The Nepalese prime minister who resigned on May 4 was committed to democracy under Maoist dictatorship.
In the past, Nepal has excused itself for bouts of bad behaviour towards its neighbours — especially India — by likening itself to the tail of a monkey caught between two rocks: The rocks being India and China.
But in this case, it is Pushpa Kamal Dahal, aka Prachanda, till May 4, the prime minister of Nepal, who’s had his tail caught — between hardliners in his party and the opportunity represented by the prime ministership of a democracy-in-the-making. The sacking of the Nepal army chief, Gen Rukmangad Katuwal last week is just the catalyst that has hastened the fundamental crisis in Nepal politics: What to do with democracy.
On Wednesday, Prachanda was holding a press conference in Kathmandu to explain — not deny — the contents of a videotape shown on the private Image Channel in Kathmandu. The tape showed him boasting about how he had misled United Nations peace monitors with inflated figures about the strength of the Maoist guerrilla wing, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), to try and get as many rebels into the army as possible.
The video is said to be a recording of Prachanda’s address to PLA commanders and combatants at the Shatikhor cantonment in Chitwan on January 2 last year — four months before he took over as prime minister.
In the tape, Prachanda claims the integration of even a small number of PLA combatants into the army would be enough. “Our soldiers are politically awakened and they will easily dominate those who take part merely in ceremonial parades [that is, ordinary officers and soldiers],” he can be heard as saying.
The tape illustrates the worst-kept secret of the Nepal Maoists: That they are not really committed to democracy or democratic ideals but only want a “democracy under our dictatorship.”
There is enough evidence of this: Offices of media houses hostile to the Maoists have been attacked in Kathmandu, the Maoist government that came to power in April 2008 has attempted to refashion the judiciary, and the bureaucracy has been a victim of transfers and postings. The last bastion of old Nepal was the army. And the sacking of Rukmangad Katuwal was not about civilian control of the army but dominance over institutions of governance.
When the Maoists first came to power, India’s position was: In the interests of democracy, they must be given a chance to lay down arms. When Prachanda came to Delhi on his first official visit, he sounded more like a statesman than a “miscreant” which is how China described the Maoists when they were underground.
But things changed. India — and China — had no option as with 238 out of 601 seats in Parliament, the Maoists numbered more than the opposition Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal — United Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) together.
The Maoists made many promises: Return of property “seized” during the movement, the disbanding of the Young Communist League (YCL) and so on. That Nepal had taken a conscious decision to balance India’s influence with China’s became clear. An unprecedented 38 Chinese delegations have visited Nepal over the last year. India made no secret of the fact that it took a dim view of the proposed visit by Prachanda to China last week (he quit before that ) to sign a treaty with that country that mimics the 1950 Treaty of Friendship between the Nepal and India, a document unique to the relationship between the two countries.
Prachanda had to announce he was undertaking this journey because the pressure of hardline party colleagues like Defence Minister Ram Bahadur Thapa (aka Badal), ideologues Baburam Bhattarai and Mohan Baidya who believe that if the revolution had to be complete, the Constitution needed to be designed to establish a democracy in which the balance of advantage was with the Maoists. To do this, if the prime ministership had to be given up, so be it.
Prachanda had also developed some traits that were un-revolutionary. The safari suits and Red Label were incidental. His 28-year old son was appointed his personal secretary, his son-in-law was put in charge of accounts, his daughter, the younger child, was made a member of the Constituent Assembly. On the foreign trips that he undertook as part of his official duties, it was his family that accompanied him in preference to ministers or party colleagues.
It is hard to say if India had a hand in having him deposed: Although he and his colleagues have made that charge. Altogether it is an irony that while it was India, which backed the movement against the palace (that the Maoists led), during that whole period, China backed the King. But then, it is Hwang Ho on which the revolution rides, not the Kosi.
