 |
Kathmandu Saturday December 22, 2001 Paush 07, 2058.
|
Missed opportunity for Maoists
By Dr Shreedhar Gautam
With the incumbent Prime Minister replacing
Girija Prasad Koirala as leader of the Congress Parliamentary Party, the cease-fire
between the Maoist party and the government came as an important political event in the
country. The subject was widely covered by the media and people expressed their views in
accordance with their political understanding and interest. Many people hoped that the
talks would result in a substantial gain for the country and the nation would take a new
turn in its endeavour to accelerate progress and prosperity. They must have felt dismayed
with the sudden eruption of armed action form the Maoist side followed by the declaration
of emergency to quell the uprising.
Of course, the deadlock in talks between the
two contending parties was most unfortunate news for the nation, but the subsequent events
leading to the present crisis were not fully unexpected, considering the political nature
of the present government and the style of functioning of the Maoist leaders. From the
very beginning of the cease-fire and the professed dialogue, it was clear that both
parties were entering into dialogue not because of political sincerity but because of
their own political compulsions and pressures. Since the declaration of people’s war,
there were various contradictions in terms of the policies and working style of the Maoist
party. In the name of Maoism the top party leaders acted so arrogantly that on the one
hand they alienated intellectuals and friendly parties, and on the other every criticism
was taken as inimical, whereas every praise was treated as a friendly gesture without
realising that different forces at work in society could be supporting and alerting them
for different reasons. They did not see any need to correct their style of functioning and
rectify the lapses seen in their ideological framework.
The declared goal of "people’s
war" was to establish a socialistic society free from classes as propounded by Marx
and Angles, and later advanced by Lenin and Mao. According to their evaluation the ground
situation was ripe for protracted armed struggle, and all other measures, including the
question of a constituent assembly, were simply revisionist measures meant just to delay
the process of social transformation along Marxist lines. Soon after the restoration of
the multiparty system, the leaders of the present Maoist party, known then as NCP (Moto
Mashal), had vehemently denounced the slogan for a constituent assembly raised by another
friendly party, terming the step a reactionary one to divert the people’s attention.
It is an ironical coincidence that the
Maoists leaders are pressing for a constituent assembly, the very programme raised by then
NCP (Patalo Mashal), and are advocating the need of giving the people sovereign power. In
the immediate aftermath of the struggle of 1990 the iron was still hot and the people were
enthusiastic about authorising themselves with constitutional powers so far denied to
them. If the leaders of the Left Front and Nepali Congress had been foresighted and alert
enough, we could have gotten a better constitution with more power to the people in view
of the people’s support and desire seen in those days. It is unfortunate for our
country that instead of giving maximum power to the people by taking advantage of the
changed situation after proclamation of the multiparty system, leaders from the Left Front
and Nepali Congress succumbed to the pressure of forces which never wanted the Nepali
people to become really sovereign enough to decide their fate and determine the system of
governance. Now it has become part of a missed opportunity as in the past when the Nepali
people were deprived of the opportunity of electing members of a constituent assembly
despite the declared promise of the late King Tribhuvan in this regard after his return
from India.
The present Maoist leaders must be aware of
Nepal’s history full of betrayal and conspiracies. They must also be aware of the
process of social transformation in a society torn apart by clashes between rival classes.
They should not have been so politically naive as to expect the fulfilment of demands for
a republic, a constituent assembly and interim government from the present government
whose recommendation is not necessary for the king if he desires to declare an emergency
for a minimum period of three months. The present constitution has given enormous powers
to the palace and no fundamental changes can be effected in the constitution without the
consent of the king. So, any expectation that the government of Sher Bahadur Deuba would
fulfil the demand for a constituent assembly or for that matter a republic was not only
unrealistic but also politically childish. Very recently in an interview with the Times of
India dated December 5, 2001 Prime Minister Deuba acknowledged that many of the demands
put forward by the Maoists were beyond the jurisdiction of his government.
One of the topmost party leaders, in an
article published in Kantipur immediately before the declaration of emergency, had argued
that the demand for a constituent assembly was to lessen the king’s powers and to
make the people sovereign in the real sense of the term. No one denies that the people
should be the determining force in their fate and future. But it is unrealistic to expect
the king to relinquish his powers in the present context and become a figurehead when
constitutionally no authority can question the wisdom of his actions. Moreover, the
election of a constituent assembly under the present political dispensation may to
necessarily ensure the election of representatives dedicated to the cause of people’s
sovereignty. We have the history of leaders who deceived the country in 2015 BS by
agreeing to the election of a Parliament rather than a constituent assembly as promised by
King Tribhuvan.
The Maoist leaders say that when a particular
class is not emerging victorious, there should be certain procedures and measures for
compromise. We know that there have been compromises between the contending parties
depending upon their respective political strengths and weight. Does this mean that the
Maoist party declared the people’s war not with the long term goal of establishing
socialism, but to make it a bargaining factor for a constituent assembly? If this is so,
the Maoists should give an answer to those innocent people and their own activists who
scarified their lives in following the bidding of the party high command in the hope of a
better tomorrow and a socialistic system. Can they say that there was a need for
sacrificing over 2,000 lives in a people’s war just for raising the issue of a
constituent assembly in a bargaining game?
The Maoist leaders should have realised the
gravity of the present situation and ought not to have boasted of big achievements without
actually giving anything to the people who have suffered a lot in the course of the Maoist
movement. They committed a great mistake in the Holeri incident by claiming that the
military was defeated in the first encounter with the Maoists. Actually what happened then
was not the defeat of the army, but for strategic reasons the army was not given the
necessary orders from the concerned authorities to fight the Maoists. Former army chief S
JB Rana, in an interview with Nepali Times dated 7-13 December, has revealed that in the
past army was not given a mandate to fight the Maoists. Now he claims the Maoists are on
the defensive and are running out of arms to fight the military. The country would have
been spared the current troubles if the Maoists had taken corrective measures. We know
people are dissatisfied with the present ruling elite and political dispensation; and they
are in search of real alternatives. But they are tired of dubious and ambiguous political
parties and leaders. For the Maoist leaders it is too late as they have missed an
opportunity to be a force to be reckoned with.
Other Stories
|
