Maoists, striek and Withdrawal
By Yuba Nath Lamsal
Last week, the country saw a six-day general strike called by the Unified CPN-Maoist. The strike was largely peaceful, although the people had to endure great hardships as shops and offices closed.
The Maoist party withdrew the strike on the sixth day and changed the nature and form of the protest. It then held a mass meeting in Kathmandu where the leaders tried to defend their decision to withdraw the strike and convince the cadres why this was necessary. The next day, the Maoist party cordoned off the government secretariat at Singha Durbar. Going one step forward, the UCPN-Maoist, all of a sudden, withdrew all forms of the protests for the time being.
The first three days of the strike were completely peaceful. But sporadic incidents of violence and clashes started taking place on the fourth and fifth days, which compelled the Maoist leadership to withdraw the strike to, according to the Maoists, avoid unnecessary confrontation with the people.
Trading charges
The Maoists and the ruling parties have traded charges and accused one another for inciting violence and confrontation during the strike. The ruling parties have held the Maoists responsible for the clashes. The Maoists accuse the government of infiltrating into the protests and inciting violence. However, the Maoists alone are not responsible for the clashes. Had the Maoists wanted violence, they would have done so right from the first day of their strike. But some elements that wanted to reap benefit from the chaos and crisis infiltrated into the protests and tried to provoke the agitators and incite violence.
The other fact which shows that the Maoists were not behind the violence and clashes is their swift decision to withdraw the strike once such incidents started taking place. The decision to withdraw the strike was not because the Maoists were afraid of clashes. The decision was taken to prevent the country from falling into a confrontation. This should be taken as a positive and responsible act of the Maoists.
The Maoist leadership assessed the situation in time and did not hesitate to withdraw the strike. The party not only withdrew the general strike but called off all kinds of protest programmes temporarily. The Maoist leadership had earlier announced that the indefinite strike would continue until the present government was ousted and a national government under their leadership was formed.
The party leadership came under fire from the cadres for its sudden withdrawal of the strike. But the party chose to face the wrath of the workers than push the country into a confrontation. By taking this quick step of withdrawing the strike, the Maoists have proved that they are sensitive to the country and people’s woes and want peace and stability in the country
Although the cadres may not have been happy with the party’s decision, they accepted the instruction of the leadership quietly and obediently. Not a single voice of discontent and grumbling was heard. This shows the strict and perfect discipline in the party. Had it been the case of the other parties, there would have been a big hue and cry. This is a lesson that the other parties must learn from the UCPN-Maoist.
The announcement of the strike and decision to withdraw it unilaterally by the Maoists have sent a positive message both at home and abroad. Firstly, the totally peaceful nature of the strike and the quick decision to withdraw the protest programmes once the strike saw sporadic clashes and violence have cleared the misgiving that the Maoists still have the hangover of war. This shows that the Maoists want change and reforms in the country through peaceful means. Even in the past, the Maoists had to opt for war because their plea for peaceful reforms and change were not heard by the state.
It is worthwhile to mention here that the Maoists had proposed to the government for peaceful reforms in the past. More than a decade ago, when the Maoists had not started the armed insurgency, a delegation of the Maoists had sought an appointment with the then prime minister to hand over a memorandum concerning their demands for change and reforms. But the then prime minister, instead of meeting the delegation, ordered the police to use force. As a result, several workers and leaders, including Dr. Babu Ram Bhattarai, vice chairman of the UCPN-Maoist, were injured in the police baton charge.
Soon after this incident, the Maoists reorganised the party and announced an armed insurgency. This shows that the Maoists were forced to wage war as their efforts to bring about change and reforms through peaceful means were exhausted.
Even at present, the Maoists claim that they were not in the mood to stage the general strike. They had to do so since their demands were not listened to by the government and the ruling parties. The main concern of the Maoists at present is constitution writing and concluding the peace process. With the chance of promulgating the new constitution within the deadline growing slim, the Maoists chose to pressure the government and other parties in the form of a strike for a timely constitution and conclusion of the peace process. This shows that the Maoist strike was not their choice but a compulsion - a compulsion for peace and constitution.
The second message that the withdrawal of the strike has given is that the Maoists are sensitive towards the problems of the people. Since the supply system worsened due to the week-long general strike, the Maoists did not want the people to suffer further and took back the protest programmes.
Thirdly, they respected the call and appeal of the civil society and the international community to withdraw the strike and seek a solution through negotiation and dialogue. The Maoists have, thus, shown their responsible and flexible attitude, and the onus lies on the ruling parties to show similar kind of flexibility for the resolution of the problem.
The Maoists have said that the protests were only suspended for sometime but not ended and can be revived if the ruling parties do not respond to their liberal and flexible policy.
According to the Maoists, the suspension of the strike and protest programmes temporarily is aimed at giving the other parties, especially the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML, a chance to create an atmosphere for national consensus and formation of a national government. The other parties, too, need to take this opportunity positively and do the needful to end the political crisis through mutual consultation.
Opportunity for peace
If the ruling parties take the withdrawal of the strike as a defeat of the Maoists and victory of the government, it would be a blunder. This will only invite further confrontation and crisis in the country. The withdrawal of the Maoist protests has created an opportunity for peace and constitution, which must be utilised for an amicable solution of the political crisis facing the country.
Last week, the country saw a six-day general strike called by the Unified CPN-Maoist. The strike was largely peaceful, although the people had to endure great hardships as shops and offices closed.
The Maoist party withdrew the strike on the sixth day and changed the nature and form of the protest. It then held a mass meeting in Kathmandu where the leaders tried to defend their decision to withdraw the strike and convince the cadres why this was necessary. The next day, the Maoist party cordoned off the government secretariat at Singha Durbar. Going one step forward, the UCPN-Maoist, all of a sudden, withdrew all forms of the protests for the time being.
The first three days of the strike were completely peaceful. But sporadic incidents of violence and clashes started taking place on the fourth and fifth days, which compelled the Maoist leadership to withdraw the strike to, according to the Maoists, avoid unnecessary confrontation with the people.
Trading charges
The Maoists and the ruling parties have traded charges and accused one another for inciting violence and confrontation during the strike. The ruling parties have held the Maoists responsible for the clashes. The Maoists accuse the government of infiltrating into the protests and inciting violence. However, the Maoists alone are not responsible for the clashes. Had the Maoists wanted violence, they would have done so right from the first day of their strike. But some elements that wanted to reap benefit from the chaos and crisis infiltrated into the protests and tried to provoke the agitators and incite violence.
The other fact which shows that the Maoists were not behind the violence and clashes is their swift decision to withdraw the strike once such incidents started taking place. The decision to withdraw the strike was not because the Maoists were afraid of clashes. The decision was taken to prevent the country from falling into a confrontation. This should be taken as a positive and responsible act of the Maoists.
The Maoist leadership assessed the situation in time and did not hesitate to withdraw the strike. The party not only withdrew the general strike but called off all kinds of protest programmes temporarily. The Maoist leadership had earlier announced that the indefinite strike would continue until the present government was ousted and a national government under their leadership was formed.
The party leadership came under fire from the cadres for its sudden withdrawal of the strike. But the party chose to face the wrath of the workers than push the country into a confrontation. By taking this quick step of withdrawing the strike, the Maoists have proved that they are sensitive to the country and people’s woes and want peace and stability in the country
Although the cadres may not have been happy with the party’s decision, they accepted the instruction of the leadership quietly and obediently. Not a single voice of discontent and grumbling was heard. This shows the strict and perfect discipline in the party. Had it been the case of the other parties, there would have been a big hue and cry. This is a lesson that the other parties must learn from the UCPN-Maoist.
The announcement of the strike and decision to withdraw it unilaterally by the Maoists have sent a positive message both at home and abroad. Firstly, the totally peaceful nature of the strike and the quick decision to withdraw the protest programmes once the strike saw sporadic clashes and violence have cleared the misgiving that the Maoists still have the hangover of war. This shows that the Maoists want change and reforms in the country through peaceful means. Even in the past, the Maoists had to opt for war because their plea for peaceful reforms and change were not heard by the state.
It is worthwhile to mention here that the Maoists had proposed to the government for peaceful reforms in the past. More than a decade ago, when the Maoists had not started the armed insurgency, a delegation of the Maoists had sought an appointment with the then prime minister to hand over a memorandum concerning their demands for change and reforms. But the then prime minister, instead of meeting the delegation, ordered the police to use force. As a result, several workers and leaders, including Dr. Babu Ram Bhattarai, vice chairman of the UCPN-Maoist, were injured in the police baton charge.
Soon after this incident, the Maoists reorganised the party and announced an armed insurgency. This shows that the Maoists were forced to wage war as their efforts to bring about change and reforms through peaceful means were exhausted.
Even at present, the Maoists claim that they were not in the mood to stage the general strike. They had to do so since their demands were not listened to by the government and the ruling parties. The main concern of the Maoists at present is constitution writing and concluding the peace process. With the chance of promulgating the new constitution within the deadline growing slim, the Maoists chose to pressure the government and other parties in the form of a strike for a timely constitution and conclusion of the peace process. This shows that the Maoist strike was not their choice but a compulsion - a compulsion for peace and constitution.
The second message that the withdrawal of the strike has given is that the Maoists are sensitive towards the problems of the people. Since the supply system worsened due to the week-long general strike, the Maoists did not want the people to suffer further and took back the protest programmes.
Thirdly, they respected the call and appeal of the civil society and the international community to withdraw the strike and seek a solution through negotiation and dialogue. The Maoists have, thus, shown their responsible and flexible attitude, and the onus lies on the ruling parties to show similar kind of flexibility for the resolution of the problem.
The Maoists have said that the protests were only suspended for sometime but not ended and can be revived if the ruling parties do not respond to their liberal and flexible policy.
According to the Maoists, the suspension of the strike and protest programmes temporarily is aimed at giving the other parties, especially the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML, a chance to create an atmosphere for national consensus and formation of a national government. The other parties, too, need to take this opportunity positively and do the needful to end the political crisis through mutual consultation.
Opportunity for peace
If the ruling parties take the withdrawal of the strike as a defeat of the Maoists and victory of the government, it would be a blunder. This will only invite further confrontation and crisis in the country. The withdrawal of the Maoist protests has created an opportunity for peace and constitution, which must be utilised for an amicable solution of the political crisis facing the country.
Comments
Post a Comment