|
Over the recent period Nepal has undergone a huge
transformation. In less than a year we have seen the Maoists move from their
guerrilla bases in the hills to Parliament. This of course was possible thanks
to the mass movement of April 2006 (Lokantra Ardolan) that forced the ruling
class to make concessions. What is amazing is how quickly and easily the
Maoists dropped their guns and replaced them with briefcases.
This month marks the 11th aniversary of the
People's War, the guerrilla struggle that was meant to liberate Nepal
from feudalism, capitalism and imperialism. However, the Maoists had always
been very careful in how they posed the tempo of this process. They always held
the position that Nepal
needed a period of parliamentary democracy and a Republic.
This is in line with the "two-stage" theory that the
struggle in countries like Nepal
cannot pass immediately to the socialist tasks. First there is need for a
democratic revolution, i.e. a bourgeois revolution and only later, after a
period of capitalist development, can the socialist tasks be posed. The present
position of the Nepalese Maoists was therefore always a possibility, even when
they were at the height of their guerrilla struggle.
The outcome
of the negotiations with the Seven Party Alliance (the Nepali Congress, the
Communist Party of Nepal-Unified and five other minor leftists groups that
oppossed the king at the time of the abolition of the Parliament) could be seen
as a "success" for the Maoists who now have 30% of the seats in Parliament. But
if we recall that at one point they could have taken power and swept away all
the rotten bourgeois politicians, then this "success" would be seen in a
somewhat different light.
The CPN(M)
and the CPN(UML) now have the majority and the alliance of all leftist/communist
forces has the absolute majority in Parliament. In spite of this predominant
position of the Left, the debate on the Constitution is being led by the Nepali
Congress. Thus the left forces are leaving the initiative to the political
representatives of the bourgeoisie.
An
interesting feature of the current state of affairs is that the pro-monarchy
forces have been reduced to a small minority of seats (around 15%). Taking into
account the fact that at the moment the Nepali Congress has a pro-Republican
position, the current balance of forces in Parliament is tilted very much in
favour of those who want the abolition of the monarchy. The abolition of the
monarchy would be a huge step forward for the Nepalese masses. But by itself it
would not solve the fundamental problems facing the masses.
The bourgeois
politicians would be prepared to support a Republic as long as this does not
imply taking any serious decisions about questions like land reform and so on.
An intersting comment appeared in The
Himalayan Times on February 3: "Nepali Congress (NC) general
secretary Ram Chandra Poudel said the NC has been delaying its decision to go
for a republic as the act of locking up weapons has not been completed." This
means that even on this basic democratic demand, the bourgeois politicians are
playing for time and using it to force the Maoists to give up their arms
completely, thus shifting the balance forces back towards the present ruling
elite.
So long as the Maoists hold on to some of their arms they
remain a threat. By posing this demand, the Nepali Congress are hoping to drag
out the process. It could drag on for a couple of years, enough time to
undermine the social base of the Maoists, or at least time to try it. It is the old game of keeping the masses
waiting while the politicians play out the parliamentary game. In the meantime
the masses will start to become impatient and may even lose hope. The ultimate
aim is to whittle away the social base of the Maoists, a base which has been
built up so painstakingly over many years.
This painful
process could have been avoided if the Maoists had taken the initiative during
the April movement. Power was there for the taking, but because of their
mistaken perspectives they did not take it. Now, who is going to solve the
pressing problems of the masses? This is the burning question.
The Terai unrest
In the next period the 83 Maoist Members of Parliament will
be meeting to debate the future interim Constitution. But exploitation,
landlordism and national oppression are still widespread. This explains the
recent unrest, the rioting among the Terai minority. The Terai rioting, in
which over 20 people were killed and hundreds were injured, started in Lahan on
January 19, and hundreds of government offices and other buildings were
vandalized. The whole area was paralysed by these events that crippled the life
of Morang, Sunsari, Siraha, Saptari, Rautahat, Dhanusa, Bara, Parsa and Sarlahi
districts. The stoppage was called by the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum. The violent
demonstrations highlight the real danger of ethnic conflict leading even
possibly to the break up of Nepal.
The Terai are one of the many ethnic groups that make up Nepal who fear
they may not be represented in the future setup and are demanding fair and
proportional representation based on their real numbers within the overall
population. In reality even the Nepalese press sees their demands as logical.
Those demands are:
"Firstly, for
electoral purposes, the twenty districts of the Terai should be delinked from
the hills. (...) Secondly, the Madhesi agitation has put forward the demand of
one seat in the Parliament for one lakh population. (...) Thirdly, the Madhesis
are demanding a federal system of governance, which coincides with the demand
of all the other sections of society, including various ethnic groups.
Ultimately, Nepal
has to evolve its own kind of governance with significant authority at the
grassroots level (i.e. at the level of Village Development Committees and
municipalities). Moreover, it has to define the centre and cantonal or
prefectural relationship as developed in countries like Switzerland or elsewhere in Europe
(http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?nid=99562).
The demand for fair representation in parliament, in and of
itself poses no real threat to the Nepalese elite. In a recent article
that appeared in the Gorkhapatra, we read the following:
"Because the demands of the Terai people are genuine, the
government and the eight mainstream parties have been sympathetic to their
cause and concern. As a prompt response to the demands of the Terai people, the
eight parties have decided to adopt a federal system of governance, which is
one of the major demands of the Terai people. This provision would be included
in the constitution, and the country will have a federal structure after the
election to the constituent assembly. Similarly, other concerns and causes of
the Terai people would also be addressed in accordance with the spirit of
inclusive democracy. The political parties in the government have positively
responded to the demands of the Terai people. Now the organisers of the
agitation need to withdraw the agitation and help maintain peace, goodwill and
harmony in the country, as the future of the country lies on these." (February
1, 2007)
The press has been blaming "infiltrators" who have used the
concerns of the Terai people to cause unrest and havoc and to destabilise the
political system. The leaders of the Maoists say the infiltrators are
"reactionary and royalists". This may well be true, but such a degree of
violent protest can only erupt if there are serious underlying social and
economic problems affecting the local people. The Madhesi Janadhikar Forum have
come into conflict with the Maoists. In fact the protests started when the Maoists
killed one of their members in a shoot-out.
According to Nepal News, "the Maoists have blamed [the] seven parties' inefficiency and
indecision for Terai unrest. They have said this ineffectiveness had given
space to the regressive elements to play." (www.nepalnews.com, 7 february). But what
else can we expect from this amalgam of parties?
The hand of the
Palace
The leaders of the Maoists should be asking themselves some
serious questions. Why is it that forces they consider to be reactionary and
royalist can play such a role? This is a clear example of how the justified
concerns of a people can be used for reactionary purposes. Had the Maoists
taken power when it was there to be taken, they could have started to solve the
pressing problems of the masses. By entering the bourgeois parliamenary game
they are asking the masses to wait while constitutional reform is discussed.
The problem is the masses cannot wait very long. That opens up a dangerous
situation.
Clearly behind the demand for democratic rights, the forces
of reaction are preparing their comeback. Because the Maoists and left forces
within the SPA allowed the monarchy and its lackeys to survive, they are now on
the move. "Thirty families have been
displaced by alleged 'royalist vigilantes' who looted and set houses ablaze
during demonstrations here by the Madhesi People's Rights Forum (MPRF). The
alleged royalists, who infiltrated the protest rallies of the MPRF four days
ago in Chandranigahpur, vandalized local houses before being faced with retaliation
from the locals. However, they managed to loot 13 houses in Dumariya VDC-2
Bastipur and torch six of them."
Of course India
has not stopped playing the role of local imperialist power and still has a
hand in Nepal,
both in the government through the influence over Koirala (the new President)
as well as the royalist forces. "India's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) dismissed on
Saturday charges made by Nepal's
Maoists that the BJP and its sister organization Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh (a
Hindu fundamentalist group) were behind the violence in the Terai". (The Kathmandu Post, Feb 3). The BJP denies that, obviously,
but it is too much of a coincidence not to have some truth in it.
The Economist, usually a voice of capitalist "common sense"
explains, "the peace process in Nepal
passed important landmarks this month as former Maoist rebels joined an interim
parliament and started putting their guns into storage. Yet even as a final
settlement to that insurgency remains distant, the country is faced with
another cause of violence: ethnic strife in its southern plains next to India,
a region known as the Terai. The two conflicts are connected. Ten years of
Maoist insurgency have made many Nepalis more assertive and convinced some of
the merits of political violence. Also, the peace process will involve a
constitutional assembly, for which elections are due in June. The ethnic group
known as Madhesis, who dominate the Terai, fear they will be cheated". (The Economist, Jan 25). The king will
always find and use any argument to keep himself close to power and undermine
the Maoists.
The Government is
not willing to use the army to tackle the conflict, as it is not a reliable
force. It has too many royalist elements within it, and the Maoists fighters
are in the cantonments. The use of the Maoists guerrillas will only strengthen
the position of the CPN-M, so this is not likely to be the action of Koirala.
The king is clearly behind this because this is a win-win situation. The real
crime is that this is the logical outcome of allowing him to stay in his seat
when the possibility of abolition of the monarchy is real. The history of class
struggle does not know of schematic patterns, as the Maoists theory envisages.
This is only
creating more contradictions within the "communist camp". There have
been two splits so far in the many communist organisations, and it is likely
that this may continue in the run up to the Constituent Assembly.
The Economist
warns: "by sowing communal tension, the
palace may hope to postpone the election. Consistent accounts place royal
agents in the Terai stirring things up, as well as in India, appealing to religious
fanatics by linking the future of Hinduism, Madhesis and the royal family.
Hridesh Tripathi, a cabinet minister who leads a Terai-based party, says it is
to be expected that the palace ‘will use all forms of conspiracy'. The
Madhesis' grievances give the plotters some fertile ground." (The
Economist, Jan 25).
The tactics used by
the feudal elements, the king and a section of the imperialists is similar to
the tactics that the imperialists and oligarchs use in Bolivia: find an issue to mobilise against the
Maoists - or Morales in Bolivia
- and create unrest to weaken their social base. Once it is weak enough, they
will pass on to the offensive.
Communists in Nepal
should be aware of what is happening elsewhere in the world. Everywhere the
imperialists and their local stooges adopt the same tactics. The Nepalese
communists are dealing with a beast that does not want to leave the scene of
history peacefully and will do anything possible to stay in power. The more
time is wasted the more dangerous the beast becomes.
The Communist
forces should abandon any illusion that the interests of the masses can be
defended by playing out the game of constitutional reform together with such
forces as the Nepali Congress. All genuine communists should come together and
work to create a real alternative to capitalism. This would include the
abolition of the monarchy. But in and of itself this would not be enough.
The question of the
land must be resolved by expropriating the feudal landlords. In the cities the
question of the ownership of the means of production must also be posed and the
imperialist domination of the country must be tackled. It is not the time to
reach compromises with the imperialists. This will only reinforce the king.
Even if the Maoists and other communists were to win the elections to the
Constituent Assembly they would still have to work with the royalist
bureaucracy and try to "manage" capitalism. This would mean a slow and painful
process where the Communists would be forced to adopt the economic policies of
the ruling elite and their imperialist backers. In this process the aim of
reaction would be to discredit the Communists in the eyes of the masses and
then later strike a mortal blow against them.
The Nepalese
communists need to take stock of the situation and reappraise their fundamental
analysis of the situation. At the root of the present mess is their theory of
revolution by stages. There is no room for a "democratic bourgeois stage" in Nepal.
The ruling elite are prepared to concede a period of bourgeois democracy only
as a means of holding on to real power, economic power. By leaving the levers
of economic power in the hands of the bourgeois they are preparing a terrible
defeat in the long run.
The future of the
Nepalese revolution is at stake. It is time to change course.
See also:
|
