Nepalese are the losers the ultimate winner is RAW and South Block

Dr. Shastra Dutta Pant

Born in Badahare, Mulpani, Baglung, Nepal, Dr. Pant has drawn upon his long experiences as High School Head Master,College Principal, Project Manager of Resettlement Project, Director at Nepal Administrative Staff College and Officer on Special Duty to His Majesty, Janch Bujh Kendra, Royal Palace. Dr. Pant is an eminent scholar in public administration, disaster and environment management, studies of ethnic groups and above all rural development in Nepal.

Dr. Pant has participated in various national and international level seminars and presented papers of important issues.

He is awarded with Mahendra Vidya Bhusan First Class, Daiviprakop Uddhar Padak , PTA medal, Gaddhi Arohan Rajat Mahotsav Padak.

Dr. Pant has several books to his credit but the most popular among them are the “Machination of RAW in South Asia”, “Continuous Interference”, and “Nepal India Border Problems” in English language and RAW ko chalkhel –(Activities of RAW), “Abiral Hastachhep- “Continuous Interference” and “Nepal-Bharat Seema Samasya-Nepal-India border Problems” in the Nepali language.

TGQ1: As an acclaimed political scientist of Nepal, how you Dr. Pant been analyzing the unfolding political events in this country? Are we heading for a positive peace or a negative one? Your comments please!

Dr. Pant: No Nepali could win any political race during the half-century long run competition of Nepali politics. The NC (Nepali Congress) was defeated, CPN-UML was defeated, CPN Maoist defeated, and the King was defeated. We all Nepali are losers. The winner is RAW; the winner is south block at last. Lastly, the impossible thing became possible, the bullock but not the cow, gave birth to a calf. The calf has created doubts, confusions, fears, dangers, and insecurity. The alien domination is rampant. A true Nepali is highly troubled for the dangers over sovereignty, independence and national integrity. The age-old tranquility is gone. The politics is in a very fluid state. Economy is deteriorating by the day and the administration is mired with lawlessness and anarchy. The parties in power are taking undue benefits. Corruption, black marketing, price hike is rampant. The government exists only for the namesake. Nepali and Indian criminals are working hand in hand to create lawlessness. There exists politics of revenge. There still seems a dual government action. People are paying taxes for the two. The whole scenario is frustrating. However, none of the political actors are serious for nation and nationality.

We are not heading towards positive peace. Positive peace is people's demand. But the members of SPAM, all equally, are not serious for permanent peace, unity in diversity-culture and endangering sovereignty independency and self-development. Hence the danger of ethnic violence is heading, the danger of one-man or one party dictatorship is still in existence. Any dictator i.e. one party, multi party, one-man or military rule are equally dangerous. The present form of government is oligarchy i.e. nearly Rana autocracy. Parties are working as bhai-bharadars. Bharadars are seeking their shares or ansha-banda on people's property. People are being cheated.

The only solution is to establish a pure democratic norm, that is, decision by the people (not by the parties), all decisions through referendums. First of all the nine-point declaration of Jesth 7 of last year must be ratified through referendum. The no option constitution assembly election is not the solution. The election for constitution assembly, the election for parliament and the referendums are three different things. They cannot go together. First referendum, second constitution assembly election and lastly regular parliamentary election as per the constitution be conducted. No excessive money is required for referendum if well managed.

See the demand of Federal system, the size of the parliament compared to India is 50 times bigger. It is boon to the party workers to give all a position but burden and sin to the nation. All budget will go for them no national development can be done. Nepal will further go from being poor to poorer.

Democracy without election has been the will of the political parties since the ouster of Deuba government. The partycization of the universities/education sector, companies and corporations, the mass media including the bureaucracy elucidate that SPAM is not working well in accordance with the will of the people, democracy and human rights. They have, instead, been more so dutiful to their cadres and kinsmen. It's party dictatorship of sorts that the people don't approve of.

TGQ2: You have, as far as we know, penned a book on RAW- India’s Research Analysis Wing- Machinations in Nepal. How the RAW agents manipulate the country’s politics? Has the RAW placed its agents at the highest level of Nepali politics? After all what is the ultimate design of the RAW in Nepal? Your own explanations please!

Dr. Pant: Yes, I have penned not only one book on RAW but also many both in Nepali and English languages. For example Machination of RAW in South Asia, CONTINIOUS INTERFERENCE, and NEPAL INDIA BORDER PROBLEMS in English and RAW ko chalkhel, Abiral Hastachhep and Nepal-Bharat Seema Samasya in Nepali are main books written for the purpose of awaking all Nepali citizens.

Before knowing how the RAW agents are working it is necessary to know what is RAW. Of course if you go through these books you will understand what it is. In brief, I would like to acknowledge that RAW is not an Intelligence bureau. It is different. It is the most authoritative external intelligence agency for spoilage, which has become instrumental in the scheme of India's national power. RAW is groomed to show off, blended to bluff and extremely gaudy in its style. It draws sadistic pleasure in gimmicking on other agencies. It goes all out to score a point just to become the heart favorites of the persons who are at the helm of an affair. RAW has as many as 35,000 agents (Prem Raj) of which over one thousand are now in Nepal. The RAW has immeasurable, unaccountable funds at its disposal. There are speculations that annually it is provided with Rs. 1500 crores "discretionary grant" Retired Major General V.K. Singh, in his recent book, namely " India's External Intelligence" has given a frank and truthful account about the inside functioning of RAW.

RAW in Nepal has successfully demolished the thousands of years old traditions, culture and spiritual bricks of oriental heritage/philosophy. It is now working hand in hand with missionaries supported by west. It has inducted rebellious groups to shatter the peace of Nepal to take full advantage of the disturbed situation. A weak Nepal is strength for India, has been a philosophy of RAW.

Sikkimization or Bhutanization is the main objective of the RAW in Nepal. The proposed secret treaty tendered by SK Singh, the then foreign secretary of India, on first April 1990 proves that defense and water resources are the main interest of RAW in Nepal (see comparative constitutions of Nepal annex-6). After a storm in a teacup, it is playing a win-win game in Nepal.

TGW3: Some academicians opine that Indian influence in Nepal has increased exponentially more so after we “copied” their LOKTANTRA into our body politic after the April change last year.

Are not we ourselves sufficient and efficient enough to lead the country? If yes, then whyIndia is poking its nose every time in our “internal affairs” under one pretext or the other?

Dr. Pant: Yes, their analysis and surveys are correct. Indian influence in Nepal has increased exponentially. Along with the political and economics influences cultural influences are increasing rapidly. Translation of the word 'Democracy' in Hindi is loktantra and in Nepali is 'prajatantra'. The Sanskrit word Lok, praja and gana all mean the people but praja means all living being along with the people. Nepalese grown up with pro-Indian minds, more so after 2006 April, have copied the Hindi word 'loktantra' into our body politics. Not only this, the Tihar is converted into Dipawli, Fagu into Holy, Hindi language /songs are loved more than Nepali, leaders prefer speaking Hindi to please their masters. For they bear a colonalized mind.

When some nationalist Nepali intellectual took some interest to promote Nepal, automatically anti-Indian sentiments were enlarging. Soon RAW made a survey regarding Indian Influences in Nepaland found that the anti-Indian mass sentiments must be crossed. Many ways were searched and implemented. Eighty percent of Nepal's mass Medias were partially supported and converted into pro Indians. The advertisements, just in adding iodine in salt, is so highly propagated that it reaches to every house hold, India is God to Nepal. There are big advertisements of Indian concerns in hospitals, bridges etc. Besides India decided taking small patch programmes directly to each village, calling Jai-India. As per Nepal's law it was not possible unless an agreement is done. For, this they convinced S. B Thapa the then Prime Minister which was later agreed upon by the ruling monarch then. An agreement was signed for seven years that Indian will directly go to any place, select any project and conduct it directly. They did it. Now there are Indian projects of 5 to 10 thousand to one to five millions in all 75 districts. They also took Nepali territory to be administered by an Indian and applying Indian railway laws in the territory of Nepal. Now if you go to any village and talk about Indian interest the villagers will come over to you in favors of five bundles of corrugated sheets. At the same time India became most successful to attract USApeeping Nepal, in all matters, through Indian window. Nepal was most failure during this regime and just before the 12-point pact. Thus Indian influence during this period increased so high that the Christian missions, the USA, EU joined hand to support India in matters of Nepal. This formula is so clear the American Ambassador to Nepal visited New Delhi first, settle her mind before doing any thing in Nepal. It is SPAM, which gave all power to India. Our leaders suffer from defeated mentality:

Yes, we Nepali are capable in every aspect of our lives. We are ourselves sufficient and efficient enough to lead the country, to develop its infrastructure. I say, we even do not need dominating foreign aids/loans. We are self-sufficient. Under one pretext or the other India is poking its nose every time in Nepal's internal affairs. They have their vested interests in making Himalayas as their security wall, using Nepal's perennial water to irrigate dry India and replace the coal/atomic thermal plants into cheap hydropower. Making Nepal a market of non-quality products keeping them poor employ as loyal servants as whites did to Negroes during colonizing period. Now Indians are just applying it.

This blame does not go to Indians. They are nationalists and trying their best to make their country protected and prosperous. We are not nationalist and have slave mentality as educated by Lord Maculation system. Half of the Indian penetration of politics, economics, cross border crimes, custom theft, black marketing will vanish only when we regularize the border. If so, custom income doubles, industries survive, crimes reduce a new Nepal is generated. Unless the young groups replace the old ones in all parties, nationalism will not take root and Nepal will not be developed.

TGQ4: As an expert on decentralization, how you see the country being divided into segments and units as federal structure and autonomous regions? Can Nepal as a nation-state afford to comply with the demands of federalism and autonomy as is being demanded by some groups in Terai/Madhesh? Have you any such a solution in mind, which could act as a suitable alternative to their demands without putting much stress on the nation? Your comments please.

Dr. Pant: In a multi cultural society like Nepal, it has no other important instrument other than decentralization of power. If power were properly decentralized the present consequences such as the demand of federal system, terai-autonomy, remote area, linguistic, gender, janajatis or dalit would not have risen. No political parties were ready to decentralize power. They oppose for oppose sake and oppose is for chair sake. I still say, decentralization, a real decentralization could solve the entire problems. (for detail see 'Aspects of Decentralization in Nepal') In it services are delivered equally in all parts of the country. The local level units are most powerful agents for development. Conclusively, in a decentralized system the government is limited on making policy only which is executed by the departments and the real actors are the local people of local units. That decentralization, not delegation, would be more powerful than that of the present demand of federalism with self-decisions making power. In stead, federalism is harmful. Technically, Nepal is four times smaller than one single state of India. It is so expensive that the regular administrative cost would increase by 24 times which will not be possible to meet by the present status of the budget. Naturally there will be two types of taxes which will compell to close down all factories not being competent in the open markets policies in one hand and due to this reason there will be tussles, strife between states regarding the rights of natural resource which are unique in north-south. This struggle will ultimately lead Nepal to disintegration leading a poorest country in the world. Instead, if Nepalis are united and built a capacity of self-development Nepal will be a most prosperous country richest in the world. For what Nepal no other country in the world has not, what other countries have we do have. Tourism, forest, agriculture, human and water resources can generate millions of employment if managed without external pressures.

When every citizen, by means of 'Vyavasthit basti Model', (under proposed decentralization scheme), is well educated, has full employment opportunity and has high standard of living such tendencies of demands with vested interest of limited persons in fractions of groups will automatically vanish.

TGQ5: The now completely sidelined King is still considered as a threat to some. Is he really a threat? Is he really that powerful enough as taken by the parties, more so by the Maoists? Or he is just a defunct monarch whose fate hangs in a limbo? How you take the Maoists pressure for a republic much ahead of the CA polls, which is to decide the fate of the Nepali monarchy? Your explanations please.

Dr. Pant: No, he is not a threat. The threat is between capitalism and communism, between one party /multi party dictator or democracy. The real threat is loosing an identity of Nepali nationality or surviving as an independent sovereign Nepal. The Maoists pressures for a republican order or decision by the constitutional assembly members both are out of the concept of lokatantra. Lokatantra survives only through the view of the loka, i.e. referendums. Only CPN-UML is right in this point. It is simply a gambling loosing or winning.

You have to understand that Nepali people are completely neutral of any' ism' or 'rule' or 'political system'. For them best government is that which governs the best. They are in favor of permanent peace and security. They are not royalist, not Maoist, not communist, not capitalist. If they were not compelled as usual with any option election they would prove what they are. Less than 5 percent people cross over 90 percent people's view and we call it a democracy. Democracy survives always with referendums in major and controversial issues. Rests all are tyranny. Party leaders are playing roles of the bharadars. People, on whose name they are ruling, thus are completely ignored. And it is yet called lok-tantra.

Moreover, the Maoists are finding it hard to switch from politics of intimidation to electoral politics. Nonetheless, the eight parties are divided on (a) holding a referendum (b) declaring Nepal a republic by two-thirds majority of the legislative Parliament and, (c) declaring as per the decision made by the majority of the constituent assembly members.

Transitional society has a characteristic of going against the existing disposition and demand for change, not necessarily knowing the nature and context of change. The phenomenon involving the Terai is one such development.

To better understand, one should understand Lord Macaulay's address to the British Parliament on February 2, 1835. Macaulayin concept is gaining ground in Nepal to these days. Nepal is now being divided in terms of geography, caste, language, gender, religion and property through the mean tricks pushed by the aliens. It seems we want to serve rather than be master of our own destiny.

(Dr. Pant can be contacted through E-mail shastra@wlink.com.np)

@Telegraph

I am not a revisionist: Dr Bhattarai

Maoist Vice-Chairman Dr Baburam Bhattarai is an ideologue and one of the brains behind the 10-year-long Maoistinsurgency in Nepal. The Maoist party is currently undergoing sharp ideological differences among Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Senior Vice-Chairman Mohan Baidya and Bhattarai.

The party is having a tough time forging a common “action-plan” for implementation in the peace process as the top three leaders are at loggerheads over the party’s future course of action. Republica journalist Post B Basnet caught with him on Saturday and talked about the role of his party in the peace process.

What is your party currently engaged in?

Right now our party is engaged in institutionalizing the progressive changes in society while passing through a historical transitional phase of evolution of autocracy, feudalism and institutionalization of modern industrial state based on multi-party democratic polity. This transition has its complications. But, as a responsible political party, we are still trying to find a way out amidst the presence of bourgeois democratic forces who believe in parliamentary democracy and us, communist revolutionaries, who believe in people’s democracy. We are trying to find a common meeting ground where we can institutionalize a democratic system in which the oppressed masses will have their participation in the state in a new socio-economic and federal structure.

There are sharp ideological differences between you, Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Mohan Baidya. Are you facing an ideological dilemma?

In every political party, there are political debates. If there is no debate, you can’t have a vibrant political party, and especially in a communist party debate on ideological political questions are always there. We believe in dialectical materialism and unity of opposites. Unity, struggle, and transformation give impetus to the development process. So, accordingly, our party is also a vibrant entity and there is a constant struggle between various opinions. But, ultimately, we are united on one issue: That we need overall restructuring of the Nepali state and society. To achieve that objective, we launched people’s war and we have already seen the results in the form of republicanism, federalism and secularism. These are positive gains. These gains need to be preserved. We still have to struggle to institutionalize a democratic system whereby the oppressed classes of people, nationalities, regions, gender, oppressed caste will also have their say. We are trying to figure out the correct path within the party to achieve them.

There is also the question of doing away with the remnants of feudalism and autocracy in different spheres of state and society. Since the days of Sugauli Treaty, our economy, state and society have been subjugated. So we want to do away with such domination and reassert total sovereignty and national independence. We need to settle the dispute on whether we want to give priority to democracy or nationalism.

Let’s talk about the party. The Palungtar plenum failed to take any political line. What do you have to say?

No, this is not a question of failing. We had a real good democratic exercise; 7,000 people gathered for seven days and engaged in constructive political debates and that itself was a big achievement. It has created a basis for achieving a higher unity within the party and clarifying the political lines. In that sense, the Palungtar plenum was very useful and historical and we have taken a unified view that the current path of peace, constitution-making and democracy should be pursued and to make it a success we need to mobilize the masses from the streets as well. Reactionary and status quo-ist forces don’t want progressive changes in the society. So, to exert pressure on them, we need to mobilize the masses. On this issue, the party is unified.

What’s the difference between people’s revolt floated by you, Dahal and Baidya?

We have every right to revolt against injustice; Mahatma Gandhi called it civil disobedience, some call it a revolt, while others call it a revolution. They are the same thing. We want change in society. So, if this process of change is blocked, people have the right to revolt against that, this is the general political philosophy. In that sense, we want to pursue the path of peace and democracy. But if that path is blocked, people have the right to resist and revolt. This is a general formulation and so we have no fundamental dispute on this.

This is your view. But there are fundamental differences between you and Baidya on this issue?

No, I don’t think there are fundamental differences. The only question is whether the objectives, political goals we accept and our party accepts could be achieved through peaceful and democratic means, and whether the reactionary forces will allow it. On the question of evaluation, there are some differences. Even then we all agreed on principles that we should pursue.

What’s the difference?

The difference is whether we should pursue this process (the current peaceful path) till the end. And if it is blocked, people should realize that we will have to take another path. Only when the general masses realize, a “people’s movement” becomes successful. If the people don’t realize, the current path is no longer viable and possible. They won’t come out onto the streets in protest.

But Baidya is calling for an end to the ongoing process?

Nobody is saying that indeed. The difference lies only in assessments. What I am stressing is that on our part we should make sincere efforts till the end. We should patiently pursue and try our best till the end to make a new constitution and complete the peace process. But, side by side, we need to empower the masses. We have to mobilize the masses again, in case this path fails. Then the people will rise in a “people’s movement” and give impetus to this development process. I have been stressing this aspect. Some of the comrades are saying this path has already morally exhausted by now. The way the peace process has developed in the last two years has given an impression that there is no chance of this path moving ahead in a positive direction. So, maybe, now this is high time we really prepared for the other path. There are differences only on what we have stressed. Otherwise, on the fundamental path to be followed for change in society, there is no difference at all.

Do you think Chunwang line is still prevalent in the party?

Of course! There is no contradiction between “people’s war” we pursued for 10 years and the political line followed after Chunwang and they are complimentary to each other because our basic goal was the transformation of society. For 10 years, we waged people’s war mostly in the countryside to empower the masses and to break down the feudal stronghold existing for thousands of years. So, we more or less achieved that goal. And after Chunwang and to complete this process we had to mobilize the masses in urban areas and we had to gain support of the international community. That’s why we pursued this path and now we want to complete this process whereby Nepali society is totally democratized and oppressed class, gender, nationalities are fully empowered; we will create a fully new democratic state whereby all these people enjoy real democracy, not only formal democracy in which people can participate in the political process. We want to achieve this goal through the Constituent Assembly (CA) and a new constitution. Hence, there is no fundamental contradiction between people’s war we waged earlier and the peaceful path we are pursuing right now.

But the Kharipati national conclave meeting, which decided to launch a people’s revolt for a “People’s Federal Democratic Republic,” superseded the Chunwang line of a federal democratic republic?

No. You can see the Chunwang document in which we have clearly stated that after establishing a democratic republic, there will be two tendencies. The status quo-ists (the bourgeois forces) will try to stop the forward march of society; they will just be happy with the Westminster model of democracy. But in the context of Nepal, the old style of democracy won’t be enough because our society is very complicated; ours is a multi-class and multi-ethnic society. There are gender and class discriminations and to do away with them and to achieve real democracy, we should have a new model of democracy to suit all these forces. So, we had already predicted in the Chunwang meeting that there would be political struggles between these two tendencies. That’s what happening right now.

What’s the difference between federal democratic republic and people’s federal democratic republic?

“People’s” mean oppressed class of people: Peasants, workers, Dalits, women, nationalities. They are called “people”.

Why should you add “people” to the Chunwang line?

We want such a democratic system where these people will have a say in the state system. In general democracy, as practiced in some of the more developed countries, only the few rich people are elected; they are in the state and the majority of the poor working class don’t have their say in the state system. That’s the formal democratic system.

But you had not put the word people in the Chunwang document?

No. Listen, our goal is to have democracy, though we can choose the word. But the real thrust is we want a model of democracy in which the oppressed mass of people will have their say; this is the essence. You can give it any name. We are not talking about the old system of democracy practiced in Eastern Europe or China. These are just one-party system. We have already passed the resolution of “Democracy in 21st Century” where we have already accepted multiparty committed politics even in future socialism. So, our “people’s democracy” is not one-party communist party system, it is a competitive multi-party system in which all voices will be represented. In that sense, we have gone ahead of the whole model of one-party system as practiced in Eastern Europe or other socialist countries.

There are people in your own party who always say you are a revisionist?

No, nobody says that. It is just a rumor; nobody and no formal document or any resolution has branded me as such.

Why are you opposed to declaring India the principal enemy?

We are not in a position to fight India directly.

What is happening right now in the party?

We are having our central committee (CC) meeting, which will chalk out political programs to end this political deadlock. We will try to find a way out and make this peace process and constitution-making process a success. We have decided that we should mobilize the masses side by side. If the masses are not empowered and mobilized, the reactionary forces inside and outside will try to scuttle this political gains we have achieved so far and there is a danger of dissolution of CA and opting for military or some other form of dictatorship in the country.

There are sharp differences between you, Dahal and Baidya. You postponed your CC meeting twice and cancelled your personal visit to Sweden?

That’s just a rumor. Our party is a democratic party and before taking any decision we have democratic debates within the party and for that we are taking some more time. There are no other differences within the party.

There is also a taskforce that has been formed to settle all these disputes. What’s that?

No, it’s not for settling such disputes. It is just to work out our plan, and do some homework. We always do such things. Some comrades have been assigned these tasks so that they can prepare the proposal to put forward in the meeting.

What happens to the peace process after UNMIN leaves?

We wanted to complete the peace process, especially the question of integration of armies before UNMIN’s departure. But unfortunately there has not been any substantial progress on that front. So, as we go by the spirit of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), the peace process including the integration of armies, formation of various commissions including the Commission on Disappearances, Truth and Reconciliation, Land Reforms Commission, etc should have been completed, but that did not happen. Basically, peace process, constitution-making process and power-sharing arrangements are interlinked. But, unfortunately, the Maoist party which is a 50 percent stakeholder in the peace process has been totally sidelined. So, that way, we have had no say in this process and that has been delaying the matter. Our party is saying that the integration and other parts of the CPA, including peace process, constitution-making process and power-sharing arrangement should be added to a package and dealt with. This current political deadlock can only be ended after that. Unfortunately, other parties are not acting responsibly; they are only bent on isolating the Maoists.

How do you see post-UNMIN Nepal?

If UNMIN leaves before the peace process completes, we’ll have to make some other arrangement. We have not discussed that so far.

What’s wrong with Nepal’s peace process?

The problems started after we emerged as the largest political party in the CA election. The principle of consensus was abandoned in favor of majority-based system. That was a major mistake. In every peace process, the ex-rebels are made a part of the power-sharing arrangement but when we emerged as the largest party after the election, we were thrown out. Unless this is corrected, the peace process cannot be completed.

As an observer, not as a politician, do you think consensus can be achieved and the integration process completed before May 28?

We have to complete the task of constitution-writing and take the peace process to an end before May 28. Otherwise, there is a great danger of the country again plunging into a serious conflict. If the country again reverts to armed conflict, international actors could get involved and that may make complicate the situation. So, we should do everything to avoid that and try to complete the task of constitution-writing and logically conclude the peace process by May 28.

Is there any possibility of yet another term extension of CA?

I don’t think so.

What will be the role of the president in post May-28 Nepal?

He doesn’t have any role. If he takes one, that will be unconstitutional. If the constitutional process breaks down, it will lead to a situation “might is right” situation.

@My Republica

Interview with Dr Baburam Bhattarai

There is no dispute within the party about the political line we have pursued so far

The just-concluded plenum of the UCPN (Maoist) in Palungtar was expected to provide the party with a clear future political course, which would have an impact on the ongoing peace and constitution writing process. But party leaders deferred the discussion to the Central Committee and instead agreed to formulate an ‘interim strategy’ for the next six months. Akhilesh Upadhyay and Pranab Kharel met Vice Chairman Baburam Bhattrai of the UCPN (Maoist) to solicit his views

on the party’s internal dynamics post-plenum, its relationship with India and Bhattarai’s relationship with Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal.

Has the party come out stronger or weaker from the plenum?

The party has come out stronger after the plenum. The party is the unity of the

opposites, and in that sense the ideological and political struggle that we call the two-line struggle has made the party stronger.

In our party’s history this was the highest form of manifestation of the two-line struggle, which took place among some 7,000 party cadres in the most democratic manner. In that sense, this democratic exercise has strengthened the party.

Could we then conclude that the chairman has grown a little bit weaker in the party?

It is not the question of somebody getting stronger or weaker. Overall, the party has grown stronger. When the party becomes strong, naturally, all the members associated with the party become stronger. We should see it that way.

As you correctly pointed out, and as we have also noticed in the media, democratic discussion was more encouraged this time. Is the party making more roads towards democratic polity or in the opposite direction as pushed by the hard-line faction? Isn’t the party in flux?

I would like to clarify that our party believes in democracy. And democracy doesn’t only mean the West Minister bourgeoisie democracy. Real democracy is for the oppressed masses. In that sense, we had passed a resolution a few years back which we termed “Development of Democracy in the 21st Century”. In that document we tried to rectify the mistakes committed by the communists in the 20th century, especially in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. We wanted to go beyond that. Our debate is in that tradition of democratic development in the 21st century. And it should be seen in a positive light. After this democratic exercise, our party is moving in the direction laid out in the proposal of democratic development in the 21st century.

As we see it from outside, none of the three factions have prevailed on the issue of the future line of the party. There may be some interim strategy, but there seems to be a struggle between all three fractions regarding the line of the party in the future. And this struggle may impact whether the party moves ahead as a united front or not.

I don’t know whether it is correct to use the term three fractions. Of course, three documents were put forward for discussion and they were debated upon. And, none of the three documents were passed. The decision of the plenum was that all three documents should be unified. By the time this interview is published the Central Committee meeting should be over and we should have taken some decisions on this issue. What we are discussing right now is some of the ideological and political issues which are of a long-term nature and which we can debate and settle through the national convention. Such things should be put forward to debate and immediate issues should be resolved by the Central Committee with an action plan worked out at least until May 28 when the term of the Constituent Assembly expires. The next six months we will have a unified action plan whereby the party will move ahead in a unified manner and some of the ideological and political issues will be debated.

There were a lot of expectations that the Palungtar plenum would resolve these contentious issues. But if anything, the plenum has only brought these issue to the fore, which is good for the party. But the party, as said earlier, is in a state of flux.

In one sense everything is in flux. But that doesn’t mean we will stay in a state of indecisiveness. We will take decisions which are important for the democratic and communist movements and the party will remain unified. And some of the ideological and political issues need to be debated, like the question of Marxism, the nature of imperialism, what the correct revolutionary line for the party should be. What should the relation between democracy and nationalism be and how should the party deal with India. These are the broader questions under discussion within the party.

If I understand you correctly, your comment in Palungtar was that there are two lines of struggle. And there seems to be a larger understanding between all the factions on the issues of peace and constitution. Do you plan to apply that in other issues as well?

To make the constitution on time and to implement the Comprehensive Peace Accord it is important to mobilise the masses. Unless there is pressure from the people, the old parliamentary forces will not go for a progressive constitution and implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Accord. In that sense, we will continue with the constitution making process and we will also go to the masses to put pressure for the timely completion of the constitution and the peace process.

Since there are differences within the party, don’t you think it will impact the peace process as they cannot be compartmentalised, the way you do so conveniently in your deliberations with the media?

No doubt what happens inside and outside will have an impact. What I would like to clarify is that there is no dispute within the party about the political line we have pursued so far. On the question of implementation, there have been questions whether we have implemented it correctly, or whether we are moving in the right direction.

Whether there will be compete socio-economic transformation in favour of the oppressed masses. But in general all agree that given the national and international situation, the basic line pursued by the party is correct. There should be no doubt on this. Some people think that the Maoists will abandon this path and go back to insurgency. However, the plenum has decided that we will pursue this path (of peace and democracy) only if the reactionary forces block this path, people will be forced to launch another movement and in that sense the party will lead the mass.

If we look back at history, the party has had very difficult relations with India or vice versa, depending on the point of view you look at it from.

And there are still a lot of differences in the way the top leadership of

the party views India. Don’t you think there is contradiction within the party?

There is debate within the Marxist movement in general regarding whether democracy or nationalism should be the principle (focus), given that neo-colonialism is prevalent today. Some people would say that a country like ours is basically dominated by external forces; therefore the national question is important. The other point of view says that since external forces come through internal reactionary forces, our fight should be directed against them—so we should give primacy to the question of democracy. As for dealing with India, we have had problems with India since the days of the Sugauli Treaty. There is no denying that. We would like to solve these problems through diplomatic and political means. We don’t want direct confrontation with India. We would like to restructure this relationship. But there is some debate on how to deal with India.

How does your policy on dealing with India differ from that of the chairman?

We are trying to develop a unified position on this. My position has been that the question of democracy is still primary in our struggle. Even after the abolition of monarchy, reminisces of feudalism remain, and the question of the oppressed mass of people—of different nationalities, regions, and genders—too remains. Unless the country is unified; we cannot fight external interference. But we seem to be arriving at an understanding. All agree that there has been interference from external powers. But there have been differences on how to deal with this. But after this plenum there has been a convergence of views that we should unify the country. Only then can we fight external domination.

How would you then define the current relationship your party has with India?

There are certainly problems with it. There is no point in hiding it. But these issues can be settled through political and diplomatic means. Only if this fails, then we will have to adopt other means, meaning we will have to mobilise the masses against external interference and domination.

We had run an editorial by The Indian Express, and the position of the Indian establishment seems to be that all the democratic forces should be put together to isolate the Maoists.

I think this is the old view. By democratic forces, they mean the old parliamentary forces. But in Nepal’s context, Maoists are the most democratic force. I think the Indian establishment has already abandoned the so called two- pillar theory. After the 12-point agreement, their position has been to promote unity among the democratic forces and fight against the feudal forces. But India is not a monolith. There are differing views within India. One section still believes that they should isolate the Maoists and promote old parliamentary parties. But that won’t work. We are the largest political party and have the most progressive agenda to transform the country and only we can maintain peace and stability in Nepal. Peace and stability in Nepal would be in favour of India. For their own enlightened interest they should promote peace, stability and democracy in Nepal.

How do you review Rakesh Sood’s ambassadorial tenure?

I would not like to comment on it. He is the representative of Government of India. And it is up to the Indian government to review his performance. What we are dealing with is the policy of the Indian ruling class and we are concerned about that.

So you are happy with his performance?

It’s not the question of being happy or unhappy. We have differences on some of

the policies of the Indian government, which we have voiced publicly. But we would like to resolve it through political and diplomatic means. In recent days there have been some misunderstandings. I think these need to be cleared. We want to have good working relations with India.

Your differences with the chairman is said to be more of a clash of personalities than ideological issues?

That is not correct. It is not about a personality clash. Both of us come from the same background. He has certain qualities.

I have certain qualities. We have been working together for almost 30 years. So

people have this feeling that there is a personality clash between us. When we differ on issues, then we need to have a democratic discussion, which will produce higher unity among us.

Should a particular ideological line prevail in the party, is there a chance of change in leadership?

I think this is not the focus of the moment. Right now we are debating certain political and ideological questions. Only the congress of the party (General Convention) will decide on the question of leadership.

There is lot of talk about the split in the party.

This is baseless. This is the thinking of the reactionary class. Our party is united.

@ekantipur