make such an important contribution to peace in Nepal?

Nepal is not its king. Nepal is the people of Nepal. All world powers live by that premise. Nepal is so strategically unimportant to the big powers of the world, it provides for a wonderful opportunity to them to show off their idealism. So when America, and Europe and India say democracy for Nepal, they actually mean it. They are not after Nepal's gold.

India's case is slightly different. If Nepal were to turn into a Rwanda, or a Cambodia, that would become the biggest headache India as a country ever had in its five decades. Would you rather wait for that to happen if you were India, or would you rather maybe make it possible for the warring factions to talk to each other by looking the other way?

If the Maoists and the Demcrats talking to each other is so offensive, Bamdev Gautam met Prachanda in Rolpa. Rolpa is technically in Nepal. Could the king have prevented that meeting? Should he have?

Dipta vastly exaggerates the Indian role in the recent peace talks. India at best could have looked the other way. It did not work out all the details. Give the actors credit. The seven party leaders and the Maoist leaders who did the hard homework is who you should blame or give credit to. This was difficult work that got done. It is still work in progress.

The anti-Indianism that is the basis for the false nationalism of the Monarchists I find deeply, personally offensive. I guess I was born in India.

You know what I think? I think India is not doing enough. I think India should announce an open summit for the three forces in Nepal. If the king shows up, fine, if not it is a summit without him. That is what I think. I think India should pump a million dollars into the democracy movement in Nepal. That is what I think. Why has India been sleeping? That is what I ask.

I will go one step further. I think that summit should instead be called up by the king of Nepal. He should organize a roundtable conference of the three forces in Kathmandu. I am with you. I too am offended it might end up happening in Delhi. But if Kathmandu not be an option, I don't care if it happens in Delhi or Paris. I really don't.


The 12-Point Agenda – A Summary

By Dipta Shah

“The beginning of the end” read an article published in the Kathmandu Post. But really, “The end for whom?” questioned a friend.

Although largely speculative, an answer may be sought from the flurry of activities that have unfolded in India over the past week. With the shuttling of politicians to Delhi and the publication of the 12-point common agenda (between the 7-party alliance and the Maoists), the pieces of the puzzle are gradually coming together.

As the saying goes, “(the) beauty (of this outcome) is in the eye of the beholder.” For the Nepali people, the prospect of Maoist integration into mainstream politics is a positive outcome. After over a decade of senseless violence, at least a glimpse of peace rests on the horizon.

For the ever-agitating political parties, their claim to have brought the Maoists into the mainstream is an achievement that will partially exonerate their past ills. The long overdue “self-evaluation” undertaken and the commitment “not to repeat mistakes of the past” are appreciated. Adherence to these vows in practice will be the real test of commitment.

Although kudos my be shared by the whole 7-party alliance, Madhav Kumar Nepal in particular deserves recognition for steering this initiative to fruition. This leader’s interpretation of the attrition of his party base as the UML’s infiltration of the Maoist rank (and his determination that the Maoists can be enticed to join the mainstream) have been proven correct – at least for now.

As for the Maoists, the reduction of their demand from abolishing the monarchy to “establishing absolute democracy by ending autocratic monarchy” is a gigantic compromise. Clearly a crawl in the right direction but a fraction of the distance that must be traveled to absolve the Maoists crimes against humanity. This significant point aside, it must be said that the Maoist compromise is a positive one (if sincere).


Now, moving on to what has become the default point of deflection (rightfully or wrongfully) for all of Nepal’s woes – the monarchy.

Based off initial reports that have surfaced in the media, it appears that the 12-point agreement between the parties and the maoists has sealed the fate of the Nepalese monarch. As clearly outlined in the 12-point agreement, the certainty of an end to direct rule is evident.

However, also glaringly evident is the absence of a term that has come to symbolize the 7-party movement and one that has remained at the core of Maoist demands – “republic.” When evaluated in light of this realization, the 12-Point agreement is simply an alternative to proposed elections that the 7 Parties (for various reasons) are unable to participate in.

The agreed upon path to first restore parliament, then form an all-party government and then hold “elections to a constituent assembly through dialogue and understanding with the Maoists” is a rather long-winded plan. In a lay mans terms, this amounts to keeping the Maoists “hooked,” the monarchy in “tow” and giving the mainstream parties sufficient time to re-group and re-establish contact with their rural electorate.

Although negotiations between the Maoists and the 7-party alliance have been progressing for some time, it is not unfathomable to assume that informal dialogue between agents of the Maoists and the those of the Palace have also simultaneously progressed. As for interaction between the King’s representatives and the 7-party alliance, a recent function organized by the Carter Center, the National Democratic Institute and Liberal Democracy Nepal was a much publicized (and to a large degree), successful confidence-building event.

It takes little imagination to comprehend why certain media segments may jump to conclusions regarding the end of Monarchy in Nepal. However, this bland interpretation does not do justice to the immensely complex message encapsulated within the 1,008 word translation. It is unlikely that even 10,000 words would resemble a marginally sophisticated transcription.

So without delving into too much detail on the text of the agreement, one may start by evaluating the circumstances that culminated in the formulation of the 12-point agreement. To accomplish this, one must first evaluate the Indian psyche and its role in the events that have unfolded in Nepal.

2. The Real Party that Called all the Shots

- Dipta Shah

The fact that India has been, remains (and in all probability will remain) the greatest external influence on Nepali politics is no revelation. However, the degree to which the South Block has been active in Nepal’s politics is as ambiguous as ever.

It is natural for the external agenda of any regional power to factor prominently in the domestic politics of neighboring states. In Nepal’s context, India is no exception. What Nepalis (and increasingly, Nepal analysts) do take exception of, is the nature of India’s influence – whether the manipulation has been positive or negative.

Indian sway over political outcomes in Nepal vary significantly. Some out rightly brand Indian positions as “external interference in Nepal’s domestic affairs.” Others refer to the same as “constructive involvement of a neighboring state.”

The point here is that there are glaring ambiguities in Indian policies vis-�-vis Nepal. These inconsistencies more than justify a cautious appreciation of the regional power’s intents. Although the practice of dismissing analysis of Indian designs (as misguided nationalism) is prevalent in elite political circles, this misconception is inherently flawed and should not thwart necessary examinations.

A determination over whether Indian involvement is constructive or destructive varies on a case-by-case basis. As Nepal’s number one foreign aid donor, not all of India’s involvement deserves trepid analysis. However, where the Maoist insurgency is concerned, India’s association is complex, intricate and largely indecipherable.

Indian policies concerning Nepali Maoists are at best, schizophrenic. More precisely, Indian attitudes have been consistently and openly bi-polar.

On the one hand, India was the first nation state (even before Nepal itself) to declare the Maoist organization as terrorists. On the other, India has largely ignored Nepali Maoists operating on its soil and according to some, has openly abetted and harbored the Maoists. Reasons behind why an external and ultra-nationalistic outfit has been tolerated on Indian territory for so long, defeats rationalization.

There are ample reports of Nepali security personnel training in Indian camps that previously hosted Nepali Maoists. So when senior security personnel state that no resolution of the Maoist insurgency exists (in the absence of Indian acquiescence), they’re not “pointing fingers” or “shifting blame.” Such sentiments are completely legitimate – more so today, than they were a week ago.

On occasion, India has successfully modulated anti-Indian Maoist rhetoric by imprisoning the most radical of the bunch (C. P. Gajurel, Mohan Vaidya). Such actions have also served to assuage the perception of India’s duality (for the international audience) and sent a stern signal within the Maoist ranks that India favors a certain faction, but not the entire Maoist outfit. This was key a driver of the much publicized split within the Maoists, earlier this year.

As part of the patch-up process (within the Maoist party), meetings were held between the Maoists second man (Baburam Bhattarai) and a prominent leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Prakash Karat. Why a man with an Interpol-issued Red Corner Notice was chauffeured around New Delhi to meet with high-ranking Indian politicians is a discussion for another time. To put the issue mildly, nation states have gone to war for less.

This is not to suggest that Nepal should go to war with India, but a reaffirmation of the helplessness and frustration that Nepalis feel.

India’s treatment of Nepal’s Maoist insurgency has several interpretations. A belief is held within some circles that the regional power’s conduct is a function of it’s pluralist nature – that there is true tolerance for a range of political ideologies within the world’s most populous democracy.

By this rationale, India’s policy on Nepali Maoists is a manifestation of it’s tolerance for diversity. Apparently, even those deemed terrorists at a national level are tolerated (if the terrorized populous is non-Indian). Could India’s definition of terrorists differ for those who use terror as a tactic but uphold political change (through violence) as a strategy?? Perhaps this interpretation is why Pakistan’s refuses to recognize Kashmiri militants as terrorists.

Another interpretation is that India’s incapacity to control radical left-wing insurgencies within its own borders accounts for its inability to control Nepali Maoists also. By this logic, India is a regional power for its neighbors to reckon with and simultaneously a union of dysfunctional states that its own federal government struggles to control. India’s inability to tame its own insurgencies aside, how is it that Indian authorities could arrest some Nepali Maoists at will but not others?? And, how does one interpret the alleged presence of these “imprisoned” Maoist leaders during the talks between the 7-party alliance and the Nepali Maoists??

A third interpretation is that India by design, acts, walks and talks like a regional power – this is to say, there are parallel structures of authority within the nation state. As in the case of the lone Super Power that India attempts to emulate, India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) is called upon to execute government initiatives in times of crises. In this instance, the “crisis” faced by the Indian establishment was a measured dose of humiliation.

For a nation striving to project its prominence in global affairs, nothing hurts like a well placed snub – especially when the goading is done by a puny, insignificant country that supposedly resides within the rising power’s sphere of influence. Could it be that India’s reaction was to assert its regional power by forging an alliance between the King’s opponents??

If the answer to this question is “yes,” India has inadvertently acted in the best interest of the Nepalese people. By demonstrating its ability to coerce an agreement between the 7-Party alliance and the Nepali Maoists, India has selflessly exposed (to the rest of the world) that it has complete and unflinching control over an entire generation of Nepali politicians and Nepali Maoists. India has also left little room for speculation regarding the reason behind “coming clean” – retaliation against Nepal’s Monarch for procuring China observer status in India’s backyard..

It is very fortunate for Nepalis from all walks of life to finally witness a political event that enhances the prospects of a lasting peace. It is rather unfortunate for India’s image because the world now realizes that had India wished an end Nepal’s misery, it could have acted years ago and in the process, spared thousands of innocent lives.

That it took an act like February-1 to forge a stable alliance amongst 7 of Nepal’s political parties and a calculated humiliation of the Indian polity to force a reaction (that serves in Nepal’s best interest), is unfortunate. In fact, this sort of behavior is conduct unbecoming a regional power.

Could India’s bid (in uniting the Nepali Monarch’s opposition) have been a foreign policy blunder for the South Block? Was this outcome an unintended confirmation of General Mehta’s (a retired Indian Army General) claim that "in circumstances as that of the Maoists, government strategy is implemented through intelligence agencies and not the official channels?"

If so, how confident should India’s neighbors be, knowing that when push comes to shove, democratic Indian governments are prone to relying on clandestine agencies like RAW to execute their strategies??

Nepal’s experience with this practice will definitely resonate across South Asia – to what extent can official Indian statements be trusted when come implementation time, it is the unofficial channels that are put in motion? Where does accountability reside in such situations? Are all of South Asia’s problems really instigated at the behest of the Inter-Services Agency (as RAW would have the world believe)??

It cannot be coincidence that although “Indian intelligence established links with the Nepalese Maoists at least two years ago” (according to General Mehta), the days following the SAARC summit suddenly became the most opportune time to leverage these contacts. If there is truth to General Mehta’s claim, why did the Indian establishment wait for “at least two years” to do something about Nepal’s problem? What could possibly account for this lapse in communication between “official” and “unofficial” channels in a country that boasts the brains behind the global IT revolution?

Whatever the case may be, heartfelt gratitude goes out to the Indian government for acting in the best interest of Nepal. The envisioned outcome of February-1 may have failed to materialize in the manner intended, but thanks to our southern neighbor, there is renewed hope (with all the fundamental intact) for an end to this senseless insurgency.

3. The Voice of Reason: The United States of America

- Dipta Shah

Initial indications point out that when India decided to “shove” the Maoists and Nepali Parties together, the US prudently stepped up its moderating capacity thereby reducing the “shove” to a measured “nudge.” Had the US not exerted much needed wisdom on the Indian establishment, the haste in which the South Block proceeded to rectify damage to its image would probably have yielded an unacceptable proposition to ending Nepal’s insurgency – at least from the Palace’s perspective.

Coincidental as it may have been, Ambassador Moriarty’s visit to the Indian capital was very timely. Despite the Ambassador not having had “telephonic or telepathic” conversations with the Maoists, he is certain to have had realistic and substantive dialogue with his counterpart in Delhi. His counterpart in turn, would have likely relayed the American message to appropriate parties within the official (and more importantly, unofficial) segments of Indian polity.

The need for the US to remain involved in Nepal (even if it’s through indirect participation) is paramount. As the world’s lone Super Power, American involvement is substantively (and symbolically) important. There is no prevailing view on the situation in Nepal that is more moderately calibrated than the US position. For this reason, extremists resent and make every effort at undermining policies executed by the American embassy in Kathmandu.

Efforts aimed at belittling the outcome of confidence-building workshops held in the US (between 7-Party and Palace representatives) was a clear indication that opponents to a peacefully negotiated solution in Nepal are perennially active. Not unexpectedly, the outcome of the informal proceedings mirrored suggestions that the Americans have continually made to all power-centers in Nepal – suggestions that radicals find unacceptable.

The efficacy of American policy on Nepal is that by-and-large, it is emotionally detached. Nepal’s case is frequently highlighted in US government proceedings but because American soldiers are not in harm’s way (in Nepal), the debate is dispassionate and the outcomes, constructive.

US Senator Patrick Leahy has been vocal and rightfully disparaging of Nepal’s human rights record. His office has issued several statements critical of the RNA (Royal Nepalese Army) and the current government. The significance of these statements are reflected in tactical modifications to the existing moratorium on US arms transfers to Nepal.

However, on a strategic level, the sentiments expressed by Senator Leahy’s office (a necessary component of overall policy) are balanced by other views within the US government. The inclusion of these views completes a holistic assessment of Nepal’s plight.

These balancing views may not be as transparent for public consumption, but they are present nonetheless. More importantly, these balancing views are not contradictory to Senator Leahy’s, but re-enforce his sentiments through alternative options. Differences do not exist in the end-goals, only in the means by which these goals may be achieved. The message here is that America’s strategic vision for Nepal continues to outlive competing contemporary views.

Ambassador Moriarty has gone on record consistently suggesting that the most viable outlet to Nepal’s crisis would be a merger between the Palace and the Parties. In light of recent developments, his insistence on why this alternative should have been pursued becomes apparent. The US appears to maintain (very logically) that a sustainable negotiated solution cannot be had in the absence of the participation of all political forces – the Palace included.

While some interpret this persistence as American leniency on the institution of Monarchy, others view this as a critical, tactical component to a strategic solution. It is rather unfortunate that opponents of all forms of monarchy are quick to hail the Maoist-Party alliance, but slow to consider the consequences of such an alliance resulting from Indian pressure. Let us be clear that Madhav Kumar Nepal and the UML had likely sought such an alliance for some time now but the deal would have never materialized had it not been for Indian “encouragement.”

Having bled through Vietnam, American policy makers are acutely aware of the consequences of radical nationalism and its implications for long-term democratic polity in Nepal. That the 7 Party-Maoist understanding was forged in the supposed absence of Palace participation undeniably reduces the Royal Palace’s best alternative to a negotiated solution. This also significantly alters the construct of the potential negotiated solution itself and constricts options available to the 7-Party and Maoist leaderships. Having enacted the worst-case scenario for the King, the Parties find themselves deprived of additional options to exercise.

America is a nation that understands the value of upholding a sustained strategic vision and the need to calibrate tactical moves in support of realizing overall strategy. After all, the US Armed Forces won every single tactical battle that was fought in Vietnam but lost the war because of their inability to focus on strategic objectives. Participants in Nepal’s politics have a lot to learn from their American counterparts.

Assuming that American interests rest firmly in guaranteeing democratic discourse in Nepal, the cautionary welcome to the 7 Party-Maoist alliance expressed by the USG is understandable. The Indian government’s cautionary welcome is farcical – they should be the ones claiming the credit the 7-Party alliance is flaunting.

Events in Nepal are not likely to test the bonds of the US-Indian alliance. However, if India actions are perceived by a conservative American administration as furthering communist designs for Nepal, a departure from the US reliance on India (to execute its Nepal strategy) cannot be easily dismissed.


4. The Unspoken Voice - China

- Dipta Shah

The audacity displayed by the current Nepalese government on several fronts has raised the eyebrows of more than a few China observers. Why the Nepalese government continues to take actions that inadvertently antagonize the international community is an enigma, the key to which may lie with Nepal’s northern neighbor.

Since China has remained silent on most issues it considers the “internal affairs” of Nepal, reading Chinese policy is extremely difficult.

However, what can be inferred from statements made by Nepalese government officials is that China has taken a friendly attitude toward the current setup in Nepal. And to be sure, Nepal has returned the favor beginning with the closure of the Dalia Lama’s offices and more recently by forcing the induction of China as an observer into the SAARC community.

It is rumored that China voiced its displeasure at having been neglected during the nineties by Nepal. Although the modus operandi during the democratic years was focused on dealing with India, China’s diminishing relations with Nepal appear not to have gone unnoticed.

Despite the socio-economic revolution that has taken hold of China, the old guard remains firmly in power and many of the overarching perceptions remain unchanged. While an emerging breed of Chinese beaurecrats have learned to sophisticatedly navigate international laws and alleviate international concerns, the conservative arm of the Chinese policy machine remains alive and well and highly suspicious of American designs. This suspicion is reciprocated by a significant segment of the American government also – especially those who reject the “near-peer” theory in favor of the “rising-competitor” argument.

China’s willingness to deal with regimes regarded unfavorably by the Americans (and its strategic procurement of energy deals with traditional US allies) does not sit well with conservative elements of the US Government. Recently, a Chinese bid to purchase an American energy company (Unocal), faced stiff opposition from the US Congress and resulted in the bid being dropped. This is one of a growing list of examples where conservative American politics have reigned over economic sense.

That the two most populous countries in the world (China and India) are in a dead heat competition to acquire energy assets around the globe is one of the most talked about trends in international affairs. That Nepal is sandwiched between these rising economic powers is inconsequential except in situations that involve the analysis of regional politics.

So what does this imply for political developments in Nepal? It implies intentional ambiguity. The same policy that that the US traditionally used regarding Taiwan (vis-�-vis China) appears to have been adopted by China regarding Nepal (vis-�-vis India).

China may not have a fleet of ships patrolling the Indian Ocean, but it certainly has sufficient economic and political deterrents that would cause India to think twice (before making unilateral moves involving Nepal in the future). Nepal could well be to China, what Taiwan was for the US – a symbolic stand.

If the Chinese were to issue a statement that ignored the 7 Party – Maoist alliance and instead, supported the upcoming municipal polls, the Indian reaction would probably be far from a “cautionary welcome.” Alternatively, if China pushes through weapons to Nepal (as it has indicated it might), Nepal may use the Maoists hesitation at extending their unilateral ceasefire as justification for the arms transfer. What then?

By fostering the worst-case scenario for the Nepalese Monarch, these are some of the risks that Indian policy makers have inherited. With Natwar Singh’s implication in the UN’s oil-for-food scandal and swelling discontent within the opposition (to the ruling Indian government’s conduct of foreign policy), nothing can be discounted.

The Indian decision to force the Maoists to concede to an agreement with the 7-Party alliance has the potential for very beneficial outcomes to Nepal. This decision also has fringe benefits extending as far north as Beijing. What the decision truly accomplishes for India (aside from a cheap shot at the King) will likely become clearer in the weeks and months ahead.

5. Understanding the Limitations of the Maoist-Party Alliance

- Dipta Shah

Although a statement of the obvious, sufficient stress cannot be placed on the need to emulate the Americans’ cautionary welcome of the 7 Party - Maoist alliance.

The desperate situation Nepal finds itself in tends to produce euphoric responses to any political development that has prospects for peace. However, an exhilarated reaction to the recent development in Nepal must not be permitted to overshadow realistic challenges that have yet to be navigated. For the proposed prospect (of bringing the Maoists into the mainstream) to be kept alive, public expectations must be carefully managed.

The key objective of the agreement reached in Delhi is to entice the Maoists to join the political mainstream (by undermining the Monarchy). In order to accomplish this objective, one must begin with the explicit understanding that “selling” this proposition is probably the most challenging task the Maoist leadership has faced to date – assuming they are acting in good faith.

As if obtaining “buy-in” from multiple levels of the Maoist hierarchy was insufficient, the Maoist leadership must also demonstrate its commitment to disarmament and must take concrete steps to gain international legitimacy in this regard. The question of how to proceed should the results of the constituent assembly not be in line with Maoist expectations needs to be addressed explicitly and immediately.

Additional clarity is also required on which armed force is to maintain law and order during the proposed elections to a constituent assembly (and also during the interim). No room can be left to interpretation where the unacceptability of a future return to hostilities is concerned.

All parties’ whose ultimate goal is the restoration of peace and democracy in Nepal must pressurize the Maoist leadership to act in unflinching and good faith – an indication of which could be the indefinite extension of the unilateral ceasefire and a continued cessation of hostilities.

Furthermore, if the 7-party alliance is to encourage Maoist participation in “peaceful” demonstrations, the leaders of this movement must remain accountable. Armed Maoists should not be permitted in protest programs and at no cost should the security forces be given excuses to engage “peaceful” demonstrators. Should any hint of instigation become evident, it would be to the ultimate detriment of the entire alliance.

The pressure that the agreement with the 7-Parties puts on the Maoist organization is insurmountable. Having filled their cadres with revolutionary dreams for over a decade, the Maoist leadership is now faced with the enormous task of shifting its operating paradigm in favor of a negotiated settlement. All out victory was never a realistic option so despite what the Maoists term this envisioned end-state, for everyone else, it will be a negotiated settlement (if matters proceed as planned).

For the Maoists, the re-emergence of existing fissures within its ranks is a highly probable occurrence. While the political faction (lead by Baburam Bhattarai) has always been more inclined to join the mainstream, the military faction (overwhelmingly controlled by Pushpa Dahal and company) may not be as forthcoming. Recent statements made by Pushpa Dahal already show signs of divergence from the 12-point agreement (and not even a full week has passed).

If the 7 Party-Maoist alliance is to pose a credible challenge to the status quo, even the slightest hint at a vertical split cannot be permitted to pass.

The same is true of all other political parties. The signal that actions like Bam Dev Gautam’s departure from the UML generates to the public, undermines the strength of the overall alliance. The exodus of well known personalities from any of the 7 parties (as a consequence of the agreement with the Maoists) will be to the detriment of the 12-point agreement and to the goal of integrating the Maoists into mainstream politics.

Attrition rates will continue to be the key indicator regarding the success (or failure) of the 7 Party-Maoist agreement. And this will not be an easy metric for party leaders to manage. Convincing party cadres across political boundaries to look beyond previous Maoist atrocities will not be simple. Many of the psychological (and physical) wounds are fresh in the minds of victims of years of senseless violence.

The perception that the UML stands to gain the most (from the 7 Party-Maoist merger) is widely held. By political calculation, this perception is accurate because the likelihood of disgruntled Nepali Congress leaders departing from the mother party is now heightened.

To add to this trend, the reintegration of Maoists into the political mainstream will definitely swell the ranks of the UML. Should the Baburam faction choose to work from within the bounds of legitimate politics and (disassociate with the militant wing of the Maoists), a significant augmentation of the UML support-base is a foregone conclusion.

These scenarios of “churn” combined with a gradual rise in nationalist sentiments could prove fatal to the initiative at hand, should these scenarios materialize. Leaders of the 7-Party alliance bear the burden of preserving the composition of their parties while discussions with the Maoists progress.

As for the current government and the Royal Palace, it must be understood that over the long run, what is good for the country has to be good for the Monarchy. Although executed at India’s behest, the Nepalese government should embrace the outcome of the 7 Party-Maoist understanding and proceed to offer flexible negotiating terms with expanded political participation (beyond the 7 Parties and the Maoists).

Whether through the 7 Party-Maoist alliance or otherwise, the goal is to re-establish peace and functional democratic polity in the Himalayan Kingdom. The opportunity for the Maoists to play the 7-parties against the Monarchy should be immediately curtailed by accepting in principle, the 12-point agreement.

Since the thrust of the agreement is to end autocratic monarchy (which the King has stated to be his own intent), cause for fundamental disagreement does not exist. In fact, the required time-frame to transition from where Nepal is now, through re-enactment of the House, formation of an all-party government and finally, the holding of election to a constituent assembly is likely to take at least 3 more years.

To the likely credit of the Americans, nowhere in the 12-point agreement is it stated that the propositions put forth are non-negotiable or final. If the 7-Party alliance and the Maoists have entered into this agreement with Nepal’s best interest in mind, it would be incumbent upon the remaining power centers to oblige with at least a conditional offer to further dialogue.

Should the Maoist-7 Party alliance fail to accept an offer of good faith from the current government (or should signs of degradation of the 7 Party-Maoist alliance become evident), all bets will be off.

As a precautionary measure, preparations for municipal polls should proceed as scheduled as should the day-to-day activities of Nepal’s security forces (unless negotiated otherwise).

The guiding principle for concerned parties should be to move forward swiftly and decisively and take full advantage of the opportunity to compel the Maoists down an irreversible path of re-integration into legitimate Nepali politics. If lost, opportunities like this are unlikely to re-emerge.

Monday, November 28, 2005

Phone Talk With Madhav Nepal, Hridayesh Tripathy


I just got off the phone. Two days back I had called a whole bunch of them: Madhav K. Nepal, Arjun Nar Singh KC, Lilamani pokharel, Amik serchan, Dr.Minendra Rijal, Hridayesh Tripathy, and Narayan Man Bijukchhe. But I had not been able to get hold of any of them. They were all out of town for political work.

Today I called two of them: Madhav K. Nepal and Hridayesh Tripathy. I was able to get hold of both of them.

Madhav Nepal was concerned that some Nepali organization in the US had come out opposing the 12 point agreement between the seven parties and the Maoists and was getting a lot of media coverage. I informed him that was a minor organization I had never heard of. "There are Mandales also in the US, but they are few in number." I just emailed him the NAC statement that came out in support.

Nepal was pleased with the recent statement from Seantor Leahy. He said it would be really helpful if other Senators, Governors and prominent US political figures similarly put out statements. He also wished there were similar statements from prominent UN people.

He complained the regime had gone out of its way to obstruct recent UML rallies.

"If there is a military crackdown, that would be a violation of international laws, and you all should be seeking ways to get lawyers to take the king to the International Criminal Court, because as head of the government, it would be his direct responsibility," Nepal said.

He said people in the hundreds of thousands are going to show up for the rallies down the line. Both the UML and the Congress have elaborate programs. The fear among the people has been dissipating. We are woking to get 400,000 people out in Janakpur, he said.

I asked about fundraising at this end. He was not against the idea, but the transparency part was not a good idea, he said. It would not look good for the seven parties to present a budget. If we were to set up a joint bank account, the government will likely seize it, he said.

But his major emphasis was on getting moral support.

I asked him about the House reinstatement issue. I asked if all seven parties were solidly behind it. He said there was no disagreement, and the UML was behind it for unity. But he said there were problems. The UML would prefer a national conference to be the starting point. But it is okay with a reinstated House as the starting point. If the House is reinstated, those who want to retain the 1990 constitution might gain the upper hand, the king might get to play games through parties. But the House revival issue is not an issue of contention between the Congress and us, Nepal emphasized.

I asked who the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister will be when the all party government is formed. He said that has not been decided yet, and that the UML will not hold the coalition hostage on the issue. Our struggle is for democracy, not for a chair. I asked if that means it will be Girija Koirala. Nepal said Koirala has himself said he is not eager, that he has held the chair many times, and his health is also failing.

I expressed my gratitude to him and to the seven party coalition for all it was doing.

Then I got to talk to Hridayesh Tripathy. I spent quite some time with him in the years before I came over to the US. He is sharp and funny.

I asked him also about the House revival idea. He called it a departure point. He said that was a way to make sure the king does not get an excuse to openly step outside the constitution. But he emphasized a movement tends to be dynamic in character. As it gathers strength there could come a point when the seven parties might ditch the House idea and seek another. Those decisions can not be taken now.

I asked if the House is to be revived, how would it come about? His answer: the movement will. This is not an issue in legality. This is to be a political decision. There is no need for total clarity now. During the course of the movement, things become clear as per the developments.

He kept emphasizing the point that a movement is not a static thing, it is dynamic. It is not like an architect drawing the plan for a building. There are too many variables along the way. It is not possible to have all the clarity at this very moment.

I asked who the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister will be in the all party government. He said that has not been discussed, and that it is not important to discuss that now.

"Nepalis have the tendency to want all or nothing," he said.

He called the February 8 elections "an acid test." If the king can successfully conduct elections, the parties are going to find themselves in a tight spot from the global powers.

I asked if there were any plans to do what got done in Ukraine last year. No, not yet, he said. The impression I got was right now the emphasis was to warm things up. People are slowly coming out in the open. There is this buildup. You have to go with that flow. You can't get too far ahead of the people.

Then we talked about the recent 12 point agreement between the Maoists and the parties. He said it was but an outline for a lot of serious homework that still needed doing. In another 10-15 days the Maoists and the parties might still get in dialogue mode. The problem has been a lack of trust. The most important thing is that trust is being built. That is the achievement.

Tripathy no longer thinks in terms of the four point agenda of the seven parties that came out months back. To him now there is this 12 point program between the eight parties. The four point agenda has been digested into this new document.

"This is not the work of the indoor revolutionaries," he said.

I asked if the palace has shown any signs of reacting positively to the agreement. The king is abroad, and we really don't intend to pay attention to the servants, he said.

Then I asked him about the moral and logistical support the Nepali diaspora can extend to the movement. He said most of the work to do with the movement is political in nature, it happens at the level of ideas. Logistical support is not exactly in high demand, he suggested.

This was my first conversation ever with Nepal. But with Tripathy I have a history. There were times when I sensed some anxiety in Tripathys' voice, as he felt more comfortable with me. I brought up the topic of there being two standing armies when the country goes through a constituent assembly. Old institutions will fall, new ones will take shape, he said.

The bottomline is both Nepal and Tripathy played a key role in bringing forth the 12 point agreement. This is not the end product. This is but a framework for trust building. This is the first time the Maoists have formally agreed to a multi-party democracy. They have to be commended. It could not have been easy.

Another bottomline is the seven party coalition leads the movement and Nepal and Tripathy both are key people, the rest of us are in support. They are doing the very best they can under extremely difficult circumstances. We have to exhibit a lot of patience with them, especially those of us at this end in the US.

I hope to talk to both and to others down the line. I just opened up a channel of communication. And I am not going to be reporting on all conversations either. My work is not journalism. What I am doing is political work.

In The News

BBC 103 FM returns to airwaves NepalNews
CPN-UML warns Govt. of ICC action
Issue passport to women without discrimination: SC
US criticizes the govt’s raid on Radio Sagarmatha
Their Majesties inspect Nepali peacekeeping force in Burundi
Journos, activists take out rally; 'Radio can resume its transmission': Minister Shahi
56 parties registered at Election Commission
Radio Sagarmatha moves SC against govt action
Britain cautiously welcomes alliance-Maoist pact
All four Radio Sagarmatha journos freed
US denounces govt crackdown on media in Nepal Outlook (subscription), India
Our loss in Nepal Daily Pioneer, India
Dipta Shah: The 12-Point Agenda – A Summary Scoop.co.nz (press release)
Let the monarchy pass into history Economic Times
Political Pact With Maoists Could Checkmate King Inter Press Service (subscription)
Talk to Maoists at Your Level: Nepal Tells Dist UML Leaders Himalayan Times, Nepal

Attack On Radio Sagarmatha: A Regime On Its Way Down


  1. Attacks on politial parties.
  2. Attacks on students.
  3. Attacks on civil servants.
  4. Attacks on the media in general.
  5. Attacks on NGOs.
  6. Recent atttack on Kantipur FM.
  7. The Most recent attack on Radio Sagarmatha.

The list is long. This regime has a rather poor scorecard. That it is going down before February is a foregone conclusion. It could seek a soft landing. And you do that by exhibiting table manners.

The relentless attacks on the media is reprehensible. These are fascist tendencies.

Tanka Goebbels Dhakal


PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Dissemination
27 November 2005
9: 45 PM

Nepal government raids radio station, shuts down transmission

Kathmandu - Radio Sagarmatha, the pioneering public radio station of Nepal, was raided tonight by the police for attempting to carry a BBC Nepali service relay broadcast that included the interview of the Maoist leader 'Prachanda'. The staff of the station has been taken away to an unknown location, equipment has been confiscated, and a letter from the state administration has been delivered to the station to forthwith suspend all broadcasts.

The interview with Prachanda dealt with the recent agreement between the political parties and the Maoist rebels to work towards a resolution of the conflict in the country. King Gyanendra is presently on a tour of Africa, and is expected back on 2 December.

Laxman Upreti, the Chairman of Radio Sagarmatha, said, "Nepal has been the South Asian country pioneering the role of FM radio in informing the public, and Radio Sagarmatha has been the vanguard of this movement. The action by the government is a dagger to the heart of our radio revolution."

Mr. Upreti said, "At this point, we are on the lookout for our staff taken in by the authorities. At this hour of crisis, we seek the support of all who value freedom of speech and expression in Nepal."

"According to our information, seven other radio stations around the country were also prevented from carrying the BBC Nepali service feed by security forces."

Simultaneously with the action by the government on Radio Sagarmatha, it has been learnt that the government has also suspended the BBC World Service English relay transmission from the government-owned Radio Nepal.

Coincidentally, Radio Sagarmatha was celebrating its 20th anniversary with an evening reception attended by high level government officials, among others, when the raid was carried out.

Contact: Ghamaraj Luitel, Tel: +977 1-98510-27344

In The News

Nepal government closes down radio station, arrests journalists Rediff, India
Raid on Radio Sagarmatha condemned, journos still in detention NepalNews
Raid on Radio Sagarmatha condemned, journos still in detention Nepali Times
Govt Closes Down Radio Sagarmatha NewsLine Nepal
Govt shuts down Sagarmatha FM Kathmandu Post
Nepali police raid radio station, detain reporters
Reuters AlertNet, UK
Radio Sagarmatha goes off air, four journos still in custody Nepalnews.com, Nepal
Royal Govt Closes Down Pioneering Radio United We Blog, Nepal
Police seize equipment of Radio Sagarmatha, arrest five ... Nepali Times, Nepal
Nepal govt closes down radio station, arrests journalists Press Trust of India, India
NHRC 'helpless' before the government NepalNews
UML accuses authorities of misusing govt. machinery
Maoists ready to rethink on monarchy
Accept constituent assembly: Nepal Kathmandu Post, Nepal

Sunday, November 27, 2005

Prachanda Audio Interview, A First


This is an amazing piece of work in audio journalism by Rabindra Mishra. This was much needed. I hope he similarly conducts more long audio interviews with many other Maoist leaders, and with elements of the regime. I wish he subjected the king to a similar cross questioning. If the king not be available, he could nab Tulsi Giri. Giri would do. All these shady elements need to be brought out of the woodworks. If the political process will not do it, gutsy journalism should shoulder the responsibility. Through this interview Mishra has also made an important political contribution.

Perhaps he will also take my questions over to the democratic camp. (Dinesh Wagle, 7 Leaders, 27 Questions)

BBC Audio File

Rabindra Mishra: King Gyanendra and Prachanda seem to have the key to the political crisis Nepal faces. We have not succeeded in our attempts to interview the king so far. But Prachanda talked to us. This was his first radio interview. Prachanda said if the king were to come forth for a free and fair elections to a constituent assembly, and if such an assembly were to retain a constitutional monarchy, that verdict will be acceptable to him and his party. The monarchy, the republic issue, and the issue of a constituent assembly have been hot, and so we focused mainly on those issues in our talk. My first question to him was as to why is the word "republic" absent in the recent 12 point agreement between the parties and the Maoists.

Prachanda
: The essence of that 12 point agreement is to bring an end to the autocratic monarchy by seeking a way out through a constituent assembly. Our goal still is to end up a republic through a constituent assembly. The word "democracy" has been put there in English. But the essence is to bring autocracy to an end, to institutionalize the people's right to self-decision, and to go public with our slogan of a democratic republic among the people.

Rabindra Mishra
: That is quite clear from the 12 point agreement. But what I am trying to figure out is are you agreeing to retaining the monarchy in some form, ceremonial or constitutional, if that might lead to a solution?

Prachanda
: That is precisely what I am also trying to say. The essence of the 12 point agreement is not to accept the monarchy. It is to struggle against the autocratic monarchy.

Rabindra Mishra
: If that is the essence, why is it not clear in the document?

Prachanda: This is an understanding between us and the seven parties. We all know all the seven parties have not come out for a republic with any clarity. But the document is headed towards what we have been saying for a long time now.

Rabindra Mishra
: So your final goal is a democratic republic. The UML has the same goal. The Nepali Congress is now neutral on the monarchy question. If the palace were to reach out for reconciliation, how flexible are you willing to be?

Prachanda
: We do not expect the palace to reach out if the past is any indication.

Rabindra Mishra
: Maybe you have not seen that so far, but now after the 12 point agreement, and after the king returns back, if there are signs, how flexible are you willing to be?

Prachanda
: We can comment on that only after we see the nature of such a signal. Our spirit is to move ahead. Our spirit is to take the country towards a republic.

Rabindra Mishra
: Both the UML and you say that but, for now, if circumstances lead you to an agreement with the king, how flexible are you willing to be?

Prachanda
: So far we have not seen any possibilities of any kind of an agreement with the king.

Rabindra Mishra
: You have not seen so far. But to seek a way out of the crisis if you are forced to seek an agreement, how flexible are you willing to be?

Prachanda
: We have not given any thought to that. The question about such a possibility is theoretical at best. If there is a solid signal, a genuine attempt to reach out to seek a forward looking solution on behalf of the country, then we can give some thought to it. But so far we have not seen any signs whatsoever. None.

Rabindra Mishra
: You have repeatedly talked of state restructuring. If it were to become possible for the palace, the parties and you to together make that state restructuring possible, then you are willing to compromise, right?

Prachanda: That is not true. We went through two rounds of peace talks. During the last talks especially we sought a direct talk with the king to talk about the political, cultural, class-based, regional, sexual, and ethnic problems so as to seek a new structure, but there was an utter lack of interest from the king and the monarchy along those lines. Instead he responded by heaping autocracy. That is why your line of questioning is highly theoretical and mechanical.

Rabindra Mishra
: Your 12 point agreement asks for an all party interim government that will take the country to a constituent assembly. But you have a disagreement. The parties want the House revived, you want a roundtable conference of all forces. But you agree on forming an interim government. Will that interim government have a representative of the king or not?

Prachanda
: Our roadmap of a roudtable conference, interim government and a constituent assembly leaves no room for any representative from the king.

Rabindra Mishra
: But if you will not make room for the king's representative, how do you expect the palace and the army to accept that?

Prachanda
: It is not our goal to get accepted by the palace and the army. Because the palace has been so intent on thwarting the Nepali people's desire for peace and democracy, we see no alternative to creating a major storm of a revolution by the people. That is our understanding.

Rabindra Mishra
: You talk about a storm. The parties talked of an impending tsunami. It did not happen. You have been waging your insurgency for a decade, but you have not been able to take over a single district headquarter. So if you look at the ground realities, and if you seriously seek a way out, and if there is a roundtable conference of all the political forces, and if that leads to an interim government, will that have a representative of the king or not?

Prachanda
: We are confident now the storm of a revolution will come because ever since the royal palace massacre we have been trying to create a joint front with the parties. Now that that has materialized, the storm is on its way. That revolution will give birth to the interim government. That government will take the country to a constituent assembly.

Rabindra Mishra
: Who will be the head of state when that interim government is formed?

Prachanda
: The question of head of state and prime minister can be settled after a trust is generated between all parties after a successful revolution and when it is time to form the interim government.

Rabindra Mishra
: If that be the case, why has that not been made clear in the 12 point agreement?

Prachanda
: That is implied. The seven parties are still for House revival. They are not in any mood to get rid of that right now. We feel as we keep talking and interacting, we will all come around a common slogan down the line.

Rabindra Mishra
: I see a lot of confusion here. Both the parties and you have been vocally critical of the king, but the agreement does not even mention the word republic. But then during interviews you all go after the king again. You talk tall about a republic. So instead of being in a strategic offensive, are you instead in the phase of a strategic deception?

Prachanda
: Absolutely not. We have agreed on what we have agreed on. There is no attempt to hide or mislead.

Rabindra Mishra
: So elections to a constituent assembly take place only after the monarchy has been abolished?

Prachanda
: And why would that be? Why can't there be elections to a constituent assembly? It is absolutely possible. When the people's movement forges ahead, when there is a strong understanding between all political parties, then the revolution leads to an interim government that leads to a constituent assembly.

Rabindra Mishra: But according to you the monarchy has to end before the interim government can be formed. Is that not so?

Prachanda
: The first emphasis of the 12 point agreement is to throw the ball into the king's court. It is for the king and the monarchists to now come forth saying how far they are willing to go to solve the national crisis. It is now their turn.

Rabindra Mishra
: That is what I have been trying to figure out all along. If they are willing to seek a way out, if they are willing to soften their stance, are you also willing to soften your stance to seek common ground?

Prachanda
: (A little agitated) I also said that much earlier, that question is highly theoretical at this stage. After that comes, what to do, that we can only decide later after studying the developments. The main issue right now is to create a movement to counter the king's autocracy. This is not a time to seek any understanding with the king.

Rabindra Mishra: No, it is still not clear. What is not clear is you yourself have suggested that the monarchy is abolished, and then the parties and you get together and a trustworthy person is made head of state. If that is the precondition for a constituent assembly, then an abolition of the monarchy is the precondition to a constituent assembly. Is that not the case according to you?

Prachanda
: That sure is our goal. But we have also said all along that if all the forces in the country are willing to honestly go to a constituent assembly, then it is possible for all forces to go there together.

Rabindra Mishra
: This is the clarity I was seeking. So if the king were to now come forth for a constituent assembly then it would be possible to go to a constituent assembly while the king is still around, no problem, right?

Prachanda
: That is something for the king and the monarchists to make clear.

Rabindra Mishra
: So if they were to clearly come forth for such an assembly, then it is not problematic that the monarchy is still around while the country goes for a constituent assembly, right?

Prachanda
: If they can get clear on that, we can give thought to that.

Rabindra Mishra
: Looks like you have really softened, haven't you?

Prachanda
: What do you call softening? Nepal is in a crisis, and the people want peace and democracy. Our flexibility is for the people. That sure is.

Rabindra Mishra
: So you are going to accept the outcome of the constituent assembly, whatever it might be, right?

Prachanda
: We said that a long time ago. We have made that very clear in the 12 point agreement. We are committed to accepting the outcome of a constituent assembly that might be the result of free, fair elections. We have made that very clear.

Rabindra Mishra
: So if that assembly comes to the conclusion that the monarchy is to be retained, you are going to accept that?

Prachanda
: We don't believe the Nepali people will say that. But if that is what they say, we will respect that.

Rabindra Mishra
: I see a clash here. On the one hand the monarchy has to be abolished before there can be elections to a constituent assembly. But then if the people want it back, you are going to reestablish that overthrown monarchy?

Prachanda
: That is not how it is. If all the forces were to agree to a constituent assembly, all forces will get the opportunity to present themselves to the people. What we are saying is when that happens, we absolutely, totally do not believe the Nepali people will keep the monarchy that has repeatedly attacked their freedom.

Rabindra Mishra
: You talked about my theoretical question. Is that not your theoretical wish? But if the people do keep the monarchy despite your wish, will you accept it?

Prachanda
: We have said we will respect the people's verdict.

Rabindra Mishra: The clash still is that you want the monarchy abolished before the constituent assembly, but then you will agree to reestablish it if the people say so through the assembly.

Prachanda: That is not the case. The flaw in your logic is that you are not seeing we are willing to accept constituent assembly elections and UN supervision.

Rabindra Mishra
: In the 12 point agreement you talk of elections and supervision by the UN or another trustworthy third party. Do you think India will agree to that?

Prachanda
: We have not specified any country. We have not intended to specify either.

Rabindra Mishra
: What India has been saying is the Nepalis themselves should solve the problems among them. Outsiders can only help. India is against UN involvement. Does that not make it impractical to seek UN involvement?

Prachanda
: We don't see any reason why the UN should not be accepted. But if that is a problem, that is why we have left options open for some other trustworthy third party. India, China, Europe, America. We think we need help from all of those powers.

Rabindra Mishra
: Have you talked to the Indians about this?

Prachanda
: No, we have not had such talks.

Rabindra Mishra
: So after elections to a constituent assembly are conducted under such supervision, you are willing to discard your weapons. True?

Prachanda: What we have been saying is after the constituent assembly election results are out, according to those results, the two armies should be integrated, and one unified army has to take shape. We have made clear there is such a peaceful resolution to the problem.

Rabindra Mishra
: Let's talk a little about the Indian role in Nepal's politics. For the longest time you have been talking loud about Indian expansionism and American imperialism. But recent developments have shown India is very important also to you as the larger Nepali politics. Many are calling you India's pawn now.

Prachanda
: That is absolutely baseless. Nepal's crisis and geopolitical reality lead us to think we need help from India, China and the other world powers. We are clear on that.

Rabindra Mishra
: If it be that important, why have you been badmouthing India for the longest time?

Prachanda
: There are ideological stands we take. Those are there for sure.

Rabindra Mishra
: When you met the Nepali leaders in India recently, were you aided by the Indian intelligence agencies?

Prachanda: We held the politial dialogue through our own initiatives. We did not experience or feel any external help.

Rabindra Mishra
: That makes the Indian intelligence agencies look incapable. When all the top Nepali leaders went to Delhi and met you, they had no inkling.

Prachanda: That is not something we can comment on. What is for sure is that after the king's 2/1 misadventure, new interactions have become possible. New fermentations have been taking place. Most parties are talking for democracy. We don't think the government was in a total dark. But we did not experience or feel any involvement or help.

Rabindra Mishra
: Your three month long ceasefire is about to expire in a few days. Will you extend it?

Prachanda
: We declared our three month long unilateral ceasefire out of respect for the people's desire for peace and democracy. But the royal army has murdered more than 25 of our cadres during this time period. More than 50 have been disappeared. Under such circumstances, it is very difficult for us to extend the ceasefire even if we might want to. But still there is one week left. We are thinking. We are deliberating.

Rabindra Mishra
: You have spent 10 years circling the villages. How much longer will you stay that way?

Prachanda
: Our central committe met recently. We evaluated. We have decided on a new direction. The class imbalance of power in the villages has changed. The feudal structure in the villages has been smashed. We have been trying to build a new structure. The country is looking for a political outlet. The central committee has decided to move beyond the villages to the urban areas and to the strategic installations.

Rabindra Mishra
: What will you do for that?

Prachanda: The 12 point agreement has been the outcome of the new direction sought by the central committee.

Rabindra Mishra
: Will there be other attacks?

Prachanda
: It is less about attacks. Our major thrust is to take our political moblization to a whole new level.

Rabindra Mishra
: All the lives that have been lost during the 10 years, people blame both the state and you. Do you think of yourself as a sinner or a sage?

Prachanda
: Look, Rabindraji, this is a huge insurrection. The 237 year old feudal structure has been revolted against. This has been for justice. Everything has not happened the way we have wanted. This is not about sinner or sage. Human society develops through such revolts. Hundreds of thousands have been sacrificed in other circumstances. This can not be measured emotionally, it has to be measured scientifically, factually.

Rabindra Mishra
: That was Prachanda.

Baburam Bhattarai Interview

Rabindra Mishra, An Unprofessional, Disrespectful Journalist