Prachanda: “The people’s mandate is for all parties to work together”

If the Nepali Congress and the UML run away from the task of building the new Nepal, the people will never forgive them, says Maoist leader Prachanda in the second and final part of his exclusive interview to The Hindu.

29 April 2008
The Hindu

“The people’s mandate is for all parties to work together”

If the Nepali Congress and UML run away from the task of building the new Nepal, the people will never forgive them, says Maoist leader Prachanda

Siddharth Varadarajan

In the final part of his interview to The Hindu, Maoist leader Prachanda discusses the future of the monarchy and Army in Nepal, and the need for the country's new constitution to escape the trap of formal democracy and actually empower its citizens.

The Maoists and other parties are committed to abolishing the monarchy in the first sitting of the Constituent Assembly. But once again people have started speculating about what might happen.

There is no ambiguity. The mandate for a republic is clear. We want the end of the monarchy to be done in an orderly, peaceful way. Since the institution of the monarchy is going to be dissolved, it is better that Gyanendra goes of his own accord. This way, a good atmosphere will be created for him to continue living in Nepal as a common citizen and run his businesses. The people will forgive him and it will be better for him and his family. So I told [the royalist politician] Kamal Thapa the people's verdict has come and in the first sitting we are going to implement it. There is no room for any confusion about this. And since you have good relations with [Gyanendra], you should tell him it is better he goes before this. Thapa said he would convey my message but I never received an answer.

One issue the new government must tackle is integration of the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) with the Nepal Army. What is the nature of, and timeline for, the integration you envisage?

We want the question of integration to be resolved as quickly as possible. My expectation is that this process will proceed in tandem with the writing of the constitution. And there is no need for us to take two years to do this. It can be completed in a year and integration too should be solved within a year. Secondly, the problem is not so difficult as it was earlier because when the government is formed with our leadership, the integration process will also be easier. Integration is not so complicated as people outside think. The comprehensive peace agreement created the basis for integration, as does the way in which the interim constitution and other agreements speak of the PLA and Nepal Army (NA). Also, there has been continuous dialogue in the JMCC [Joint Monitoring Coordination Committee] for the past one-and-a-half years between the representatives of the NA and PLA, and this has also created an atmosphere.

In our view, the Nepal Army needs to be further democratized and the People Army needs to be further professionalised. In this way, only those who are professionally fit will be integrated and those who are unfit will go to other jobs. This is already clear. And the democratization process of the NA has already started. The Army says it will follow the orders of whichever elected government is formed. This is a positive statement. Immediately after the new government is formed, we will set up a special committee for integration under the government and with the participation of other parties. There will be comprehensive debate and discussion in that committee so that the process of integration is completed as soon as possible.

You have said Nepal does not need a large army. [PLA commander] Badal has spoken of 30,000 being the optimum size of the Nepal Army, which is much less than the current strength of 90,000.

In a small country like Nepal, there is no need to have a large army. The size of the army should come down. Broadly speaking, we are thinking of a size of 30,000 to 50,000. But we are not speaking of an immediate reduction. We don't wish to disturb the institution of the army too much. But on the basis of a plan, over 5 to 7 years, we would like to have a smaller army.

Is there a need for the UN to supervise this process of integration?

I feel there is no role for the UN in integration. Now that we have a CA, and a basis has come into being for political stability and integration too, I do not see a role for the UN.

The Young Communist League (YCL) has come in for a lot of criticism during the election campaign with the other parties accusing them of using strong-arm tactics. Why can't the YCL be converted into a development-oriented movement?

We want its role to change. We are thinking of the YCL being mobilized as a working force, a creative, construction force, and are debating this in the party and will take a decision in the Central Committee soon. Not only about YCL but for all the youth of Nepal -- how to mobilise them for the building of new Nepal. We are developing a plan for the state to mobile the strength of youth, and so the YCL's role will not be as it was before.

One of the challenges a Maoist-led government will face is working with the Madhesi parties, particularly the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum. Given the bad blood between you and the experience of the Gaur massacre, where more than 30 of your cadres were killed, how do you plan to address this issue?

During the Madhesi andolan earlier this year, I tried very hard on behalf of our party to address some of the issues. In the process, some relations with the Forum were built. You are right that last year there was a very bitter struggle and this bitterness increased especially after the Gaur massacre. We believe action should be taken there against the guilty and wherever we have made mistakes, there should be legal action too. In this way, we will solve this problem at the level of law and order, while at the political level we will interact with them, build a front and go forward. I see no problem in this. And it is not as if we don't know the Forum and its leader, Upendra Yadav. He was in the district committee of our party for seven years. I don't think it will be difficult for me to talk with him and work together in the writing of the constitution.

And you want the Forum in the coalition government?

It is necessary to include them. We need their assistance to build the constitution. Only if they are also in government can we unify the whole country and move forward.

But the Maoists' map of a federal Nepal is quite different from the Forum's. Can you bridge that gap?

There is some difference, not in theory but in practical terms. And this can be resolved through debate and discussion. We have a common understanding on autonomy and federalism but on the question of what kind of autonomy, they say 'ek madhes, ek prades', i.e. that there should be one Madhes province in the Tarai from west to east. Our party has said we are not against this. But the ground reality should also be seen. For example, the Tharus in the west and elsewhere do not see themselves as Madhesis. So we cannot force them, we have to convince them. Pushing a policy from the top cannot solve contradictions that exist in the people. If the Forum can convince everyone, we have no objection. So even here I do not see a big difference. But given the Tharus' historical background, they want a separate autonomous province. And in Mithila, the Maithili speakers have their own tradition and culture, and in Bhojpura and Awadh you have Bhojpuri and Awadhi speakers, and in the east you have Rajbanshis. All these aspirations have to be addressed. You cannot impose anything.

What kind of political system do you envisage for Nepal? In India, Britain or the U.S, people are dissatisfied with the purely formal nature of their democracy. Money power dominates and there is a disconnect between voting rights and actual empowerment. How can the CA avoid this trap and build a system that genuinely empowers the people?

I think this is a very important question. The reason we speak of a new system – of inclusiveness, federalism and restructuring the whole state -- is because we are fully aware of the problems with the theory of formal democracy and parliamentary systems in which the majority is in government and the minority is in opposition. In this formal democracy, parties spend money, there is corruption, and people are never empowered. We want Nepal to escape from this trap and have effective democracy. This is the change we want. The tradition of formal democracy does not address the aspirations of the people. So though we are committed to multiparty competition and democracy, parliamentary democracy is not the only system. We want the people to be involved and empowered to run the state within the context of multiparty competition. Our concern is to bring women, Dalits, janajatis, Madhesis, workers and peasants forward and have an effective democracy for them. Side by side with the struggle against feudalism, we want a real democracy that can address people's aspirations and build in the control, supervision and intervention of the masses over the state. We believe the CA election has seen one exercise of inclusiveness and democracy, but we have to now seriously look at what kind of democracy we are going to have.

Though this election was about constitution writing, the people also have a lot of expectations from the government you will lead. How will the Maoists deal with this pressure?

There is a contradiction between people's expectations and the political reality we find ourselves in. We will have to tell the people that we are going to write a constitution and are committed and obliged to work together with all the parties. We have to explain what we can and cannot do. And I think if we are open about this, given the political consciousness of the Nepali people – they will wait and see whether the government is sincerely working for them or not. If they see that, then I think the Nepali people will be ready to make sacrifices. What will provoke them and make them angry is if they see people in government earning crores through corruption and their sons and daughters are studying in good schools abroad, and their buildings are coming up in Kathmandu, while ordinary people are mired in poverty.

Are you confident the NC and UML will eventually join the Maoist-led government?

I am fully confident. If they don't come, the loss will be theirs because the mandate from the 12-point understanding to the election results is for all of us to work together for drafting the constitution and taking the peace process to its logical end. In elections, you always have one party gaining or losing but this does not mean the mission we started has ended. If the NC and UML run away from this mission before it is completed, the Nepali people will not forgive them. It will not be an act of responsibility. From our side, we will spare no effort to ensure we all move forward together.

Prachanda: 'We want new unity on a new basis with India’

Without taking cooperation with India forward, we cannot do anything for Nepal, says Prachanda in an interview to The Hindu.


28 April 2008
The Hindu
'We want new unity on a new basis with India’

Siddharth Varadarajan

Ever since the Maoists won the Constituent Assembly elections in Nepal, the rush of visitors and well-wishers at Chairman Prachanda’s residence and office has been relentless. Despite his punishing schedule, the man who is likely to be Nepal’s next Prime Minister took the time to give The Hindu an exclusive, hour-long interview on April 24. In precise and even chaste Hindi, Mr. Prachanda spoke about the future of Nepal-India relations, his party’s plans for the new Constitution and the difficulties that lie ahead.

It is widely acknowledged that India played a crucial role in helping the Maoists and parliamentary parties forge a common front and in ensuring the Constituent Assembly elections were held as scheduled on April 10. And yet, there has also been a residue of suspicion between New Delhi and you. What is your assessment of the role India has played in this entire process?

The positive approach of the Indian government was a major factor behind the 12-point understanding reached in Delhi between the parliamentary parties and us in 2005. That agreement wouldn’t have been possible if the Indian government’s support hadn’t been forthcoming. It is from there that a new relationship between India and Nepal begins — and particularly the improvement in relations between the GOI and us. Before that, there was a lot of suspicion and contradiction. But from then to now, the attitude and help of the GOI is known to everyone. It is an open secret. India has consistently been in favour of elections. It had said all along that without having elections, a stable Nepal cannot be established, that elections should be held on time. Similarly, India’s emphasis on taking the peace process forward is known to all. So through this, there has been a great improvement in relations.

At the same time, our party had lingering doubts before the elections, that India could do something … For example, a statement came from Delhi that we cannot really trust the Maoists, that our [choice] is the Nepali Congress. We saw this statement and were a little concerned that this traditional mindset might have an effect on the elections. So I made a comment that a responsible official in India should not say these things on the eve of elections, that the implication of such statements is not good. Later there was an attempt to clarify things from Delhi. Still, there was a doubt in our mind. But after the results, we feel a basis has been prepared for relations with India to become even better and that whatever little suspicion and doubt existed has now ended.

It is also possible that as far as Delhi was concerned, there were doubts about whether we would go for elections or not, whether we would take part properly. But I think that through this election and its results, the doubts that were there in India’s mind have also ended and a new basis has been prepared to have new unity and new cooperation. I feel the atmosphere now has changed dramatically. India is openly saying it has no problem in working with and unconditionally assisting any democratically elected government.

So are we now at a turning point in the bilateral relationship between India and Nepal?

This is my belief. Earlier the problem was India’s two-pillar theory [of support for constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy]. You will recall in my first interview to you in 2006, I said the two-pillar theory is the biggest obstacle and that as long as India does not abandon it and come out in support of the Nepali people, there will always be difficulties. Fortunately, the 19-day andolan led the GOI to clarify it would respect the people’s verdict, even if this was for a republic. That was historically a very big change in Delhi’s policy. And the 12-point understanding represented an equally big change in the Maoists’ position and attitude. Thanks to these changes and other developments up to the elections, a historically new basis has been prepared.

I am very happy about this because of our cultural, historical and geographical relations with India and because India is a fast growing economy. Without cooperating with India, it is not possible to bring stability and prosperity in Nepal; indeed it is more or less impossible. Any practical leader, anyone who understands reality, cannot be confused about this — that without taking cooperation with India forward, we cannot do anything for Nepal. And I’m also happy that India’s leaders and people also understand that only a stable, prosperous Nepal can be in India’s interest. I think slowly people in India are realising that in order for Nepal to have peace, stability and prosperity, a new leadership and party like the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is needed. So I think we can go very far together.

Your party wants the 1950 treaty scrapped and there are many in India who agree this treaty is no longer relevant. But what sort of changes would you like to see in a bilateral treaty?

The 1950 treaty exists but based on the situation in the first decade of the 21st century, we feel it will be better for Nepal and India to have a new treaty. This is our clear and categorical belief. Our people have the feeling that somewhere along the line, the kind of benefit Nepal could get is not there, so the Nepali people’s aspiration has been to change this. Second, we would like to review all the other treaties to see what revisions or further enhancements are necessary. What we want is new unity on a new basis with India. Far from wanting to damage our relations, we want to make them even better. That is why we speak of new unity on a new basis. This basis has been established by all that has happened from the 12-point understanding till the elections, so the two sides should sit together and review the relationship with an open mind and see how we can move it forward.

In your party’s earlier 40-point programme (of 1996), you have spoken about the need to close the open border between India and Nepal. Won’t this hurt the lakhs of Nepalis who come to India to work and live?

Our election commitment paper does not say our intention is to close the border. We are only speaking of regulating it better. India and Nepal should sit and discuss how to do this because criminal elements misuse this openness. We would like to talk about these things. We have no intention of closing the open border.

And the 1996 demand for a ban on Indian films?

There has been a change in the situation and we need to move ahead based on this change.

There has been some apprehension in India about the meaning of your statement that Nepal should be equidistant from India and China. What exactly did you mean?

In political terms, we will maintain equidistance because to have an alliance and go against anyone would violate the geopolitical conditions and needs of our country. This is what we mean by equidistance. But we need to look at the ground reality too: the historical, cultural and geographical relationship with India is very different from China and this has to be acknowledged and factored into how we define our relationship. So in this sense, there cannot be equidistance with India and China. There is no open border with China, so how can there be equidistance? But as far as the question of an “alliance” is concerned, of siding with one against the other, it is in that sense that there is equidistance.

Your manifesto talks of stopping the recruitment of Gorkha soldiers for the Indian and British armies. Will this be easy for you to implement?

We have always maintained that this recruitment for foreign armies should stop. This is our position. But given the circumstances and the process by which we have come here – ours will not be a single party government – we will have to talk to the other parties to see how this sensitive and delicate issue can be resolved.

In their response to the Maoist election victory, the BJP have warned you not to be anti-Hindu. If they return to power in India, do you think relations with Nepal might change for the worse?

As far as I can understand the spirit behind the BJP’s latest statement compared to its earlier ones, there will not be any qualitative change in relations if they come back to power. I think their attitude is and will be to respect the decision the Nepali people have come to. Of course, religious fundamentalism could have an adverse impact. At the same time, I feel that if the BJP moves ahead on the basis of its latest statement, there will be no problem in talking to them or working with them should they be in government. As far as religion is concerned, it has been decided that the state will be secular. This does not mean Nepal will be anti-Hindu. It is nonsense to suggest this! Religious freedom will be maintained. State and religion should not be mixed.

The former chief of RAW, P.K. Hormis Tharakan has argued in an article that the victory of the Nepal Maoists is good for India since this will inspire the Indian Maoists to follow your example. Is this what you are advising the Indian Maoists?

What we are doing in Nepal is in keeping with the needs and sentiments of the Nepali people. So we are not going to tell anyone that you should also do what we are doing. We don’t have the right to say such things and we don’t wish to say such things either. But I do feel that what we are doing will send a strong message not only to Indian Maoists but Maoists worldwide — about how the Nepali Maoists have gone from bullet to ballot, how they have influenced and won the hearts and minds of the Nepali people, and how they have come to the position of leading the government and building a new constitution. This will be the subject of very big debate, and this will have a positive impact on Maoists everywhere because we have not betrayed our basic theory, we have developed it based on the changed situation in the world, and tried to move ahead on that basis. For example, even when the People’s War was going on, we concluded that multiparty competition is a must even in socialism. Not only in the phase of democratic revolution but also in the phase of socialism, if multiparty competition is not there then a vibrant society will not be possible. This is the conclusion we have drawn from the great revolutions and counter-revolutions of the 20th century. And on the basis of those conclusions we are moving forward. So I feel that for the Indian Maoist party, its leaders and cadres, these efforts of ours provide some new material to study, to think about and go ahead in a new way. Our efforts provide a reference point.

(Tomorrow: Prachanda on the future of the monarchy, the Nepal Army and the difficult task of writing a new constitution for Nepal.)

U.S. subverting Nepal poll mandate

The U.S. ambassador in Kathmandu, Nancy Powell, is actively pushing for Girija Prasad Koirala to remain Prime Minister despite the Maoist victory in the elections.

26 April 2008
The Hindu

U.S. subverting Nepal poll mandate

Siddharth Varadarajan

KATHMANDU: After first “congratulating the people of Nepal on their historic Constitutional Assembly election,” the United States is now seeking to subvert the electorate’s mandate by lobbying against the Maoists heading the next coalition government.

According to political and diplomatic sources, the U.S. ambassador in Kathmandu, Nancy Powell, is “actively pushing” the idea that Girija Prasad Koirala should continue as Prime Minister.

Under the interim constitution, all major decisions, including the appointment or removal of the Prime Minister, must be taken by consensus, failing which by a two-thirds majority. With the encouragement of the Americans, a section of the Nepali Congress (NC) leadership is now citing this provision to argue that the Maoists will first have to oust Mr. Koirala before they can stake a claim to the top post.

“Suicidal for party”

The American suggestion which one NC leader in an interview to The Hindu described as “suicidal for the party” runs counter to the belief of Indian and other diplomats here that a Maoist-led government is inevitable given the scale of their victory.

The CA consists of 601 seats, 575 of which are elected. Of these, the Maoists have 220, or 38.2 per cent, the NC only 110 and the Unified Marxist-Leninists (UML) 103. The four Madhesi parties have 85 seats between them. A further 26 seats will be filled by nomination on a pro rata basis.

In the current coalition based on the “interim legislature,” the NC, with 40 per cent of the seats, has not just the prime ministership but also the defence, home and finance portfolios. In line with this practice, Prachanda, chairman of the Nepali Maoists, says his party will now head the coalition government and keep the three top ministries to itself.

Though some observers feel the “GPK as PM” line is meant to pressure the Maoists into yielding at least one top portfolio to the NC or UML in an eventual coalition government, there is a fear that the proposal will take on a life of its own as other players who feel threatened by the Maoists such as the Palace and Army brass — latch on to it.

Last week, the entire debate within the NC was over whether the party should join the coalition led by the Maoists or not. But when the Central Working Committee of the NC met on Thursday to take stock of the party’s defeat, senior leaders openly challenged the Maoists’ right to lead the government.

Second ‘proposal’

A second ‘proposal’ that is being floated to prevent the Maoists from forming a stable government is an amendment to the interim constitution to allow the Prime Minister to be removed by simple majority as a condition for allowing Maoist leader Prachanda to become PM.

Since the Maoists will have more than one-third of the seats in the CA, the argument goes, there will be no check should they refuse to hold elections again. The Maoist leadership rejects these arguments.

“When the interim constitution itself spells out the lifespan of the CA and mandates fresh elections within a maximum period of two years and six months, where is the question of the Maoists delaying elections?” Mr. Prachanda told The Hindu. “Would any of these proposals or formulas have been made if the NC or UML had been in our position?” he asked. “That is the true test of how valid these proposals are.”

The Maoists fear the new emphasis on the “politics of numbers” will vitiate the consensual spirit that the CA needs to write Nepal’s new constitution.

Mr. Prachanda says the electorate’s mandate is for a coalition government led by the Maoists. “This is a time when all the parties have to work together the Maoists, the NC, UML, the [Madhesi Janadhikar] Forum and others.”

Role for Koirala

Asked what role he envisaged for Mr. Koirala, Mr. Prachanda said the “guardianship” of the NC leader had been crucial in pushing the peace process and ensuring that elections to the CA were held properly. “At the same time, he has repeatedly said he wants to retire from active politics and this must also be respected. And yet, we feel some way must be found for him to continue to play the role of a guardian. My view is that given his age and his own sentiments, the proper way to honour him would not be to insist on his involvement in the government or day-to-day politics. We have to find another way of honouring him. But if he wants, we are open-minded on this,” said Mr. Prachanda. “I told him we are prepared to talk about this.”

A lesson in statecraft, from Nepal to India

While Nepal’s erstwhile ruling parties are building peace with their Maoists, India is stuck with the disastrous Salwa Judum. If the Indian Maoists have something to learn from their Nepali comrades, the same is true of the Indian establishment as well.







25 April
The Hindu

A lesson in statecraft, from Nepal to India

Siddharth Varadarajan

While the Maoists have earned applause around the world for their stunning victory in Nepal’s Constituent Assembly elections, spare a thought for the two defeated establishment parties — the Nepali Congress and the Unified Marxist-Leninists (UML) — whose wisdom, statesmanship and political courage helped a powerful rebel group come down from the mountains and enter power through the ballot box.

Things need not have been this way. When King Gyanendra began asserting his authority from 2002, his alibi was the failure of successive governments to defeat the Maoist insurgency. After six years of armed struggle, the People’s Liberation Army and the ‘Royal’ Nepal Army had fought each other to a standstill. Each side was capable of staging punishing strikes on the other but in strategic terms, an impasse had set in which could have dragged on for years. While Gyanendra chose to press for an outright military victory, the Maoists sought to break out of this stalemate by opening a political front of struggle. On their part, the NC and the UML found themselves on the horns of a dilemma. To the extent to which they rejected the Maoists’ demands and use of violence, a section of their leadership found the King’s call for a fight to the finish appealing. But another section also knew that the violence of the Maoists was not merely nihilistic and that the rebels’ demands enjoyed support amongst the poor and marginalised. If some way could be found to get the Maoists to enter the political arena, they argued, not only would this help to bring peace to Nepal but a new power equation might get established which could further the struggle against autocratic monarchy.

Until February 2005, the dominant section of the NC and the UML leadership continued to work closely with the palace. But after the king’s putsch, collaboration with the monarchy was no longer tenable. Slowly but surely, the centre of gravity within these two establishment parties began to move in the direction of peace negotiations with the Maoists. With the assistance of Nepali civil society leaders, an atmosphere of trust and confidence between the parties was built up, grounded in the twin objectives of peace and constitutional reform. Had they wanted, the NC and the UML could still have dragged their feet. They could have refused to deal with the Maoists, whom they blamed for attacking their cadres. But leaders like Girija Prasad Koirala and Madhav Kumar Nepal had the courage to place the future of the country above their partisan concerns. With the backing of India, they entered into a major understanding with the Maoists in November 2005. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Cynics will argue that these parties would have chosen not to enter into an agreement if they had known in advance that the Maoists would win the elections. No doubt the NC and the UML expected to triumph and have been a little churlish in defeat by refusing to join a Maoist-led coalition. But these parties also knew that bringing the Maoists in as an electoral force necessarily meant diluting their own share of power. And it was this willingness to pay a political price for the establishment of peace that makes the Nepali parties a breed apart.

Is there a lesson in this entire process for India? Writing in the Indian Express on Tuesday, the former head of the Research & Analysis Wing, P.K. Hormis Tharakan, said “the greatest advantage 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.” Nobody who wants peace in India will disagree. Mr. Tharakan does not say so but it is obvious that as in Nepal, the Indian Maoists and security forces have entered a holding pattern. Each side’s capacity to inflict pain on the other may be growing but a knockout punch is out of the question. And yet, neither the government nor the Maoists are willing to explore other ways of pursuing their core objectives.

If the Indian establishment wants the Maoists to give up their armed struggle and take part in elections like their Nepali comrades, it will have to rely on more than political osmosis. For the Nepali ‘model’ is not just about the Maoists adapting creatively to changes in the national and international arena; it is equally about the ‘bourgeois’ parties there demonstrating a degree of statesmanship that has so far been completely absent in their counterparts south of the border.

Indeed, so backward is our political culture in relation to Nepal’s that instead of seeking ways of peacefully ending the naxalite insurgency, the Government of India has actually fuelled a new civil war. For the past three years, the Chhattisgarh government has been financing and arming a private vigilante death squad known as Salwa Judum (SJ), whose terror tactics have led to the forced displacement of tens of thousands of tribals from their homes. The Special Police Officers (SPOs), often minors, who form the core of SJ are accompanied by paramilitary forces and the police. Their modus operandi consists of forcing villages suspected of being sympathetic to the Maoists to relocate to strategic hamlets on the main road. Villagers who resist are attacked and killed, their huts and property looted and destroyed. Several independent inquiries — the most recent of which was by the National Commission for Child Rights — have confirmed the violation of human rights on a massive scale, including sexual violence. In Kota Nendra village, for example, during the course of an SJ attack in 2006, not only was a three-month-old burnt alive (his mother gave up eating and died soon after of grief) but other children were shot while bathing at the borewell and in the village pond.

Though the SJ is an initiative of the ruling BJP in the State, it has the full backing of the Congress at the Centre. In a recent appearance before the Supreme Court — which is hearing a PIL urging the disbanding of the vigilante squads — the Centre’s counsel actually argued that the government was forced to rely on civilian SPOs because the regular police were (allegedly) too scared to take on the Maoists. It is bad enough that the establishment insists on pursuing a purely military solution. But when it arms and dispatches untrained civilians to commit crimes, this makes the government, as the Chief Justice of India noted on March 31, guilty of abetment.

In Nepal, the political parties and the Maoist rebels realised that the civil war in their country would not be resolved militarily. The king was the only one who failed to recognise this reality and paid the price for his folly. In India, however, despite the military stalemate which prevails, both the establishment and the Maoists continue to believe in the supremacy of arms. And it is the people, mostly tribals, who are paying the price for the folly of others.

In Nepal, the peace process worked because civil society activists helped create an enabling atmosphere in favour of peace and justice. The PIL against Salwa Judum in the Supreme Court is so important precisely because it aims to strengthen the rule of law. In India, however, the natural inclination of the establishment is to look upon all criticism of official policy with suspicion. Thus, the Chhattisgarh government has chosen to accuse the petitioners — who include a former Secretary to the Government of India, two senior academics and a former MLA — of acting on behalf of the naxalites.

Last year, the widely respected medic and human rights defender, Binayak Sen, who had documented some of the excesses of the Salwa Judum, was arrested under the Chhattisgarh Special Security Act, which criminalises dissent. One year on, he is still in jail. In the newspaper article cited above, the former R&AW chief has questioned the wisdom of using anti-terror laws against individuals who might otherwise be in a position to mediate with rebel groups. He didn’t name any victims but Dr. Sen — who has just been named as the recipient of the prestigious Jonathan Mann Award for Global Health and Human Rights — is perhaps someone he had in mind. Another example is Lachit Bordoloi, the Assamese journalist and writer, who actually helped the government establish contact with the underground United Liberation front of Asom (ULFA). Last February, he was inexplicably arrested and charged under the draconian National Security Act.

If the Indian establishment really wants Maoists to follow the path of their Nepali comrades, it should listen to what the UML’s Madhav Kumar Nepal has to say. I asked him in Kathmandu recently whether he had any advice for India on dealing with the Maoists. Though still smarting from his electoral defeat, he said the government should address the underlying problems of the poor and create the space for the naxalites to come forward for dialogue. “This will be less costly for the country and people than trying to deal with them militarily.” Is anyone in New Delhi listening?

Neither flat nor round but bound

REVIEW: Ties that bind the world may not be easy to sever but global connections can be mediated.

22 April 2008
The Hindu

Neither flat nor round but bound

SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN

Ties that bind the world may not be easy to sever but global connections can be mediated

BOUND TOGETHER — How Traders, Preachers, Adventurers and Warriors Shaped Globalization: Nayan Chanda; Penguin-Viking, 11, Community Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi-110017. Rs. 525.

Positioning himself somewhere between the irrational exuberance of Thomas Friedman and the rational scepticism of Joseph Stiglitz, Nayan Chanda has written a remarkable book on the multilayered history of what has come to be known as “globalisation” in today’s world.

Moving back and forth through space and time, Chanda presents the reader with a bewildering assemblage of facts to press home his point about the truly “global” nature of human interaction since time immemorial. From cotton and spices to sugar and slaves, Buddhism and Christianity to Islam and human rights, the movement of goods and humans across land and sea also led to the migration of ideas, religion, culture and technology. In every historical period, there were forces which contested this movement or benefited from it but the inevitability of human interaction triumphed over all attempts to close societies off from outside influence.

Agents of globalisation

In Chanda’s narrative, the agents of globalisation are of four broad types – traders, preachers, adventurers and warriors. The division is somewhat arbitrary and whimsical but it works well in the main. The first traders travelled to Çatalhöyük in Turkey in the 8th millennium BCE to buy obsidian for use as scythes. Eventually, trading routes opened all the way from Anatolia to Mesopotamia, India and China. Fast forward to the 21st century and you have call centres being opened in Senegal. If the Buddha’s message was the first manifestation of global evangelism, Christian and Islamic preachers quickly established a worldwide presence as well. But Chanda reminds us that not all preaching is necessarily benign, as the messages beamed out by al-Qaeda and other extremists today are testimony to. Given the role played by conquest in shaping the political contours of the world at any moment in time, it is hardly surprising that warriors should be given their due for leaving an indelible imprint on globalisation. As for “adventurers”, these are the explorers, scientists and migrants without whom the world would be a far less connected place than it is today. Throughout human history, the DNA of these change agents has remained constant. But in the modern world, the speed with which they are able to effect change has undergone a profound transformation. And that speed, says Chanda, brings new opportunities as well as challenges and threats.

Inevitability

Chanda’s purpose in providing a panoramic view of the history of global interaction is not so much to celebrate globalisation as to stress the inevitability of it. Unlike Friedman, he is alive to the contradictory and differential impact that globalisation has had on countries and people around the world. But he believes the extent to which it can effectively be resisted is limited. “The future will always bring surprises, but a reading of history does not suggest that globalisation – the integration that has grown over time – could ever be terminated,” he writes, in an argument that summarises the thrust of the book. “The complex process of interconnectedness that has gathered momentum over the course of millennia cannot be halted, nor can its myriad threads be neatly unwound.”

Redefining the terms

While Bound Together is brimming with fresh insights and interesting facts, the danger in discussing globalisation in such a broad historical manner is that one loses sight of its contemporary specificity. Beyond a point, equating globalisation with connectedness sidesteps the all important question of the terms of engagement. For example, the movement of Buddhism from India to China via Dunhuang was as much a global phenomenon as the forced sale of Indian opium to the Chinese by the British in the 19th century. But the first movement was brought about through geographical osmosis, the second through imperial power. How global mobility is mediated then is often more decisive than the underlying dissemination of goods, people and ideas. To the best of our knowledge, the good people of Çatalhöyük did not seek to patent the use of volcanic rock or insist on an annual service contract or a share in the ownership of fields where the scythes were used. And there is little sense in imagining there is anything in common between those first, innocent “global” exchanges and the highly monopolised, predatory practices of the international food industry today.

Globalisation evokes so much passion and contestation around the world not because of xenophobia or the fear of the unknown but because of the terms of engagement. And although social movements and governments cannot and should not hope to end their interaction with the outside world, redefining the terms of engagement does offer a way of turning “globalisation” into a more equitable and mutually beneficial phenomenon than it has been until now. Most sensible economists, for example, argue that there is no need for a globalising country like India to make its capital account convertible. Many communities in India are resisting the depletion of ground water that cola factories are causing. The victims of the Union Carbide disaster are demanding that Dow Chemicals be made to foot the bill for the environmental cleanup of Bhopal and its water as a precondition for it to be allowed back in India. These positions are not anti-globalisation per se; rather they envision an alternative vector of global interaction. Similarly, the rise of multinational companies from China and India opens up the possibility of a new kind of contestation as they enter into competition with established players from the advanced capitalist countries.

Chanda is right in saying globalisation cannot be terminated and he is sympathetic to the voices of those who have clearly lost out in the process. What the book needs, perhaps, is a more elaborate examination of alternatives which can redress the existing, unequal terms of engagement while preserving the emancipatory potential of global connectedness.

Triumph of the new mainstream in Nepal

By voting in the Maoists, the Nepali people have chosen the party most likely to push for an egalitarian society and inclusive republican system in the Constituent Assembly. India must not only respect the verdict but also help the new government implement its democratic mandate.

16 April 2008
The Hindu

Triumph of the new mainstream in Nepal

After failing to recognise the obvious groundswell of support that had built up for the Maoists in the run-up to the Constituent Assembly (CA) elections in Nepal, India needs to move quickly to adjust itself to the new power balance. Despite receiving reliable field reports of the widespread support the Maoists were enjoying across the country, South Block deluded itself into believing that the former rebels would be at best a distant third. Bogus surveys commissioned by t he U.S. embassy in Kathmandu in which the Maoists were shown as winning only 8 to 10 per cent of the popular vote started circulating within the corridors of power in New Delhi. Accordingly, the foreign office’s contingency planning revolved around coping with the fallout of a poor showing by the former rebels. Even here, the official assessments showed scant understanding of the ground reality with improbable scenarios like a Maoist “urban insurrection” being bandied about.

Predictably, no attention was paid to exploring the consequences of a Maoist victory. Indeed, so confident was the Manmohan Singh government of its assessment that National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan issued a certificate of approval for the Nepali Congress barely a week before the polling day. That India was extending a ‘helping hand’ to the campaigns of the NC as well as the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) was not a secret. The Indian role in boosting the profile of at least two Madhesi political outfits was also quite significant. But publicly taking sides on the eve of elections was not only improper but unwise as well. It is testimony to the statesmanship of the Maoist leadership that it preferred quietly to convey its concerns about Mr. Narayanan’s remarks to New Delhi rather than making public accusations of Indian interference.

Though India was caught off-balance by the Maoists’ stunning victory, the government has begun to correct the impression that it has been discomfited by the verdict. External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee described the result as a “positive development” and senior officials say they are looking forward to working with the Maoist-led coalition government which will rule Nepal till the Constitution is finalised and fresh elections are held in 2010. This is as it should be. After all, India played an important role in facilitating the Nepal peace process and effecting a “soft-landing” for the Maoists. Where New Delhi erred was in assuming that the NC and the UML represented the Nepali “mainstream” into which the Maoists were being brought. In reality, years of compromise with the monarchy had destroyed the credibility of these two parties and the subterranean balance of forces inside Nepal had already tilted in favour of the Maoists. By the time of the Jan Andolan of 2006, it was the Maoist demand for an end to the monarchy and the election of a Constituent Assembly which had captured the imagination of the people, even if the Maoists were not at the head of the mass movement in Kathmandu.

Over the past two years, the Maoists succeeded in pushing the envelope further, winning popular acceptance for their slogans of an inclusive, federal republic as well as for a more equitable voting system. Nepal’s political elite and sections of the Indian establishment who feared losing control of the entire process sought to derail the momentum the former rebels had built up. The proposal for a fully proportional election system was blocked and the Madhesi agitation encouraged as a means of weakening the Maoists. None of these efforts succeeded. The Maoists contested the CA election as the creators of the new mainstream. And it is hardly surprising that the people of Nepal should have chosen them to lead the process of writing the country’s constitution.
Consensual process

To be sure, this process will have to be a consensual one. There is no way the Maoists will win more than 250 seats in the 601-strong CA. In any case, the Interim Constitution established consensus or a two-thirds majority as the principle for taking decisions. So, having even a simple majority is of little practical significance. The Maoists have been quick to emphasise their commitment to running a coalition government, but the NC and the UML have so far not been forthcoming about where they stand. Indeed, it is possible that hardliners within these two parties may suggest staying out of government in order to make life difficult for the Maoists. What happens on the coalition front, therefore, is the first major challenge the Maoist leadership will have to deal with. Having emerged victorious in a bitterly fought election campaign marred by violence in some areas, the onus is on the Maoists to reach out to all the other parties, especially the big two. The Maoists will have the right to name one of their own as Prime Minister and also keep the Home, Defence and Finance portfolios for themselves. But every effort should be made to include the other parties in the cabinet. To the extent to which the UML or even the NC (under the parliamentary leadership of Sher Bahadur Deuba) may baulk at such an arrangement, India must be prepared to offer its good offices to counsel the two parties against playing the role of spoilers.
Madhesi issue

The second challenge for the Maoists will be the inclusion of the Madhesi parties in the governing coalition. Given the bad blood between the Maoists and Upendra Yadav of the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum, this is easier said than done. Mr. Yadav is an unpredictable quantity with questionable affiliations and associations. His activists have been directly or indirectly responsible for the killing of dozens of Maoist cadres. If any outside power or agency were interested in destabilising the Maoist-led government, using the MJF would be their first line of attack. Which is why the Maoists have to find an effective way of neutralising this threat. Inclusion in the coalition is one way. Handling the underlying grievances of the Madhesi people with grace and sensitivity is another.

The third challenge Nepal’s new rulers will have to confront immediately is in many ways the most difficult one — overseeing the integration of the People’s Liberation Army with the Nepal Army. Integration is a formal part of the peace process and the seven party alliance is formally committed to seeing it through. Until now, the Nepal Army brass has publicly opposed integration but with the Maoists likely to head the Defence Ministry soon, the generals will have to fall in line. Maoist leader Prachanda has said in the past that Nepal does not need such a large army but any drawing down of numbers will have to be accompanied by a plan to re-absorb those being demobilised into some kind of productive employment. What form integration will take and what the overall size of the Nepal Army should be, thus, are issues that need sorting out. The Maoist leadership needs to handle this question with a great deal of sensitivity and tact. But it is essential that the international community not send out wrong signals on the question of civilian control over the military.

The fourth hurdle to be overcome is the continuing designation of the Nepali Maoists as a terrorist organisation by the United States. Former President Jimmy Carter has publicly called for this designation to be withdrawn but no organisation that has been so named by the U.S. has ever been taken off the terrorist list. Here, India will have to take the lead in counselling Washington — its supposed ‘strategic partner’ — to abandon its pig-headed approach to Nepal.

On the bilateral front, it is natural that Nepal’s relationship with India will undergo a change. The relationship until now has been one of unequals and the very public perception of this inequality inside Nepal has actually served to limit what India has been able to do on the economic front. In the long run, India will find that a democratic, self-confident Nepal will be a far better friend and partner than the monarchy which it supported for years ever was. In the meantime, however, it is essential that New Delhi not seek to press too hard on the gas pedal. The internal political dynamics of Nepal first need to recover from the shock the electorate has delivered. Large hydroelectric projects, even if scrupulously for mutual benefit, will have to wait till then.

All told, the election results are good news for both Nepal and India. Rather than looking at the rise of the Maoists with fear and trepidation, the Indian establishment needs to do what it can to help Nepal’s new coalition government fulfil its democratic mandate.

The rumblings in Nepal’s Tarai

Unless the situation is handled with sensitivity and care, Madhesism, not Maoism, will be Kathmandu’s — and New Delhi’s — next big problem.






9 April 2008
The Hindu

The rumblings in Nepal’s Tarai

Siddharth Varadarajan

The people of Nepal go to the polls on Thursday to elect a Constituent Assembly (CA). While the eyes of the world are focussed on what the results will mean for the Maoists and the Monarchy, what happens to the Madhesis and their movement for autonomy will, in many ways, be even more crucial. After spending nearly a week covering the election campaign in the eastern and western Tarai of Nepal, this correspondent came away with a sense of foreboding about the future. Though the ‘Madhesi street’ is calm, armed extremist groups operate with impunity, and it is not uncommon to encounter in the discourse of Madhesi activists a tinge of communalism and even separatism. Unless the legitimate grievances are addressed with sensitivity and grace, illegitimate aspirations will rise up to take their place. In a sense, this process has already begun.

The Tarai belt is Nepal’s most densely populated region and accounts for half the country’s 29 million people. Not all of its residents are Madhesis, however. Janajati groups like the Tharus — the ‘original inhabitants’ before the swamps were cleared and Avadhi, Bhojpuri and Maithili-speaking migrants moved up from India — have a strong presence in the western plains districts. In the east, you have Limbus. And throughout the region, the Nepali-speaking Pahadis are present in significant numbers.

All told, the Madhesis form 31.2 per cent of Nepal’s population. And though they are as stratified in terms of language and caste as the Pahadis, a shared sense of grievance inheres in all of them. “We have never been accepted as Nepalis,” Anand Prakash Pandey, an activist of the Sadbhavna Party, said in Nepalganj. “Despite being Nepali citizens, we have always been called ‘Indians’.”

The exclusion that Madhesi activists speak about is not just nomenclatural. There is bitterness over the extent to which Madhesis have been “kept out” of the state administration, and over the fact that Hindi — the link language between Maithils, Bhojpuris and Avadhis — finds no official recognition in Nepal.

In common with the rest of the erstwhile kingdom’s citizens, Madhesis too wanted the CA to provide them the rights they have been denied all these years. But this is where the plot got complicated. When the Maoists began their ‘Peoples War’ in 1996, they sought to win over the Madhesi population and launched the Madhesi Mukti Morcha. At a time when traditional Madhesi organisations such as the Sadbhavna Party took part in ‘reformist’ politics, the Maoists built up a strong network by addressing the Madhesis’ ethnic grievances as well as the problems of marginalised groups such as Dalits.

Despite their overall profile weakening in the Madhes over the past year, the Maoists still have strong pockets of support in the Tarai. “When they were underground, it was the Maoists who saved all the Musahars here from being evicted from our homes,” said Misri Lal Sada, a rickshaw-puller in Sunsari.

In the Tarai as well as in areas where the janajatis were dominant, the Maoist demand for a CA to be elected on the basis of proportional representation (PR) struck a deep chord. But after the Jan Andolan-II of March-April 2006, when Parliament was restored and the Maoists joined the government, the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (UML) forced the former rebels to drop their demand for PR. A compromise was struck for only half the seats to the CA to be allotted on PR basis. The political cost of this compromise has been tremendous. “The Maoists grew because they promised ethnic rights,” Ravi Thakur of the Madhesi Manavadhikar Forum said in Taulihawa. “So when they dropped PR, the impact of this was immediately felt in the Madhes.”

Overnight, new political groups emerged which took up the demand for, inter alia, a fully proportional electoral system. Since these groups were competing for the same political space as the Maoists, clashes erupted. Soon the entire Tarai was convulsed by the demand for greater representation and autonomy. The NC initially found this agitation useful since its immediate target was the Maoists. And Indian intelligence agencies took a benign view. Eventually, two armed groups also emerged — the Janatantrik Tarai Mukti Morcha (JTMM) of Jwala Singh, and Jai Krishna Goit. The latter is openly secessionist.

Among the politicians who seized the moment was Upendra Yadav, a former Maoist leader who spent time briefly in an Indian jail before abandoning his former comrades, disappearing from sight for a couple of years, and then reappearing at the end of 2006 to spearhead a new agitation for Madhesi rights. He is a charismatic and articulate speaker, but one of his own supporters described him as “not a fully transparent sort of person.” I caught up with him in Devangunj in Sunsari district. “The Madhes has awakened. This is a fight for azadi [independence],” he said. When he saw the look of surprise on my face, he added: “Of course, by azadi we mean svayyata (autonomy). We want the entire Madhes to be one autonomous province.”

This demand of ‘Ek Madhes, Ek Prades’ is problematic because it will foreclose the real devolution and inclusion that Nepal’s diverse ethno-linguistic groups aspire to. For the Madhes activist, federal Nepal consists of three horizontal provincial belts of the plains, the hills and the mountains. The NC and the UML have not elaborated their vision, but the suspicion is that they will push for geographically ‘vertical’ rather than ‘horizontal’ provinces in which the Madhesis will be denied a majority because of the inclusion of Pahadis through a process of gerrymandering.

On their part, the Maoists have put forward a map which comprises more than a dozen provinces, including a part of the Tarai called ‘Madhes,’ which is then divided into three sub-provinces of Abadh, Bhojpura and Mithila. The Tharus and Limbus get their own provinces in the western and eastern Tarai. Though some Madhesi activists support the idea of separate provinces within the Madhes — there is fear of the eastern Tarai dominating the west and of the hankering for jobs and positions that a process of subdivision will bring — most people accuse the Maoists of engaging in a policy of ‘divide and rule.’

The problem for the Madhesi parties is that there are three of them and they did not manage to seal a pre-election understanding among them. This means that in most of the 80-odd Tarai constituencies where the Madhesis are in a majority, Upendra Yadav’s Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF), Mahanth Thakur’s Tarai Madhes Loktantrik Party (TMLP), and the Sadbhavna Party will cut into one another’s votes.

Anil Jha, a senior Sadbhavna leader, said he was not confident that the three parties would together win more than 20 to 25 seats in the 601-strong Constituent Assembly. But does this really matter, since 31.2 per cent of the 335 seats being contested on the basis of PR have already been allotted to Madhesis, and a reasonable chunk of the first-past-the-post seats will also be won by Madhesi candidates from other parties? “We do not think Madhesi members from other parties will represent the Madhes in the CA,” Ram Pratap Sharma, an activist with the TMLP in Taulihawa, declared. “They will be bound by their party’s whip and that whip will belong to the Pahadis.” Said another leader: “The outgoing Assembly had 41 Madhesis in a house of 205. But they were powerless.”

What to do with the Pahadis — who constitute more than a third of the population of the Tarai — is a question the Madhesi parties have not been able to deal with in a coherent way. Some like Upendra Yadav have sought to reach out to the Pahadis: his MJF has included several of them in its list of PR candidates. But others exhibit contempt. “[Upendra] Yadav should not have given so many Pahadis the ticket,” said Pandey of the Sadbhavna party. “Our movement is for the Madhesis.” Asked how many Pahadis had been given the ticket by his party, he replied: “There is no Pahadi in our list and we don’t want any.”

Apart from this sort of chauvinism, what makes the Tarai situation especially combustible is the admiration that activists and leaders of the three Madhesi parties have for the armed extremists. Thus, if the three parties do not make it to the CA with sufficient numbers, that fact will encourage the armed extremists further.

An added cause for wariness is the interest some United Nations officials as well as U.S. government agencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have begun to show in the Madhesis. Sensing the prospect of the larger payoff that internationalisation might bring, one senior Madhesi leader said that if Nepal was not prepared to grant autonomy, the Madhes would look to India. “We are offering Kathmandu control over only defence, foreign affairs and communications,” he said. “If Kathmandu does not want this, we can always offer Delhi the same.”

When it was suggested to him that India would not be interested in the break-up of Nepal or any other neighbour for that matter, he replied: “India may feel compelled to step in if the problem gets internationalised.”

This may be an unrealistic and foolish scenario. But it does drive home the point that India should refrain from adding its own spoon and ingredients to the witches’ cauldron. With the right approach, Madhesi aspirations can easily be accommodated within the federal Nepal that all parties there are officially committed to.

India played a good role in helping to broker the last agreement between the Nepal government and the Madhesi parties. What it must do now is ensure that its territory is not used by extremist elements bent on sabotaging the possibility of a democratic solution.

INSIDE NEPAL: The past is over, only the future counts

For king and commoner, revolutionary and reformist, the tide of change in Nepal is irreversible. But if the Maoists know there’s no going back to the gun, the erstwhile establishment must also be prepared to live with the inclusive republic the people want.








2 April 2008
The Hindu

Transition time: the past is over, only the future counts

Siddharth Varadarajan

It is 7 a.m. in Kathmandu and I am sitting with a group of young Maoist party cadres at the office-cum-residence of Prachanda, waiting for the Maoist leader to arrive for a scheduled interview (he had hit the campaign trail at 6 a.m.). The cadres are in their early 20s, a few of them still sporting the green fatigues in which they waged “Peoples’ War” against Nepal’s king and his army. The television is tuned to the Kantipur channel, which is relay ing ‘Breaking News’ from Rupandehi district near the border with India with such an exaggerated sense of urgency that the comrades stop whatever they are doing and crowd around the TV set. Information is sketchy but the Kantipur reporter on the site is conveying details of a ‘jhadap’, or clash between the security forces and Maoist activists, over the latter’s detention of a truck allegedly carrying a clandestine load of weapons destined for the army.

While the former PLA combatants watched the news, I watched their faces. There was neither panic nor the ex-soldier’s pride at the ‘jhadap’ — which eventually turned out to be a relatively minor matter — but the look of concern and even worry was unmistakable. These were not the faces of people who are getting ready to go back to the hills or mount the barricades of some bloody urban insurrection, as some in the Kathmandu elite believe. The chapter of armed struggle is closed and the political and military reality today is such that even if they wanted to, the Maoists would not be able to take to the gun again.

“The Peoples’ War was needed to break the back of the old feudal structure of monarchy,” senior Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai said, “but we made an assessment that given the international reality and the position of Nepal vis-À-vis India we have to adopt a new path. And that is why we went in for the peace process and elections.”

In forging an agreement in 2005 with the Seven Party Alliance led by the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), or UML, the Maoist leadership was taking a huge gamble. They traded the relative security of a military stalemate for the insecure prospect of political victory in a free and fair election. And part of that gamble involved making themselves vulnerable to a catastrophic stab in the back, initiated either by a vengeful King Gyanendra, the top echelons of the Nepal Army, or an outside player like the United States. That is why, as the date for the Constituent Assembly election draws nearer, the Maoists are battening down the hatches and taking no chances. There is talk of palace-inspired targeted assassinations of its top leadership. Or of blasts or communal violence.

In private conversations, Maoist leaders say they expect to win between 30 and 35 per cent of the popular vote and not the 50 per cent they speak of publicly. But for the moment, what the party fears more than underperforming at the polls is the possibility of the elections being postponed or cancelled. “Any delay will be a disaster for Nepal,” says Prachanda.

The anxiety about Gyanendra is shared by other parties. “Why would the king want the CA when we have pledged to abolish the monarchy at the very first sitting?” Home Minister K.P. Sitaula asked. It was possible that the Palace would try and stir up trouble but all the parties would have to unite to deal with this danger, he said. “We want to show the world that it is possible to get rid of the monarchy through peaceful and democratic means.”

Mr. Sitaula may be clear, but across the country there are many ordinary Nepalis who doubt the sincerity of the NC’s conversion to the republican cause, or who regret that it came so late in the day. Earlier this year, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala floated the ‘baby king’ idea. His daughter Sujata, who is contesting the elections from Sunsari district in the Tarai, says she is in favour of a constitutional monarchy. Mr. Sitaula parried a question about Sujata Koirala’s stand by recalling a speech Girijababu had made several years ago warning the palace about the consequences of autocratic rule: “One day, people will say, ‘There was a time when Nepal had a king’,” the Congress patriarch had predicted. “That day is coming,” said Mr. Sitaula. “It is useless and meaningless to try and save the monarchy.”

But the monarchy will try and save itself. The suspicion is that the palace has links with some of the Madhesi extremist groups as well as with some organisations of the janajatis like the Limbus. Many politicians with monarchist connections have left the NC or the UML and joined some of the Madhesi electoral parties. This week’s mysterious bomb blast in a mosque in Biratnagar bears the hallmarks of a provocation. And people in Nepal are bracing for more. “The only problem for the king is that if some terrible incident happens, everyone will know he is behind it. And it would be difficult to guarantee his physical safety after that,” said a senior UML leader.

For Nepal’s establishment parties, especially the NC and the UML, resolving the king’s future is the least of the problems. Once the CA is convened, a far more difficult challenge will be dealing with the rising expectations of Nepal’s diverse peoples for an inclusive and just political and economic system.

Thanks to a radical election system of a kind not seen anywhere else in the world, the composition of the CA will be fairly representative of Nepal’s diversity. For the 335 seats up for grabs under the proportional representation (PR) system, the law requires parties to nominate at least 50 per cent women, 13 per cent Dalits, 31.2 per cent Madhesis and 37.8 per cent from the “oppressed/indigenous communities,” that is, the janajatis. Parties had a free hand in distributing the ticket for the 240 first-past-the-post (FPTP) seats, but a large number of Madhesi and janajati candidates are bound to emerge victorious. Many of them will have party affiliations. But they will not be able to insulate themselves from the crush of popular expectations.

Even if the Madhesi and ethnic parties do not do well, the NC and the UML will have to transcend their reluctant federalism and come good on their promises for the restructuring of Nepal. The federalism of the Maoists is more instinctive since a major plank of the movement has been its promise to create ethno-linguistic provinces with not just autonomy but the right to self-determination. The Maoists committed a strategic blunder in 2006 by dropping their original demand for a full PR system of elections because of the intransigence of the NC and the UML. This allowed new political forces to emerge based on exclusive and even chauvinist ethnic politics.

Whatever the origins of the recent Madhesi movement, the Tarai is in ferment and will not settle for second-class status. Nor will the janajatis. If the CA is not prepared to design federal structures which guarantee autonomy and dignity to all regions of Nepal and economic justice for the poor and the landless, new fault lines and conflicts will emerge. The future, to paraphrase Anna Akhmatova, is already casting its shadow on the present. Rather than the bogeyman of a new Maoist insurrection, it is the willingness of the NC and the UML to embrace the aspirations of Nepal’s excluded peoples which should be the real cause for worry.