Maoist focus shifts away from CA
Media Communications Center
March 04, 2007
By M. R. Josse
Even as reverberations from the widely perceived discrepancy between the arms that the Maoists possess and those actually placed in storage – under UN auspices but with keys firmly in their own possession – continue to thunder across the political firmament, revealingly their focus is discernibly shifting away from the CA polls.
Indeed, although their leadership continues to charge that "regressive" elements are not in favour of CA polls, it is becoming increasingly apparent that it is the Maoists themselves that are either pointing out that CA polls by mid-June are not possible or that, even more significantly, they are quite unnecessary.
SIGNIFICANT SHIFT
Thus, as state-controlled Rising Nepal reported recently, C.P. Gajurel, a member of the Maoist nomenklatura, stated in Kathmandu that "it is impossible to hold the constitutional assembly elections in mid-June due to the unrest in the Terai." As such, he demanded that the government should announce (a) federal republic rather than fulfilling demands of the smaller groups.
Notably, his supreme leader Prachanda, speaking in Butwal, declared that the Madeshis and other groupings were resorting to agitation as a consequence of a "conspiracy by feudal elements." (Kathmandu Post, 26 February.)
Going even further, Gajurel darkly warned: "If the seven parties do not support this, then the Maoists would go to the street to make a decision." A day earlier, the same newspaper quoted him as having disclosed to Indian Maoists, who had gathered for a conference at an undisclosed location within Nepal during the last week of December, that "our army hasn't been demobilized…instead it has been recognized by the government and the United Nations."
Incidentally, that such a stance is quintessential party policy is confirmed by Gajurel's senior colleague Mohan Vaidya 'Kiran' in the latest edition of Surya vernacular magazine where he has admitted quite frankly: "Our party has decided on another revolution."
Adding a further note of uneasiness to the above disclosure is a news item in the latest issue of the vernacular National Janamanch which claims that, according to CIA estimates put out by the American Embassy and forwarded to the Army, some 7,000 Maoist commandos trained by Indian Naxalites are presently out of the designated cantonments.
Be that as it may, the Maoists' impatience to either rush through with the CA poll by mid-June, regardless of all obtaining legal or political hurdles, or, else, to render it redundant by declaring Nepal a federal republic by fiat has been apparent to most non-partisan analysts for sometime now.
It would seem to many that the shift referred to above has been conditioned by a number of factors, including their assessment that waiting for the CA polls and their inclusion in an interim government after the verification process of UN arms management is completed, could be as long-drawn out a process as waiting for Godot.
At this juncture, it will probably be germane to note UN Secretary-General's Special Representative Ian Martin's recent disclosure that the verification process would commence sometime in mid-March. He did not indicate when the process might be completed to the satisfaction of all concerned parties. Given that the registration process took several weeks, who can be assured that verification, which is a much stickier proposition, will be a more rapid business?
Incidentally, according to the Himalayan Times (26 February), we have NC honcho Arjun Narsingh KC waxing eloquent in Baglung that it is UNMIN procedures on arms management that is delaying the formation of an interim government.
Notable, too, is a statement made in the interim parliament by UML's Bamdev Gautam, considered close to the Maoists. As reported by the Rising Nepal (25 February), Gautam stated: "We should concentrate all our attention for (sic) holding the constituent assembly elections within the stipulated time. But, the government's pace is slow and it looks like it cannot hold the election by mid-June."]
Given that the Terai and janjati agitations, which do not show signs of subsiding anytime soon, have seriously affected the work of the Election Commission (EC), among other things, a strictly legal approach to the CA polls, playing it by the book, could very well mean that the mid-June deadline cannot be met.
In fact, if one also takes into account that, due to the exceptionally heavy snowfall in the mountain districts this year, the EC has been unable to even begin updating the voters' list for the proposed polls, it looks increasingly likely that the closest time-frame for the CA polls is in the mellow post-Dasain/Tihar/Chhat period in autumn.
Curiously, or otherwise, not a whimper has still been heard from the flock of highly-paid UN experts that have been dispatched to oversee that the CA polls are free, fair and devoid of any threat perception. One is thus forced to ask: are they still around? Or, if so, where the blazes are they hiding out?
PERCEIVED ARMS GAP
Despite such hurdles, what is likely to be the most serious obstacle for the implementation of the mid-June CA poll deadline is the controversy over the widely-held perception that the Maoists have not deposited all the weapons they possess for storage purposes.
At the outset it must be pointed out that Martin himself confessed: "UNMIN is not in a position to confirm or refute reports of weapons purchases by or on behalf of the CPN (M), although the weapons registered include a number of weapons not held in the stocks of state security forces, such as AK-47s."
Indeed, although Prachanda has explained the ostensible discrepancy between what he claims as the reality and the perceived estimates in the public mind regarding Maoist arms is due to much of their weaponry having been destroyed either in river crossings or in fire bombing of villages by the Army (vide Kathmandu Post, 26 February), it is unlikely that this incredible explanation will satisfy everyone concerned, going by a multiplicity of opinions heard thereafter including those at the street level.
Speaking from experience, individuals who surrendered their personal weapons, such as 12-bore rifles, to the Maoists on the condition that they would be returned when no longer needed have yet to get them back. Where are such weapons, now?
Significantly, government spokesman and information minister Dilendra Prasad Badu told a Kathmandu audience not only that the government was "serious" about such an uneasy discrepancy (Kantipur vernacular daily, 25 February) but also that a meeting of the eight parties would be convened in that connection; only after its deliberations would the government form a considered opinion on the issue.
Furthermore, as reported by the Rising Nepal (25 February), Narendra Nembang, minister of law, justice and parliamentary affairs, speaking in Biratnagar, declared that "the arms that the Maoists deposited to the United Nations teams was even less that the numbers looted at Dang." Nemwang then went on to emphasise: "If Maoists are serious about establishing peace they must give up all arms they possess and understand that violence cannot lead the country forward."
As per another Rising Nepal report (26 February), we have Narayan Prakash Saud of the NC making a statement in parliament also saying that the words and deeds of the Maoists do not match. He went on to charge that "the Maoists were still extorting money, carrying weapons, wearing weapons and violating laws."
Incidentally, the gravity of Saud's charge about Maoists still carrying weapons was driven home powerfully when Maoist MP Lokendra Bista in parliament on 26 February with much bravado declared that he "still has a weapon and challenged other lawmakers to take action against him for possessing it." (Kathmandu Post, 27 February).]
Jagannath Khatiwada of the UML, for his part, is quoted in the same day's issue as accusing the Maoists of "hiding weapons."
That apart, sources familiar with weapons and weapon-storage have privately also expressed alarm to this columnist at what they describe as the "gaping disparity" between what arms the Maoists have registered with the UN and what they still clandestinely possess.
Still on that theme, it is most absorbing what Deshantar, a vernacular weekly considered to reflect the views of the NC leadership, has revealed in its latest issue. Indeed, it makes the claim that most Maoist weapons are hidden in the hill and Terai districts. The Deshantar story alleges that these are concealed in hardened plastic water tanks buried in the ground. In that context, an unidentified trader has been quoted as expressing surprise at the unexplained sale of huge numbers of Hilltake and Gintex water storage tanks some 6-7 months ago.
MAOISTS ASK FOR MORE
What has further compounded the already high degree of public anxiety is the furor that erupted last week over the mass exodus of Maoist combatants from a number of UN cantonments, a flow that was caused, according to the Maoist leadership, because there was no money to feed them adequately and also because of pressure mounted on the government and the UN to do the needful in that regard.
Although the government has dished out another Rs 50 million to the Maoists, in addition to the Rs 350 already disbursed for the upkeep of the Maoists combatants in cantonments, Maoist spokesman Krishna Bahadur Mahara has been quoted by the Himalayan Times (26 February) asserting that such an amount cannot be expected to last for long.
No wonder, then, that the Maoists' Oliver Twist-asks-for-more syndrome has rattled so many. If the same news report also informed that PM Koirala (bed-ridden for the best part of the week) had expressed great "concern" at the manner in which the Maoists had expended the huge sums that had been forwarded to them earlier, others media outlets were quick to reflect the annoyance that was evidenced on that score in other quarters.
Thus, for example, in parliament NC's Devendra Raj Kandel pertinently asked why if Armed Police personnel can make do with a monthly ration allowance of Rs 1,200 an allowance for Maoist combatants of Rs 1,800 per month should be considered inadequate? (Rising Nepal, 26 February). Why indeed?
Another noteworthy aspect about the controversial money-for-the-Maoists issue is: why should other citizens too not get a commensurate allowance for their daily rations? Also, what needs to be considered is that even Martin, speaking before his latest trip to New York, could not say for sure that all Maoist combatants who had exited their camps had returned. Who will certify that they definitely have, and when?
For how long will the government keep on financing the Maoists, especially if, as they are now threatening, they abjure the CA polls process and begin a second revolution? What would happen to the UN process in such an eventuality?
Even scarier is what would happen if it turns out that the widespread apprehension that the Maoists have hidden a significant chunk of their weapons, including modern weaponry, turns out to be true?
If the Maoists do go for broke and, in violation of all agreements made so far, repudiate the CA polls process – the very basis for the change triggered by the April Uprising that, among others, was applauded by the international community – wouldn't all hell break loose?
Given today's volatile and dicey political calculus, who is in a position to say more than just that at this time? In the final analysis, therefore, there are enormous and disturbing implications to the shift in the Maoists' focus away from the CA process.
Source:PR
Even as reverberations from the widely perceived discrepancy between the arms that the Maoists possess and those actually placed in storage – under UN auspices but with keys firmly in their own possession – continue to thunder across the political firmament, revealingly their focus is discernibly shifting away from the CA polls.
Indeed, although their leadership continues to charge that "regressive" elements are not in favour of CA polls, it is becoming increasingly apparent that it is the Maoists themselves that are either pointing out that CA polls by mid-June are not possible or that, even more significantly, they are quite unnecessary.
SIGNIFICANT SHIFT
Thus, as state-controlled Rising Nepal reported recently, C.P. Gajurel, a member of the Maoist nomenklatura, stated in Kathmandu that "it is impossible to hold the constitutional assembly elections in mid-June due to the unrest in the Terai." As such, he demanded that the government should announce (a) federal republic rather than fulfilling demands of the smaller groups.
Notably, his supreme leader Prachanda, speaking in Butwal, declared that the Madeshis and other groupings were resorting to agitation as a consequence of a "conspiracy by feudal elements." (Kathmandu Post, 26 February.)
Going even further, Gajurel darkly warned: "If the seven parties do not support this, then the Maoists would go to the street to make a decision." A day earlier, the same newspaper quoted him as having disclosed to Indian Maoists, who had gathered for a conference at an undisclosed location within Nepal during the last week of December, that "our army hasn't been demobilized…instead it has been recognized by the government and the United Nations."
Incidentally, that such a stance is quintessential party policy is confirmed by Gajurel's senior colleague Mohan Vaidya 'Kiran' in the latest edition of Surya vernacular magazine where he has admitted quite frankly: "Our party has decided on another revolution."
Adding a further note of uneasiness to the above disclosure is a news item in the latest issue of the vernacular National Janamanch which claims that, according to CIA estimates put out by the American Embassy and forwarded to the Army, some 7,000 Maoist commandos trained by Indian Naxalites are presently out of the designated cantonments.
Be that as it may, the Maoists' impatience to either rush through with the CA poll by mid-June, regardless of all obtaining legal or political hurdles, or, else, to render it redundant by declaring Nepal a federal republic by fiat has been apparent to most non-partisan analysts for sometime now.
It would seem to many that the shift referred to above has been conditioned by a number of factors, including their assessment that waiting for the CA polls and their inclusion in an interim government after the verification process of UN arms management is completed, could be as long-drawn out a process as waiting for Godot.
At this juncture, it will probably be germane to note UN Secretary-General's Special Representative Ian Martin's recent disclosure that the verification process would commence sometime in mid-March. He did not indicate when the process might be completed to the satisfaction of all concerned parties. Given that the registration process took several weeks, who can be assured that verification, which is a much stickier proposition, will be a more rapid business?
Incidentally, according to the Himalayan Times (26 February), we have NC honcho Arjun Narsingh KC waxing eloquent in Baglung that it is UNMIN procedures on arms management that is delaying the formation of an interim government.
Notable, too, is a statement made in the interim parliament by UML's Bamdev Gautam, considered close to the Maoists. As reported by the Rising Nepal (25 February), Gautam stated: "We should concentrate all our attention for (sic) holding the constituent assembly elections within the stipulated time. But, the government's pace is slow and it looks like it cannot hold the election by mid-June."]
Given that the Terai and janjati agitations, which do not show signs of subsiding anytime soon, have seriously affected the work of the Election Commission (EC), among other things, a strictly legal approach to the CA polls, playing it by the book, could very well mean that the mid-June deadline cannot be met.
In fact, if one also takes into account that, due to the exceptionally heavy snowfall in the mountain districts this year, the EC has been unable to even begin updating the voters' list for the proposed polls, it looks increasingly likely that the closest time-frame for the CA polls is in the mellow post-Dasain/Tihar/Chhat period in autumn.
Curiously, or otherwise, not a whimper has still been heard from the flock of highly-paid UN experts that have been dispatched to oversee that the CA polls are free, fair and devoid of any threat perception. One is thus forced to ask: are they still around? Or, if so, where the blazes are they hiding out?
PERCEIVED ARMS GAP
Despite such hurdles, what is likely to be the most serious obstacle for the implementation of the mid-June CA poll deadline is the controversy over the widely-held perception that the Maoists have not deposited all the weapons they possess for storage purposes.
At the outset it must be pointed out that Martin himself confessed: "UNMIN is not in a position to confirm or refute reports of weapons purchases by or on behalf of the CPN (M), although the weapons registered include a number of weapons not held in the stocks of state security forces, such as AK-47s."
Indeed, although Prachanda has explained the ostensible discrepancy between what he claims as the reality and the perceived estimates in the public mind regarding Maoist arms is due to much of their weaponry having been destroyed either in river crossings or in fire bombing of villages by the Army (vide Kathmandu Post, 26 February), it is unlikely that this incredible explanation will satisfy everyone concerned, going by a multiplicity of opinions heard thereafter including those at the street level.
Speaking from experience, individuals who surrendered their personal weapons, such as 12-bore rifles, to the Maoists on the condition that they would be returned when no longer needed have yet to get them back. Where are such weapons, now?
Significantly, government spokesman and information minister Dilendra Prasad Badu told a Kathmandu audience not only that the government was "serious" about such an uneasy discrepancy (Kantipur vernacular daily, 25 February) but also that a meeting of the eight parties would be convened in that connection; only after its deliberations would the government form a considered opinion on the issue.
Furthermore, as reported by the Rising Nepal (25 February), Narendra Nembang, minister of law, justice and parliamentary affairs, speaking in Biratnagar, declared that "the arms that the Maoists deposited to the United Nations teams was even less that the numbers looted at Dang." Nemwang then went on to emphasise: "If Maoists are serious about establishing peace they must give up all arms they possess and understand that violence cannot lead the country forward."
As per another Rising Nepal report (26 February), we have Narayan Prakash Saud of the NC making a statement in parliament also saying that the words and deeds of the Maoists do not match. He went on to charge that "the Maoists were still extorting money, carrying weapons, wearing weapons and violating laws."
Incidentally, the gravity of Saud's charge about Maoists still carrying weapons was driven home powerfully when Maoist MP Lokendra Bista in parliament on 26 February with much bravado declared that he "still has a weapon and challenged other lawmakers to take action against him for possessing it." (Kathmandu Post, 27 February).]
Jagannath Khatiwada of the UML, for his part, is quoted in the same day's issue as accusing the Maoists of "hiding weapons."
That apart, sources familiar with weapons and weapon-storage have privately also expressed alarm to this columnist at what they describe as the "gaping disparity" between what arms the Maoists have registered with the UN and what they still clandestinely possess.
Still on that theme, it is most absorbing what Deshantar, a vernacular weekly considered to reflect the views of the NC leadership, has revealed in its latest issue. Indeed, it makes the claim that most Maoist weapons are hidden in the hill and Terai districts. The Deshantar story alleges that these are concealed in hardened plastic water tanks buried in the ground. In that context, an unidentified trader has been quoted as expressing surprise at the unexplained sale of huge numbers of Hilltake and Gintex water storage tanks some 6-7 months ago.
MAOISTS ASK FOR MORE
What has further compounded the already high degree of public anxiety is the furor that erupted last week over the mass exodus of Maoist combatants from a number of UN cantonments, a flow that was caused, according to the Maoist leadership, because there was no money to feed them adequately and also because of pressure mounted on the government and the UN to do the needful in that regard.
Although the government has dished out another Rs 50 million to the Maoists, in addition to the Rs 350 already disbursed for the upkeep of the Maoists combatants in cantonments, Maoist spokesman Krishna Bahadur Mahara has been quoted by the Himalayan Times (26 February) asserting that such an amount cannot be expected to last for long.
No wonder, then, that the Maoists' Oliver Twist-asks-for-more syndrome has rattled so many. If the same news report also informed that PM Koirala (bed-ridden for the best part of the week) had expressed great "concern" at the manner in which the Maoists had expended the huge sums that had been forwarded to them earlier, others media outlets were quick to reflect the annoyance that was evidenced on that score in other quarters.
Thus, for example, in parliament NC's Devendra Raj Kandel pertinently asked why if Armed Police personnel can make do with a monthly ration allowance of Rs 1,200 an allowance for Maoist combatants of Rs 1,800 per month should be considered inadequate? (Rising Nepal, 26 February). Why indeed?
Another noteworthy aspect about the controversial money-for-the-Maoists issue is: why should other citizens too not get a commensurate allowance for their daily rations? Also, what needs to be considered is that even Martin, speaking before his latest trip to New York, could not say for sure that all Maoist combatants who had exited their camps had returned. Who will certify that they definitely have, and when?
For how long will the government keep on financing the Maoists, especially if, as they are now threatening, they abjure the CA polls process and begin a second revolution? What would happen to the UN process in such an eventuality?
Even scarier is what would happen if it turns out that the widespread apprehension that the Maoists have hidden a significant chunk of their weapons, including modern weaponry, turns out to be true?
If the Maoists do go for broke and, in violation of all agreements made so far, repudiate the CA polls process – the very basis for the change triggered by the April Uprising that, among others, was applauded by the international community – wouldn't all hell break loose?
Given today's volatile and dicey political calculus, who is in a position to say more than just that at this time? In the final analysis, therefore, there are enormous and disturbing implications to the shift in the Maoists' focus away from the CA process.
Source:PR
Print
Email
