PRAGOTI

Pragoti contributors, editors and readers debate the current crisis in Nepal.

The political crisis in Nepal in the last few days led to a debate in Pragoti's yahoogroup. Since this debate is of relevance to our wider readership, we have decided to collate and post the debate here. We request all those who are interested in the debate to continue with their responses on the comments thread below this post.

"The Maoists are committing harakiri by their refusal to cooperate with other Left groups. The same mistake that was committed in Afghanistan is being repeated in Nepal. Mindless sectarianism is the bane of the Left movement.” This was a comment that I had made on 23.7.2008 on another discussion forum when the “Maoists” had refused to support CPN (UML)’s candidate, Madhav Kumar Nepal, as President of Nepal. The CPN (UML) demonstrated its Left sectarian attitude when they extended support to Nepali Congress’ candidate, Ram Baran Yadav, who was elected as President of Nepal on 21.7.2008. [The Left could have easily held on to power in Afghanistan if there was a working relationship between the Left forces instead of the fratricidal war between Parcham and Khalq, the two major Left parties in Afghanistan at that time.] Subsequently, better sense prevailed upon CPN (UML) when on 16.8.2008 they extended support to the "Maoist" leader Prachanda (Pushpa Kamal Dahal)as PM of Nepal. However, the Left is paying a heavy price for paving the way for Ram Baran Yadav to get elected as President of Nepal.

There are plenty of anti-democratic elements (supporters of the monarchy) in the top echelon of the Nepal Army. It is the prerogative of the Government of Nepal to remove such dangerous elements before they attempt any mischief. However, the Government should have ensured that they had majority support in the Constituent Assembly for implementing such decisions. Left unity was crucial in this regard and the “Maoists” have again committed a big blunder by failing to take CPN (UML) and the other Left groups on board. The Left groups have a comfortable majority in the Constituent Assembly and the present crisis was totally avoidable. [The Left would have easily attained much more than two-thirds of the seats in the Constituent Assembly if they had some kind of common agenda/seat adjustments before the elections.] CPN (UML)’s failure to notice the presence of dangerous elements in Nepal’s Army is a serious error of judgement on its part and it can have fatal consequences. Thus, the present crisis is a commentary on Left sectarianism than anything else.

Certainly, the Indian Government has no business to advise the Nepali Government on who should be the chief of the Nepali Army. On the contrary, it would be in India’s best interests if the pro-monarchist elements in the Nepali Army were removed forthwith so as not to endanger Nepal’s nascent democracy. If there is any untoward development, the Indian Government is bound to lose face. However, the attempt of the “Maoists” to blame the Indian Government for the present crisis is a lame excuse to whip-up anti-India feelings among the people of Nepal, a stance which does not serve the interests of the people of Nepal in any way.

The most important issue is the framing of Nepal’s democratic Constitution. Under the circumstances, the “Maoists” have no option but to support an alternate government headed by CPN (UML). Do hope that better sense will prevail among Nepal’s Left forces; they should not forget that Right wing forces are waiting to exploit the situation to their advantage.

Jayaprakash

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 JP,

Its the other way around. Madhav Kumar Nepal was defeated not once but twice in the CA elections. He had no business pushing himself for the role of president. The Maoists won the election fair and square and were pushing for Sahana Pradhan as the president candidate from the UML.

The UML was the one which supported Ram Baran Yadav for president after the Maoists' candidate Ramraj Prasad Singh was defeated.

The UML which supported constitutional monarchy (it is very odd to see a "communist" party do this. I would actually say that it is pathetic that a communist party did this), now supports an army chief who was the chief lynchpin of the monarchy. It is a crying shame.

It is amply clear that the UML is in the throes of an identity crisis. Too much of NGOisation has reduced this party into a rump and it is inevitable that this will slowly result in the fading away of the party. I am reminded of the CPI in India and I am not mincing words.

As for the Maoists, "whipping up" anti-India feelings, there is no need for them to do that. The feelings are already whipped up. It is everyone's knowledge that the Indian ambassador as well as mandarins from Delhi have had a bad habit of intervening in Nepali affairs and that continues even today.

The Maoists have a few failings and they have a few adventurist sections within them who do not understand the international situation and are adamant about the "old Maoist" understanding about the way to build socialism. But given these, the Maoists have played a very mature role in the past three years trying to steer Nepal from imperial interventions and Indian nose-poking. To me, the Nepali Maoists are a genuine anti-imperialist force, a point that was best articulated by Prakash Karat after the elections in that country. I will end at that.

Best,
Srinivasan Ramani

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 The situation in Nepal is quite dissimilar to the Afghan situation during 70s and 80s.The PDPA drew its support mainly from the urban areas,and its presence in the country side was really weak.The "Saur Revolution" was centered around the cities,and this weakness was quite visible through out the Afghan civil war.The "Maoist" group in Afghanistan ALO,joined with the fundamentalists during late 70s to fight PDPA-Soviet forces and during 80s it fought on its own,to meet with a total wipe out.

The situation in Nepal is quite different,the Maoists has been able to garner support from the peasants as well as the workers.UCPN( M) is the largest Left wing force of Nepal,and they have come to power through democratic means.It was agreed upon as early as in 2006 that the PLA combatants would be inducted to the NA,but the all party consent was based on the assumption that Maoists would remain a fringe element even after CA elections.

Once they became the largest party in CA and started to head the Govt,the right wing forces started to sabotage the pivotal point in the peace agreement.The army,violating the basic tenets of democracy,has decided to go ahead with recruiting 3000 soldiers,keeping the inclusion of PLA combatants in NA at large.The NA Chief had been acting as a parallel center of power for some time.And the judiciary also started to intervene to support the right wing,as seem in the verdict which put a stay on the retirement of NA brigadiers.

It is in this context that the NA chief was asked to step down.We should consider the fact that this was not an impulsive decision,the matter was discussed for quite some time.Even senior UML leader and Home Minister,Bam Dev Goutam had to concede that the NA chief would have been sacked much before.

There are  sectarian deviations shown by Maoists and the administration has got some severe shortcomings which need to be addressed.But the prerequisite to enter a civilian mode of Governance was the logical conclusion of the Peace process,and that was delayed by the right wing-royalist- UML combine.

It is imperative that the Left leaning sections in UML should wake up and steer that party in the right direction.Unless it is a matter of time before UML would be relegated to being the Nepali Menshevik party,,..

Unni.P.S

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prachanda has put the Nepalese Revolution on the right track by offering his resignation: Let us wish him Godspeed!!

K Vijayachandran

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chirashree

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Agree completely with Unni, who has put the issue into context very succinctly.

Srini

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saibal

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]--><!--[if !mso]>

Dear Srini,

 I am not a supporter of Madhav Kumar Nepal and I am also aware of the factionalism  within UML. I was only lamenting at the fact that the the Left in Nepal could not agree on a common candidate for Presidentship despite the tragic consequences of Left disunity in Afghanistan in the recent past. [The Left in Afghanistan had completely disregarded the  potential strength of the Right-wing forces and, therefore, had spent all their time and  energy in intra-Left warfare instead of attempting to build support in the rural areas and            trying to consolidate support in the urban areas. In that sense, the situation in Afghanistan and Nepal are quite similar.]

The point is that the Left has clear majority in the Constituent Assembly; as the largest group within the Left, the "Maoists" have the primary responsibility to garner support of all the other Left groups (as well as other democratic groups) in the Constituent Assembly. The "Maoists" have failed to achieve this, which has resulted in the present crisis. The disunity of the Left is the root of the problem. The disunity persists because the Left is undermining the power of the Right-wing forces to create trouble, which is a very serious mistake. It was in this context that I said that the attempt of the "Maoists" to shift the blame on to the Indian Government would serve little purpose. 

Yes, we should definitely take the Indian Government to task for trying to interfere in the internal affairs of Nepal. However, merely blaming the Indian Government for the current crisis will not resolve the problem of Left disunity in Nepal. Left disunity is emboldening the Right-wing forces in Nepal. As concerned Left sections within India we have to convey this message to the leadership of the Left in Nepal.

Jayaprakash

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear JP,

Firstly, I am not sure what you mean by the Maoists not being able to work out left unity...and not being able to get a Left candidate for president. As I mentioned before, it was the UML which was adamant on MK Nepal's ascension and which did not agree to a more agreeable candidate such as Sahana Pradhan...and it was the UML which went on to go along with the Nepali Congress (of all parties) in getting a president who was blatantly a pro-monarchy person.

Secondly, we are all for left unity in Nepal. This writer wrote about it after his (and other comrades') visit to the country. But the UML leadership has shown no maturity or understanding of the historic circumstances in their country. Let us be very clear about that.Even though the UML government in the mid 1990s was very popular, they were sabotaged by the Nepali Congress and other rightist forces. The Maoists gained a upper hand during the years of militancy and surely the UML could have taken an anti-monarchy position before Gyanendra's complete takeover, but it was not to be. The Maoists only became much stronger with their more strident anti-royalist and anti-feudal line and suddenly the UML lost its status as the largest left party in the country. After the CA elections when every "right" UML candidate was thoroughly defeated, it was incumbent for the UML to forge stronger relations with the Maoists. The mandate reflected that. But that was not to be. I accept that the YCL and other sections of the Maoists had a role in this disconnect between the left parties, but this was over-emphasised by the "right" sections of the UML, for sure. Nothing prevented the UML from taking a line that was clearly anti-NC from the outset, but that was never forthcoming until the formation of the government.

Thirdly, the UML now says that the Maoists acted unilaterally in removing the Nepali Army chief. What do they mean by "Unilaterally"? Who is this army chief after all? A remnant of the feudal monarchy era. As Unni points out, he was blatantly violating the peace agreement by going in for recruits as also breaching the civilian preponderance over his functioning rule. This is the Republic of Nepal and not the old monarchy where the army was subordinate only to the regal edifice.

And what was the UML position over this issue? The UML home minister Bamdev Gautam, who was seen as pro-Maoists and for greater cooperation with the Maoists took a position that it was correct to remove the Army chief. But the UML withdrew support because the Maoists removed the army chief! Whose interests were the UML serving with this decision?

Fourthly, on Indian intervention. I need not reiterate the role of India in affairs in Kathmandu. It is a known fact that historically most political parties, their leaders, their minions and bureaucrats and journalists from that country "take" their line from Delhi and mandarins from Delhi revel in this. India played a very dubious role during the monarchy, only to sensibly reverse the course.

The CPI(M) played a very important role in this reversal of an insensitive policy towards Nepal. How many of us would forget that the Indian government sent the former Kashmiri "raja" Karan Singh to Nepal at the height of republican protests in Nepal, triggering even more angry protests against India? And that when Sitaram Yechury helped in the brokering of peace agreement between the various political parties, the Nepali polity (including the Maoists) and the people welcomed the gesture heartily?

Now that the left had withdrawn support from the Indian government, the government is back to its old wheeling-dealing ways in Nepal. The shameful acts by the Indian ambassador of blatant partisanship showing support to the Nepali army chief will be resented by any self-respecting Nepali, let alone the Maoists who have forever blamed "Indian expansionism" and "US imperialism" for their nation's woes.

As leftists in India, we must take a view that is wrought out of facts and incidents (a gist of which is provided above). A danger (although this is a loaded term) now exists - of the Nepali Maoists going back to the insurrectionist positions. After all, this endeavour by the UML and India would only strengthen those sections of the Nepali Maoists who believe that it is impossible for a accommodation within bourgeois polity to achieve the aims that they have programmatically set out to achieve. Who will begrudge those voices which have been cautioning about such a culmination for many days now? My hunch is that such a turn toward the "ultra-left" is dangerous, as the under-developed nation will again plunge into conflict souring the hopes of people who wanted to focus on more bread & butter issues especially at a time of international recession.

The Indian left should avoid trying to bring in "false equivalences" as has been attempted with the Afghan case to understand what is going on in Nepal. That is the gist of what I am trying to say. JP is right about the need for a defeat of the right wing forces in the country. But that cannot be done by a simple and a formalistic compromise on various issues such as civilian control over the erstwhile royal armed forces or on basic issues such as land reform or on anti-imperialism or on forging a genuine independent and sovereign voice. The UML has more or less betrayed its regressive attitude on all these issues and that is the galling point for me.

Best,
Srini

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I completely agree with Srini.

The onus of this 'Left unity' should not unilaterally fall on the shoulders of the Maoists. The other 'Lefts', particularly the UML, have not shown their responsibility towards such unity, which clearly shows how little they care about it.

Secondly, this 'left unity' has no 'Left' benefit if it means such serious compromises with rightist elements of the UML. Such so called 'unity' will be harmful for the Left in Nepal. If anything positive in terms of 'Left Unity' has to come out from this turmoil, the Left sections of the UML have to follow a course correction, or they have to break-away from the Party. This 'Left Unity' can only come by isolating the 'right' elements.

Lastly, the decision of resignation taken by Maoists is a very delicate decision. I think that they have taken the correct decision (with certain conditions), since they alone do not enjoy absolute majority.It would take a correct course if the Maoists again go back to the people democratically. There will be severe provocations for anarchy and violence. But it would be a disaster if they go back to their former 'ultra-left' position.

Regards.

Sourindra

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sourindra, 

Srini

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Srini,

I also think so. Its highly improbable that the Maoists were not aware of revisionism of UML (leave aside NC et al.), before they decided to participate in elections or after they formed the govt with their support. They must have been aware that this kind of sabotage was very much on the cards. So, most probably, they will garner peoples' support within democratic paradigm. But ultra-left upsurge will become highly probable, if military coup takes place (I am not sure about the extent of possibility of a coup), which will take the country one step back, and also the Left movement back to square one. To negate such possibilities, the Maoists have to show their ability to manouvre with parliamentary as well as extra-parliamentary (not adventurist) tactics, in maximum democratic way possible. They have a great chance to expose all the other parties' contempt to building up of democracy in Nepal, which is visible in their support to the army chief, disrespecting the peace accord.

There's no doubt of imperialist hand behind all of the political parties', except Maoist's, decision to go against the govt's decision. We, the Left, in India should tell the GOI to stop interfering in Nepal's issues.

Regards.

Sourindra

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------