What now?

Most observers, including this writer, fail in assessing the Maoists correctly because we end up using the same categories, attribute the same motivations, and expect similar tactics from them as from other political actors.
The PM's resignation came after a two week long political thriller leading up to the executive's decision to dismiss Army chief General Katawal and appoint General Kul Bahadur Khadka in his place.
The last fortnight saw hectic political activity - the government seeking clarification from Katawal; the UML initially agreeing with the Maoist move and then backtracking because of the internal rift; a section of the NC playing along in the hope of getting space in the cabinet but getting overwhelmed by the larger party view which feared a Maoist takeover of the army; an unprecedented divide at the top echelons of the military; intense media speculation on options ranging from a 'soft coup' to a mutiny within the Maoists; the emergence of an active presidency; and direct Indian engagement with the ambassador meeting the PM at least half a dozen times.
But all the negotiations bore little fruit, apart from giving each side a chance to test each other and exposing the stark polarisation in Nepali politics.
On Sunday morning, the Maoists went ahead with their decision to sack General Katawal. Other parties, as expected, opposed it. The UML walked out of government. There was a crisis within the military chain of command when General Katawal decided not to accept the PM's orders and wait for the President's instructions, even as General Khadka claimed he was legitimately entitled to head the army. The president stepped in with a letter late Sunday night asking Katawal to stay on - a move that has provoked criticism against Dr Yadav for having overstepped his authority. On Monday afternoon, after a meeting of the Maoist secretariat, the PM decided to resign, criticising the president for creating a dual power centre; and foreign powers (read India) for blatantly interfering in Nepali affairs.
So what does all this mean? Where does Nepali politics, the peace process, and the Maoist party head from here?
For one, it has been proved once again that the Maoists are excellent at making the best out of a bad situation. The PM was under enormous pressure from all factions of the party leadership and the party rank and file to assert his authority - after a series of incidents when they have had to back down. He knew that with the UML walking out, it would have been a struggle to keep up a majority. (The only way would have been to somehow bribe MJF into staying on, while luring other smaller parties). The PM also realised that the political situation and constitutional crisis could go totally out of control and even if he succeeded in staying on, this would not be a sustainable regime. Also remember that the last eight months have been extremely difficult for the Maoist party. The party organisation may have become stronger but their credibility had dipped drastically. Failure to deliver on basic promises and bring about any perceptible change has diminished the party's standing among its supporters, and Prachanda's own standing within the party. The Katawal row provided Prachanda a pretext to resign.
This may not have been as well thought out and strategic as it seems retrospectively. After all, which party wants to leave control of the state apparatus? However, the PM's resignation gives the Maoists the moral high ground, and a chance to monopolise the opposition space. It relieves them of any responsibility and expectation that came with running the state; enhances Prachanda's popularity; energises the cadre; and gives them a much -needed set of enemies they can target. Ram Baran Yadav-Katawal-K P Oli-Rakesh Sood now constitutes the new pantheon of enemies in the Maoist propaganda machine.
Even if the Maoists come back and become a part of a national government, after a renegotiation of terms with other parties and some movement on the Katawal issue, the Maoists have managed to differentiate themselves from other actors on the stage. What they are putting out is this - at a time when the President wants more power than the constitution gives him, the UML and NC want to form a new government subverting the mandate of the CA elections, and India wanted us to relent, we stood up and gave up power. The Maoists are back to doing what they know best, which is play the victim.
This episode clearly brings forth what was quite evident in the last six months. The rapidly deteriorating relationship between India and the Maoists; NC and the Maoists; and the army and the Maoists led to the crisis. Till these three interlinked relationships get back on track, there can be no movement on the peace process or any prospect of political stability.
The Maoists are right when they point out that the Indian role played a decisive part in this crisis. India did play an active role - first in telling the Maoists not to go ahead, then in encouraging the other parties to walk out of the alliance; and in thinking of ways to prevent the implementation of the decision to sack General Katawal. But this should not have come as a surprise to Maoists, who know the reality of Indian involvement in Nepal better than most others given the route they have traversed. Delhi had made it clear innumerable times not only to the Maoists, but also to journalists and others, that they will not tolerate any messing around with the army structure. India had become increasingly suspicious of Maoist intentions, its efforts to cosy up with China, and this incident proved to be the breaking point. As a diplomat put it, "There is no point in pretending anymore. We hate each other's guts and the gloves are off."
India may have achieved its objective of preserving status quo in the army chain of command, and keeping the Maoists away from exerting control over it. Other forces may even be grateful to Delhi for paving the way for a renegotiation of terms with Maoists, or an alternative government. But Prachanda's resignation has pre-empted the Indian move to actively oust the government. The absence of low key subtle diplomacy today makes India look foolish and reinforces the image of it as bully, and gives the Maoists enough ammunition to generate and capitalise on the 'nationalist', read anti-India, plank on the Kathmandu street.
The NC-Maoist relationship is characterised by deep fear and insecurity on part of the NC and excessive ambition on part of the Maoists. The NA-Maoist ties are characterised by the antipathy stemming from the war days; a clash of class interests; and the deep suspicion of NA top brass that Maoists want to take control and suspicion of Maoists that NA will block any move to initiate 'progressive' policies.
Till India and Maoists re-establish some trust; till NC and Maoists do not rework terms and a power sharing arrangement; and till NA, Maoists and other parties come to an acceptable political compromise on integration, we are stuck. With the events of the last two weeks, prospects of progress on all three fronts have receded.
At present, hectic political negotiations are underway. There is a real possibility of a Madhav Nepal led coalition government, though as mentioned earlier, some actors are keen on getting the Maoists back on board in a national government with all party participation.
If you are an optimist, you can look at it this way. A serious constitutional crisis has been averted. The Maoists have committed themselves to the peace and constitution writing process and will not return to the jungle. Normal competitive politics is taking its own course with parties slugging it out for influence, power and privileges. And this shock treatment will allow all parties to sit together and prepare a new deal to take the process forward. If you are a pessimist, you can focus on the fact that this will actually cripple the process. No government can function effectively if the Maoists are out and seek to be obstructionist. Any alternative will be short-lived and unsustainable, and the Maoists could come back even stronger with a more dogmatic agenda. Constitution writing cannot move forward without the former rebels. There may now be a temptation in some sections of the army to think of themselves as beyond civilian control, which in turn could lead to them intervening in partisan politics. And, this polarisation at the centre will leave the state even weaker and unreformed, thus allowing the anarchy outside to fester.
Either ways, Nepal has relapsed into a sharp political conflict, fortunately without the war and violence this time around.

Courtesy: PRASHANT JHA

YCL leave Image Channel main gate but still in vicinity

REPUBLICA About 20 cadres of Maoist-affiliated YCL who had gathered outside the premises of Image Channel TV that showed the video of their chairman making startling revelations about their party´s intentions and views on the peace process, left the main gate after about 30 minutes.A journalist working for the channel told myrepublica.com that the YCL cadres they wanted to talk to the person who decided to air the video.Police has reached the spot and has prevented the cadres from entering the TV station´s premises.The 80-minutes video has been aired by about every TV channel now. It was the Image Channel which had first aired the video in its news bulletin Monday night.
(YCL=Youth Communist/Criminal League [according to CPN-Maoist and NC respectively]

Courtesy: REPUBLICA, May 5, 2009.

Principle Of Most Privilege

So here’s how it goes. The Nepali Congress supports Nepal’s most assertive army chief who also happens to be the adopted son of the king it hates the most, in the name of upholding democracy. The popularly elected Maoists who claimed to have singlehandedly abolished the monarchy can’t assert their prerogative of establishing civilian supremacy over the military.Gen. Rookmangad Katuwal, who throughout the week was rumored to be plotting a coup, decides to accept his discharge order and seek judicial remedy. His boss, supreme commander Ram Baran Yadav, preempts things by ordering the general to stay put.Maoist chief ideologue Dr. Baburam Bhattarai describes the president’s move as a “constitutional coup”. This, hours after declaring that the army is behind its new chief, General Kul Bahadur Khadka. Except that Khadka wasn’t quite sure whether to accept the appointment.The peace process faces its worst threat over a man who is going to retire in a couple of months anyway. It’s worth it, considering the principles involved, each side claims. Insubordination cannot be tolerated in a new Nepal, the Maoists claim. (Especially when it blocks the restive Maoist commanders from the career-enhancement opportunities that drove them to the peace process.) Better to issue the sack order unilaterally and fall than to look for a pretext to quit.The Nepali Congress can claim it looked past the grievous injuries it suffered at the hands of the military to establish the rule of law. (Never mind that from B.P. Koirala’s prison diaries, it looks like his 1960-1968 detention was his best eight years in terms of culinary choice.)With a leading party member having replaced the monarch as supreme commander, it was incumbent upon the Nepali Congress to defend the status quo. If Sujata Koirala wanted Katuwal out because he had failed to invite her to the army’s New Year’s bash, well, that was her problem. Our president cannot be held back by the recognition that his ethnicity remains the least represented in the national army.The Unified Marxist-Leninists promptly withdrew from the coalition claiming the Maoists violated the principle of consensus governing governance. By putting forth a proposal to oust Katuwal, Khadka and Defense Minister Ram Bahadur Thapa Badal together, the UML sought to inject some clarity in its traditional cloudiness, which ended up muddling things more. At least, Jhal Nath Khanal and K.P. Oli could bury their differences and bolster the prospect of resurrecting a UML-led they felt had fallen victim to a constitutional coup 14 years ago.The promise of regaining power with the help of the Nepali Congress, which had plotted its downfall in 1995, is rivaled by the hope of regaining the communist center. (Imagine how hard it must have been for our mainstream comrades to be taking orders from people who were living on UML’s crumbs of a few safe seats in the 1991 and 1994 elections.)Nepal Sadbhavana Party quit the coalition to tighten the screws on the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF). With the Chinese infuriated by Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s decision to call off his China visit at the last minute, who knows what tug of war must be going on between the northern and southern wings of the MJF?The most telling part of the entire saga was the least reported – and not just because it preceded denouement. The three principal parties of the former panchas have decided to back a Nepali Congress-led broader democratic alliance. With Surya Bahadur Thapa and Pashupati Shamsher Rana both having been placed under detention after the February 1, 2005 royal takeover, it has become a bit harder to dispute the democratic credentials of the parties they lead.But the Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal of Kamal Thapa? Wasn’t he the most controversial member of the royal government after the chairman himself? And not the slightest murmur of indignation from the Nepali Congress. Is the nation’s self-designated sole democratic party ceding so much ground to put the finishing touches to a formal demand for a referendum on the monarchy? It’s all in the neck.

Courtesy: Maila Baje, May 5, 2009, http://nepalinetbook.blogspot.com/2009/05/principle-of-most-privilege.html

Video shows Dahal admitting real strength of PLA not more than 8,000; sharing plans to control army and capture state

In a shocking revelation, it appears that the actual strength of the Maoist People's Liberation Army (PLA) was between 7,000 and 8,000 and not 35,000 as reported by Maoists before United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) started the verification process.
In a video telecast by Kathmandu-based Image Channel Monday afternoon, Maoist chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal is seen telling PLA combatants in a meeting at Shaktikhor located cantonment in Chitwan how the party swindled all into believing that the number of PLA was 35,000 when it was actually not more than 8,000, ultimately leading to the increase in PLA's strength rather than its reduction as has been assumed.
Dahal is seen further justifying the inflated figure in the video which the channel claimed was from January 2, 2008 when the Maoists were an important constituent of the Girija Prasad Koirala led interim government
"We were (PLA's strength) somewhere between 7,000 and 8,000. If we had reported the correct figure of the PLA, then it would then have been reduced to around 4,000."
"But our party's leadership decided to report PLA strength as 35,000, and thanks to it the PLA's strength is now 20,000 at least," he said smilingly, evoking peels of laughter around him.
"So our strength has actually increased. You and I know the truth, but why should we tell it to others."
He said the apart from the PLA, which he said is now already a "regular army", the party has also formed YCL comprising thousands of youths despite various difficulties and "who now add to our strength".
The Maoist chairman also revealed that a significant share of the money that will go to "our martyrs" in villages throughout the country and the PLA in cantonments will be used by the party to prepare for revolt and ultimately capture the state.
"You all know that if we have enough money in our hands we can prepare a good battle plan. So, the party needs a good amount of money for the revolt," he said.
He further said that though the party may appear to have again reached a compromise (with the state and political parties), "but if you look deeply then you will know how seriously the party is preparing for the ultimate revolt".
Thereafter, Dahal talked about the difficulties that exist in the wholesale integration of PLA combatants into the Nepal Army (NA).
Claiming that PLA combatants are "politically aware", he said even a small number of their entry into NA is enough to establish complete Maoist control over the army.
This was why Army chief Rookmangud Katawal was against our soldiers entry into the army, he said.

Courtesy: NepalNews, May 5, 2009.

Are gods turning against Nepal’s Maoist government?

When King Gyanendra’s army-backed reign ended three years ago followed by the abolition of monarchy in the world’s only Hindu kingdom, it did not come as a surprise to the Himalayan nation’s devout Hindus.“It was on the cards,” says Upendra Dahal, a Brahmin priest who also dabbles in astrology at the revered Pashupatinath temple in Kathmandu. “The gods were against him and sent him omens.”
Not one or two, there were at least four “divine warnings”.
An annual procession during which the Kumari or Kathmandu’s Living Goddess - a pre-pubescent girl regarded as the protective deity of the royal family - is taken around the capital was disrupted after an axle broke.
A second chariot procession to mark the worship of Rato Machhindranath, the god of rains, was halted due to curfew imposed by the king’s government.
As people started to take note of the omens, which were said to prophesy disaster, a third warning sounded in a temple in northern Dolakha district. The stone statue of a Hindu deity, Bhimsen, began to “sweat”, a phenomenon that in the past was said to have been followed by disasters such as killer earthquakes and the massacre of the royal family.
A fourth jarring note was struck when for the first time in Nepal’s history, a Kumari was “sacked” by her temple priests for venturing out of Nepal to attend a documentary festival in the US.
Now a year after the exit of the king and his former arch enemies, the Maoist guerrillas, coming to power, there are fresh divine rumblings.
On Sunday, the procession of Rato Machhindranath came to a standstill once again as the immense chariot almost keeled over.
The debacle coincided with a mighty blow to the eight-month-old Maoist government with its two allies deserting, reducing it to a minority.
Then to add to Maoist Prime Minister Prachanda’s woes, Nepal’s first President Ram Baran Yadav, who last year succeeded deposed king Gyanendra as the head of the new republic, stayed the ruling party’s order to sack the chief of the army, Gen Rookmangud Katawal. The decision drove the former guerrillas into a do-or-die situation.
As the spectre of a no-trust vote and a humiliating defeat hangs over the Maoist government, people are also talking of the former rebels’ professed disdain for religion.
Lawmaker Sunil Babu Pant noted in a report made after visiting Sunsari district in southern Nepal, which was hit by major floods last year and for which some villagers blamed Prachanda.
“The prime minister took the oath of office in the name of people and not god,” a villager said. “It was his disbelief that angered the gods and caused the flood.”

Courtesy: IANS

Coup a drunkard's gossip: Maoist leader

May 1: Rumor about Nepal Army staging a coup in the country was just a drunkard´s gossip, a politburo member of the ruling Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) said on Friday."Drunkards have spread the rumor," said Ram Karki aka Partha Chhetri, against his party leaders´ consistent claims that Nepal Army chief General Rookmangud Katawal was planning a coup against the government.Addressing a laborers´ rally in Biratnagar, Karki, however, said his party was resolute on taking action against Katawal. During his speech delivered in mixture of Nepali and Maithili language, he criticized the main opposition Nepali Congress for creating obstacles in the process of the action."When we are trying to take action against Katawal for his defiance to government orders, Nepali Congress is making hue and cry on the issue," he said. "Nepali Congress still has an illusion that it is still in power."Karki claimed that the Nepali Congress did not have the guts to take to the streets against the government move to sack Katawal."We need to democratize (janatantrikaran) the force that took oath to protect kings, royal family and the crown in the past," he said. "The Nepal Army soldiers must know that they are not the only force who know how to use guns."

Coutesy: REPUBLICA online, accessed May 1