Best of all uncertainties

The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), under the leadership of Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda) and Baburam Bhattarai (Laldhoj), gave up on the system of multi-party democracy in its early stages and launched a “people’s war” from the jungles. Within a few years, the movement had become so strong that a majority of Nepal’s districts were under their influence, if not control. Nepal went through the trauma of the palace massacre in 2001, and things went from bad to worse, giving an excuse for the vastly unpopular King Gyanendra to take over as an absolute monarch. It took this climactic event to bring the Maoists above ground again, and into an understanding with the other political parties, in order to launch a powerful people’s movement which led to the overthrow of the king. Then, after several hiccups, the CA elections happened, with stunning results.

It is important to put things in proper perspective by highlighting the fact that the Maoist journey back to multi-party democracy had started as early as 2003. It was not triggered by the king’s coup, but by a rational introspection undertaken at the plenum held in 2003 regarding the reasons for the setback that the international communist movement suffered in the latter half of the 20th century. This led to the conclusion that the dictatorial tendencies which flourished in the communist leadership in the 20th century led to the party’s doom. The Nepalese Maoists also determined at the same plenum that the growth of dictatorial tendencies in the polity could be attributed to the absence of multi-party democracy. It was in that context that Prachanda declared his party’s commitment to multi-party democracy.

It is significant that when People’s March, the mouthpiece of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), interviewed Azad (Gajarla Saraiah) in its August 2006 issue, he was vituperative in his criticism of Prachanda and his “deviationist path”. Ironically, on April 2, on the eve of the Nepal CA elections, Azad and his wife Rama were killed in an encounter in the Eturunagaram forests. Maoist websites in India paid tribute to him almost exclusively by quoting his diatribe against Prachanda and his newfound fondness for multi-party democracy. This is clearly indicative of the deep worries that the Indian Maoists and their supporters elsewhere have regarding the path that the Nepalese Maoists have taken. This, of course, was before the Nepal election results started trickling in.

The greatest advantage that the government of India can hope to gain from the Maoist victory in Nepal is that it would have a demonstration effect on the Maoists in India. However, Azad had addressed this issue directly: “It is the wishful, subjective thinking of these parties (CPI and CPM) that the developments in Nepal will have a ‘positive’ (by positive, what they mean is the Maoists shunning armed struggle and joining the so-called mainstream of parliamentary politics) impact on the Maoist movement in our country.” He added that the true Maoists would never accept the parliamentary path. However, this shows that Azad and his colleagues have been concerned about the impact these new developments in Nepal would have on their colleagues and cadres in India. Now that the Nepalese Maoists have won such a landslide victory, it would be difficult to convince Indian Maoist cadres that victory can only be achieved through armed revolution. The significance and the implications for India, resulting from the Maoist electoral victory, have to be seen from this point of view. In fact, for the Nepalese developments to be of any good to India, the Maoists had to win.

This is not to say that there is no cause for worry. The Nepalese Maoists have adopted tough postures all along the way, even after they signed their agreement with the Seven Party Alliance in November 2005. Bhattarai spoke, in the run-up to the elections, about the Maoists being capable of taking over the state within ten hours (in case the other parties rigged the elections). The Young Communist League has been accused of various acts of violence and aggression. However, it is not to be forgotten, as the International Crisis Group has pointed out in its report on the Nepal elections, that other political parties too resorted to their own brands of violence during the campaign, but it was the so-called Maoist atrocities which were highlighted by the media, both Nepalese and international.

Allegations of high-handedness by party cadres are bound to be there under the new dispensation in Nepal. There will be tough legislation, especially on the land reforms front. (It is worthwhile recalling that, to a great extent, the drastic land reforms in Kerala and West Bengal prevented Naxalite ascendancy in those two states.) I understand that Bhattarai has already met private industrialists and assured them that the Maoists are not against them or against any activity calculated to improve Nepal’s economy. However, it is to be expected that trade unionism of the more aggressive variety will manifest itself to the discomfiture of entrepreneurs.

One danger that needs to be guarded against is the potential threat from the extreme Left’s propensity to dominate all organs of power and to assign a dominant status to the Party. Prachanda’s repeated assertions of continued commitment to multi-party democracy give comfort on this score.

One important lesson for India from all this is that we need to revisit the tactics and strategies that we have been following for combating Maoism in India. We need to reach out to the Maoists, even as we combat them on the ground. For this we need to rely on persons who have access to Maoists, people in whom they have trust. We must remember that the Maoists do not trust even their colleagues from the leftist parties. We therefore need to approach people on the periphery of the movement, who may include intellectuals, academics, social activists and sympathisers. Strictly speaking, it is possible to book such people under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act or such other anti-terrorist legislation available in some of the states facing serious Naxalite threat. We need to introspect whether this is the right approach.

It seems to me that the wheel has turned full circle since King Gyanendra usurped power on February 1, 2005. And the ability of the Indian security establishment to think out of the box at a crucial point in time in Nepal’s history has made a huge contribution to the (by and large) peaceful transition to inclusive, multi-party democracy in Nepal.

The writer retired as chief of the Research and Analysis Wing in January 2007 express@expressindia.com