National 8 (Spotlight Weekly)

Observe Political Honesty

By DR. SHREEDHAR GAUTAM

There have been extensive interaction programs between intellectuals representing different fields and members of the Maoist negotiating team, including its leader Dr. Babu Ram Bhattarai, for over two months. They have patiently listened to the suggestions from the floor and then responded to them. However, they have left many queries unanswered. They have tried hard to prove their party different from other 'parliamentary' parties and the forces loyal to the palace. They have termed other left parties as 'revisionist' and their own party the only 'revolutionary' group of Nepal. Since the party initiated its 'people's war', the Maoist leaders behaved in such a way as if they were capable of carrying away the entire nation with them for overhauling the system. They never listened to any friendly suggestions. They would welcome anyone supporting them irrespective of their intention and criticize others as 'reactionary' if the comment went against them. For them, those who opposed their tactics were either cowards or
jealous of their 'success'. They did not see any contradiction in their actions and speeches.

However, it is still not too late for correction, once they have come to the negotiating table. We, too, want full success of the talks but at the same time, we advise the Maoist leaders to be sincere in their behavior with other parties and individuals. Yesterday they focused their fight on the 'fascism' represented by the likes of Girija Prasad Koirala and termed the king as the 'incapacitated lion' inside the cage. After the royal massacre of 2001, they declared the end of monarchy in Nepal. Now, they have entered into dialogue with a government chosen entirely by the king. Now they have no hesitation to say that the king, too, is a power in the country. Similarly, until last year, they felt no need for cooperation with other parties, but now they are everyday organizing interaction programs and are holding talks with other parties, saying that situation now is not conducive for revolution.

Just like nobody believes that America attacked Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, no one with basic political consciousness will believe that the Maoists have come to the negotiating table after having been able to form their people's government in rural areas as they claim. They say it is a dialogue between two governments and powers. If they are an equally strong partner, where is the need of talking to other parties in the ongoing
negotiations? Why cannot they conduct the dialogue from the position of equal strength as done by the LTTE in Sri Lanka? Why should they make such a fuss about their strength? Actually, the situation is not like what they have painted. The main reason for them to come to the talks is not the balance of power, but the realization of their short-sighted policies. It is political dishonesty to say that they have achieved 'success' through the people's war.

Their three demands are nothing in comparison to the sacrifice made by their cadres. They sold the slogan of revolution to their village level activists and sent them to be cannon fodder without assessing the ground realities. They thought that by flushing out some police officers from some district headquarters, the road for the revolution would be clear. We feel that even if all three demands are accepted, Maoists cadres' blood will curse the party leadership. They did not shed their blood for mere all-party conferences, interim government and constituent assembly. Moreover, it is the same Maoist party, earlier known as 'Moto Mashal', which opposed the slogan of constituent assembly election in 1991. However, it was the time when people did have massive anger and hatred for the erstwhile Panchayat system.

The party leadership should explain how the election of constituent assembly could become a revolutionary slogan now when the political situation is grimmer than in 1991. Twelve years ago, the people could have been persuaded for the election of constituent assembly. Now, the people have lost faith in the sincerity of political leaders, including the Maoists. The king took the October 4 step fully being aware of the people's mood. He does not seem frightened of the Maoists insurgents. When other major political parties are fighting to regain the lost power from the king, how can the Maoists hope that the king will be favorable to their revisionist turned revolutionary demand of constituent assembly?

The election of constituent assembly can be fruitful either with the king voluntarily relinquishing his power or by powerfully raising the people's movement against the provision of monarchy. Now neither the king seems in a mood to hand over his power nor is there any such powerful movement to make the king accept the changed reality. In such a situation, the demand of constituent assembly could be counter-productive for the Maoists and other people. So, the Maoists should tread cautiously, not playing with the feelings of their cadres. If they commit another mistake this time, they might be given safe haven by the government, but there are hundreds of Maoist workers who might have to shed blood once more for nothing. There are plenty of examples of how leaders make deal with the government to save themselves. There are question marks regarding why Saddam Hussein's Republican Guards did not fight with the American forces. The Maoist leadership, too, have to be careful and fully transparent while having dialogue with the government because any mistake this time will cost the nation heavily.

It does not mean that the Nepali Congress, the UML and other parties involved in struggle are free from follies. It is the Congress, the UML and the Maoists who have jointly invited the present situation. The Maoists should not hesitate from self-evaluation for their ultra leftist deviation, and Congress and the UML should apologize to the nation for misusing the power and helping in aggravating the situation, resulting in the October 4 take-over. The forces supporting the October 4 declaration should realize that their action could jeopardize national integrity by paving the way for foreign intervention. Will these concerned parties listen to the voice of reason and make self-introspection in a sincere way? The only alternative left to the political forces is correcting them and not resorting into any gimmick. Otherwise, there is no way of preventing the arrival of foreign forces in the name of combating terrorism. n