Wednesday, April 30, 2008

May Day 2008 - Renew the Struggle - Tom Morello - One Man Revolution



One Man Revolution

On the streets of New York
The cabs don't stop
On the street where I live
They called the cops
Found a noose in my garage
Now how 'bout that
So tonight I'm in the bushes
With a baseball bat

Cause I'm a one man
I'm a one man
I'm a one man revolution
I'm a one man
I'm a one man
I'm a one man revolution
The time is nigh
The day is dark
There's only one solution
I'm a one man
I'm a one man
I'm a one man revolution

On the streets of Havana
I got hugged and kissed
At the Playboy Mansion
I wasn't on the list
On the streets of Cape Town
Shit's ready to blow
I don't know how to get there
But I'm ready to go

Cause I'm a one man
I'm a one man
I'm a one man revolution
I'm a one man
I'm a one man
I'm a one man revolution
The time is nigh
The day is dark
There's only one solution
I'm a one man
I'm a one man
I'm a one man revolution


Sacrifice and neon lights
Slaveships don't wait
Love many, trust few
And don't be late

In my nightmares
The streets are aflame
And in my dreams
It's much the same
And on the streets of L.A.
They know my name
And if you've come this far mister
Maybe we're one and the same

I'm a one man
I'm a one man
I'm a one man revolution
I'm a one man
I'm a one man
I'm a one man revolution
The time is nigh
The day is dark
There's only one solution
I'm a one man
I'm a one man
I'm a one man revolution



The Internationale in Chinese for May Day 2008 - Renew the Struggle !

The Internationale in Nepalese - Celebrating May Day 2008 - Remembering the Heroes of the Working Class

Chairman Prachanda speaking after meeting with United Nations


Prachanda meets Martin, CC to finalise PR list

With CPN-Maoist preparing to lead the next government, United Nation Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) chief Ian Martin met the party's chairman Prachanda at the latter's residence in Nayabazaar Wednesday morning.

The ongoing peace process, army integration, the future government and its composition is learnt to have featured highly during the meeting that took place at 7 am in the morning.

Martin is also learnt to have discussed the model of integrating Maoist guerilla fighters into the Nepali Army and the future role of UNMIN.

The meeting between Prachanda and Martin comes at a time when some quarters are calling for UNMIN's "downsizing" and discussing its "exit strategy".

Prachanda has, time and again, said that UN's services in army integration are no longer required and reiterated this in his recent interview to an Indian newspaper. "I feel there is no role for the UN in integration. Now that we have a CA, and a basis has come into being for political stability, and the basis for integration is there, too, I do not see such an important role for the UN," he told The Hindu newspaper.

Meanwhile, the party is also submitting the name of 100 candidates who will represent the party under the proportional representation to the Election Commission, Wednesday.

The party's Central Committee meeting being held in the capital city is expected to finalise the names of 100 candidates and also endorse the political proposal put forward by chairman Prachanda on Wednesday

Groups warn of armed struggle to keep Hindu monarchy

Extremist Hindu organizations of Nepal and India have warned to launch armed struggle to keep the last Hindu monarchy in Nepal, reports Kantipur daily.

They have warned they would not accept the decision of the elected constituent assembly to remove monarchy.

The conference of World Hindu Federation that concluded in Balrampur district of India, Monday, decided to focus their movement against Maoists.

The conference was participated by dozens of Hindu activists from both the countries.

The movement would be led by Hem Bahadur Karki, a retired army colonel and recently elected president of WHF, and former royal ADC Bharat Keshar Simha from Nepal, and by Yogi Adityanath, MP of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) from Gorakhpur, from India.

The daily further reports that they have decided to gather pro-Hindu activists from all over the two countries and start the movement from Terai

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Siddharth Varadarajan continues interview with Chairman Prachanda

“We want the end of the monarchy to be done in an orderly, peaceful way. It is better that Gyanendra (right) goes of his own accord. This way, a good atmosphere will be created for him to continue living in Nepal,” says Prachanda.

In the final part of his interview to The Hindu, Maoist leader Prachanda discusses the future of the monarchy and Army in Nepal, and the need for the country’s new constitution to escape the trap of formal democracy and actually empower its citizens.

What was your reaction to the election result? Were you surprised by the scale of Maoist victory?

No, we were not surprised. We knew the media and other parties were underestimating us but we were active amongst the people and knew we had great support. At the same time, we too underestimated how well Madhesi parties like the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum would do.

Despite your pre-election confidence, you actively sought alliances and seat adjustments with the UML (Unified Marxist-Leninists) and even Nepali Congress (NC). Some analysts saw that as a sign of weakness on the Maoists' part.


The media made the mistake of thinking this was our weakness but we always took the stand that this is an election for the Constituent Assembly (CA) where the first task is to abolish the monarchy and establish a republic. And since this was an agenda the Maoists, the NC and UML were committed to, we felt we should go to the election as a united group. When that proved impossible, we tried to build at least an understanding with the UML so that the Left vote could remain united. But the other parties were so sure of themselves that they were not interested in our proposals.

This was an election for the CA but your party's campaign slogan was to make Prachanda the first president of Nepal. What was the thinking behind this particular slogan?

Prachanda: There were two reasons. Of course this was an election for the CA and we were very clear about this. But we also wanted to show the people the Maoists are not just like any other old party and are different from them. And one way of doing this was to raise this issue of president. Similarly, we called our manifesto our "commitment paper" to emphasise we were not simply making promises. The second reason was to show the people the nature of our unified and centralized leadership. This was also important. For example, after the 1991 elections, there was a bitter fight within the NC between Ganesh Man Singh and K.P. Bhattarai and G.P. Koirala over the Prime Ministership. We wanted to tell people that with our party there would be no such unseemly problem.

It is clear that when the CA meets, the executive power will be with the Prime Minister. So who will be the Maoist candidate? And which ministries will the Maoists want?

Our party's preference is for an executive president but if the CA does not agree to this immediately, then, because executive authority is vested in PM's post and we are the single biggest party, we have decided the Chairman of our party [i.e. Prachanda] should run the government. And since, in the outgoing government, the biggest party, NC, took not just the PM's post but also other ministries like defence, home and finance, we would like to retain these. But we want to form a coalition government and are prepared for responsible power sharing with all our partners.

Is your emphasis on a coalition government a tactical stand since you do not have a majority of your own?

No, this is not an issue of tactics. Even before the CA elections, [Prime Minister] G.P. Koirala, [UML leader] Madhav Nepal and myself had said we should all continue to work together after the elections. Girijababu even said the coalition should continue for at least ten years. So for us to say the government we will lead now should include all the parties is nothing new. We want the NC and UML to be part of the government. And Madhesi parties like the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) as well. We intend to carry everyone together. We believe this is what the people of Nepal want and this is what they voted for.

So what happens during the first meeting of the CA? Will the monarchy finally be abolished? After your meeting with [the Royalist politician] Kamal Thapa, analysts have begun speculating about what might happen.

There is no ambiguity at all. The people have spoken and the mandate for a republic is very clear. Keeping this in mind, we want the end of the monarchy to be done in an orderly, peaceful way. This was the reason for my meeting with Kamal Thapa. Since the verdict is clear, the people's sentiments are known and in the national interest this institution of monarchy is going to be dissolved, it is better that Gyanendra goes of his own accord. It will be better if he himself says that, that way, a good atmosphere will be created for him to continue to live in Nepal as a common citizen and for him to run his businesses. This way, the people of Nepal will forgive him. So I told Kamal Thapa the people's verdict has come and in the first sitting we are going to implement it. There is no room for any confusion about this. So since you have good relations with [Gyanendra], you should tell him it is better that he goes before this. That will send a good message, and will be better for him and his family. Thapa said he would convey my message but after that I never received any answer.

One of the issues the new government will have to tackle is the integration of the Peoples Liberation Army with the Nepal Army. What is the nature of the integration you envisage and the timeline for its implementation?

Our wish is for this question of integration to be resolved as quickly as possible. My expectation is that this process will go ahead in tandem with the process of writing the constitution. I think there is no need for the CA to take two years to write the constitution, I would prefer this process of writing should be completed in a year and integration too should be solved within a year. Secondly, the problem is not so difficult as it was earlier because when the government is formed with our leadership, the integration process will also be easier. Some people feel integration is a very complicated and sensitive question but in my view this is not so complicated as people outside think. Because the comprehensive peace agreement itself created the basis for integration and the way in which the interim constitution and other agreements speak of the PLA and Nepal Army (NA), this also creates a basis for integration. Also, there has been continuous dialogue in the JMCC [Joint Monitoring Coordination Committee] for the past one-and-a- half years between the representatives of the NA and PLA, and this has also created an atmosphere. In our view, the Nepal Army needs to be democratized and the People Army needs to be professionalised, and in this way, only those who are professionally fit will be integrated and those who are unfit will go to other jobs. This is already clear. And the democratization process of the NA has already started – the Army says it will follow the orders of whichever elected government is formed. This is a positive statement that has come. So we feel that immediately after the new government is formed, we will set up a special committee for integration.

Under the CA or the Government?

Under the Government, and there will be comprehensive debate and discussion in that committee so that the process of integration is completed as soon as possible.

And members of other parties will be there?

Yes, of course.

In the past you have said Nepal does not need a large army. [PLA commander] Badal has spoken of 30,000 being the optimum size of the Nepal Army? Is there a final position on this?

There is no final position. We feel in a small country like Nepal, there is no need to have a large army where other branches of development are more important. This is our orientation – that the size of the Army should come down. Broadly speaking, we are thinking of a size of 30,000 to 50,000. This is our strategic thinking. But we are not speaking of an immediate reduction in the army's size. It will take 5 to 7 years to come to the right size. We don't wish to disturb the institution of the army too much. But on the basis of a plan, over 5 to 7 years, we would like to have a smaller army. For example, we have to plan for alternative jobs for those who will no longer be required.

If PLA soldiers, who are basically Maoist cadre, enter the Nepal Army, wouldn't the other parties be justified in worrying about the army getting politicized?
I don't think so. We are talking of democratizing the NA, and professionalizing the PLA, so in this process, this fear and suspicion will be dispelled. And then the whole army is to be downsized too. The process of professionalisation, democratisation and downsizing will reach a common point there this suspicion and worry will be ended.

Is there a need for the UN to supervise this process of integration, or are you confident the government and CA will manage by themselves?

I feel there is no role for the UN in integration. Now that we have a CA, and a basis has come into being for political stability, and the basis for integration is there too, I do not see such an important role for the UN.

So there is no need for the UNMIN mandate which ends in July to be extended?
I think when the CA meets, we will take a final view on this. In my mind too I have not taken a final view on whether the UN mandate should be extended or not, and I feel we should talk to the other parties on this, and the CA should be involved and take a decision on this. That way, it would be more democratic and effective and more beneficial.

The Rayamajhi commission set up to probe the use of force during the Janandolan of 2006 criticised the role of senior Army generals including Army chief Katuwal and called for action against them. Will your government implement these findings?


The Rayamajhi commission was not formed with the support or participation of our party. We were not a part of the interim government at the time, there was no comprehensive peace agreement. So our party's view is that we are not in favour of mechanically implementing whatever the Commission has recommended. We will look at it critically, study it carefully, and where we feel action is needed, we will use its findings, but we cannot accept the commission's reports in its entirety because it was not formed with our consent or support, our side or view was not taken into account, and it did not address the situation in Nepal in its entirety. It only looked at the struggle between the parliamentary parties and the monarchy. It did not address what was happening to us. So we will study it but not blindly follow it.

The Young Communist League (YCL) has come in for a lot of criticism during the election campaign with the other parties accusing them of using strong-arm tactics. Why can't the YCL be converted into a development-oriented movement?

You are right, and we are debating this because we want its role to change. Given the fact that we are in a leadership position, we are thinking of the YCL being mobilized as a working force, a construction force, and we are debating this in the party and will take a decision in the Central Committee on this in a few days. This is not only for YCL but for all the youth of Nepal -- how to mobilise them for the building of new Nepal in constructive work . We are developing a plan for the state to mobile the strength of youth, and so the YCL's role will not be as it was before, it should be creative, for construction of the new Nepal, and to work for mobilising the youth for this purpose.

What kind of political system do you envisage for Nepal?

In India, Britain or the U.S, people are dissatisfied with the purely formal nature of their democracy. Money power dominates and there is a disconnect between voting rights and actual empowerment. How can the CA avoid this trap and build a system that genuinely empowers the people?

I think this is a very important question. The system we are talking about – a federal system, of restructuring the whole state and having inclusiveness -- the thinking behind this is that we are fully aware of the problems with the theory of formal democracy and parliamentary system in which the majority is in government and the minority is in opposition. This tradition of formal democracy does not address the aspirations of the people and Nepal should not fall into the trap of this kind of formal democracy. So though we are committed to multiparty competition and democracy, this does not mean parliamentary democracy is the only system. We want the masses of the people to be involved and empowered to run the state, and our main concern is to do this within the context of multiparty competition -- how to bring women, Dalits, janajatis, Madhesis, workers and peasants forward and have an effective democracy for them.

So when we speak of restructuring and inclusiveness, one example we have tried to give –and we are proud that the other parties are slowly adopting our line on this – on federalism, inclusive democracy, it is a matter of pride also that 23 of our women cadres have won elections, and so many Dalits and women have been elected for first time in Nepal as well as Janajatis and Madhesis, and we want that there should now be effective empowerment from below.


Of course, there is a difference between our understanding of this and other parties. There is a formal democracy, in which parties spend money, there is corruption, and people are never empowered. We want Nepal to escape from this trap and have effective democracy. This is the change we want -- side by side with the struggle against feudalism, a real democracy which can address people's aspirations and build in the control, supervision and intervention of the masses over the state. We believe the CA election has seen one exercise of inclusiveness and democracy, but we have to now seriously look at what kind of democracy we are going to have – a formal, parliamentary system or an effective, empowering one. Multiparty does not mean it has to be parliamentary in the traditional way.

One of the challenges a government led by you will face is working with the Madhesi parties, particularly the Forum, given the bad blood between you and the experience of the Gaur massacre, where more than 30 of your cadres were killed. How do you plan to address this issue?


In the andolan of Madhesis earlier this year, I tried very hard on behalf of our party to address some of the issues, and in the process some relations with the Forum have been built. You are right that last year there was a very bitter struggle and a very bitter experience was there, especially after the Gaur massacre, the bitterness had really increased, but we believe that where that incident happened, there should be action against the guilty according to the law, and wherever we have made mistakes, there should be (legal) action too.

In this way, we will solve this problem at the level of law and order, and at political level then, the Forum has emerged as a force and we will have political interaction with then, build a morcha with them and go forward. I see no problem in this. And it is not as if we do not know the Forum and its main leader, Upendra Yadav. He was for seven years in the district committee of our party. We know his chemistry and everything! And I do not think it will be difficult for me to talk with him and, in line with the needs of the country, working together in the writing of the constitution.

Have you spoken with Yadav him since the results came out?


No, but one of our comrades in the central committee has and I may also met him I the next few days.

And you want the Forum in the coalition government?


Yes. It is necessary to include them. We need their assistance to build the constitution. So if they are also in the government, only then can we unify the whole country and move forward.




But the Maoists' views on how the map of a federal Nepal should look is quite different from the Forum's. Would you be able to bridge that gap?


There is a little difference, not in theory but in terms of practically what they are saying. And this can be resolved through debate and discussion. I don't feel this not debatable. On autonomy, federalism, we have a common understanding. But there is a debate on what kind of autonomy. They say 'ek madhes, ek prades', that from west to east, there should be one Madhes province in the Tarai. Our party has said we are not against this. But the ground reality should also be seen. Those who don't see themselves as Madhesis, for examples the Tharus in the west and elsewhere do not see themselves as Madhesis.

So we cannot force them, we have to convince them. Pushing a policy from the top cannot solve the contradictions that exist in the people. We need to explain to them. If the Madhesi Forum can convince everyone, we have no objection. So even here I do not see a big difference. Through debate if there is consensus, we have no objection. But it seems to me that given the Tharus' historical background, they are not in that position, they want a separate autonomus province, and in Mithila, the Maithili speakers have their own tradition and culture and geography, and in Bhojpura and Awadh you have Bhojpuri and Awadhi speakers, and in the east you have Rajbanshis, so all these aspirations have to be addressed. You cannot impose anything.

Are you in favour of the CA working out not only the nature of federal relations but also the shape of the provinces to be created, or can the latter task be left to a States Reorganisation Committee to resolve later?



We would like the CA to form a committee to work on what kind of federalism Nepal should have and on a map. There will be serious study and discussion on this and after that, the CA will take a decision on this by the time the Constitution is finalized. Of course, we have placed a proposal before the country (points to Maoist map of a federal Nepal) but the CA will decide on this question.


So you are flexible about this map?

Yes we are. We are not saying this is final, that it cannot be changed.

One of the criticisms that can be made of the Maoist federal proposal is that it is based on ethnic federalism, and does not take into account the ecological realities of Nepal, the need for natural resources to be shared.
This is a correct point. Of course our federalism is not just ethnic but our emphasis has been on what we call the nationality basis, on language, culture, geography. But there is a little problem with this, as you are asking, and this is also a question we are asking and debating within ourselves, about how to have proper distribution of resources. We have to solve this, so we want to study and debate this further before coming to a final decision. That is why we have resolved to be flexible on this.

Though this election was about constitution writing, the people also have a lot of expectations from the government you will lead. How will the Maoists deal with this pressure?


There is a contradiction between people's expectation and the political reality we find ourselves in. So to address this, we will have to tell the people that this is our situation, we are going to write a constitution and we are committed and obliged to work together with all the parties. This has to be explained to the people – what we can do and what we cannot. And I think if we are open about this, given the political consciousness of the Nepali people – they will wait and see whether the government is sincerely working for them or not.

If they see that, then I think the Nepali people will be ready to make sacrifices, as far as I understand their feelings and psychology. What will provoke them and make them angry would be if they see the people in government are earning crores through corruption and their sons and daughters are studying in good schools abroad, and their buildings are coming up in Kathmandu, while ordinary people are mired in poverty. If this happens, they will get angry and come on to the streets. But if they see the government is working properly in their interest, but its resources are limited, then people will understand.

This is the way we will handle this problem. So I have started talking in the press that these are the constraints, there is an international food crisis, we will be affected by this and we have to deal with it, there is a rise in global prices of oil products, I have started saying these things, and I think people will understand this reality, and when we demonstrate that we are ready to fight against the old tradition of corruption, people will understand and we will transcend this problem.

What role do you envisage for Girija Prasad Koirala in the new Maoist-led government that is to be established?


I feel that historically, GPK has played a major role in taking the CA elections to completion. That mission has been fulfilled and I asked him recently -- keeping in mind his great age -- what his plans were. For his role, within or outside government, is important. I told him you have become a guardian, and until the new constitution is finalized, your guardianship role has to be there, and after that too. I said that we have a lot of respect for you – of course, in between there was confusion too – but seeing the way you fulfilled your commitment for the elections, our respect for you has grown even more. As far as the new government is concerned and his role in it, I feel insisting he be in government is not the way to respect him, taking into account his age and health, and his historical role, we have to find a different way and place to honor him. To involve him again in day to day politics would not be right. This is what I feel. And yet, if he wants, we can have an open discussion. We have an open mind. We have not closed anything. I have sent a message to him that we can have a talk about these things.

But I feel he has said it often, he doesn't want to be there after the election. So keeping in mind the need to respect his feelings, and now that a younger generation is here, giving him the tension that being in leadership would involve is not right. This is my belief.

Are you confident the NC and UML will eventually join the Maoist-led government?


I am fully confident. They will do tough bargaining of course. If they don't come, the loss will be theirs because the mandate from the 12 point understanding to the election results is for all of us to work together for drafting the constitution and taking the peace process to its logical end. In elections, you always have one party gaining or losing but this does not mean the mission we started has ended. If the NC and UML run away from this mission before it is completed, the Nepali people will not forgive them. It will not be an act of responsibility. From our side, we will spare no effort to ensure we all move forward together, and power sharing is one of these things. So there can be no question of the NC and UML not joining the government.

It is widely acknowledged that India played a crucial role in helping the Maoists and parliamentary parties forge a common front and in ensuring the Constituent Assembly elections were held as scheduled on April 10. And yet, there has also been a residue of suspicion between New Delhi and you. What is your assessment of the role India has played in this entire process?
The positive approach of the Indian government was a major factor behind the 12-point understanding reached in Delhi between the parliamentary parties and us in 2005. That agreement wouldn't have been possible if the Indian Government's support hadn't been forthcoming. It is from there that a new relationship between India and Nepal begins -- and particularly the improvement in relations between the GOI and us. Before that, there was a lot of suspicion and contradiction. But from then to now, the attitude and help of the GOI is known to everyone. It is an open secret. India has consistently been in favour of elections. It had said all along that without having elections, a stable Nepal cannot be established, that elections should be held on time. Similarly, India's emphasis on taking the peace process forward is known to all. So through this, there has been a great improvement in relations.

At the same time, our party had lingering doubts before the elections, that India could do something … For example, a statement came from Delhi that we cannot really trust the Maoists, that our [choice] is the Nepali Congress. We saw this statement and were a little concerned that this traditional mindset might have an effect on the elections. So I made a comment that a responsible official in India should not say these things on the eve of elections, that the implication of such statements is not good. Later there was an attempt to clarify things from Delhi. Still, there was a doubt in our mind. But after the results, we feel a basis has been prepared for relations with India to become even better and that whatever little suspicion and doubt existed has now ended.


It is also possible that as far as Delhi was concerned, there were doubts about whether we would go for elections or not, whether we would take part properly. But I think that through this election and its results, the doubts that were there in India's mind have also ended and a new basis has been prepared to have new unity and new cooperation. I feel the atmosphere now has changed dramatically. India is openly saying it has no problem in working with and unconditionally assisting any democratically elected government.

So are we now at a turning point in the bilateral relationship between India and Nepal?

This is my belief. Earlier the problem was India's two-pillar theory [of support for constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy]. You will recall in my first interview to you in 2006, I said the two-pillar theory is the biggest obstacle and that as long as India does not abandon it and come out in support of the Nepali people, there will always be difficulties. Fortunately, the 19-day andolan led the GOI to clarify it would respect the people's verdict, even if this was for a republic. That was historically a very big change in Delhi's policy. And the 12-point understanding represented an equally big change in the Maoists' position and attitude. Thanks to these changes and other developments up to the elections, a historically new basis has been prepared.

I am very happy about this because of our cultural, historical and geographical relations with India and because India is a fast growing economy. Without cooperating with India, it is not possible to bring stability and prosperity in Nepal; indeed it is more or less impossible. Any practical leader, anyone who understands reality, cannot be confused about this -- that without taking cooperation with India forward, we can do anything for Nepal. And I'm also happy that India's leaders and people also understand that only a stable, prosperous Nepal can be in India's interest. I think slowly people in India are realising that in order for Nepal to have peace, stability and prosperity, a new leadership and party like the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is needed. So I think we can go very far together.

Your party wants the 1950 treaty scrapped and there are many in India who agree this treaty is no longer relevant. But what sort of changes would you like to see in a bilateral treaty?

The 1950 treaty exists but based on the situation in the first decade of the 21st century, we feel it will be better for Nepal and India to have a new treaty. This is our clear and categorical belief. Our people have the feeling that somewhere along the line, the kind of benefit Nepal could get is not there, so the Nepali people's aspiration has been to change this. Second, we would like to review all the other treaties to see what revisions or further enhancements are necessary. What we want is new unity on a new basis with India. Far from wanting to damage our relations, we want to make them even better. That is why we speak of new unity on a new basis. This basis has been established by all that has happened from the 12-point understanding till the elections, so the two sides should sit together and review the relationship with an open mind and see how we can move it forward.

In your party's earlier 40-point programme (of 1996), you have spoken about the need to close the open border between India and Nepal. Won't this hurt the lakhs of Nepalis who come to India to work and live?

Our election commitment paper does not say our intention is to close the border. We are only speaking of regulating it better. India and Nepal should sit and discuss how to do this because criminal elements misuse this openness. We would like to talk about these things. We have no intention of closing the open border.

And the 1996 demand for a ban on Indian films?
There has been a change in the situation and we need to move ahead based on this change.


There has been some apprehension in India about the meaning of your statement that Nepal should be equidistant from India and China. What exactly did you mean?
In political terms, we will maintain equidistance because to have an alliance and go against anyone would violate the geopolitical conditions and needs of our country. This is what we mean by equidistance. But we need to look at the ground reality too: the historical, cultural and geographical relationship with India is very different from China and this has to be acknowledged and factored into how we define our relationship. So in this sense, there cannot be equidistance with India and China. There is no open border with China, so how can there be equidistance? But as far as the question of an "alliance" is concerned, of siding with one against the other, it is in that sense that there is equidistance.

Your manifesto talks of stopping the recruitment of Gorkha soldiers for the Indian and British armies. Will this be easy for you to implement?


We have always maintained that this recruitment for foreign armies should stop. This is our position. But given the circumstances and the process by which we have come here – ours will not be a single party government – we will have to talk to the other parties to see how this sensitive and delicate issue can be resolved.

In their response to the Maoist election victory, the BJP have warned you not to be anti-Hindu. If they return to power in India, do you think relations with Nepal might change for the worse?

As far as I can understand the spirit behind the BJP's latest statement compared to its earlier ones, there will not be any qualitative change in relations if they come back to power. I think their attitude is and will be to respect the decision the Nepali people have come to. Of course, religious fundamentalism could have an adverse impact. At the same time, I feel that if the BJP moves ahead on the basis of its latest statement, there will no problem in talking to them or working with them should they be in government. As far as religion is concerned, it has been decided that the state will be secular. This does not mean Nepal will be anti-Hindu. It is nonsense to suggest this! Religious freedom will be maintained. State and religion should not be mixed.

The former chief of RAW, P.K. Hormis Tharakan has argued in an article that the victory of the Nepal Maoists is good for India since this will inspire the Indian Maoists to follow your example. Is this what you are advising the Indian Maoists?


What we are doing in Nepal is in keeping with the needs and sentiments of the Nepali people. So we are not going to tell anyone that you should also do what we are doing. We don't have the right to say such things and we don't wish to say such things either. But I do feel that what we are doing will send a strong message not only to Indian Maoists but Maoists worldwide – about how the Nepali Maoists have gone from bullet to ballot, how they have influenced and won the hearts and minds of the Nepali people, and how they have come to the position of leading the government and building a new constitution. This will be the subject of very big debate, and this will have a positive impact on Maoists everywhere because we have not betrayed our basic theory, we have developed it based on the changed situation in the world, and tried to move ahead on that basis. For example, even when the Peoples War was going on, we concluded that multiparty competition is a must even in socialism. Not only in the phase of democratic revolution but also in the phase of socialism, if multiparty competition is not there then a vibrant society will not be possible. This is the conclusion we have drawn from the great revolutions and counter-revolutions of the 20th century. And on the basis of those conclusions we are moving forward. So I feel that for the Indian Maoist party, its leaders and cadres, these efforts of ours provide some new material to study, to think about and go ahead in a new way. Our efforts provide a reference point.

Your party is still on the U.S. terrorism list. Do you think India can play a role in advising the U.S. to take you off?

India can and should do this. And my expectation is that India is already making efforts in this direction. The U.S. needs to change its attitude and we too would like to have diplomatic relations with them. India can play a positive role in this.

Dr Baburam Bhattarai has claimed that no other party than the CPN-Maoist has the right to lead the next government.

Maoist second-in-command Dr Baburam Bhattarai has claimed that no other party than the CPN-Maoist has the right to lead the next government.

Talking to reporters at the venue of the meeting of party's central committee on Tuesday, Bhattarai said there will not be negotiation with any party on the government's leadership.

Dismissing the views of some Nepali Congress leaders that GP Koirala should continue as the Prime Minister as the Maoists didn't have two thirds majority on their side for claiming government's leadership, Bhattarai said, "The biggest party takes the government's leadership. This is a worldwide practice."

In today's meeting, the central committee members stressed that the party should get the opportunity to head the government with involvement of other parties, Bhattarai informed.

According to him, the central committee meeting will take decisions on the composition of the new government as well as the technicalities of implementing republic from the first sitting of the constituent assembly

Monday, April 28, 2008

Prachanda: 'We want new unity on a new basis with India’

Without taking cooperation with India forward, we cannot do anything for Nepal, says Prachanda in an interview to The Hindu.


28 April 2008
The Hindu
'We want new unity on a new basis with India’

Siddharth Varadarajan

Ever since the Maoists won the Constituent Assembly elections in Nepal, the rush of visitors and well-wishers at Chairman Prachanda’s residence and office has been relentless. Despite his punishing schedule, the man who is likely to be Nepal’s next Prime Minister took the time to give The Hindu an exclusive, hour-long interview on April 24. In precise and even chaste Hindi, Mr. Prachanda spoke about the future of Nepal-India relations, his party’s plans for the new Constitution and the difficulties that lie ahead.

It is widely acknowledged that India played a crucial role in helping the Maoists and parliamentary parties forge a common front and in ensuring the Constituent Assembly elections were held as scheduled on April 10. And yet, there has also been a residue of suspicion between New Delhi and you. What is your assessment of the role India has played in this entire process?

The positive approach of the Indian government was a major factor behind the 12-point understanding reached in Delhi between the parliamentary parties and us in 2005. That agreement wouldn’t have been possible if the Indian government’s support hadn’t been forthcoming. It is from there that a new relationship between India and Nepal begins — and particularly the improvement in relations between the GOI and us. Before that, there was a lot of suspicion and contradiction. But from then to now, the attitude and help of the GOI is known to everyone. It is an open secret. India has consistently been in favour of elections. It had said all along that without having elections, a stable Nepal cannot be established, that elections should be held on time. Similarly, India’s emphasis on taking the peace process forward is known to all. So through this, there has been a great improvement in relations.

At the same time, our party had lingering doubts before the elections, that India could do something … For example, a statement came from Delhi that we cannot really trust the Maoists, that our [choice] is the Nepali Congress. We saw this statement and were a little concerned that this traditional mindset might have an effect on the elections. So I made a comment that a responsible official in India should not say these things on the eve of elections, that the implication of such statements is not good. Later there was an attempt to clarify things from Delhi. Still, there was a doubt in our mind. But after the results, we feel a basis has been prepared for relations with India to become even better and that whatever little suspicion and doubt existed has now ended.

It is also possible that as far as Delhi was concerned, there were doubts about whether we would go for elections or not, whether we would take part properly. But I think that through this election and its results, the doubts that were there in India’s mind have also ended and a new basis has been prepared to have new unity and new cooperation. I feel the atmosphere now has changed dramatically. India is openly saying it has no problem in working with and unconditionally assisting any democratically elected government.

So are we now at a turning point in the bilateral relationship between India and Nepal?

This is my belief. Earlier the problem was India’s two-pillar theory [of support for constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy]. You will recall in my first interview to you in 2006, I said the two-pillar theory is the biggest obstacle and that as long as India does not abandon it and come out in support of the Nepali people, there will always be difficulties. Fortunately, the 19-day andolan led the GOI to clarify it would respect the people’s verdict, even if this was for a republic. That was historically a very big change in Delhi’s policy. And the 12-point understanding represented an equally big change in the Maoists’ position and attitude. Thanks to these changes and other developments up to the elections, a historically new basis has been prepared.

I am very happy about this because of our cultural, historical and geographical relations with India and because India is a fast growing economy. Without cooperating with India, it is not possible to bring stability and prosperity in Nepal; indeed it is more or less impossible. Any practical leader, anyone who understands reality, cannot be confused about this — that without taking cooperation with India forward, we cannot do anything for Nepal. And I’m also happy that India’s leaders and people also understand that only a stable, prosperous Nepal can be in India’s interest. I think slowly people in India are realising that in order for Nepal to have peace, stability and prosperity, a new leadership and party like the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is needed. So I think we can go very far together.

Your party wants the 1950 treaty scrapped and there are many in India who agree this treaty is no longer relevant. But what sort of changes would you like to see in a bilateral treaty?

The 1950 treaty exists but based on the situation in the first decade of the 21st century, we feel it will be better for Nepal and India to have a new treaty. This is our clear and categorical belief. Our people have the feeling that somewhere along the line, the kind of benefit Nepal could get is not there, so the Nepali people’s aspiration has been to change this. Second, we would like to review all the other treaties to see what revisions or further enhancements are necessary. What we want is new unity on a new basis with India. Far from wanting to damage our relations, we want to make them even better. That is why we speak of new unity on a new basis. This basis has been established by all that has happened from the 12-point understanding till the elections, so the two sides should sit together and review the relationship with an open mind and see how we can move it forward.

In your party’s earlier 40-point programme (of 1996), you have spoken about the need to close the open border between India and Nepal. Won’t this hurt the lakhs of Nepalis who come to India to work and live?

Our election commitment paper does not say our intention is to close the border. We are only speaking of regulating it better. India and Nepal should sit and discuss how to do this because criminal elements misuse this openness. We would like to talk about these things. We have no intention of closing the open border.

And the 1996 demand for a ban on Indian films?

There has been a change in the situation and we need to move ahead based on this change.

There has been some apprehension in India about the meaning of your statement that Nepal should be equidistant from India and China. What exactly did you mean?

In political terms, we will maintain equidistance because to have an alliance and go against anyone would violate the geopolitical conditions and needs of our country. This is what we mean by equidistance. But we need to look at the ground reality too: the historical, cultural and geographical relationship with India is very different from China and this has to be acknowledged and factored into how we define our relationship. So in this sense, there cannot be equidistance with India and China. There is no open border with China, so how can there be equidistance? But as far as the question of an “alliance” is concerned, of siding with one against the other, it is in that sense that there is equidistance.

Your manifesto talks of stopping the recruitment of Gorkha soldiers for the Indian and British armies. Will this be easy for you to implement?

We have always maintained that this recruitment for foreign armies should stop. This is our position. But given the circumstances and the process by which we have come here – ours will not be a single party government – we will have to talk to the other parties to see how this sensitive and delicate issue can be resolved.

In their response to the Maoist election victory, the BJP have warned you not to be anti-Hindu. If they return to power in India, do you think relations with Nepal might change for the worse?

As far as I can understand the spirit behind the BJP’s latest statement compared to its earlier ones, there will not be any qualitative change in relations if they come back to power. I think their attitude is and will be to respect the decision the Nepali people have come to. Of course, religious fundamentalism could have an adverse impact. At the same time, I feel that if the BJP moves ahead on the basis of its latest statement, there will be no problem in talking to them or working with them should they be in government. As far as religion is concerned, it has been decided that the state will be secular. This does not mean Nepal will be anti-Hindu. It is nonsense to suggest this! Religious freedom will be maintained. State and religion should not be mixed.

The former chief of RAW, P.K. Hormis Tharakan has argued in an article that the victory of the Nepal Maoists is good for India since this will inspire the Indian Maoists to follow your example. Is this what you are advising the Indian Maoists?

What we are doing in Nepal is in keeping with the needs and sentiments of the Nepali people. So we are not going to tell anyone that you should also do what we are doing. We don’t have the right to say such things and we don’t wish to say such things either. But I do feel that what we are doing will send a strong message not only to Indian Maoists but Maoists worldwide — about how the Nepali Maoists have gone from bullet to ballot, how they have influenced and won the hearts and minds of the Nepali people, and how they have come to the position of leading the government and building a new constitution. This will be the subject of very big debate, and this will have a positive impact on Maoists everywhere because we have not betrayed our basic theory, we have developed it based on the changed situation in the world, and tried to move ahead on that basis. For example, even when the People’s War was going on, we concluded that multiparty competition is a must even in socialism. Not only in the phase of democratic revolution but also in the phase of socialism, if multiparty competition is not there then a vibrant society will not be possible. This is the conclusion we have drawn from the great revolutions and counter-revolutions of the 20th century. And on the basis of those conclusions we are moving forward. So I feel that for the Indian Maoist party, its leaders and cadres, these efforts of ours provide some new material to study, to think about and go ahead in a new way. Our efforts provide a reference point.

Maoist leaders appeal for release of jailed cadres in Bihar

CPN-Maoist leaders C.P Gajurel and Hisila Yami have requested Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar for the release of dozens of their party cadres languishing in Bihar jails.

The two Maoist leaders requested for their release while in Bihar state capital Patna to partake in a conference on "Nepal-India relationship in changed context".

"During the meeting with the chief-minister, we raised the issue of immediate release of dozens of our activists held in Bihar jails," Yami was quoted as saying to correspondents by Kantipur daily.

She said, in reply, the chief minister assured us of the early release of our activists.

It is estimated that some three dozen Nepali Maoist activists are languishing in Bihar jails

Sunday, April 27, 2008

MJF leader Yadav meets with Chairman Prachanda

The MJF team led by its coordinator Upendra Yadav met with Maoist chairman Prachanda in the evening. Yadav said that the discussions focused on forging understanding regarding forming next government, constitution-making and on Madhesi issues.

The MJF has been saying that it is ready for understanding with any party so far the issues like autonomous Madhes province are taken up with priority.

This was the first meeting between MJF and Maoist leadership after the CA election. The two parties have been at odds for a long time.

Newly appointed Indian ambassador to Nepal Rakesh Sood met Maoist chairman Prachanda

Newly appointed Indian ambassador to Nepal Rakesh Sood met Maoist chairman Prachanda on Sunday and discussed the post-election political scenario and the Nepal-India relations in the new context.

During the hour-long meeting in the afternoon, Prachanda is learnt to have informed Sood about the likely composition of the future government.

The Maoist proposal for a review on 1950's Nepal-India Peace and Friendship Treaty also surfaced during the discussion, according to a Maoist source.

This was the third meeting of the new Indian ambassador with top Nepali political leaders. He had met Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and Nepali Congress leader Sher Bahadur Deuba on Saturday.

Sood, who replaced ambassador Shiv Shankar Mukherjee, is yet to present his credentials to the Prime Minister who also acts as the head of the state

Nancy J Powell US Ambassador to Nepal

U.S. subverting Nepal poll mandate writes Siddharth Varadarajan in Hindu

KATHMANDU: After first “congratulating the people of Nepal on their historic Constitutional Assembly election,” the United States is now seeking to subvert the electorate’s mandate by lobbying against the Maoists heading the next coalition government.

According to political and diplomatic sources, the U.S. ambassador in Kathmandu, Nancy Powell, is “actively pushing” the idea that Girija Prasad Koirala should continue as Prime Minister.


Under the interim constitution, all major decisions, including the appointment or removal of the Prime Minister, must be taken by consensus, failing which by a two-thirds majority. With the encouragement of the Americans, a section of the Nepali Congress (NC) leadership is now citing this provision to argue that the Maoists will first have to oust Mr. Koirala before they can stake a claim to the top post.

“Suicidal for party”


The American suggestion which one NC leader in an interview to The Hindu described as “suicidal for the party” runs counter to the belief of Indian and other diplomats here that a Maoist-led government is inevitable given the scale of their victory.

The CA consists of 601 seats, 575 of which are elected. Of these, the Maoists have 220, or 38.2 per cent, the NC only 110 and the Unified Marxist-Leninists (UML) 103. The four Madhesi parties have 85 seats between them. A further 26 seats will be filled by nomination on a pro rata basis.

In the current coalition based on the “interim legislature,” the NC, with 40 per cent of the seats, has not just the prime ministership but also the defence, home and finance portfolios. In line with this practice, Prachanda, chairman of the Nepali Maoists, says his party will now head the coalition government and keep the three top ministries to itself.

Though some observers feel the “GPK as PM” line is meant to pressure the Maoists into yielding at least one top portfolio to the NC or UML in an eventual coalition government, there is a fear that the proposal will take on a life of its own as other players who feel threatened by the Maoists such as the Palace and Army brass — latch on to it.

Last week, the entire debate within the NC was over whether the party should join the coalition led by the Maoists or not. But when the Central Working Committee of the NC met on Thursday to take stock of the party’s defeat, senior leaders openly challenged the Maoists’ right to lead the government.

Second ‘proposal’


A second ‘proposal’ that is being floated to prevent the Maoists from forming a stable government is an amendment to the interim constitution to allow the Prime Minister to be removed by simple majority.

Since the Maoists will have more than one-third of the seats in the CA, the argument goes, there will be no check should they refuse to hold elections again. The Maoist leadership rejects these arguments.

“When the interim constitution itself spells out the lifespan of the CA and mandates fresh elections within a maximum period of two years and six months, where is the question of the Maoists delaying elections?” Mr. Prachanda told The Hindu. “Would any of these proposals or formulas have been made if the NC or UML had been in our position?” he asked. “That is the true test of how valid these proposals are.”

The Maoists fear the new emphasis on the “politics of numbers” will vitiate the consensual spirit that the CA needs to write Nepal’s new constitution.

Mr. Prachanda says the electorate’s mandate is for a coalition government led by the Maoists. “This is a time when all the parties have to work together the Maoists, the NC, UML, the [Madhesi Janadhikar] Forum and others.”

Role for Koirala


Asked what role he envisaged for Mr. Koirala, Mr. Prachanda said the “guardianship” of the NC leader had been crucial in pushing the peace process and ensuring that elections to the CA were held properly. “At the same time, he has repeatedly said he wants to retire from active politics and this must also be respected. And yet, we feel some way must be found for him to continue to play the role of a guardian. My view is that given his age and his own sentiments, the proper way to honour him would not be to insist on his involvement in the government or day-to-day politics. We have to find another way of honouring him. But if he wants, we are open-minded on this,” said Mr. Prachanda. “I told him we are prepared to talk about this.”

General Rookmangud Katawal - Nepal Army Chief meets Prime Minister

Girija Prasad Koirala met with army chief, General Rookmangud Katawal

Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala met with army chief, General Rookmangud Katawal, at his official residence in Baluwatar Sunday morning, as pressure mounts on him to quit the top job and make way for a Maoist-led government.

The meeting has come at a time when CPN-Maoist chairman Prachanda has laid a strong claim on the top post following his party's emergence as the largest single party through the 10 April polls.

However, the army headquarters has toned down its significance by calling it a "routine meeting".

It is learnt that PM Koirala called this meeting to try to learn how the Nepali Army is taking the ongoing peace process including the possibility of Maoist forming the government as it had had quite a verbal spat with Maoist leadership in the run up to the polls and has a decade-long history of animosity with the People's Liberation Army (PLA).

Similarly, the thorny issue of army integration is also learnt to have featured highly during the half an hour long discussion.

PM Koirala also met with general secretary of South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Dr Sheel Kanta Sharma.

Meanwhile, there are reports that Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala could address the nation Sunday afternoon. If he does so, it would be his address after the holding of the CA election.

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Maoist leader Janardan Shrma 'Prabhakar' said that the Maoists would lead the next government under leadership of chairman Prachanda.

Maoist leader Janardan Shrma 'Prabhakar' sais that the Maoists would lead the next government under leadership of chairman Prachanda. He challenged other political parties to say that they would not respect the people's verdict if they want to continue to lead the government.

UML leader Shankar Pokharel said that the next government should be under the Maoist leadership but the balance of power be maintained by allocating the posts of president, Prime Minister and chair of Constituent Assembly (CA) to different parties.

CPN (ML) general secretary C.P. Mainali said that Maoists should be allowed to lead the government until the issue of army integration is finalised

CPN Maoist leader Din Nath Sharma on Maoist Government

Dina Nath Sharma, a senior Maoist leader, however, said it would not be sincere on the part of the parties to ignore the people's overwhelming support in the polls for the Maoists and set conditions for supporting a Maoist-led government. "We are ready to return the property captured by our cadres during the conflict," said Sharma. "But it should be noted that some of the leaders are unwilling to take back their property so that they can continue blaming us for capturing property."

He said the Maoists will not join the government under the leadership of any other political party. He also said the Maoists have not yet thought of amending the constitution to replace the provision on two-third majority for ousting the government with a simple-majority provision as demanded by the UML leader

Revision of India Nepal Treaty of 1950

Former Indian foreign secretary Shyam Saran said on Friday that revision of the India-Nepal Treaty of 1950 was not at all an issue since it was already agreed in 2001.

In an interview to CNBC, Saran said agreement for the revision of the treaty was reached in 2001.

He also hinted that India will not have any reservation if the new government, possibly led by the Maoists, presented agenda to annul the treaty to sign a fresh one.

Saran further said India is in favour of a coalition government in Nepal and encourages all parties, including new political forces like Madhesi parties, to form a coalition government.

Revision of the Nepal-India treaty of 1950 was the demand of communists ever since UML leader Man Mohan Adhikari became prime minister of minority government in 1993

Friday, April 25, 2008


Don’t Subvert Mandate: Let Maoist Lead the Government says Ameet Dhakal news editor of the Kathmandu Post

First posted on 25th, 2008 by UWBDN

Nepal should, wisely, follow the Turkish path and avoid the Algerian tragedy from being repeated here. Democracy cannot move forward—let alone prosper—by subverting the people’s mandate. It’s foolish to think that constitutional technicalities can be manipulated to get around the popular mandate.

By Ameet Dhakal

Some people in the Nepali Congress (NC) are still contemplating a government under its leadership. One could have brushed this aside as a silly thought if it had come from some NC mavericks. But it should be taken seriously since it has come from people close to Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala. It is hard to believe that they could have floated this hard-to-swallow proposal without GPK’s consent or at least without reading his mind. It assumes a serious proportion also because some sections of the security forces and some quarters in the international community also think that way.

They are trying to make a case on a purely technical ground: Since the Maoists don’t have even a simple majority and the Interim Constitution says the government would be run through consensus, the prime minister is not obliged to resign; and if the Maoists want to remove him, they should muster a two-thirds majority.

True that the Interim Constitution does not have a clause on the formation of a new government as any non-transitional constitution would have. It envisions continuity of the coalition government. But that’s a constitutional flaw, and it should not be allowed to subvert the popular mandate of the people. The sovereign people have made their preference clear, and that should guide the future course of politics.

There are instances in the world where army and international forces have converged to block popular but radical political parties from ascending to power. Algeria is a case in point. The Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) won 231 seats out of 430 in the first round of the parliamentary election held in 1991, and it was well set to capture power in Algiers. But the second round of the voting never took place; the army intervened with the active support of Algeria’s former colonial master France and the enthusiastic backing of the United States. What followed was further radicalization of the FIS and the death of 50,000 Algerians in the subsequent years. The polyglot, tolerant and cosmopolitan Algeria, loved by poets and intellectuals of the West, was soon lost.

If the FIS had been allowed to ascend to power through the popular mandate in 1991, there was a chance that it could have followed the path of Turkey’s AKP (Justice and Development Party). When the AKP —with Islamic roots though not as radical as the FIS—won the election in Turkey in 2002, there were similar concerns and misgivings about them. Many pro-secular forces in this secular republic wanted the army to block the AKP’s ascendance to power. They army, which had got its fingers burnt in 1997 by sacking an Islamic president, thankfully, refrained from intervening. The AKP, once in power, further moderated and modernized itself and remained loyal to the secular constitution. In 2007, it received a resounding victory, expanding its popular vote from 30 to 46 percent. Today, the AKP is aggressively pushing for Turkey’s entry into the European Union.

Nepal should, wisely, follow the Turkish path and avoid the Algerian tragedy from being repeated here. Democracy cannot move forward—let alone prosper—by subverting the people’s mandate. It’s foolish to think that constitutional technicalities can be manipulated to get around the popular mandate.

The Maoists should be given the opportunity not only to lead the government but to lead a sole government. According to the people’s mandate expressed in the CA polls, if any other parties have the moral authority to join the coalition, they are the Madhesi People’s Rights Forum (MPRF) and the Tarai-Madhes Democratic Party (TMDP), both of which are new parties.

Many people, including the Maoists, argue that the CA election’s mandate was for the formation of a coalition government to write a new constitution. That’s not true. When the people—mainly the poor, the oppressed and the marginalized—voted in the CA polls, they had CHANGE, not constitution, on their minds. They voted with a hope that the Maoists would bring about meaningful change in their lives. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the Maoists to form a government and try to fulfill that popular expectation.

That said, the Maoists should not, however, behave as if they have got a two-thirds majority in the CA. They are still a minority, but the largest party; and they should be ready to share power at the top. The Maoist position on this, so far, has been very rigid: They want to retain both the posts of prime minister and the head of state. That’s an unfair demand, though their concern — that two different people as the head of state and the prime minister might give rise to parallel power centers thus complicating the transition —is genuine. But they should also understand the concern— read suspicion—of other parties. There is a big question about whether the Maoists would be ready to transfer peacefully should they lose the next election. The Maoists should not blame other parties for second-guessing their intentions, for their democratic credentials haven’t been established yet. There should, therefore, be some power-sharing formula at the top so that both the Maoists and other parties can be self-assured about the future of the transition. If the Maoists stick to their demand, it’s possible that the NC might be inclined not to give up power, leading to a constitutional deadlock.

My assessment of the UML is that they are also not willing to give the Maoists a “blank check”. There should be clear check and balance during this transition so that it puts a rein on any autocratic ambition of the Maoist party, said a UML leader.

So far as writing a new constitution and implementation of the federal democratic republic is concerned, all the parties should work jointly in the Constituent Assembly to write a consensus constitution within two years and hold the parliamentary election in another six months. That’s the moral obligation of all the parties and no one should shy away from that.

Ameet Dhakal is the news editor of the Kathmandu Post where this article appeared today

Final list of seats for Constituent Assembly

List of the political parties with their total number of seats:

Parties Seats
Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) 220
Nepali Congress 110
Communist UML 103
MJF 52
Terai Madhesh Democratic Party 20
Sadbhavana Party 9
Rastriya Prajatantra Party 8
Communist Party of Nepal (ML) 8
Janamorcha Nepal 7
Communist Party of Nepal (United) 5
Rastra Prajatantra Party Nepal 4
Rastriya Janamorcha 4
Nepal Majdoor Kishan Party 4
Rastriya Janashakti Party 3
Rastriya Janamukti Party 2
Communist Party of Nepal (Unified) 2
Nepal Sadbhavana Party (Anandi Devi) 2
Nepali Janata Dal 2
Snaghiya Loktantrik Rastriya Manch 2
Samajbadi Prajatantrik Janata Party Nepal 1
Dalit Janajati Party 1
Nepal Pariwar Dal 1
Nepal Rastriya Party 1
Nepal Loktantrik Samajbadi Dal 1
Chune Bhawar Rastriya Ekata Party Nepal 1
Independents 2

Chinese delegation meets Girija Prasad Koirala

Visiting Chinese delegation called on Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala at the latter's residence in Baluwatar Friday morning prior to ending its Nepal visit.
The delegation led by I. Ping, chief of Chinese Communist party's International Department.

The delegation has been busy in political parleys since the past five days. Development works currently underway in Nepal with Chinese assistance and other matters of mutual concern were also discussed during the meeting. Ping also assured that China would give continuity to its assistance to Nepal and would be open to expanding the area of cooperation.

The delegation also informed about Chinese government's plans to bring the railway service from Lhasa to the frontier town of Khasa within five years time, it is learnt. They also said that China has incorporated this railway extension project in its current 11th five-year-plan. However, this is yet to be independently verified.

Interestingly, the delegation had yesterday met Upendra Yadav, coordinator of Madheshi Janadhikar Forum (MJF), which has emerged as the fourth largest party after the 10 April election.

Thursday, April 24, 2008

"The U.S. government was taken by surprise, and they're basically trying to figure things out," Teresita Schaffer,

"The U.S. government was taken by surprise, and they're basically trying to figure things out," Teresita Schaffer, a former State Department South Asia specialist and U.S. ambassador to Sri Lanka, said of the Maoists' election win.

As the United States "contemplates the road ahead, the options are not particularly attractive," said Schaffer, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank. The Maoists success is being received with great uneasiness in the U.S. government.

Walter Andersen, a professor of South Asia studies at Johns Hopkins University's school of international studies, said he was "almost certain" that the United States would not refuse to deal with the Maoists.

The main reason, he said, is that they have gained power in democratic elections.

Maoist chairman Prachanda, along with senior leader Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, held an interaction with donors, ambassadors and diplomats at the UN House,

Maoist chairman Prachanda, along with senior leader Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, held an interaction with donors, ambassadors and diplomats at the UN House, Thursday.

Emerging from the interaction, Prachanda told reporters that he had very fruitful discussions. "There are many questions in the western countries regarding our party's position about multiparty politics, peace, economic development and so on. We tried to convince them that we are aware of the (realities) of the 21st century," Prachanda said.

In the joint meeting, which was also participated by US ambassador to Nepal, Prachanda said he answered to queries from them. "I believe we tried to put forth our views regarding durable peace and economic development."

Responding to queries from media, Prachanda said that the decision on whether or not to extend the UNMIN will be taken before the first meeting of Constituent Assembly after holding talks among political parties.

Regarding the army integration issue, he said the process will proceed along with constitution-making exercise through a special committee.

He clarified that monarchy will be removed from the first meeting of CA.

At the press breifing, Robert Piper, resident coordinator of UNDP, said that the donors had discussions on wide range of issues include peace, development, and constitution making with the Maoist leadership

CPN Maoist - Messages of support from Communists around the World

The first felicitations came from the Communist Party of Greece
(Marxist-Leninist) , which said the victory was proof of the Maoists'
'strong ties with masses in Nepal as well as the determination of the
Nepali people for a new, peaceful, independent, sovereign and
democratic republic of Nepal'.

Sending a message to Maoist chief Prachanda from Athens, Chris Mais,
leader of the Greek party, said the success had generated 'great
satisfaction and excitement to the Greek communists and all the
progressive people in our country' and would open 'a new considerable
page for the people in Nepal and the whole world for national and
social liberation'.

The Communist Party of Italy - CARC - said the Maoist triumph was the
'victory of the world communist movement'.

'It is the first victory of the world communist movement in the 21st
century,' the international department of the party said in its
congratulatory message.

'The Maoists carried out the people's war up to victory, alternating
and combining armed struggle and political relations with bourgeois
and revisionist parties,' the message said.

The Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada, which had during the
Maoists' 'People's War' sent its representatives to Nepal to show
solidarity by helping to build a road in Rolpa, where the armed revolt
began, said the Maoist victory gave it encouragement to continue its
own struggle 'with even more vigour'.

The Ceylon Communist Party (Maoist) from Sri Lanka extended its
'revolutionary greetings' and expressed 'solidarity' with 'all parties
and organisations of the world who dare to bring down the system and
usher in the new world'.

The Workers Party of New Zealand, which had sent its representative
Jared Phillips to Nepal during the insurgency to network with
underground Maoist leaders, said the election victory was 'a blow
against under-development, poverty, and repression, and a stride
forward for liberation everywhere.'

The Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), whose Nepal ally, the
CPN-UML, suffered a terrible defeat, has also congratulated the
Maoists. And one Indian politician, Sharad Yadav, has urged the Indian
Maoists to emulate the Nepalese Maoists and take to democratic politics.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Tactical flexibility is the least comrades can grant the CPN Maoist

The following interview first published in English on United We Blog for A Democratic Nepal has a supposed example that Prachanda has somehow been transformed into a bourgeois.

In this interview he demonstratstes his "strategic firmess and tactical flexibility" - but of course any tactical flexibilty will lead to the charge of backtracking or betrayal by psuedo lefties.

We have heard it all before has Prachanda and the CPN Maoist outwitted all their opponents and we will hear it again from the nay sayers of the Nepalese Revolution.

But tactical flexibility is the least real comrades can grant the CPN Maoist in its moment of victory - consolidation and forward march.

Excerpt from Chairman Prachanda’s interview with Sudheer Sharma and Prashant Aryal published in Nepal Magazine of 20th April

Excerpt from Chairman Prachanda’s interview with Sudheer Sharma and Prashant Aryal published in Nepal Magazine of 20th April

Q. Regarding the kind of relationship that has been there for centuries between the king and the army, don’t you think the army is still loyal to the palace?

A. Royal Nepali Army’s name was changed to Nepali Army and its command system was also changed after the peoples’ movement (of 2006 April). After the top to rank and files of the army have said that they would execute the orders of the government elected by the people, our evaluation is that the total thinking of the Nepali Army has undergone change. The army is talking about being loyal to the democratic system and people. That shouldn’t be understood as the change in name only; that could be taken as a huge change. Along with the name change, the army, in essence, has become the one that is for the people, not to the king.

Q. But before the election you and your comrades used to say that there was no change in the Army except the change in name.

A. We should take the fluctuations that may occur before the elections normally. We accepted the Nepali Army as the State’s when we signed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. Other parties also accepted the PLA as the State’s. What I want to make clear now is that Nepali Army is our army, the State’s army. And PLA is also everyone’s army, the State’s army. The statement of Army that it would be loyal to the democratic government could be taken as a huge change in the army. The assumption that the army’s loyalty is to the king is imaginary.

Q. How would you address the question of the integration of PLA and Nepali Army?

A. We will easily solve it by being pragmatic and doing serious discussion in the Special Committee that will decide how many will be integrated where and how many will be taken to the Industrial Security, how many will be to the Border Security.

Q. That means no question of integrating two armies?

A. We haven’t understood that in the mechanical manner like that. What we have understood is that Nepali Army should be moved forward by making it more and more democratic. PLA should be moved forward in a professional manner. The Special Committee will decide after discussion about the number of personnel for the armies.

Q. Do you want to improve relationship with America?

A. We are willing to create diplomatic relationship with America even though we have different ideologies.

Q. That means words like ‘imperialism’ and ‘expansionism’ has disappeared, haven’t they?

A. It’s not that we will stop using those words. It’s not that we, the party that is going to lead the government, will use the words as we used to when we were insurgents. That doesn’t happen anywhere in the world. The wording while speaking is understandably slightly different when you are an insurgent and when you are leading a government. But as an ideology, we will continue the debate about what imperialism is and why we are against that.

Maoist leader Chandra Prakash (CP) Gajurel (Gaurav).has stated that Maoists will lead the government and also take the major portfolios.

At a time when discussion is ongoing about the formation of the a government, Maoist leader Chandra Prakash (CP) Gajurel (Gaurav).has stated that Maoists will lead the government and also take the major portfolios.

Speaking an interaction on the post election scenario in the capital Tuesday, he said the new government formation should follow the present government formation system.

Stating the present government lead by Nepali Congress has taken the major ministries due to it being the largest party, he said the Maoists should get the major ministries.

Stating that in the previous agreement, parties had agreed to go ahead together after the Constituent Assembly polls, he expressed the hope to create a new coalition government.

Requesting the other political parties to participate the upcoming government, Gajurel also stressed on the need of the common political consensus in the upcoming days as well.

In the programme, representatives of the diplomatic mission and donors communities had put forth queries mainly related to human rights, public security and development agendas.

Responding to the queries, Gajurel, who is also chief of the party's foreign department, said his party respects human rights and guarantees public security which is clearly stated in the party's commitment letter.

Stating the unemployment is the greatest challenge for the new government, he requested the donors to assist in creation of news jobs.

The new government lead by the Maoists will give the main priority for reconstruction, he added.

Nepal's Maoists seek government allies after poll win

Nepal's Maoists seek government allies after poll win

KATHMANDU (AFP) — Nepal's ex-rebel Maoists were working to form a coalition government with their defeated rivals on Wednesday following victory in landmark elections as vote counting neared completion.

"We will lead the government, there is not doubt about that, but we want other parties to join us in the government," senior Maoist leader Dinanath Sharma told AFP.

The Maoists are comfortably ahead in the vote for a 601-member constituent assembly, whose first job will be to abolish the 240-year-old monarchy.

With counting expected to finish late Wednesday, the Maoists have already won 120 seats of 240 up for grabs in the first-past-the-post part of the election.

Another 335 seats will be chosen by proportional representation, under which the Maoists have garnered around 30 per cent of the vote, or more than 100 more seats, according to poll officials.

Their nearest rivals, the Nepali Congress (NC), have won just 37 seats in the first-past-the-post system, and look set to gain around 74 more from proportional representation.

"By Wednesday evening, we will get the results of all the votes in proportional representation but we might declare the final numbers on Thursday," election commission spokesman Laxman Bhattarai told AFP.

The Congress and Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist, or CPN UML) have unexpectedly lost their domination of Nepal's politics. Both are now considering whether to join the coalition government.

"We have asked them to join us, but there are factions within both the NC and UML who are against it," said senior Maoist Sharma.

The polls were a central strand of the 2006 peace deal reached between the former insurgents and mainstream parties after 10 years of civil war that left at least 13,000 people dead.

The fate of King Gyanendra looks sealed following the victory of the ultra-republican Maoists, who launched a "people's war" aimed at toppling the monarchy in 1996.

The Maoists have urged the king to step down "gracefully" instead of being forced out when the constituent assembly sits in the coming weeks to formally abolish his dynasty, declare the country a republic and rewrite the constitution.