Will Maoists’ Anti-India Tirade Impact India-Nepal Ties?

Prof Hari Bansh Jha

Conflict does not end for all the time once it breaks up in a country. It happened so in Africa, Latin America, Asia and other parts of the world. Experience shows that conflict re-emerged in at least 40 per cent of the countries that at one or the other point of time were engulfed by conflict.Though unfortunate, certain ominous symptoms of another conflict have already appeared in Nepal that was triggered by violent conflict between 1996 and 2006 and in which more than 18,000 innocent people were killed and there was huge loss of property. What would happen to the Himalayan country and in its neighbourhood, particularly in India, if another violent conflict arises? Time has come to ponder over this.

The violent conflict in Nepal had started in 1996 after the then Prime Minister of Nepal Sher Bahadur Deuba failed to meet 40-point demands of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). Like in 1996, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) with its leader Mohan Baidya (alias Kiran) submitted 70-point demand to the leader of Unified Communist Party of Nepal –Maoist (UCPN-Maoist) and Prime Minister of Nepal, Baburam Bhattari, on September 10, 2012. However, the difference in the situation in 1996 and 2012 is that Baburam Bhattarai submitted the 40-point demand to the government of Nepal as a rebel leader of Maoists. But now Bhattarai is Prime Minister and the 70-point demand was submitted to him by none other than his own colleagues of CPN (Maoist) who split from the mother party UCPN (Maoist) on June 19, 2012.

Strikingly, many of the demands covered in 40-point demand in 1996 resemble the 70-point demand in 2012 and this is more so when it comes to opposing deals with India. In their bid to lend a nationalist fervor to their demands, the Maoists in 2012 as in 1996 tried to raise different issues like the scrapping of all the “unequal” treaties and other deals with India. Towards this end, emphasis was laid on scrapping the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship with India, which is virtually a security pact between the two countries. Besides, abrogation of Arms Treaty of 1965, Mahakali Treaty of 1996 and Bilateral Investment Protection and Promotion Agreement of 2011 with India has also been demanded. Other issues that have been covered in the demand include stricter control of the Nepal-India border, scrapping of contracts given to the Indian contractors such as to GMR and others for the construction of Karnli and Arun III hydropower projects, preventing the movement of vehicles with Indian number plates, and banning Indian Hindi movies as well as Indian music in Nepal.

The Mohan Baidya led Maoist party even threatened to take resort to violent means if their 70-point demands were not met. As the Bhattarai-led government in Nepal did not do anything about the 70-point demands as it cannot be done, the CPN (Maoist) in the first phase of their struggle declared ban on the movement of vehicles with Indian number plates in Nepal. Cinema halls across the country have been threatened not to show Hindi movies and play Hindi music. Argument has been placed that some of these measures were essential to give opportunity to the Nepalese industries to grow, which many of the intellectuals have questioned.

Of course, the Prime Minister of Nepal, Baburam Bhattarai, has given instruction to the security agencies to deal with the miscreants if at all they tried to stop the vehicles with Indian number plates because that could create shortage of basic essential goods in Nepal, including petroleum products and food items. But in reality, the Maoist call seems to have been working as most of the vehicles with Indian number plates have stopped plying on the roads in Nepal out of fear of attack. Even buses that used to bring Indian tourists to Nepal have been affected. On top of that, the cinema halls do not want to take the risk of showing Hindi movies and playing Indian music.

In the meantime, Nepal’s other political parties like the Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) and the Madheshi parties have opposed the 70-point demand of the CPN (Maoist). There is certain news of retaliation across the border in India when effort was made to stop the vehicles with Nepalese number plates. In Nepal itself, many people are dissatisfied with the move of CPN (Maoist) as they have started facing shortage of petroleum products and other essential items. Even the cinema viewers who like the Hindi movies and Indian music are disappointed. Most of the Nepalese media have also opposed the Maoist demands.

Notwithstanding the opposition, the CPN (Maoist) cadres are not in a mood to retreat from their 70-point demands. Media report s confirm that the CPN (Maoist) have among their cadres those elements who could not be accommodated within the mother UCPN (Maoist) led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal (alias Prachand). At a time when the political situation in the country is fragile and the law and order situation is fragile, efforts are being made by the party to bring to its fold those Maoist fighters who were discharged from the Maoist cantonments in 2012. Of the 19,000 plus Maoist fighters, more than 16,000 have already been discharged from the cantonments as they opted for voluntary retirement scheme. Now effort is being made to bring those people into the fold of the party. Besides, those thousands of Maoist workers who were disqualified in the cantonments in the initial stage for being child soldiers or on other grounds are also being mobilized. Consequently, the Maoists’ spirit is emboldened and the cases of forced donation, bandh and other such activities have started growing.

However, it is beyond comprehension as to how the Maoists, who took shelter in India for years during the conflict period, are targeting India. It was through the Indian intervention that the Maoists and the seven political parties of Nepal entered into 12-point agreement in New Delhi in 2005, which ensured safe return of the Maoists in Nepal. In a way, the 12-point agreement paved the way for the second People’s Movement in Nepal in 2006 and the emergence of the Maoists as the single largest party in the Constituent Assembly in 2008. It was then only that the monarchical institution of 239-long years was abolished and the Maoists were able to head the government in 2008-2009.

It is also difficult to understand as to why several Maoists want to maintain closer relation with China when the Chinese government provided even lethal weapons to Nepal to crush the Maoists during the time King Gyanendra ruled the country in 2005.

It appears that the CPN (Maoist) might try to take Nepal on the path of conflict again to serve their motto of capturing power, though such a move might prove disastrous to Nepal. They might do so with the help of the old fighters who were heavily indoctrinated during the conflict period in Nepal. Yet the ground reality does not favour the Maoists. Perhaps, many of such cadres might not return to the jungle and work as guerillas as they did in the past because they have been so much accustomed to the life of the cities and towns now. They have neither genuine support from the common mass of the Nepalese population nor do they have any international backing as such. Even the decade-long conflict made the people so much wary that they cannot that easily be diverted. They are in no mood for any conflict as they are disgusted with the selfish nature of the leaders. But this does not give room for complacency. In case the conflict of even low intensity breaks, of which there is some probability, it might not only have an impact within Nepal but also it might affect India most as being the closest neighbour and also due to the fact that there is an open border between the two countries. Therefore, before the situation goes out of control, all the Nepalese and other international stakeholders including India should see to it that peace and stability in Nepal is not disturbed. Conflict anywhere is threat to peace everywhere.

(The author is former Director, Centre For Economic and Technical Studies, Nepal)

What after CA Dissolution in Nepal?

Hari Bansh Jha

The Nepalese Constituent Assembly (CA), which had jumbo size of 601-members, was expected to make constitution within the stipulated time of two years from 2008. But despite its repeated extensions for four times, it could not make the constitution during its total tenure of four years until May 27, 2012 and so finally its dissolution took place on the next day on May 28, 2012.

As per Article 38 (7) (B) of the Interim Constitution of Nepal, the Prime Minister automatically lost his executive power as he lost CA membership following its dissolution. The President of Nepal, Ram Baran Yadav asked the Nepalese Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai to remain in the post and continue to perform administrative work of the government as caretaker until the new government was formed.

But on the eve of dissolution of CA, Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai declared November 22, 2012 as the date for holding elections of the new Parliament. President Ram Baran Yadav, however, is maintaining silence on this issue.

Moreover, the Prime Minister wants to give continuity to the present government in the post-CA dissolution period until the elections of the Parliament is held, but other major political parties, including the Nepali Congress (NC) and the Communist Party of Nepal –Unified Marxist-Leninist (CPN-UML) and ten students wings want the Prime Minister to resign from his post immediately to pave the way for the formation of national government. The NC and CPN-UML have already stopped giving support to the present government by calling back their ministers.

In fact, the dissolution of CA is a great set back to democracy in Nepal. Unfortunately, neither the CA could come with any formula with regard to the restructuring of the states under the federal system nor did it resolve the dispute about the system of governance. Some of these issues were major hurdles in constitution making. CA’s seriousness in making constitution was observed only when the Supreme Court in Nepal gave its verdict that there would be no further extension of CA if it failed to come out with constitution until May 27, 2012, the day its term expired.

The political leaders in Nepal in haste tried to resolve some of the issues that they could not address for a long time. The problem of rehabilitation and integration of the Maoist People’s Liberation Army numbering 19,000 plus was largely addressed. Most of the combatants opted to go for voluntary retirement from the cantonments and satellite camps. As such, only 3000 or so combatants were left to be integrated with the Nepalese Army and it was not difficult to do so as there was already an understanding among the political stakeholders to integrate 6,500 of those people in the Army.

A few days before the dissolution of CA, the NC and CPN –UML had even joined the government headed by Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai of Unified Communist Party of Nepal – Maoist (UCPN –Maoist). The loose alliance of Terai Madhes Democratic Forum had already extended its support to UCPN (Maoist) in forming government. With the joining of those two major political parties, the Bhattarai government in Nepal had really taken a shape of democratic alliance, if not the consensus government.

In a marked departure, the major political parties in the Bhattarai government including the UCPN-Maoist, NC and CPN-UML agreed to form 11 federal units. Besides, they decided that the President of the country would be elected by the people; while the Prime Minister would be elected by the Parliament. It was agreed that the constitution would be prepared based on some of those broader framework and the contentious issues would be left to the next elected parliament to decide.

However, the political leaders of the major political parties like the UCPN (Maoist), NC and CPN–UML committed a blunder for not giving any details of the names and geographical boundaries of federal units. They were silent with regard to the question of power-sharing between the people-elected President and the Parliament-elected Prime Minister. They were also silent on the procedures of election of chief ministers in federal units and the election of the National Assembly members.

It was feared that the confusion in division of power between the two executive bodies of President and the Prime Minister could trigger conflict. It was anticipated that the President backed by the army could make the Prime Minister’s position shaky leading to the revival of authoritarian regime.

Most importantly, by deciding to form 11 federal states, the three major political parties in the government embarrassed the Madheshi forces. They expressed complete disagreement with the proposal of the three political parties to form the so-called 11 provinces for the reason that it ignored the issue of identity. They also took this development as an attempt to foil the idea of ethnicity-based federalism. There was a growing apprehension that a conspiracy was hatched to weaken the Terai by breaking it into multiple states rather than one state.

As it is well known, the Madheshis have been making demand for the formation ‘One Madhesh Province’ from east to west in the Terai region. They had stopped the Madheshi agitation in 2007 only when the then Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala made agreement with the Madheshi leaders to concede their demand for the formation of ‘One Madhesh Province.’

The Terai-based Madhesi People’s Rights Forum, therefore, threatened to protest the agreement with regard to the formation of 11 states if the contentious issues in constitution were not scrapped. Normal life in Terai region had been plagued by the bandh (shutdown) for more than three weeks due to the call given by different ethnic groups, including the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities and Tharuhat Struggle Committee. The industries, business and movement of the people had largely been affected. Cases of ethnic violence erupted in different parts of the country.

The Nepalese Federation of Indigenous Nationalities, including Tamans and Newar communities of Kathmandu, had announced Kathmandu-centered programmes in their bid to oppose political parties’ decision on federalism. Amidst the chaotic situation, the Western diplomatic missions and their aid agencies in Nepal had asked their staff and their nationals not to make visit outside Kathmandu.

Now in the post CA dissolution period, it is very difficult to predict about political course that is likely to take place. But certain signs of conflict among the major political parties have already started. The CPN-Maoists want election of Parliament to be conducted on November 22, 2012, but the NC and CPN-UML do not want such an election to be conducted under the aegis of CPN-Maoists. Besides, misunderstanding has started surfacing between the President and the Prime Minister. The President treats the Prime Minister merely as a caretaker body until the next government is formed. On the other hand, the Prime Minister thinks himself as competent executive body to run the government and hold elections of the parliament.

In the existing situation, the NC and CPN-UML might loose their political hold in the country further if there are elections of the parliament as per the decision of Nepalese Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai. It is likely that the CPN-Maoists might use the government machinery in its favour to win the elections. It might also use former combatants during the time of elections to its advantage. Even many of the Madheshis might back CPN-Maoists during the time of elections. This is due to the fact that some Madehsh-based political parties are in the government and a message has gone to the people in Terai region that the NC and CPN-UML are in favour of dividing Madhesh whereas the CPN-Maoists are somewhat considerate to their cause of forming One Madhesh.

In order to save the country from plunging into further conflict, it would be appropriate if the President of Nepal facilitates a process whereby a competent retired Chief Justice of the country is made Prime Minister. The new Prime Minister could form government with the help of non-political persons and then declare appropriate date for conducting next elections of the parliament. After conducting parliamentary election in free and fair manner, the Prime Minister might be expected to handover power to the person who is elected Prime Minister by the parliament. It would be the duty of the next parliament-elected Prime Minister to see how the new constitution is made to the satisfaction of the people. In the existing situation, neither the political parties in government nor the parties in opposition could be said to be appropriately qualified to conduct the parliament elections as they have failed to make any delivery so far. Any effort to deviate from this process might further destabilize peace and stability in the country.