By Dhruba Adhikary

A leader from Nepal's Maoists, a group that fought a decade-long insurgency that brought the nation to its knees before winning parliamentary elections in 2008, has warned it could start another conflict that would turn the country "into another Afghanistan".

If such a conflict were to erupt, the nations likely to become embroiled could be China, given Nepal's proximity to Tibet, and India, given China's expanding presence in Nepal. This has already provided Delhi with a pretext to make moves aimed at protecting its security interests.

The reference to Afghanistan was made by Baburam Bhattarai, a Maoist leader who was finance minister in the government headed by Pushpa Kamal Dahal, better known as Prachanda. After being in power for nine months, he resigned in May, accusing President Ram Baran Yadav of "unconstitutionally" overruling his attempt to sack the head of the army.

Bhattarai, who reportedly made the remarks at a high-level political debate, seemed to be warning that the Maoists would be prepared to return to the jungles and restart their insurgency if Nepal's new constitution, currently being written, is not as progressive as they would like.

Prachanda also told a public rally on Friday that the next phase of Maoist agitation would assume a more "aggressive" form unless their demands to limit presidential powers were met.

The Maoists have given a deadline of November 20 for their demands, or they will start a third round of mass protests. They claim to be campaigning for civilian supremacy over the army, so the latter cannot undermine the ongoing democratic process.

Protests launched by the Maoists last week were largely peaceful, but the group possesses the capacity for muscle-flexing should it find it necessary. Aside from some 20,000 combatants now sheltered in United Nations-supervised cantonments, the Maoists have a youth wing that can handle challenges at local levels. Illustrating the threat, Kathmandu-based Western diplomats rushed to meet Prachanda on November 3 to express "serious concerns" over the planned demonstrations.

To Madhav Kumar Nepal, who became Nepal's prime minister almost immediately after Prachanda's resignation, the Maoists present a formidable challenge. Technically, the premier is supported by 22 of the 24 political parties in the 601-member constituent assembly (legislature), but his position is vulnerable. His left-leaning moderate party has not given him its full support, and he faces regular criticism for being appointed - not elected - to the powerful position. He lost two constituencies in the 2008 elections, being defeated by a Maoist candidate in both.

The government of Mr Nepal - who was able to become a member of parliament when an earlier nominee became an ambassador to Sri Lanka - includes several ministers who, like him, lost at the the 2008 elections.

One is minister of State for Agriculture and Cooperatives Karima Begum, who represents a regional party. She hit the headlines last week when she slapped a man five times for not sending a new car to pick her up from the airport. While the civil service is agitated over the scandal, Premier Nepal cannot demand she resign as he needs the support of her regional party.

Observers say that as the current premier lacks political legitimacy, he also has no moral authority to lead a coalition of non-Maoist parties. Some of the leaders of the premier's coalition have admitted that the alliance has been forged solely to prevent the Maoists from coming back to power. But this is difficult, since the Maoists hold close to 40% of the seats in the assembly.

It was on that basis that Prachanda was invited to head a Maoist-led government in August 2008. Their numerical strength in parliament remains high, giving them significant sway as Nepal, which was for 240 years a monarchy until May 2008, continues a constitution-writing process towards becoming a republic, a process that must be completed by May 2010.

Prachanda and his colleagues believe - and have popular support for their claims - that New Delhi is hindering the peace process that began in 2006. It was at this stage the United Nations was invited to send a special mission, the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN), to facilitate the process.

Recent political visitors to New Delhi have heard voices supporting Premier Nepal, even though he has faced accusations of leading an ineffective government. His government was unable to intervene when a defiant ethnic group in Nepal's eastern hills recently declared a "Kiraant Republic".

Writing for the South Asia Analysis Group, Dr S Chandrasekharan denounces all ideas "to intimidate the present Madhav Nepal government to cave in and leave the Maoists to come back to power". He adds a caveat, "This, I hope, is understood by all non-Maoist political parties as well as the UN."

He, however, does not offer a convincing explanation as to what is wrong if the largest party in the house gets the lead role. After all, Nepal's Maoist leaders are not strangers to the rulers in New Delhi.

According to M D Nalapat, also an Indian writer, Nepali Maoists were assisted "in numerous ways" by officials in New Delhi in their struggle against the monarchy.

Once they came to power, however, the Maoists appeared to prefer improving relations with China at the expense of those with India. For example, Prachanda broke tradition and made China, not India, his first port of call after becoming prime minister.

Indian rulers, who did not expect the Maoists to make substantial electoral gains in 2008, have become jittery ever since Beijing enhanced its interest in Nepal in view of the increasing vulnerability of its soft underbelly - Tibet. In the pre-2006 era, Beijing relied on the monarchy. Now the Chinese appear to be looking for a dependable alternative, and may want to examine the prospect of wooing a political force named after chairman Mao Zedong. Prachanda's second visit to China last month has been seen in that context.

President Hu Jintao made a rare gesture of meeting Prachanda, and this appears to have sent more jitters to New Delhi, with which Beijing has a flaring border dispute. If Prachanda's planned visit to China had not been canceled at the 11th hour in May, Beijing and Kathmandu may have signed a new friendship treaty that would have given an institutional dimension to their bilateral relations.

In any case, Chinese visitors - both civilians and men and women in uniform - to Nepal have increased in recent times and they obviously are not without purpose.

Visible signs that China is keen to get involved in Nepal's water resources development, an area that previously attracted only Indian attention, is also an indicator of a rapidly changing scenario in South Asia. China is already an observer in a South Asian regional body, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC).

But the geopolitics have stalled the ongoing peace process in Nepal which is due to reach its logical end in about six months. This is why UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon has encouraged the stakeholders to reconcile their positions. His worries are understandable, especially in view of the fact that UNMIN's current mandate runs out at the end of January.

In his latest report on Nepal, released on October 30, the secretary general made a few observations, including this one, "A government of national unity remains desirable for timely promulgation of the country's new constitution and for the successful integration and rehabilitation of Maoist army personnel."

Many people found this a logical and innocuous observation, but the incumbent prime minister and his coalition partners found it expedient to describe it as interference. Those who are opposed see the comment as favorable to the Maoists.

"A well-intentioned suggestion cannot be construed as interference," Professor Lokraj Baral, who once served as Nepal's ambassador to India, told the Kathmandu Post on November 11. The voice of the secretary general, he added, reflected the opinion of all UN Security Council members, including the five permanent ones. China, Nepal's neighbor to the north, is one of these five. India, Nepal's neighbor to the south, is not even a non-permanent member in the council at the moment.

What are the likely implications if the ongoing peace process is derailed? Who stands to gain if Nepal becomes a failed state? The UN's concern for the helpless Nepali people could deepen as rivalry between China and India may spark a wider conflict in the area. Both are likely to be among the main losers, but who would have more difficulty in reviving (and surviving) remains a matter of conjecture.

Ian Martin, a former (and the first) head of the UNMIN, says Nepal's peace process is in danger of failing. Although he no longer speaks for the UN on Nepal, Martin, as a friend of Nepal, told an audience in New York this month that an overwhelming majority of Nepal's long-suffering people wanted the peace process to succeed.

"I believe that it is in the interests of those concerned for stability in Nepal, including India."

But the nagging question is: does India want stability in Nepal? Seasoned analysts in New Delhi tend to reply in the negative. "Controlled instability" (or chaos) is something that Indian rulers always want to find in Nepal. On the other hand, China's buzzword for Nepal has always been "stability", that provides a secure atmosphere for investment and development.

(Dhruba Adhikary is a Kathmandu-based journalist)

Courtesy: atimes.com

Write comment

Name: Email:   Title:   Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

View Comments	Search
As postings are shown online immediately, please be warned of offensive comments

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."