By Suman Pradhan

The past week has been truly remarkable in the history of the Nepali conflict. The king’s elections was shown to be what it was: a laughable farce. But more noteworthy than that was the resurfacing of the Maoist leadership. Comrade Prachanda granted not one but two face-to-face interviews: one to Kantipur Publications and the other to The Hindu.

This was the interview of the decade, if not for others then certainly for Nepalis. But what to make of it?

A careful reading of the interviews brings to the fore a few significant points. The first is: Why now? Why give a plethora of interviews now when it was easier to just sit back and pile up the pressure on the regime? To me this is a significant question because Prachanda has been one of the most elusive figures throughout the movement. While his statements have been made public from time to time, and even email interviews to journalists have been granted over the years, he has never sat down for a face-to-face interview, except for the one he did with Li Onesto in the early years of the conflict.

So the first thing you think about is what was so urgent that it got the Maoist supremo to summon top journalists to hear him out? Could it be that internal pressures is forcing the leadership to seek a speedy resolution? Or could it be that he thinks this is the best time to say whatever he has to say because the domestic and regional situation favours the one who seizes the initiative? This is quite likely because, with the royal regime getting all the richly-deserved bad press (for their own stupidity), the Maoists may think they are considered the lesser evil and, as such, the world is now ready to hear from them.

So here comes Prachanda’s first and strongest message in the interviews: Both Nepalis and the international community should not fear us. We are ready for a compromise, but on our terms.

I, for one welcome the message, but it’s the caveat - on our terms - that makes me nervous. What are the terms?

You have to give the man credit for clarity, for he spelt out very clearly what those terms were - constituent assembly elections for a democratic republic. This is the Maoists’ long-held position which has remained unchanged throughout the history of the conflict. Whatever they may be, these comrades cannot be called double-dealers. They know exactly what they want, and they are not afraid to say so. In a way it’s refreshing since it was so unlike the recent royal speech which proclaimed peace and progress when in reality bombs were going off nearby.

On the face of it, the terms look perfectly logical. A constituent assembly election, whatever its result is, will be acceptable to even the Maoists. But note how Prachanda throws caveats and qualifiers in each sentence, like “for now”, “the situation today”, “for the moment”, etc, etc. These make it plain that his position is temporary and can change for the better or worse. What will not change is the ultimate goal of a socialist communist republic.

And that takes me to the second message of the interview: These guys have a clearly thought out plan for the future - constituent assembly, democratic republic, merging of the PLA with the RNA, and then finally a true communist republic. That’s the plan. But it’s here that the interviews get a little murky. The Maoist supremo goes to great lengths to convince us that this is not tactical. But elsewhere in the interview, the impression of tactics is not shaken off so easily. Let me quote him verbatim: “We have not dropped our demand for a democratic republic. But to achieve that minimum political slogan, we have said we are prepared to go through free and fair elections to a constituent assembly. There shouldn’t be any confusion that we have now agreed to a ceremonial monarchy. Some people have tried to draw this conclusion from the 12-point agreement but even at the time we explained to the parties that our slogan is a democratic republic. Earlier, we were saying people’s democratic republic but this does not mean we have dropped that goal either. It’s just that according to today’s power balance, seeing the whole situation and the expectation of the masses, and that there [should] not be bloodshed, we also responsibly believe that to get there too we will do so through peaceful means.” (From The Hindu interview http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/nic/maoist.htm

From what Prachanda says, it appears that the seven-party alliance has accepted those terms. But that I think is a fallacy. Those parties can’t live up to their own internal agreements, let alone one with the Maoists. Remove the king from the picture and it won’t take long for the parties to assert their own terms to the Maoists. So if not the Maoists (a big if), then the parties are certainly playing the tactical game. They have aligned with the Maoists to scare the Palace which, as everyone knows, has only its bull-headedness to blame.

The reason I say this is because it helps to look at the issues with a skeptical mind. Apparently one of these two sides (Maoists and parties) is playing a tactical game, but which one? Parties or the Maoists, or both? Prachanda’s repeated assertion that this is not tactical but strategic shows he realizes the urgency to dispel any doubts we may have. But is he successful? I would be completely satisfied if he had said, “This is not tactical but real. We’ll accept whatever the people’s verdict is, but we will vigorously exercise our right to work for our ultimate goal through true multi-party democratic exercise.” In other words, the Maoists would resort to democratic competition to win state power.

But that is not what Prachanda says. He says: “Since we belong to a communist party, our maximum goals are socialism and communism. Those are the maximum goals of all those accepting Marxism, Leninism and Maoism as philosophical and ideological assumptions. Given the international power balance and the overall economic, political and social realities of the country, we can’t attain those goals at the moment. We must accept this ground reality. We have mentioned democratic republic and constituent assembly, with the understanding that we should be flexible given the balance in the class struggle and international situation. This is a policy, not tactics.” (From The Kathmandu Post interview available at http://www.kantipuronline.com/interview.php?nid=64876).

But note the temporary nature of this position. I may be completely wrong, but to me, a literal translation of the above sentence comes out like this: Because we realize the military and political force arrayed against us is unbeatable at this moment, we accept compromise. Once we are strong enough, we may wage the struggle again to win full “democracy.” Now that would have cleared up matters a lot, but sadly it does not happen. And it does not happen because my learned journalist friend does not push the issue further with Prachanda. I would have loved to hear the supremo talk more on tactics versus strategy. To be fair, maybe he did but it may have been lost in translation.

One glaring part of the interview is the absence of any talk of post-conflict rehabilitation. Yes, of course Prachanda says the PLA and RNA will be merged to form a national army, but there is no talk of whether his cadres, raised as they have been in a belief in total victory, will accept any compromise along the lines he has stated. What about the ethnic and regional aspirations his movement has unleashed? No questions, and therefore no answers. But the interview does serve a good purpose in the sense that, the reactions to it within the Maoist movement itself will tell us how ready the cadres are for a compromise.

So now we know what the Maoists’ ultimate aim is (communist republic), and what their minimum position is (constituent assembly). The resolution to the conflict will probably lie somewhere in between these two positions, but only if the parties, the most crucial piece in this puzzle, play their cards wisely. Wise is the operative word here.

This entry was posted on Sunday, February 12th, 2006 at 5:07 pm and is filed under Suman Pradhan's Blog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.