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.

... contd.