How corrupted politicians handed over the government to terrorists and Nepal government started to be called as Government of terrorism:
SPA Crumbles Before Relentless Maoist Juggernaut
By M.R. Josse
Last Friday evening, it was impossible not to recall Julius Caesar's braggadocio: veni, vidi, vici (I came, I saw, I conquered)! In the context of the abrupt announcement of a sweeping eight-point peace pact between the Maoists and the SPA (for details see elsewhere), if Maoist supremo Prachanda felt as triumphant as Caesar it would have been wholly understandable.
As much was surely reflected in Prachanda's fluent, supremely self-assured extempore presentation of his vision for Nepal at a press conference following the inking of the pact. That, incidentally, was an event where SPA representatives present (sans ailing Prime Minister Koirala) seemed completely overshadowed, even nonplussed, by Prachanda.
The rebel chief, once the most hunted in the land, surprised all by making his first post-1996 appearance not only in the capital but, indeed, at the official residence of the prime minister in Baluwatar itself.
And, as if that were not dramatic enough, Prachanda proceeded in his address to the press to frontally charge the government of gross incompetence, even in the mundane matter of managing a press meet - without a murmur from SPA worthies present. As he put it, the slipshod mismanagement of that event only proved the Maoist contention that the tottering "old regime" structures had to be replaced by new ones.
SPA Surrender
Try as hard as it might, there is simply no way one can accept the SPA argument that it agreed to all Maoists demands - including the dissolution of the "supreme" House of Representatives (HoR) that, until then, its stalwarts were consistently and loudly arguing against - for the sake of 'maximum flexibility" for peace.
To some that might sound akin to making a virtue out of necessity. To me, however, it appears more like the collapse of a house of cards before the fury of a hurricane or the demolition of the shaky SPA edifice by a relentless Maoist juggernaut. If there were any lingering traces of doubt about who contributed how much to the events leading to the 24 April proclamation by the King, it has effectively put paid to that.
Notably, in an interview to the Kathmandu Post (19 June) Madhav Kumar Nepal, UML secretary general and a signatory to the deal, disclosed, inter alia: "A problem arose while discussing the peace talks. Prachanda wanted to leave amid the talks. The UML persuaded him to stay." My sources indicate that Prachanda threatened to walk out when the SPA resisted the demand for HoR's dissolution. Its resistance proved to be as fragile as a soap bubble.
For those who argue that the Maoists have accepted dissolution of their local government bodies as a compromise, it should not be forgotten that the SPA, especially UML elements, had long and furiously rejected any attempt to stave off reinstating the legitimate local elected bodies. That, too, had tamely to be given up.
Others claim that the Maoists have not secured their demand for the formation an interim government after convening a broad national conference. The UML chief's interview referred to is an eye-opener in that regard. In fact, he clearly hints that it is precisely such a mechanism that the Maoists wish to replace the HoR with, although that has not been specifically spelt out. But then, as is clear to all but the purblind, the eight-point accord is conspicuously thin on specifics. In any case there, too, the Maoists came up trumps.
Indeed, as per the terms of the Baluwatar Accord not only would the HoR be dissolved within a month, but also within a fortnight there ought to be an Interim Constitution in place, followed by an interim government including Maoist representatives. At this point in time it is not clear who would head the interim government.
Would the Maoists stake a claim to lead it? Or, would it merely claim a 50% stake? Or, would they be content, for the time being, to take control of only such portfolios as education, health and local development - ministries not considered as "sexy" and those in charge of defence, home, finance and foreign affairs?
They, of course, could be greatly influential in securing a majority in the CA elections, paving the way not merely for a dominant say in the restructuring of the state through a new constitution but indeed laying the basis for their party to form the first post-CA government.
Dissension All Around
To no one's surprise, the political air is already thick with dissension - both between SPA and the Maoists as well as among SPA constituents themselves. For example, while Maoist honcho Dinanath Sharma argues against promulgation of the interim statute by parliament (vide Kathmandu Post, 20 June), Speaker Subash Nemwang has gone public, saying that the HoR would do so.
Thus, while the Maoists insist that the arms issue should not delay formation of the interim government, SPA talks team member Pradeep Gyawali argues forcefully that the Maoists can't become a part of the government unless the arms management issue is first sorted out.
Here, it may be germane to note the confusion about writing to the UN seeking its help in effectively tackling the arms management issue. Thus far, such an official notification has not been made, despite its specific mention in the accord. How long that will take is anybody's guess, not least taking into consideration that the UN bureaucracy is about the most slow moving and obtuse in the world.
Another potential problem: the accord talks about two armies. Since it is well known that the Maoist militia that supports their army is more numerous in terms of personnel, would the terms of the agreement mean that it will not be disarmed?
Besides, as the Swiss Special Adviser for peace building in Nepal, Gunter Baechler, declared "there has to be verification of arms before any international body like the UN is requested to monitor" (TRN, 19 June).
But, coming back to SPA dissension, here are some more illuminating examples to chew the cud over. Narayan Man Bijukchhe of the Nepal Workers' and Peasants' Party still insists the HoR should not be dissolved in a hurry (THT, 19 June). NC (D) politicos were reported to have welcomed the SPA-Maoist accord but pointed to "serious shortcomings" of the past, (TKP, 19 June) a clear hint that their words should be taken with a grain of salt.
Bharat Bimal Yadav of Sadhbhavana (Anandi) speaking at a public forum in the capital expressed disagreement over his party's exclusion in the newly formed interim constitution drafting committee (TRN, 19 June).
Then, during an informal meeting of the NC's Central Working Committee, members "rapped the party leadership for undermining party members' wishes and failing to do homework before the eight-point agreement was signed with the Maoist rebels on Friday" (TKP, 20 June).
Likewise, "the members strongly argued that the Seven-Party Alliance (SPA) should not include the Maoists in the interim government until rebels arms are taken care of" (TKP, 20 June).
Former Prime Minister Surya Bahadur Thapa, currently chairman of the Rashtriya Janashakti Party, in a statement said that "the settlement of arms was the issue to be addressed first, keeping in view the tentative dates agreed by all sides for constituent assembly elections" (TKP, 20 June).
Notably, he opposed the agreement claiming it was reinstated with high expectations and has been taking major political decisions. In his view, "grounds and reasons for dissolution have not been made clear yet." (TKP, 20 June).
One key point behind the dissension within SPA ranks now being freely ventilated is why the peace deal was signed in such a tearing hurry and with such lack of transparency. NC's Arjun Narsing KC, for instance, pertinently asked: "Why did Girijababu not refer the issue to the party before going ahead with what he did?" (THT, 20 June). Why, indeed?
Could it have been a classical case of an 'old (and ailing) man in a hurry'? Was his impending departure for Bangkok for medical purposes the very next day a decisive factor in that regard?
Violence, Abductions
Despite all the blather about the "historic" nature of the peace accord, indications on the ground don't for a moment suggest that peace is just about to break out. A sampling of some recent newspaper reports ought to make that abundantly clear.
A report from Itahari had it that Maoists abducted five persons - on the very day that the accord was formalised. From Nepalgunj the same day came a news story disclosing that the Maoists were collecting over Rs 3.33 million from contractors exporting leather, wastes and agricultural goods, normally handled by the district development committee.
In Dhanusha district, also on Friday, Maoists abducted two UML party workers - after first beating them, as indicated in a UML press release. Also in the same district, Maoists compelled all teachers to provide donations, even while intensifying their donation drive against small and big industries and businessmen too.
Once again in Dhanusha, Maoists abducted another UML official, leading to criticism by Amrit Bohara in a press statement issued on 19 June.
While belated reports of pre-accord torture by Maoists have also come in, even after the supposedly momentous political event last Friday, two youths were abducted from Kathmandu by the Maoists and severely tortured.
Equally noteworthy is the capture by Maoists of the district development committee of Parbat by the Maoists on 19 June - or three days after the peace accord - that reportedly being the first time that Maoists have forcibly placed a representative of their "people's government" in an official post in the local administration.
Cautious Reaction
Against the above confused, turbid backdrop, it is hardly to be wondered at, that the main international players in Nepal's domestic politics - India, the US and the UK - have either kept mum (at least at the time of writing on Tuesday) or else have uttered the most innocuous statements, and that too heavily qualified.
On the other hand, it is revealing that the Indian Left has gone into an overdrive of over-joy in not only welcoming the eight point deal between the SPA and the government per se but doing so because, in their view, it would now spark a new, more vigorous Maoist movement throughout South Asia.
If that sentiment is entirely in keeping with Prachanda's grandiloquent vision of his philosophy sweeping the world, it is not likely to enamour India, the United States or, for that purpose, China. None of them would, after all, like the Prachanda revolution to be exported beyond Nepal's borders - even if they accept a Maoist regime for Nepal.
Finally, this commentator must admit that on one point Prachanda came across as reasonable: in publicly stating that even those that wish to see the Monarchy retained were free to go to the public with such a message in the context of the CA election.
However, such an ostensibly liberal attitude was contradicted by a prominent Maoist woman leader Pampha Bhusal who, the day after that statement by her supreme leader, not only berated PM Koirala's recent statement about a ceremonial monarchy but went on to declare pompously that was a "shame" because "everyone wants a republic" which is, of course, patently untrue.
In sum, therefore, if it is clear as daylight that the Maoists had a cakewalk victory over the SPA, the future is nowhere as certain or as optimistic as starry-eyed idealists might hope it to be, in the false glow of the baked-in-a-hurry SPAM peace pie.
.png)
