My attention has been drawn to a recent article by the Maoist leader Dr. Baburam Bhattarai in the Samay weekly magazine. I disagree with him and caution the seven party leaders as to his proposal. Basically he is saying the movement to establish a democratic republic has to be armed.
The Maoist ceasefire went unreciprocated by the king. That made me staunchly republican because I am not for a military solution to the insurgency. The republican sentiment among the democrats has hardened. If the Maoists are for a democratic republic, that is the political ground they won.
The Maoists ended their ceasefire. Their first few acts damaged a few buildings. But then the state killed some Maoists, and the Maoists hit back. That is back to square one.
The Maoists through the 12 point agreement have not managed to convince the seven party alliance to the ways of violence. They never will. The roadmap is about seeking a political solution to the civil war, it is about helping the Maoists get a soft landing, it is about mainstreaming the Maoists, it is about hoping to see them as one among several political parties within a democratic republic setup.
The 12 point agreement is not about saying, okay so let's get the king and the state army out of the way, so you guys can then kick us out of the picture and have your communist republic. So far I have believed the Maoists when they have said they are for a democratic republic. Within that democratic republic, a lot is possible. Infact I challenge Dr. Baburam Bhattarai to come up with a better constitution than this one I have outlined: Proposed Republican Constitution 2006. And I mean progressive as for the poor and the powerless and the marginalized.
But the Maoists do not get to join the movement of the seven party alliance now, and they do not get to join the interim government as soon as it gets formed. First there will be peace talks. Only after the Maoists have been respectfully transformed into an unarmed political party will they join the government. It is very important for trust building among the Maoists and the seven party alliance that Dr. Baburam Bhattarai and his colleagues understand this basic roadmap.
Unarmed Maoists are indistinguishable from other Nepali citizens, and I don't see how we can or might even want to prevent them from attending our peaceful programs, but armed Maoist cadres are out of bounds. The armed Maoists should make no attemt to infiltrate any of the seven party rallies. The idea is to get a million unarmed citizens to surround the Narayanhiti. That is how the monarchy will end.
I guess the king has the option to try and engineer a military crackdown regardless. If he does that, he and the army top brass will be in a lot of trouble. This past week I have spent a lot of time here in New York City with Dinesh Tripathi. He has been taking the lead on seeking and keeping at the ready all possible legal options to counter any possible military crackdown working with the local lawyers, and no these American lawyers are not paid for by the State Department. They are progressives who routinely challenge the US government itself. The king will lose his throne, but he may keep the rest. But if there is a military crackdown, he will lose more than his throne. He will lose his property as well as his liberty.
So no, there will not be a military crackdown. If there is, the king and the army top brass will have hell to pay.
Dr. Bhattarai, I am for non-violence precisely because it is more effective than violence. The king and the army top brass can be reduced to being prisoners behind bars with the sheer force of law. Guns are not needed. Guns actually get in the way. Guns are more than less productive, they are counter-productive.
Instead if we pick up guns, and there is bloodshed, even if the monarchy comes to an end, which I think less likely then, then there will not be any tribunal to punish the perpetrators among the Monarchists.
Violence is wrong, period. Violence also sends the wrong message. If we are fighting for democracy, the struggle itself has to be democratic. Guns are not democratic. Violence will prevent people from coming out into the streets in large numbers. Violence will make a military crackdown possible without leaving us the option to take concrete legal action in the aftermath.
The Maoists need to get this clear message once and all: violence is not an option, and we democrats say that from a position of strength. We will hold peace talks with you, and when we do that, we will be commanding an army. Armies can be put to the service of democracy.
This peaceful movement for a democratic republic is not a joint movement of the Maoists and the seven party alliance. The violence between the guns - the Maoists and the king - is unfortunate, but it is between you two. We are not party to that.
And if you insist on going back to your violent ways, we will no longer be doing business with you. The breakdown of the unilateral ceasefire can to an extent be understood in political terms: there was no reciprocation. But an ideological shift back to violent ways are not acceptable.
Violence prevents us from achieving the goal of a democratic republic.
I can see why he is saying it though. He has been leading an armed insurgency for close to a decade. There are habits of mind involved. Of course he sees violence as not only a legitimate political weapon, but also as the most effective. And I think secretly he harbors the possibility of the state army getting disbanded and getting replaced by the Maoist army. That is not going to happen.
The army top brass will stay intact during the interim period. Only a duly elected President will make changes in the army. It will get downsized. And there might be restructuring at the top levels.
The only reason the democrats are doing business with the Maoists is because they have made a major ideological leap from a communist republic to a democratic republic. Don't go back. Instead help us bring all democrats behind these two words: democratic republic. There is still some confusion.
2 comments:
You have produced a good assessment of the political situation. Good work!
I disagree with janbidroha and agree with Paramendra that violence is counter-productive and has been counter-productive to Maoists themselves too.
Over the last ten years, the Maoists have shown tremendous operational capability, perseverance and strength of unity under duress. Had they come mainstream and fought for the same issues non-violently with the same determination, wouldn't they have a bigger strature? Sure, it could take longer for them to actually get state control but isn't that price worth paying for the lives of 12,000 people?
Post a Comment