Home >> South Asia >> Nepal & Bhutan

     Email   Print 

Maoist victory in Nepal leaves alarming signal for South Asia

Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury - 4/24/2008

Although Nepal is one of the smallest countries in South Asia with endless beauties of nature, the recent developments in Katmandu, which resulted in massive victory of Maoist in the election, thus establishment of another Communist rule in world’s lone Hindu nation is seen as an alarming signal for the South Asians nations as well as Asian countries. Many smell involvement of regional intelligence agencies behind such landslide victory or rather a complete upset in media predictions, while others see Al Qaeda’s hand in bringing the Maoists in power with the ultimate objective of turning Nepal into a safe haven of Islamist and Communist terrorism.

One of the Indian analysts, Sri Raman, commenting on the victory of Maoists in Nepalese election wrote, “The Maoist victory in the April 10 Nepal elections to a Constituent Assembly has come as a shock to every victim of media-reinforced prejudice and propaganda. The elite in Nepal and the political establishments in countries around the world were caught unprepared by the popular support that "terrorists," who did not share a supposed Nepali reverence for a monarchy of self-proclaimed sacredness, had won.

“In retrospect, this undemocratic assumption of these otherwise fervent devotees of "democracy" appears more surprising than the poll results themselves. Particularly notable is the surprise caused in India, the neighbor who ought to have known better. All the more so for the fact that what the results mean for the region will depend on the victors' relations with India. New Delhi did seem to know better once. It took the Communist Party of Nepal - Maoist (CPN-M) seriously enough, after all, to broker a peace between it and the Seven-Party Alliance (SPA) led by the Nepali Congress of outgoing Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala. It did let top Maoist leader Pushpa Kumar Dahal, better known by his nom de guerre of Prachanda, and his deputy, Baburam Bhattarai, visit India on a well-publicized public relations mission in 2006.

“The pre-poll assessment of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government, however, showed a perceptible change. We do not know whether this was because of the public statement in 2006 of former US Ambassador to Nepal James Francis Moriarty that the Maoists would win only "very few seats" in case of polls. The India-US "strategic partnership" perhaps made New Delhi takes seriously the declaration, noted in these columns then as an egregious example of diplomatic impropriety.

“As the results started coming out, firmly sealed official lips represented the first reaction from the government, with the media close to it only voicing concern over the fate of the obviously unequal India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship, 1950, which the Maoists had promised in their manifesto to review and revise if returned to power. The past couple of days have seen a distinct shift in the stand, with the government preferring the positives of the situation, such as the impact the event is likely to have on the Maoist insurgents at home. This is a major component of the response of the mainstream, parliamentary Indian left to the Maoist victory as well.

“Three different responses, in fact, make up India's reaction to the historic development in the Himalayan nation. The first, and perhaps the least noticed, is the impact on the Indian Maoists. No statement from the Communist Party of India (Maoist) has found its way into the media, but the outlawed party has not concealed its opposition to the policies and path pursued by the CPN-M over the past two years. The CPI (Maoist) has taken particular objection to the talk about the CPN-M's switch to the parliamentary path as a shining example for the armed left operating in some tribal areas of India.

“In a rare interview in July 2006, a top CPI (Maoist) leader, known only by his nom de guerre of Azad, took strong exception to a reported observation of the CPN-M chief in this regard. Azad said: "It is really a matter of grave concern that Comrade Prachanda, instead of demanding (of) the expansionist Indian ruling classes to stop all interference and meddling in Nepal's internal affairs, only talked of how their tactics would bring about a change in the outlook of the Maoists in India. Needless to say, these remarks will not only be deeply resented by the revolutionary masses of our country who have seen the wretched system of parliamentary democracy in India, but will also be proved totally wrong through their revolutionary practice."

“The Maoists' electoral victory would not have elated Azad. He warned: "There is need to beware from two situations: falling into any traps laid by the ruling classes and their imperialist and expansionist masters; second to beware of a sudden coup and massacre of communists as witnessed in Greece, Indonesia, Chile and a number of other countries." He added: "Even a huge mass base in these countries did not stop such massacres."

“India's mainstream left does not share Azad's stand at all. Sitaram Yechury, a very visible leader of the Communist Parity of India (Marxist), the strongest of the parliamentary left parties on whose support the Singh government depends, visited Nepal in April 2006 and played a crucial role in bringing the CPN-M and the SPA together. In a media interview around the time, Yechuri explained the parliamentary left's purpose: "Drawing the [Nepalese] Maoists into the democratic mainstream is the biggest advantage that India will have in tackling its own internal Maoist problem."

“Reiterating this position after the early poll results, Yechury has said: "The Maoists in Nepal have given up arms and participated in the elections, while their counterparts here are killing innocent people. If good sense prevails on them and people in general accept them in India, the leftists will welcome it."

“Not everyone agrees. Ajai Sahani of the Institute of Conflict Management voices precisely the opposite view. Says he: "There is nothing positive for the Indian establishment in the election result in Nepal. It will provide a great inspiration and give a new intensity to the Indian Maoist movement."

“India's far right, of course, has always taken a more militantly anti-Maoist stand. Responding to Yechury's statement in April 2006, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Lal Krishna Advani said the Maoists should not, in fact, be allowed to influence the restoration of democracy in Nepal. He added: "This is for the sake of our own national interest.

“India should try to help bring about normality in that country with the setting up of a constitutional monarchy and democracy which should be regarded as the two pillars, but only at the exclusion of the Maoist influence there."

“As for the government, its spokespersons have been indulging in a flip-flop over the past few weeks. India's national security adviser, M. K. Narayanan, raised eyebrows on the eve of the elections by indicating a preference for the Nepali Congress over the Maoists (and possibly thus helping the latter's cause).

“Much earlier, in August 2005, India's external affairs minister, Pranab Mukherjee, voiced concern that the situation in Nepal could "go out of hand" as the Nepalese army's efforts to crush a Maoist rebellion were proving ineffective. He added: "We are trying to impress upon (the Nepalese) government (the need) to tackle the Maoists. But, unfortunately, certain recent developments in that country, like the suppression of its constitution and the multi-party system, had set back anti-Maoist initiatives." He was referring to dismissal of the civilian government by King Gyanendra on February 1, 2005.

“On December 18, 2006, the same Mukherjee said that the entry of Maoist rebels into Nepal's government following a peace deal "would encourage the extremists and the Maoists in other areas to join the national mainstream of politics." Asked whether the Maoists were still "untouchable" to New Delhi, he said: "Once the Maoists join the government, there is no question of not meeting them."

“In his first official reactions to the poll results, Mukherjee welcomed the Maoist victory and declared that New Delhi is "better off with a democratically elected government in Nepal." He has more than hinted at sharing the left's hopes about the impact of the event on the Indian Maoists.

“Given the constraints of the "strategic partnership," it may well be that Washington will influence significantly what will happen on the India-Nepal front in the future. The US policy itself would appear to be undecided, as of now.

“Pressure for a more positive approach to the Maoists has been forthcoming from former US President Jimmy Carter, who was in Kathmandu recently and whose Carter Center had sent a 62-member team of election observers to Nepal.

“Carter was quoted as telling the BBC: "It's been somewhat embarrassing to me and frustrating to see the United States refuse among all the other nations in the world, including the United Nations, to deal with the Maoists, when they did make major steps away from combat and away from subversion into an attempt at least to play an equal role in a political society."

"If the Maoists do gain a substantial share of power," he went on, "I hope the United States will recognize and do business with the government."

“Hailing the elections as among the "most profoundly important" of the several he has witnessed, Carter said they marked "the end of a decade of political violence and the probable transformation of Nepal from a Hindu kingdom to a democratic republic." The ex-president went out of his way to defend the Maoists against charges of election-time violence.

“Pressure of the opposite kind is being mounted by diehard royalists, refusing to accept the results and the prospect of a republican Nepal. Some organizations of US-based Nepalese - including the Nepali Nationalists Organization, Sanatan Dharma Sanskrit and Nepali Center and Motherland Nepal - have petitioned Sen. Joseph Biden, chairman of the US Senate Committee for Foreign Relations, practically calling for assistance in undoing the results.

“The petition to Biden said, "the international community can minimize the tragedy that will unfold in a very near future" in Nepal as a result of the Maoist victory. This could be done, in the petitioners' view, "if Nepal's monarchy is saved and given continuation as the constitutional monarchy." They said: "Now, as the leading nation of the world, the US must make swift moves for containing the rise of communists in Nepal thereby spreading rapidly throughout the South Asian region...."

“The peace movement in India cannot afford to ignore the peril such a response to the Maoist victory in Nepal can pose to the region.”

Another Indian analyst Gopal Siwakoti, commenting on Maoist’s victory in Nepal wrote, “arguably for the first time in its history the Nepali nation has regained, through popular franchise, a degree of sovereignty that its servile political leadership had steadily surrendered over the years to various foreign interests. The idea of a constituent assembly to found a republic first came up in political circles in the 1950s. Today, five decades later that has become a reality and this reality is a spectacular one.

For the first time in the history of modern south Asia, a constitution is to be written in an assembly that is more representative than any other in the subcontinent. This is the long delayed revolution that so many forces both inside Nepal and outside have tried to thwart ever since it began to stir to life long ago. This is the single biggest contribution of the Maoist movement, not just to Nepal but also to south Asia -- the potential democratization of a nation's founding charter so that the state represents the peoples' will to a greater degree than its predecessors did.

This is the meaning of the victory of the Maoists in the elections to the first popularly elected constituent assembly in south Asia. This is the victory of the Nepali people against their feudal oppressors, the triumph of popular sentiment over the malicious propaganda of the media, the success of the republic over the kingdom, the attainment of sovereignty against foreign interference and the conquest of Katmandu by the rest of Nepal.

Why the Maoists won:

The Maoists have won a majority of the seats under the first-past-the-post system and are on course to win the largest share of the seats in the proportional representation system as well. This overwhelming victory has come as a surprise to the mainstream political parties of Nepal, to the global media, to India and all the outside powers that have made a habit of interfering in the sovereign affairs of Nepal. All of them loiter in Katmandu and chatter to each other about the destiny of Nepal. But the outcome is not a surprise to those who have kept their ears close to the ground.

What the myth-makers of Katmandu failed to understand was that the Nepali polity was comprehensively anachronistic, based on a narrow system of accommodation of the urban and rural elites, and unable to deliver even the most rudimentary form of welfare to the vast majority of impoverished rural Nepalese. Left to fend for themselves after a series of betrayals that saw people being deprived of the agrarian livelihood thanks to World Bank-International Monetary Fund reforms, deprived of the water and natural resources thanks to Asian Development Bank-led developmental destruction, denied even basic services such as electricity and a decent education, ordinary Nepalese voted in large numbers for a political force that had articulated a new radicalism in Nepali history and underwent severe hardships to give a voice to peoples' aspirations in the course of the 10-year old civil war.

The civil war, though brutal and bloody, gave rural Nepalese an insight into the extent to which the Katmandu-based state and the social and economic interest groups it protected would go to preserve the privileges of the few against the aspirations of the many. This is something that most observers of Nepali politics do not comprehend. There is a liberal delusion that people being ground to extinction by extreme poverty have the same distaste for class war that the exploiters of the nation entertain and hence in an election an underground force will be defeated. Yet, it was the mainstream political forces that were reluctant to hold the elections in the first instance because, being closer to the ground than commentators who live exclusively off Katmandu, they knew the reality of just how meaningless the Nepali state had become to the Nepali people. If anything, the conduct of the Nepali Army in fighting the civil war alienated the mass of the people from the institutions of the state, including the political parties.

The mainstream political parties were themselves unable to overcome their ideological paralysis and formulate a clear vision of their politics that would at least have neutralized the loss of credibility that resulted from their craven conduct during the years that they managed the polity between 1991 and 2004. They were unable even to take a definite and categorical position on the question of monarchy and the army, both of which had caused immense damage to rural Nepal through their depredations.

In short, when the Maoists articulated politics more relevant to a larger number of Nepalese, the political forces defending the outdated polity became proportionately more irrelevant. This is why the Maoists won despite India's success in ensuring that the two major left forces, the Maoists and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist - Leninist), fought the elections against each other.

The success of the Maoists is also attributable to its amazing collective leadership and coordinated actions, which were sustained despite the intense pressure, exerted by various forces, not least the media, to divide them.

External implications:

The emergence of a new political force at the helm of the state has implications for all the major powers with geo-political interests in Nepal. So far all of them have invested heavily in the former mainstream parties, particularly the Nepali Congress. This has been truer of the US, the Europeans and to an extent the Chinese. With the Indians, the approach has been different. Whereas officially, India engaged with the Nepali Congress and UML, its covert agencies have maintained channels of communication with the Maoists. The intricate negotiations between the Maoists and the other Nepali political parties that took place in New Delhi in 2005 also gave the Maoists over ground legitimacy and opened up communications with official India.

While the elections results have come as a shock to the Indian establishment, India will have less difficulty in dealing with the Maoists than the US or the Europeans. However, what will be interesting is the attitude of the Maoists towards Indian overtures. It is no secret that India had a significantly obstructive role to play in ensuring that the Maoists did not have any major alliance partners during the elections and this drew the ire of the Maoist leadership.

The Indian bureaucracy, especially those who sit in South Block, has been notoriously dense and obtuse in its reading of the Nepali situation. India's Nepal policy has been shallow and ill-informed and it was only in 2005 briefly that India rectified its course. Therefore, India will have its work cut out to rebuild good relations with the Maoists, so that Nepal and India can co-exist on a more equitable basis than has been the case hitherto.

In this context, much has been made in India of the China factor, merely on the strength of alleged ideological affinities between the Maoists and China. Given that there is nothing Maoist about present day China, and given China's economic utilitarian attitude to external relations there does not seem to be much scope for any great deepening of Nepal China relations. In the past the Chinese were very comfortable in dealing with the king, even when he seized power in 2005 and there is no particular affinity between the Chinese and the Nepali Maoists, any more than there is between the Chinese and the Indian Maoists. This is primarily the rhetoric of security alarmists and hawks in the Delhi establishment and their clients in Katmandu.

Historically, all political forces in Nepal have had more affinities with India than with any other country for obvious cultural and geographical reasons and it is difficult to see that situation changing drastically unless the Indian establishment bungles so drastically that such a situation is forced on the Maoists. As between India and China, primarily the same set of overall relations are likely to continue, though the Maoists are more likely to stand up to India's domineering than the other political parties.

In fact the country with the most to lose is the US and, therefore, by extension the UK, since the latter is but a international sub-set of the former. The new US ambassador, Nancy Powel is an unknown quantity, but she will have to live with the messy heritage of two previous incumbents who had no clue what they were doing. U.S. and UK policy in Nepal has been utterly ill-informed and they have had very few real connections with the Maoists, who are still on the US' list of terrorists.

To date there has been no indication of any rethink on the US policy to Nepal and Nancy Powel was keener to meet the fallen giant Girija Prasad Koirala, whose family led its party to a rout in the just concluded elections.

If there is no American rethink and US diplomacy continues to keep to its failed course, the only available option for US diplomatic personnel stationed in Katmandu to use domestic clients to whip up an unstable climate before staging a coup. The attempt cannot be ruled out even if the success of such an enterprise is open to question.

In the circumstances, Prachanda's leadership is likely to be severely tested, much more so than it was in the underground. In the underground he rose to Olympian heights of leadership and held the movement together for 10 years despite every attempt to break it. Those same qualities will have to come to the fore if he has to steer Nepal through to a socialist republican future.”

Several analysts are seeing hidden cooperation between Al Qaeda and Nepalese Maoists, which helped Maoists in attaining such landslide victory in Nepal. There is reportedly a hidden agreement between the two in allowing Al Qaeda outfits in the South Asian region [in Nepal] to operate without any legal obstacles. Now, after the victory of Maoists, it is anticipated that activities of Al Qaeda and other Islamists terror groups will greatly increase.

A number of Islamist political parties were asked to comment on the victory of Maoists in Nepal. Kazi Azizul Huq, international affairs secretary of Bangladesh Khelafat Andolan [Bangladesh caliphate Movement] was asked to comment on the analysis of many saying victory of Maoists in Nepal is seen as a conspiracy of Communists and Islamists.

In reply, Kazi Azizul Huq said, “Nepalese Maoists are atheists-leftists and so far I know all their helps have been organized by British intelligence and DFID through their organizations and contacts in Scandinavia and commonwealth countries specially Canada. British intelligence organized Coordination Committee of Maoist Parties and Organizations of South Asia (CCOMPOSA). In August 2006, CCOMPOSA held it's fourth conference in Nepal. Representatives of eight parties attended, including those of the Ceylon Communist Party (Maoist), who did not sign the resolutions. That has been taken as an indication that the CCP(M) was invited as an observer. The parties that participated in the conference were the following:

Purba Bangala Sarbahara Party (Central Committee), Bangladesh, Purba Banglar Communist Party - ML (Lal Patakar), Bangladesh, Bangladesher Samyabadi Dal (ML), Bangladesh, Communist Party of Bhutan (MLM), Bhutan, Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), Nepal, Communist Party of India (Maoist), India, Communist Party of India (ML) Naxalbari, India, Communist party of India (MLM), India, Ceylon Communist Party (Maoist), Sri Lanka.

There was no participation of any Islamist or Islamic party in their conference. The promotion of Maoists in South Asia - who are essentially enemies of Believers in God - and they have been coordinated by British intelligence. So far we know the policy of British government is to De-Faith Muslims of Bangladesh and introduce anti-Islamic culture and values to undermine marriage and promote free-sex, live-together, Gay, Lesbianism, atheistic humanism, atheistic secularism etc. Islamic or Islamist parties have no scope to cooperate with them.”

Next question was, as an Islamic political party do they support spread of Communism or Socialism in any format in the world?

Kazi Aziz said, “Atheistic Secularism, Humanism, Communism and Socialism are prime enemies of Islamic Faith and culture. Bangladesh Khelafat Andolon wants contain those enemies of Faith at all costs.

Moreover, without private ownership of properties many of the worships of Islam including Zakat, Fitr, Sadakah, Oshor, Khums, and Law of Inheritance can not be practiced. This is why the Believer Muslims joined hands with Believer United States Government to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan.”

According to a number of analytical reports and intelligence forecasts, Nepal has already turned into a save heave of Al Qaeda. For past couple of years, the notorious Islamists terror group was spreading wings under the patronization of Nepalese rebel groups, especially Maoists with the ultimate target of launching massive offensives on a number of targeted countries in Asia. Bangladesh too is under the very active eyes of Al Qaeda, as the organization has meanwhile activated several Islamists groups within this country, including Hizb Ut Tahrir, an organization banned in many of the countries in the world. Now, the million dollar question is, after the victory of Maoists in Nepal, should this country too turn into a potential danger zone for peace loving population in South Asia? Should also the huge number of foreign tourists visiting Nepal become potential targets of Al Qaeda? Or, should the Maoists government in Nepal now patronize leftist terror activities within South Asia thus spreading once more heinous groups like Naxalites? Possibly the coming times will give reply to all these questions.