Either way, the Maoists seem to get a piece of the pie, despite having being defeated militarily. If the King is given only 2 or 3 more months, the military would have wiped these vermin out.
*Nepal Ping*
What I'd like to know is, what does the Indian government want to happen?
So the communists have promised to become democrats? Not exactly a 'great big giant step', to use the terminology of a game that was popular in my childhood.
The King is a "pro-China" dictator, he doesn't care about democracy, and in fact doesn't want democracy. He just wants to keep the maoists tensions alive so that he can prolong his dictatorship using that as an excuse.
If the Maoists want to surrender and join the mainstreame and also stand for elections then there is no reason not to given them a chance. This time the King has no excuses he must make way for democracy if he is really as sincere about his intentions (which I obviously doubt) as he would have the world believe.
There has been enough bloodbath in Nepal already and as long as the King enjoys China's support he will simply continue the bloodbath and use make use every oppurtunity (such as the Maoists threat) to actually eliminate all his political oppositions even those genuine ones who have nothing to do with the Maoists but is simply oppossed to the dictatorship.
From 11//05/05: Nepal political parties deny having alliance with Maoists
From 11/20/05: Nepal Maoists ready to surrender under UN supervision
KATHMANDU: Nepal's Maoist rebels, spearheading a decade-old insurgency, have agreed to lay down arms under UN supervision and support the movement launched by an alliance of seven political parties to limit King Gyanendra's role as a titular head, highly placed sources said on Saturday
This is a disaster. The UN will help the terrorists as they do in Israel. The king should keep the UN out of Nepal and destroy the Maoists with help from anyone who will give it.
On the one hand, India was the first nation state (even before Nepal itself) to declare the Maoist organization as terrorists. On the other, India has largely ignored Nepali Maoists operating on its soil and according to some, has openly abetted and harbored the Maoists. Reasons behind why an external and ultra-nationalistic outfit has been tolerated on Indian territory for so long, defeats rationalization.
There are ample reports of Nepali security personnel training in Indian camps that previously hosted Nepali Maoists. So when senior security personnel state that no resolution of the Maoist insurgency exists (in the absence of Indian acquiescence), they’re not “pointing fingers” or “shifting blame.” Such sentiments are completely legitimate – more so today, than they were a week ago.
On occasion, India has successfully modulated anti-Indian Maoist rhetoric by imprisoning the most radical of the bunch (C. P. Gajurel, Mohan Vaidya). Such actions have also served to assuage the perception of India’s duality (for the international audience) and sent a stern signal within the Maoist ranks that India favors a certain faction, but not the entire Maoist outfit. This was key a driver of the much publicized split within the Maoists, earlier this year.
As part of the patch-up process (within the Maoist party), meetings were held between the Maoists second man (Baburam Bhattarai) and a prominent leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Prakash Karat. Why a man with an Interpol-issued Red Corner Notice was chauffeured around New Delhi to meet with high-ranking Indian politicians is a discussion for another time. To put the issue mildly, nation states have gone to war for less.
This is not to suggest that Nepal should go to war with India, but a reaffirmation of the helplessness and frustration that Nepalis feel.
India’s treatment of Nepal’s Maoist insurgency has several interpretations. A belief is held within some circles that the regional power’s conduct is a function of it’s pluralist nature – that there is true tolerance for a range of political ideologies within the world’s most populous democracy.
By this rationale, India’s policy on Nepali Maoists is a manifestation of it’s tolerance for diversity. Apparently, even those deemed terrorists at a national level are tolerated (if the terrorized populous is non-Indian). Could India’s definition of terrorists differ for those who use terror as a tactic but uphold political change (through violence) as a strategy?? Perhaps this interpretation is why Pakistan’s refuses to recognize Kashmiri militants as terrorists.
Another interpretation is that India’s incapacity to control radical left-wing insurgencies within its own borders accounts for its inability to control Nepali Maoists also. By this logic, India is a regional power for its neighbors to reckon with and simultaneously a union of dysfunctional states that its own federal government struggles to control. India’s inability to tame its own insurgencies aside, how is it that Indian authorities could arrest some Nepali Maoists at will but not others?? And, how does one interpret the alleged presence of these “imprisoned” Maoist leaders during the talks between the 7-party alliance and the Nepali Maoists??
Policy wonks in Delhi say that this too-clever-by-half King has to be taught a lesson he won’t forget in a hurry. Meanwhile, Indian intelligence has boasted preliminary contacts with the Maoist insurgents who are said to control three-fourths of Nepal. South Block groupies are busy going around arguing that the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) isn’t really a revolutionary outfit; it just wants land reforms. In the land of Gandhi and Nehru, it pays to feign loftiness. We even outdo the Americans in this department. Our track record is nobleslavish endorsement of the Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, generous support for every corrupt African dictator, nurturing the LTTE in Sri Lanka and cutting deals with the generals in Myanmar and Pakistan, and the communist apparatchiks in China. Yet, as Saran said in his speech, “Our sympathy will always be with democratic and secular forces.”
It’s great to have a slogan. In statecraft, however, it pays to pursue realism. The immediate conflict in Nepal is only peripherally between democracy and monarchy. If only it had been so simple. The war is between the Nepali state and Maoists. There may be lots hideously wrong with the present dispensation in Kathmandu.
The palace still runs along medieval lines, the Royal Nepalese Army lacks inspired leadership and the political parties are short-sighted, fractious and even corrupt. But let us not forget for a single moment that the Maoists began their insurgency in 1996 when in Nepal there was a civilian, elected government at the helm. The Maoists sing different tunes according to convenience.
First they railed against the politicians and the feudal order and demanded elections to a Constituent Assembly. Then, last December, they said that it was useless negotiating with a puppet government. They wanted the King to sit across the table with them. Now, they are calling for the overthrow of the monarchy.
It is prudent to recognise that democracy is incompatible with the agenda of the Maoists. They are communist variants of the Al Qaeda. A Maoist victory in Nepal would be akin to a Talibanised Afghanistan on our doorstep. The implications for national security would be catastrophic.
Their literature is quite categorical about the fact that their revolution will not stop at Nepal’s borders. To survive, a Maoist Nepal will need complementing “liberated” zones in India....
We can clobber the Nepal monarchy any day but does that help our national security? In any case, foreign policy has to be guided by national interests and not ideological compatibility. Judged by the Saran doctrine, India should be announcing its political and diplomatic support for the jailed Aung San Su Ki in Myanamar.