A rose by any other name... is still red

Should the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoists (CPN-M) drop the “Maoist” tag? Nepal Finance Minister Baburam Bhattarai, who leads the move, wishes to appease the world community whose cooperation and support is so vital for the success of the Maoist-led government. After all, Bhattarai’s ambitious budget envisages that twenty five per cent should be coming in grants from donors. The move to remove the Maoist tag appears more practical than political. Maoists have by now sized up the political parties in the country. The party unilaterally set the political agenda of ‘New Nepal’, while other left parties including the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) quietly followed the Maoist line on republicanism and federalism.

Maoists have also apparently realised that the result of non-cooperation from the international community will be far more disastrous than the ones coming from within. Nepal’s squabbling parties have given up their principles and lost people’s respect — as the results of the constituent assembly amply demonstrated. And Maoists have already got the desired results from these calculated tactics. The US Ambassador has assured the Maoist led Government of support. Similar assurances have come from India and European Union countries.

But Maoists do not seem to use that pledge for democratising their party at home. The party is reiterating its commitment for establishing a “people’s republic”, a synonym for one party rule, or multi-party rule within the control of the communist state. At the same time, the party is trying to come up with a new interpretation of the mandate of the peace process. On October 26, the government withdrew 349 criminal cases registered against Maoist leaders that mostly involved human rights violations, committed during ten years of conflict beginning in 1996. The cases range from sedition to terrorism and murder, and renders the proposed truth and reconciliation commission futile. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), signed between Prime Minister G. P. Koirala and Maoist chief Prachanda in November 2006, stated that all cases related to the violation of human rights by the state and the insurgents during years of conflict will be referred to the commission. But the Maoist led government has created a situation where only violations by the state and non-Maoist groups will be referred to the commission, if it is ever formed in a credible manner.

Moreover, the Maoists have been refusing to honour other pledges it made in the CPA. Prachanda had promised that his party will return all the property it captured from individuals. But once he became prime minister three months ago, his tone has slightly changed. “We will return that property legally”, he now asserts, but does not explain the rationale behind the delay in return. He knows that neither the Nepali Congress nor the UML have the strength and ability to organise any movement against the government forcing it to return such property. If that situation ever arose, Prachanda will be able to divide the two parties with the lure of power and position.

... contd.

Ads By Google

Message*	Maximum characters allowed

Name*		Email ID*
Subject*		Country*

TERMS OF USE:
The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).

I agree to the terms of use.