By Sanjay Upadhya
Electoral success has begun to soften Nepal’s former Maoist rebels. The leader of the once-feared organization, Pushpa Kamal Dahal – who still goes by his nom de guerre “Prachanda” (The Fierce One) – is calling for political consensus as the Himalayan nation prepares to abolish the monarchy and write a new constitution.
On foreign policy, too, Prachanda has diluted his party’s earlier threats to abrogate a controversial treaty with India, ban Indian films and stop recruitment of Gurkha soldiers into the Indian and British armies. C.P. Gajurel, chief of the party’s international division, has said the ex-insurgents would stop calling the Americans “imperialists” and the Indians “expansionists”.
Even on the question of the monarchy, the Maoists have been speaking of a “graceful exit” for King Gyanendra. Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, the party’s chief ideologue, had broached the idea of keeping a “cultural king” who would preside over the predominantly Hindu nation’s myriad festivals and rituals, before coming under criticism from the party. Still, Prachanda has sought a meeting with the monarch to ask him personally to leave the royal palace. The Maoists have said that Gyanendra, as a commoner, could run his businesses and perhaps even enter politics.
At one level, this mellowing stems from sheer expediency. Defying most predictions, the Maoists emerged as the principal force in the April 10 elections. Still, they lack a majority in the 600-plus assembly. The Nepali Congress and the other main communist faction, the Unified Marxist-Leninists (UML), are still licking their electoral wounds. Both are divided on whether to join a Maoist-led government.
Prachanda has said he would give Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala a “respectable” position in a new government. Some have taken this to mean the presidency, after King Gyanendra is formally ousted by the assembly. Dr. Bhattarai, however, insists that Koirala must join the monarch in exiting the national stage.
Koirala, for his part, has come under growing criticism from his Nepali Congress for ceding too much to the Maoists in the name of boosting the peace process that formally ended the decade-long insurgency that claimed at least 13,000 lives. The prime minister, who had said he would resign after the elections, is holding consultations with other political parties on forming the next government.
Some Maoist leaders suspect something sinister behind the maneuvering. They believe the Nepali Congress and the UML are colluding with the Nepali Army and “foreign power centers” to prevent the ex-rebels from heading the new government. And not without reason. Nepali Congress leaders insist the Maoists must first disband their fighting force, currently sequestered in U.N.-supervised camps. The UML, like the Nepali Congress, wants the former rebels to stop attacks on political rivals, end their kangaroo courts and return property confiscated during the insurgency.
The three major external stakeholders, too, are adjusting to the Maoists’ unexpected triumph. The United States, which still considers the Maoists a terrorist organization, has softened its stance after the election. U.S. Ambassador Nancy Powell met with Prachanda, opening Washington’s formal contact with the ex-rebels, before flying to Washington for consultations. It is unclear, though, whether the U.S. government would immediately withdraw the terrorist tag from the Maoists.
India, Nepal’s traditionally influential neighbor to the south, organized a conference on strengthening bilateral relations. The Maoists’ call to renegotiate the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship, a demand enjoying wider political support in Nepal, received a patient hearing. Still, India has its own priority and a new ambassador has assumed charge. New Delhi hopes the election in Nepal would encourage its own Maoist insurgents to renounce violence and enter the mainstream. The Indian Maoists, however, seem to be in defiant mood. In a statement, they described Nepalis’ electoral verdict as a defeat for “Indian expansionism.”
Nepal’s northern neighbor China, which had opposed the Maoist insurgency, has steadily built ties with the former rebels. The regularity of pro-Tibet demonstrations in Kathmandu over the past two months has heightened Beijing’s sensitivities on what it has long considered a volatile frontier. Prachanda’s assertion that his party would maintain “equidistance” between Nepal’s two giant neighbors will have placated Beijing somewhat. In New Delhi, it has intensified concern, especially among sections skeptical of the Maoists’ real motives. One veteran analyst, B. Raman, recently wrote that India may have no alternative to backing a military takeover to prevent the Maoists from gaining strength.
Surely, those offering such an extreme prescription have an eye on the turmoil within the Maoist party. Before the election, the former rebels had projected Prachanda as their presidential candidate. Now they have nominated him as the next prime minister, effectively edging out the more articulate Dr. Bhattarai. Although the change has not resulted in any public split in Maoist ranks, the two men do share a history of rivalry.
Immediately, though, the Maoists must contend with the expectations of the rank and file. The Maoists put 23,500 fighters into the camps. As part of the peace agreement, they are to be integrated into the national army. However, the generals do not want to accept the fighters right away, saying they are still politically indoctrinated.
The Maoists have sent women and members of traditionally marginalized groups to the assembly in numbers unprecedented for Nepal. Still, there are rumblings of discontent. Last week, Prachanda faced the first organized protest from within the party over the choice of legislators under the proportional representation category.
Such discord is not new in Nepali politics. The Nepali Congress and the UML suffered damaging splits after having failed to reconcile internal differences. Unlike the Maoists, however, they had already led the government.
