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.

... contd.