Maoists' correct assessment on India
By Yuba Nath Lamsal
The sixth plenum of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) concluded a fortnight ago in the historically important district of Gorkha. It was perhaps the biggest political gathering of this kind in the modern political history of Nepal. After extensive deliberations, the largest political force of Nepal came up with its own assessment and decision on several issues that include domestic policies as well as the international issues and relations.
The issue concerning India\'s role in Nepal\'s domestic policy dominated the discussion. The Maoist conclave raised high the banner of patriotism. After heated deliberation, it made the assessment that India is the principal obstacle on the path of Nepal\'s political transformation and development and also a threat to Nepal\'s sovereignty. This conclusion was reached with overwhelming majority.
There were two clearly distinct lines regarding the role of external elements in Nepal\'s internal affairs. Although there different documents presented by three different leaders namely party chairman Prachanda, vice chairpersons Mohan Vaidya and Baburam Bhattarai, only two viewpoints appeared on India\'s role in Nepal. On this issue, Prachanda and Mohan Vaidya stood one side and Baburam Bhattarai put himself in other camp.
Prachanda and Vaidya were of the view that India has directly interfered in Nepal with its malicious design to keep the Himalayan republic under its control. As the Maoists have been raising the issue of patriotism, the Maoists have been the direct target in the present context of Nepal. In every political turmoil and instability, there has always been India\'s hand. India always helps topple the patriotic regimes and install its own agents in the government. The recent one is the circumstances created to force the Maoists out of power last year. India was directly involved in the conspiracy to oust the Maoists from power. The army chief issue was just a pretext but there was a serious Indian conspiracy to topple the Maoist-led government in which Nepali parties and politicians acted as the agents of New Delhi.
One also needs to remember the recent history of not more than 15 year ago when the UML government was also forced out of power within nine months despite it being the largest force in parliament. Until then the UML was a patriotic force which not very much liked by India. The role UML played when Tanakpur Treaty was signed with India with some unequal terms. The people supported the UML patriotic stance and it emerged as the largest party in the second general election. As the largest party, the UML formed the government but was ousted within nine months of its formation in which India\'s hand was visible. After this event, the UML took a U-turn in its foreign policy to toe the line of India. It started its loyalty to India just to go to power which was clearly seen during the time of parliamentary ratification of Mahakali Treaty. The UML was vertically divided over the issue and it lost its popular base because of compromise on national interest.
The similar approach was adopted by India after the Maoists went to power immediately after the Constituent Assembly election. By orchestrating a design to oust Maoist from power and install and Indian puppet regime, India wanted to teach the Maoists a lesson and ultimately bring this party into its fold. However, the Maoists launched a crusade against Indian design instead of going to power with India\'s support. New Delhi has intensified its interference to keep the Maoists out of power. The brazen interference of India could be seen in the election for prime minister.
Against this background, what Prachanda and Vaidya have analyzed is correct. They have indentified India as the principal enemy against which the party must fight to safeguard Nepal\'s sovereignty and independence. The Maoists, thus, want to liberate the country from India\'s domination and hegemony. This view was overwhelmingly backed by the participants.
Bhattarai\'s views are slightly different. He is of the view that India is not the principal enemy at present instead the domestic comprador and bureaucratic capitalism should be made the target of party\'s attack. Bhattarai, however, accepted that India is the main threat to Nepal\'s political transformation and economic development. But his argument is thatIndia would automatically be defeated once its agents in Nepal are defeated. According to him, it would not be wise to directly confront with militarily powerful India. Instead, he wants to build national economy first and then counter India\'s hegemony based on Nepal\'s economic strength. But Bhattarai\'s idea did not gain much currency in the plenum.
Being a communist party, the UCPN-Maoist has opposed all forms of imperialism and regional hegemony. According to the Maoists, the US-led imperialism and Indian expansionism are the external threats to Nepal and the Nepalese people. But they take India as the main threat and obstacle because of its class character and past tract record. Although India was liberated from British colony in 1947, Indian rulers have continued the colonial policies so far as their relationship with its neighbours are concerned. In principle, the Maoists consider the United States of America as an imperialist and anti-communist force. But the party does not consider America as the principal threat and enemy at present.
In the present international scenario, United States-led western countries, China and India have different outlook, approaches, priority and strategy in South Asia including Nepal. The United States and China want to see Nepal as an independent, stable and prosperous country, whereas India is always effortful in weakening and destabilizing Nepal so that it could always interfere and manipulate in Nepal\'s affairs.
New Delhi\'s intention is to keep Nepal under its security ambit which can be well substantiated by its various proposals put forward to Nepal\'s beleaguered rulers on various occasions. When Rana regime was on its way out, India hastened to sign 1950 Treaty which has been dubbed as an unequal treaty. The 1950 treaty has governed Nepal-India relations. Nepal\'s patriotic forces have been demanding abrogation of this unequal treaty and sign a new treaty on the basis of equality and mutual reciprocity and mutual benefits. However, India wants continuity of the treaty. The Maoists, too, want abrogation of 1950 treaty. When the 1990 political movement against the Panchayat regime had been picking up, India proposed some harsh proposals which aimed at clearly limiting Nepal\'s sovereignty. Nepal refused to give in to Indian conditions. Similarly, when 2006 movement was in its height, similar proposal was put forward to Nepal. This shows that India always wants to take benefit from Nepal\'s political crisis, which implies that India is behind every political crisis in Nepal including the one that we have witnessed at present.
While the Maoists are harsh on India, they are a bit soft with the United States and the western world. Their views expressed in the plenum and elsewhere are indicative of the fact that they want to build a new kind of relationship with the western world based on mutual equality and friendship. Even with India, they are prepared to mend their relations if New Delhi abandons its hegemonic policy towards Nepal. The Maoist meet, thus, will have a long-term impact on Nepal\'s political and foreign policy front. At a time, when Nepal\'s other political parties and leaders have toed the India\'s policy at the expense of Nepal\'s national interest, the Maoists have raised the patriotic banner which has won the heart of patriotic Nepali people. This should not be a mere expediency to go to power. Even in the past, the CPN-UML had also been raising the issue of nationalism so strongly but it later betrayed the people for power. The patriotic people have now pinned their hopes on the Maoists. The Maoists, therefore, need to live up to popular expectations and keep the banner of patriotism alive. It by no means should give in to New Delhi in exchange of power. The Maoists, thus, must learn lesson from history and their political future is bright as long as they uphold the banner of patriotism.
The sixth plenum of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) concluded a fortnight ago in the historically important district of Gorkha. It was perhaps the biggest political gathering of this kind in the modern political history of Nepal. After extensive deliberations, the largest political force of Nepal came up with its own assessment and decision on several issues that include domestic policies as well as the international issues and relations.
The issue concerning India\'s role in Nepal\'s domestic policy dominated the discussion. The Maoist conclave raised high the banner of patriotism. After heated deliberation, it made the assessment that India is the principal obstacle on the path of Nepal\'s political transformation and development and also a threat to Nepal\'s sovereignty. This conclusion was reached with overwhelming majority.
There were two clearly distinct lines regarding the role of external elements in Nepal\'s internal affairs. Although there different documents presented by three different leaders namely party chairman Prachanda, vice chairpersons Mohan Vaidya and Baburam Bhattarai, only two viewpoints appeared on India\'s role in Nepal. On this issue, Prachanda and Mohan Vaidya stood one side and Baburam Bhattarai put himself in other camp.
Prachanda and Vaidya were of the view that India has directly interfered in Nepal with its malicious design to keep the Himalayan republic under its control. As the Maoists have been raising the issue of patriotism, the Maoists have been the direct target in the present context of Nepal. In every political turmoil and instability, there has always been India\'s hand. India always helps topple the patriotic regimes and install its own agents in the government. The recent one is the circumstances created to force the Maoists out of power last year. India was directly involved in the conspiracy to oust the Maoists from power. The army chief issue was just a pretext but there was a serious Indian conspiracy to topple the Maoist-led government in which Nepali parties and politicians acted as the agents of New Delhi.
One also needs to remember the recent history of not more than 15 year ago when the UML government was also forced out of power within nine months despite it being the largest force in parliament. Until then the UML was a patriotic force which not very much liked by India. The role UML played when Tanakpur Treaty was signed with India with some unequal terms. The people supported the UML patriotic stance and it emerged as the largest party in the second general election. As the largest party, the UML formed the government but was ousted within nine months of its formation in which India\'s hand was visible. After this event, the UML took a U-turn in its foreign policy to toe the line of India. It started its loyalty to India just to go to power which was clearly seen during the time of parliamentary ratification of Mahakali Treaty. The UML was vertically divided over the issue and it lost its popular base because of compromise on national interest.
The similar approach was adopted by India after the Maoists went to power immediately after the Constituent Assembly election. By orchestrating a design to oust Maoist from power and install and Indian puppet regime, India wanted to teach the Maoists a lesson and ultimately bring this party into its fold. However, the Maoists launched a crusade against Indian design instead of going to power with India\'s support. New Delhi has intensified its interference to keep the Maoists out of power. The brazen interference of India could be seen in the election for prime minister.
Against this background, what Prachanda and Vaidya have analyzed is correct. They have indentified India as the principal enemy against which the party must fight to safeguard Nepal\'s sovereignty and independence. The Maoists, thus, want to liberate the country from India\'s domination and hegemony. This view was overwhelmingly backed by the participants.
Bhattarai\'s views are slightly different. He is of the view that India is not the principal enemy at present instead the domestic comprador and bureaucratic capitalism should be made the target of party\'s attack. Bhattarai, however, accepted that India is the main threat to Nepal\'s political transformation and economic development. But his argument is thatIndia would automatically be defeated once its agents in Nepal are defeated. According to him, it would not be wise to directly confront with militarily powerful India. Instead, he wants to build national economy first and then counter India\'s hegemony based on Nepal\'s economic strength. But Bhattarai\'s idea did not gain much currency in the plenum.
Being a communist party, the UCPN-Maoist has opposed all forms of imperialism and regional hegemony. According to the Maoists, the US-led imperialism and Indian expansionism are the external threats to Nepal and the Nepalese people. But they take India as the main threat and obstacle because of its class character and past tract record. Although India was liberated from British colony in 1947, Indian rulers have continued the colonial policies so far as their relationship with its neighbours are concerned. In principle, the Maoists consider the United States of America as an imperialist and anti-communist force. But the party does not consider America as the principal threat and enemy at present.
In the present international scenario, United States-led western countries, China and India have different outlook, approaches, priority and strategy in South Asia including Nepal. The United States and China want to see Nepal as an independent, stable and prosperous country, whereas India is always effortful in weakening and destabilizing Nepal so that it could always interfere and manipulate in Nepal\'s affairs.
New Delhi\'s intention is to keep Nepal under its security ambit which can be well substantiated by its various proposals put forward to Nepal\'s beleaguered rulers on various occasions. When Rana regime was on its way out, India hastened to sign 1950 Treaty which has been dubbed as an unequal treaty. The 1950 treaty has governed Nepal-India relations. Nepal\'s patriotic forces have been demanding abrogation of this unequal treaty and sign a new treaty on the basis of equality and mutual reciprocity and mutual benefits. However, India wants continuity of the treaty. The Maoists, too, want abrogation of 1950 treaty. When the 1990 political movement against the Panchayat regime had been picking up, India proposed some harsh proposals which aimed at clearly limiting Nepal\'s sovereignty. Nepal refused to give in to Indian conditions. Similarly, when 2006 movement was in its height, similar proposal was put forward to Nepal. This shows that India always wants to take benefit from Nepal\'s political crisis, which implies that India is behind every political crisis in Nepal including the one that we have witnessed at present.
While the Maoists are harsh on India, they are a bit soft with the United States and the western world. Their views expressed in the plenum and elsewhere are indicative of the fact that they want to build a new kind of relationship with the western world based on mutual equality and friendship. Even with India, they are prepared to mend their relations if New Delhi abandons its hegemonic policy towards Nepal. The Maoist meet, thus, will have a long-term impact on Nepal\'s political and foreign policy front. At a time, when Nepal\'s other political parties and leaders have toed the India\'s policy at the expense of Nepal\'s national interest, the Maoists have raised the patriotic banner which has won the heart of patriotic Nepali people. This should not be a mere expediency to go to power. Even in the past, the CPN-UML had also been raising the issue of nationalism so strongly but it later betrayed the people for power. The patriotic people have now pinned their hopes on the Maoists. The Maoists, therefore, need to live up to popular expectations and keep the banner of patriotism alive. It by no means should give in to New Delhi in exchange of power. The Maoists, thus, must learn lesson from history and their political future is bright as long as they uphold the banner of patriotism.
Comments
Post a Comment