Maoists, PLA and Army Integration

By Yuba Nath Lamsal

The change is in the air and in the mind of the people. But parties and politicians are for status quo. The dismal failure of the past regimes in bringing about change and uplifting the socio-economic condition has compelled the people to look for a new and alternative model of political system in Nepal.
The centralized state right from its unification more than 240 years ago imposed its ideas and policies from the centers that were guided more by the interests of the rulers than the interest of the people and the nation. The local needs and demands were not addressed properly and adequately. People, as they were weak and feeble in challenging the mighty state equipped with strong armed force, accepted what the state gave to them. The state gave them inequality, suppression, exploitation, discrimination, poverty, disease and backwardness. The affluence became the privilege of the rulers and ruling elites. This became the nature and part of the statecraft which has now been rejected following the success of the Jana Andolan II in 2006.
Right from the beginning, there were two distinct classes in Nepal—ruling and ruled. The ruling class enjoyed all the benefits of the state and the government in the name of the people. But the ruled class was the ones who paid taxes, gave labour, obeyed orders honestly and quietly without any question and gave everything in their possession for the happiness, luxury and prosperity of the ruling elites. This drew a distinct boundary between the ruling and the ruled classes.
The ruling class had power—the military power. With the military power in its hand, the ruling class had control over bureaucracy and national coffer, which they used and misused more for their personal and family benefit rather than the benefit of the country and countrymen. This was brazenly so until 1951 when the popular movement thrown out the oligarchic regime and ushered in a multi-party political system in Nepal. Prior to that, it was the duty of the people to pay tax in cash, kind and labour to the government. Unfortunately, that was considered as private property of the ruler. The 1951 political change brought about a new situation in political front that created a sense of accountability to the people while spending tax-payers’ money. But the old hangover continued.
Army has been the crucial factor for controlling state power. The Shahs, Ranas and the Panchayat ruled with support from the army. The first task of the new rulers used to be the control of army and armed forces. If we go back to history, we can cite several instances that rulers used to take control over army to consolidate power. Be it Bhimsen Thapa, Damodar Pandey or Jung Bahadur Rana, their first priority was to consolidate their hold on army. When Bhimsen Thapa was appointed the prime minister, he created some armed divisions loyal to him that ensured his long rule. Although the Shahs were in the reign, Bhimsen Thapa was the de facto ruler who ruled with iron fist virtually eliminating all his opponents and rivals. None could raise voice against Bhimsen Thapa during the height of his rule. This was all because of his strong hold on army. When he grew older and weaker he slowly lost control in army and thus he was finally thrown out of power most disgracefully. His predecessor Damodar Pandey also ruled for sometimes with the help of army. Even after Bhimsen Thapa, those who were interested to control power, they would first get hold on army. Gagan Singh, Mathbar Singh Thapa, Jung Bahadur are its example. Jung Bahadur Rana had his own armed division controlled by his loyal brothers. Jung Bahadur engineered the Kot massacre in which he killed all his rivals and opponents and got power from the ruling Queen, establishing a family rule of Rana that lasted for 104 years. According to the system or rule established by Jung Bahadur, the eldest member of the Rana clan would be the prime minister of Nepal or virtual ruler. This system continued until 1951 when a popular movement overthrew this system and heralded a democratic era. During the entire Rana regime, ones who had control over army ruled the roost and those who had less control over army were removed from power quickly. We have the example of Dev Sumsher, who was reform minded and his priority was more for reforms rather than consolidating hold in army. This was the reason why he was so quickly removed from power by his own brothers, cousins and nephews.
So army has been an important factor to hold onto power even in the present time. The king in the name of partyless Panchayat system also ruled with iron fist because he had full control over army. The king disbanded the democratically elected government in 196o with the help of army. Had king not had control over army, he could not gave staged a coup against the democratically elected government. The 1951 revolution succeeded because the Nepali Congress had created its own army “ Mukti Sena”. But after the success of the 1951 revolution, Nepali Congress dissolved the Mukti Sena. This was a blunder of the Nepali Congress. Had the Congress not dissolved the Mukti Sena, king Mahendra could not have dared orchestrate the 1960 coup against the BP Koirala’s elected government.
Even now the issue of control over army has occupied prominent place in Nepal’s politics. The Maoists created its own army called People’s Liberation Army or PLA and it waged a decade long insurgency on the strength of the PLA. The Maoists were successful in Nepali politics quickly because of the PLA. The support of the Maoists was also a major reason in the success of the 2006 popular movement within 19 days. So army has been a crucial factor in Nepal’s politics, which the Maoists have understood more clearly than any other political force.
The present debate for and against the integration of PLA into the Nepal Army is also guided by this notion. There are two schools of thought within the Maoist party too regarding the army integration. The PLA is the strength of the Maoists. Once its 19,000 fighters were scattered into different units of security organs, they would be nowhere in the crowd of over 2,00,000 strong security personnel ( 97,000 in Nepal Army and the rest in Nepal Police and Armed Police Force). The most successful part of the Maoists in its ten years of people’s war is the creation of the PLA. After integration, the position of the Maoists would definitely be weakened. Thus, some Maoist influential leaders are against the integration. According to them, the integration of PLA into the government’s security forces would ultimately be a suicidal game for the Maoists and the PLA should be kept intact under the control of the Maoist party if it wants to have upper hand in Nepal’s politics.
In fact, the integration of PLA into the security organs or management in other suitable ways would be in the interest of other parties more than the interest of the Maoists. As long as PLA remains intact as it is now, the Maoists’ position and strength in politics would be stronger than that of other parties. After the integration, the Maoist party would be like any other parties that are in existence. This would herald an end to revolutionary and militant image of the Maoist party, which may be both good and bad for the party.

Comments