Flexing muscles amid uncertainty
Posted by Suman on July 21st, 2006
By Suman Pradhan
HARNAMADHI VDC, Makwanpur – In the official jargon of current Nepalese politics, rebel Maoists who have fought a vicious insurgency are no longer “rebels.” They are, in the words of several mainstream politicians, “partners” and “fellow travellers” in the mission to establish a new Nepali state.
This denotes just how far the image of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has changed in recent days. This country of 26 million has struggled since 1996 with a deadly insurgency that has so far killed more than 13,000 people and turned Nepal into one of the bloodiest countries in Asia. But since April when a peoples’ movement led jointly by the Maoists and an alliance of seven political parties forced an autocratic King Gyanendra to recede into the background, Nepal has been witnessing a rare bout of peace.
And now, if all goes according to plans, the Maoists will soon be part of an interim governing coalition with the Seven Parties Alliance (SPA). The task of that interim government will be to institutionalize the fragile peace process and hold elections to a new constituent assembly that could, in theory, deliver to the Maoists what they have been fighting for so long: a republican state.
But before it comes to that stage, the Maoists face the difficult task of surmounting growing opposition from political parties to their radical agenda. Despite the softening of their public image, peace talks between the SPA government and Maoists have sputtered in recent weeks over Maoist demands to dissolve parliament, and their refusal to decommission and demobilize armed fighters ahead of the constituent assembly polls.
This emerging tension between the partners has led the Maoists to use a time-tested strategy: flexing of muscles. In the last 10 days, they have invited journalists to witness what are being called “temporary base camps” ringing Kathmandu Valley. These camps are close enough to the capital but not too near to be explicitly threatening. Two such camps have been shown to journalists recently- one in Kavre district east of Kathmandu, and the other in Makwanpur district, south of the capital. One more was unveiled near Surkhet in western Nepal. Hundreds of Maoist fighters in full combat gear are paraded in what is clearly a show of strength. No one doubts where the message is aimed.
“They are still a force to be reckoned with. That is the message to Kathmandu,” says Pratap Bista, a local journalist in Makwanpur where the Maoists held one such exercise last week. “If the peace talks don’t turn their way, they could go back to fighting again.”
The Maoists’ temporary camp in Harnamadhi village in Makwanpur looks just like the name suggests: temporary. The guard-watch-towers stand on fragile rickety tree limbs, the freshly-dug trenches too shallow to provide any real protection, and the tents that dot the camp appear hurriedly pitched. But the weapons - a mixture of modern machine guns, INSAS and AK-47 rifles and outdated Enfield 3×3s - and the will to fight are real.
“We want the peace process to succeed,” says Comrade Jwala, a 25-year old Maoist fighter. “But if it does not, we are ready to carry on the struggle. We are prepared for any eventuality.”
Such talk unnerves politicians in Kathmandu. Their aim is to mainstream the Maoists without having to give up too much – for instance, the parliament which was revived in April by Gyanendra after a four year hiatus. Many SPA politicians see the Maoist demand to dissolve parliament ahead of the formation of an interim government as extreme.
But the parties are not in a position to dictate. With their grasp over the Nepal Army, for long controlled by the king, still tenuous, the parties have little option but to bow to Maoist pressure. Their only real hope is the backing of the international community, primarily India and the western democracies who too are keen on offering the Maoists legitimacy and recognition in lieu of good behaviour. Therein lie the Maoists’ dilemma: while they do want recognition and legitimacy, they want it on their terms - that is with their arms and fighters intact just to keep up the pressure.
“Our arms are under our control and will be under our control,” asserts Devendra Paudel, (a.k.a. Comrade Sunil), a Maoist central committee member and Regional Bureau In-Charge of the guerrillas’ important Southern Special Zone which operates around Kathmandu. “These are arms lifted by an ideology. They don’t fire by themselves. A solution can be found permanently only when everyone agrees to the demands of the people, and that is a full-fledged republican state.”
But somewhere beneath that tough talk, one can detect a yearning for peace. Paudel and his fighters are clearly enjoying the peace as much as the rest of the country. Their most recent programme is to work with local villagers on the fields and animal sheds. The aim is to help villagers, of course, but also to cultivate and co-opt because the Maoists too will need votes if their agenda is to be taken up by the future constituent assembly.
“We share our ideas with the villagers and listen to their concerns. We want the villagers to see us as a modernizing and benign force in their lives,” says Paudel. Adds Comrade Sita, an 18 year-old fighter, “We aspire for durable peace as much as anyone else. We too want to spend time with our families, not fight all the time.”
An ideal desire, to be sure, but the path towards realizing that is strewn with uncertainties.
>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.
July 22nd, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Suman, I am so impressed. Such clear writing and powerful imagery!
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Maoists are utilizing this break from fighting to “cultivate and coopt” the rural masses. That is the basic tenet of any revolutionary group. Some, of course, do it better than others and the exigencies of warfare can prompt actions that erode goodwill. It is a vacuum in governance — in terms of direct services to a citizenry seeking upward mobility — that fuels rebellion, whether the Maoist-peasant army model or the Islamic insurgencies of the Middle East. More than displays of force or the potential for such, it is the capability of rebels to fill this vacuum — contrasted with the incompetence or negligence of the state and a society’s elite — that gives rebel armies their legitimacy. I come from the Philippines, where the military has always equated ceasefires as opportunities for rebels to regroup, regain strength and gain new recruits. That is a valid claim but also a reactionary one; I always wondered why most Philippine governments couldn’t take the same tack and use the respite from fighting to bridge the alienation that provides a wellspring for rebellion.
Your Maoist rebels, of course, won’t give up their arms, not until way into a substantial political settlement. That is the way of rebellion; it is the arms, in the first place, that played an important role, for better of worse, in the political developments that have led to the semi-resolution of Nepal’s democratic crisis.
It will take a lot of effort from your civil society to diminish the Maoist influence in Nepal’s countryside. To do this, the reformist elite must learn to give as much attention to the people they purport to serve as to traditional political power plays. I hope you can help here
Now, a question from this non-Nepalese. Why do the Maoists think a republican state would be so much an improvement over a parliamentary government? Is this limited only to the abolishment of the monarchy? What other differences do their vision present? And what do YOU think of this particular debate?
God bless!
inday
July 23rd, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Before Maoists’ unleashed what they call, “peoples’ war”, over a deacde back, i am sure nobody had thought they would command such a strong political role in relatively short-time. Well, they started from a scratch, didn’t they (?).
People may have different views on how they grew stronger ( for eg.from strategy of scaring people or a popular activity based on ideolougy), but their movement, no doubt, did a lot good to a Nepali society, which in retrospect, would have been done with little bloodshed. The beauty of all these years of their war despite all demerits, is awaring people about their rights. Such education would , in turn, grow the confidence of a society as a whole towards acheiving prosperity.
Now that Mr Pradhan is back in Nepal, explaining with such an outstanding clarity(or is that reporting ?) unwanted things that would happen (like encircling capital by “rebels”), the onus lies on Nepalis stakeholders to reduce any such chance.
I don’t think most of us want two army - state and maoist-and that for nothing but only to fight with eachother.
We share a similar dream as that of Sita in Mr Pradhan’s text- an enduring peace.
Remember, united we stand, divided we fall.
July 26th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Yes, I second the thanks to Suman Pradhan for independent reporting on a topic that many of us outside the region find difficult to follow in our national press. My question is a basic one, and relates to the question of Inday Espina-Varona: when Devendra Paudel, (a.k.a. Comrade Sunil) says that “These are arms lifted by an ideology,” what does he mean? There are a range of Maoist ideologies - also, how important will ideological factors be in the decision about whether to support a future government? Do you think power factors related to individual leaders, a social vision, or a revolutionary agenda will be more important?
July 31st, 2006 at 3:16 am
Not to sound too off to the right, I question logic behind giving credibility to the Maoist. Lets be clear, the started armed rebellion after they lost the general election way back. Should we welcome such precedent? Rather than being romantics about all this, its time to be more pragmatic. Maoist, themselves have understood that they have not won the heart of people. Without Reign of Terror- they are lameducks, no question about this. Now the question of them creating awareness of rights among people- its quite debatable. The question arises of just right or overbearing rights, some unreasonable rights- it is an open issue.
I for one do not trust these Maoist nor commend any actions by them just for the fact that they started their rebellion after loosing the election. In this day and age they still fast to belief of “ends justifies the means,” I cannot be party to that or for that matter any civilized person.