1. NEPALI POLITICS, MAOISTS AND INDIA
Keshav Prsad Bhattarai
Whatever may be the reaction of external stakeholders of Nepal’s peace process and constitution
making, common people for the time being have had a deep sense of relief after the dissolution of
Constituent Assembly that was repeatedly extending its term. The huge body entrusted to
deliver a new constitution supposed to bring a new era of peace and development ended
with creating deep divisions among people and fomenting communal or ethical hatreds. Therefore,
the unceremonious dissolution of Constituent Assembly on May 27 came with an exceptional peace
and tranquility in the country that however, may be short lived.
Understandably, those extracting lavish perks in the name of Constitution making from internal and
external sources may have found themselves squarely exposed, and will not shy away from
stirring up irritation and turmoil in days to come. But if there will be no external meddling by so
called self proclaiming savors in its natural course of political developments, Nepal can find its
course – nonetheless with some hitches – from minor to dangerous one.
Human Development Report 2002 has made a critical observation – “Democracy that
empowers people must be built – it cannot be imported” imposed or imitated. But, building
democracies is building institutions and develop them on the foundations of its history and
circumstances that governs the values, cultures and attitudes of the people. We brought
democracy in 1950, it failed after 10 years. In 1990 we restored it, but just after five
years, Maoists took up arms against it. Amid some more 15,000 deaths and thousands
displaced under Maoist insurgency, democratic governance initiated in 1990 ended up with
another undemocratic Royal takeover in 2005.
Against the King’s direct rule, India mediated a 12 point understanding between Maoist
and other mainstream political parties. That was followed by series of other
unsubstantiated agreements. Later in the election of a new Constituent Assembly, with
guns in hand, Maoists were allowed freehand to fight the election and consequently, they
were able to grab majority of seats in direct elections from among the terror stricken
people. However in proportional election, they could not bag similar success. After the
elections in 2008, they became the largest political party and a key political player -
pushing the rest into some more like a subsidiary to them.
Obviously, in an age of globalization politics in any country cannot limit to be local. But
naturally, is shaped mainly by economic integration of countries, technological revolutions
and cross border security environments. Similarly peoples’ problems and challenges are

2. globalized but unless the solutions are home grown or rooted upon their own history,
traditions and culture, countries become impeded with ability to solve their problems and
in turn end up with chaos and conflicts.
U.S. president Barrack Obama has made a pertinent remark in this regard, relevant to our
context too. In his reference to Iraq on June 2009, he said-“I know there has been
controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years . . . So let me be clear: no
system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.”
ROLE OF INDIA IN FACILITATING MAOISTS GRAB POWER
Undoubtedly, Nepal did not and does not have strong democratic institutions, so has it
failed again and again. Every time, when democracy fails to meet people’s expectations and
manage dissensions among people in power, the country ensues to the system failure with
another movement. This makes Indian involvement inevitable whether in request by one or
other party for their political interest or they are lured or forced to invite India to butt
in.
Quite naturally, Nepal’s weakened state structures could not withstand Indian pressures –
varying from economic blockade to forming international alliance against any existing
government in Nepal – not toeing their lines. Therefore in every political change in Nepal,
India has become a major partner. But the high price Nepal has to pay India for its role in
new change, has in return discredited the change itself and weakened the regime that
followed the change.
In a book published recently – Nepal in Transition: From People’s War to Fragile Peace,
edited by Sebastian Einsiedel, David Malone and Suman Pradhan, noted Indian Academician
and Nepal expert S.D. Muni has drawn a graphic picture of Indian role in Nepal’s political
change including deposing monarchy and bringing Maoist in main stream.
According to Muni with increased international support including India and U.S., when
Nepal Army was creating difficulties for Maoist to conduct their war activities, Baburan
Bhattarai was sent to appease New Delhi in early 2002. In June 2002 a letter jointly
written by Prachanda and Baburam with a promise to India that they “would not do
anything to harm its critical interests”, was handed over to the office of Indian Prime
Minister. Consequently, “intelligence surveillance and restrictions on Maoists’ movements in
India were relaxed”, and in their discussions with Indian intelligence agency Baburam and
his team “reiterated their position again in writing to the IB sleuths”. . . , “followed by
more contacts and meetings between the Maoists and the RAW. Maoists could now move

3. with greater ease and could also contact other Nepali political leaders in India.” And
during the course the office of the Indian Prime Minister concurred with Maoists’ demand
of the abolishment of monarchy in Nepal.
As explained by Muni - the stage was set much earlier to end Monarchy in Nepal before
King Gyanendra seized power in February 1, 2005. But after the Royal takeover, the events
were speeded up. India and west stopped arms supply to Nepal Army in their critical war
with Maoists, This forced Nepal make a deal with China in August 2005 and by that time
“India was inching toward a position in favor of jettisoning King Gyanendra.” Muni says.
Including Sita Ram Yechury and others, according to Muni “A good personal connection
between new RAW Chief Hermis Tharakan and Baburam Bhattarai facilitated better
understanding between the Maoist and the RAW, which kept in regular contact with
Maoist leadership”. The modality of relationship developed this way as mentioned by Muni,
both the Chief of RAW (Research & Analysis Wing) - the main external intelligence agency
of India and Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran made a strong lobby in India in support of
Maoists to fight against monarchy in Nepal. The mission reached in climax when at last
there was a 90 minutes long meeting between Dr. Karan Singh, Foreign Secretary Shyam
Saran and Army Chief of Nepal General Pyar Jung Thapa. After this, General Thapa was
persuaded by them “to plead with the king that there was no military solution to either the
Jan Andolan II or the Maoist insurgency”. Army Chief Thapa reflected the same to the
king and that left the king without any other option than to give in. Immediately
thereafter, Shyam Saran in a press conference, “presented Delhi as the leading force in
the restoration of democracy in Nepal”, Muni stated.
This development ultimately forced kings make the Royal proclamation of reinstating the
Parliament that was dissolved as per the recommendation of Prime Minister Sher Bahadur
Deuba, on May 22, 2002.
DEMOCRATIC CONTAMINATION AND ETHNICITY
A nation is defined by some core values within its geography and is represented by some
ideas, principles, norms cultures, and institutions peculiar to that territory. And any
political system of any shape and form whether democratic or authoritarian if confronts
with them, cannot work and sustain.
As mentioned above democracy cannot be aided, gifted, imported or imposed. It is to be
built, earned and grown in its soil and environment.

4. Celebrated British writer Paul Collier in his exceptional book - Wars, Guns and Votes –
Democracy in Dangerous places, has vividly portrayed on how democracy are run in
countries including ours. According to Collier “democratic politics in the countries of the
bottom billion tends to attract candidates with criminal records”, because elected office
is more attractive to criminals than to the honest” ones as it offers more attractive
“opportunities for corruption”.
Further he says that the usual form of democracy in the bottom billion countries “does not
seem to enhance the prospects of internal peace. On the contrary, it seems to increase
proneness to political violence” miserably failing to produce any accountable and legitimate
government.
Mocking at the elections in these countries that has become the single overriding concerns
of developed countries Collier says “ . . . in encouraging elections , we have landed these
societies in an unviable half way house that has neither the capacity of autocracies to act
decisively nor the accountability of a genuine democracy.”
Collier has not missed the kind of ethnic politics that is going to ravage our society and
contaminate its politics. In his book he states when ethnicity rules politics “policy choices
get crowded out by the identity” and that is played with “ethnic fears and hatreds”, that
although is “truly the politics of the gutter: unfortunately it works.” It weakens
democracy, social unity and cooperation and works as an “impediment to prosperity.”
Solution lies with only to people and their leadership. First a nation and national identity,
but “a sense of national identity does not grow out of the soil; it is constructed by a
political leadership” and truly a political construction, carved by a visionary and
foresighted leader- that we are lacking so far.
kpbnepal@gmail.com
The reporter (weekly)
June 4-10, 2012