To: Dr. Baburam Bhattarai

Comrade Baburam, Sir.

I read yesterday with great interest your latest article, as I always do when you write something new. This is not the first time you have touched upon the theme of a Democratic Republic, but I think this might be the first time you have elaborated upon it and looked at it from many angles. I think this document is going to prove to be of great historic importance within the communist movement.

I am not a communist, you are, I describe myself a progressive, but I have done my share of readings into communist literature. I have read several biographies of Lenin, and that was in the early 90s.

"Power flows through the barrel of a gun." That is the central dictum of classic Maoism. "Jesus is the son of God." That is the central belief in the Christian worldview. Your ideology falls in the social science sphere, and Christianity is a religion, so the two are apples and oranges, but I just wanted to emphasize how central the gun has been to classic Maoism. You have - like only you could - managed to steer your party away from that dictum ideologically. And you have expressed a commitment also to do the same in practice as long as the other players on the national scene play their accompanying political roles.

This is a huge jump you and your party have taken. I commend you for that. Politically blind people in my own democratic camp refuse to see that. I feel sorry for them.

Madan Bhandari introduced the idea of a multi-party framework for his gang of communists, the UML, and that was a significant leap, but your work is more monumental, I think.

Nepal's poor peasants are more like Mao's peasants were, so I can see how Mao might have inspired you. You have drawn inspiration from the idealism of Marx and Lenin, and you have openly condemned the Stalinist deviations. Communists in practice hijacked political liberty, and so they had to suffer couter revolutions worldwide at the end of the last century. In saying that I think you have brought together communist theory and practice in a rather unique way. That synthesis is truly remarkable.

You have done a very good job of handling the many irrational fears of the parliamentary democrats who plain refuse to do the homework long due. You have articulated fears they have not, merely hinted at. That intellectual lethargy on their part has been hurting the peace process. Your proactive approach will serve you and your party well once peace and democracy are achieved. Jasle maha kadhchha, usle haat chatchha.

And you have beat all the democrats in Kathmandu with your ten points to kickstart talks on a future constitution. You have taken an initiative they have not.

Having commended you for your ideological innovation and political initiative and pragmatism, now I would like to draw your attention to some points that I seek further clarification on, or plain disagree with you. My vision is outlined here: 5 Steps. More particularly, I would like to draw your attention to this document: Proposed Constitution. You have your 10 points, I have an entire draft for a future constitution.

I have said this before. Let the three warring factions and all the component parties take a look at this document. Seek points you all can agree on. Things you can not agree on can be decided upon through a Constituent Assembly. What say you? All you have to do is take a look at the document, pen in hand, check all items you like, cross all items you dislike, and add a list of items you would add and/or modify if you could. How hard can that be? As easy as a multiple choice question test.

This is like every party to the conflict is being given a blank slate and being told, okay so right down all you want. That is what it is. My document just provides a framework so there is some discipline to the process. And such that agreements and disagreements can be aired publicly. The process can stay transparent.

(1) Monarchy. You are an ideological republican. I am not attached to the monarchy, but I am not an ideological republican. I think it is possible to totally defang the monarchy and still keep it. I am not proposing we keep it, but what I am saying is I want to keep that option open so as to have more moving room during the peace process. I know you don't agree with me, and if there is to be a full fledged movement, and especially if there is state repression of that movement, there will be no stopping a republic. But I want to be able to make a few moves before that if the occasion might arise. I just wanted to be upfront and honest. Like you have been upfront and honest. On the other hand, if we end up with a Constituent Assembly, and you have the numbers in that Assembly to declare the state republican, be my guest. The people may take that decision, you and I may not.

(2) Disbanding The State Army. I totally understand it that you have to start with that stand. That is important for your internal consumption among your rank and file. I don't begrudge you for that. And there was at least one occasion back in February when I said the same thing.

Just like Girija lives a contradiction. He has yet to make up his mind on whether the 1990 document is dead or alive. I think you Maoists also live a contradiction. Once you have already made an ideological shift away from the "barrel of a gun," why do you still have a hangover about your armed cadres? Integrating the two armies in a fair way is step 1. Whatever your starting point, I hope you come to the table with an open mind and plenty of room for flexibility. This is what I suggest.

1. There should be only one army in the country and that army should be in the barracks under the command of the Prime Minister of the interim government. That is the precondition for a Constituent Assembly. If you can not come around to that, you are not serious about a Constituent Assembly.
   
2. If the RNA has 83,000 and PLA has 12,000 armed personnel, 3,000 of the PLA personnel get inducted into the army which gets five years to downsize itself to a total strength of 30,000 or less during which the 3,000 from the PLA stay on.
   
3. 56,000 of RNA personnel and 9,000 of PLA personnel get retrained for jobs in the private sector. For that retraining foreign aid is sought.
   

Just like the Proposed Constitution, this is a framework for discussion, not anything written in stone. But the Maoists and the democrats will have to express their agreements and disagreements publicly and in a transparent manner.

(3) Self Rule And Autonomy For Janajatis And Madhesis. How do you like my three states, three languages idea? My demarcations are one person one vote taken to its logical conclusions. I think my proposal is the most scientific. I do not doubt the honesty of your commitment, not at all. Infact my political sympathies for the Maoists have been based on this commitment of yours. On the other hand, I am suspicious of the democrat Bahuns. Many of them are still talking of some kind of a decentralization so as to water down the idea of federalism. They are banging their head against the wall. Federalism is one certainty of the next constitution. On that there is not going to be any compromise.

(4) Education, Health. I could not agree more. Here we will just have to compete to outdo each other. I feel about these two issues as strongly as you feel about land reform.

(5) The Market Mechanism. That is the biggest gaping hole in your document, I think. Democracy is not possible without it. The market is the hen that lays the golden egg that will make our ambitious education and health plans possible. Just like deviated communists have had the tendency to ban other political parties, they have also had the tendency to kill the hen. The state has to be there to uphold the law, but beyond that it is the private sector that does the wealth creation. The details of what I propose are already in the Proposed Constitution.

In your writing there are several contradictions. You talk about guaranteeing employment. I am suspicious. What do you mean? It is not the state but the private sector that creates jobs, for the most part. The state does create jobs to perform its necessary functions. But it is not wise for the state to create jobs just so people can have jobs: that way you end up wasting the taxpayers' hard-earned money. Although there can be room for targeted job creations for some targeted low income groups in specific cases. That I give you.

Instead the focus should be on health, education and micro credit. The poorest of the poor can have ladders they can climb.

"Self- reliant national industrialization, protection of national capital and properties."

I am extremely suspicious of this. First of all, Marwadis are part of the Madhesi community. And they get demonized much on this issue. You have to watch out for that.

You really need to learn from the Chinese on the issue of Foreign Direct Investment. They will tell you, the rule is simple: the more the merrier. That's it.

You can have that, or you can have Nepalis going away thousands of miles to foreign countries, staying away from their families for months and years because jobs are not locally available. FDI is the best way to create good jobs locally, fast.

But then this is policy talk. This can not be part and parcel of a Constituent Assembly. This is for the elections held after the country has a new constitution. At that point, you would be free to disagree with my common sense assertion, if you might so choose.

(6) Land-To-The-Tiller Land Reform. This makes tremendous economic sense to the free marketeer in me. If that could be done, the productivity in the agriculture sector would go up drastically. To that add the micro credit idea, and you are going to end up with a green revolution. I am all for it.

But I would like to suggest we be careful about the political aspects of its implementation. I hope you don't change your stand on this, but I hope you do not make it a precondition before elections to a Constituent Assembly can take place. Let those who disagree do so, just cash on that disagreement politically. If you are the only party that is going to have the land-to-the-tiller slogan, and elections are going to be free and fair, you are going to emerge the largest party. Simple as that. And once you have a governing majority in the parliament, the disagreeing parties can cry hoarse, and they are not going to matter. At that point you implement the reform. So my suggestion, consider it step 2, not step 1.

Another attraction of the land-to-the-tiller slogan is you are not saying collectivization. You are saying right to property. That is key. Right to property is like right to free speech, right to assemble, right to vote: it is basic. Without property rights, there is no market. Without market, there is no democracy.

(7) Political Party Finances. For a party and leader who dream of a classless society, I am utterly surprised you don't even touch on that topic. Is it because the Maoists are the richest of all political parties in Nepal? How would you like this?

The Maoists need to make note of Article 1.8: Political parties may not engage in fund-raising activities. Instead each national party, described as those that garnered at least 5% of the votes in the previous nationwide elections, will get an annual sum that will be directly proportional to the number of votes it earned. That money is to be used for party-building and electioneering activities. Details of expenses are to be posted online in the three languages to the last paisa on at least an annual basis.

The other parties are keen to see you disarm. But noone is talking about your money. The money might hurt them more electorally.

My proposal on campaign finance reform might be what makes my documents stand out, I think. The document envisions a democracy where money is taken out of the system. It is truly one person one vote.

In sum, I would like to commend you for the ideological leap you have taken, thank you for taking the initiative with the ten points, and I look forward to future conversations. I hope we can march towards peace, democracy and progress. And I hope you will compensate for the mental lethargy of the democrat Bahuns by taking further initiatives down the line.

Baburam Bhattarai, Pramod Aryal, Ram Chandra Poudel

(Below are summaries in English of full length articles in Nepali.)

Baburam Bhattarai: The Question Of Understanding A Democratic Republic

The cadres are for a Democratic Republic, but the leaders of the political parties are still not wholeheartedly for it yet. We need to look into why that might be. Monarchy and democracy are opposing ideologies and institutions. Japan and Britain can not be our examples of a ceremonial monarchy because our socio-economic development stage is not the same as theirs. No capitalist revolution has succeeded without uprooting the monarchy. Hence the words "republic" and "democracy" are actually one word. There is no example in world history where au autocrat monarch willingly became a constitutional monarch. There are no examples of constitutional monarchies in the Third World. Temporary alliances with an army or a monarchy either by democrats or external powers is understandable for different reasons, but to present the monarchy as the symbol of unity and stability is utter foolishness. The Sinhanouk example does not apply to us. BP Koirala's "national reconciliation" slogan is date expired. The Radha Krishna Mainalis inside the UML and the Prakash and Shailaja Koiralas inside the Nepali Congress are a major disservice. The parliamentary parties also have to watch out for the pressure from the US, the sole superpower, to make do with the monarchy. Global opinion will follow once the parties achieve clarity on the issue of a Democratic Republic. The monarchy is an elaborate structure that keeps the country down on all fronts. The parliamentary parties have two choices: surrender, or head on for a Democratic Republic. To try and "scare" the king into becoming a constitutional monarch is a foolish attempt. It should not even be made. A tiger that has tasted blood does not willingly go back into the cage. We should head straight on for a Democratic Republic, or we should settle for a Constituent Assembly, nothing less.

After a 10 year revolution, we Maoists have been presenting a Democratic Republic as a common minimum program. We have done it time and again. We started the revolution with the singular goal of a communist republic. For us to shift to the goal of a democratic republic has been a big step for us. The revolutionary leftists look at us with suspicion for that. At the same time, the parliamentary parties refuse to believe us when we say we are now for a democratic republic. So we feel the need to clarify a few things.

Our ultimate goal is communism, preceded by socialism. That is never going to change. But we feel the need to come down from the clouds and face the ground realities and make sound, objective, scientific assessments. That is how we prepare our programs and decide on our strategies. It has been our conclusion, based on the socio-economic conditions in Nepal, that an abolition of the monarchy and an establishment of a democratic republic is what is best for Nepal right now. That is our scientific analysis. We did not cook up the slogan to hoodwink the parliamentary parties. That is why you should believe us when we say we are for a Democratic Republic.

A democratic republic and a socialist democracy are different things. So we understand why you remain suspicious of us. The Stalinist model gets seen for the communist model, and it can be hard to imagine how a Maoist party will work within a multi-party framework. What you have to understand is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is not religious dogma, fixed forever. It is a science. It is alive and evolving. The goal remains to create a classless society. Marx and Lenin never talked about one party rule in their writings. But it became one party rule due to Stalin. Stalin created a bureaucratic monster that detached itself from the people. And hence we had counter revolutions all over the world at the end of the previous century. And that is why, for the 21st century, we are committed to a multi-party framework where people's participation and oversight is guaranteed. That is what we want. That is our first choice, it is not a choice of an uncomfortable compromise. So believe us when we say it is a democratic republic we want.

The difference between a capitalist democracy and a socialist democracy is in the former democracy is only formal, in name only, in the later it is for real. Socialist experiments might have taken some ugly forms in the past. But periodic elections, multi party competition, adult franchise, rule of law, freedom of press and speech, these all not only exist in our version of a socialist democracy, they also are superior to when they exist in a capitalist democracy. We don't discard the good things about capitalism, we elaborate them so much, socialism spreads into capitalist territories. That is what Lenin suggested. We don't fight capitalism, we refine it, purify it, make it better.

Another suspicion has been that we Maoists will not accept the results of a Constituent Assembly should they not go in our favor. That we might follow the example in Russia. What we have to say on that is free and fair and unconditional elections conducted under international supervision will be acceptable to us. Russia of the 1910s is not Nepal of today. Let that distant past from a distant land not be your measuring rod. We have made it very clear we are for an impartial and effective management of the two armies for such elections.

A democratic republic is our ideological stand. Now try us in action. Because we are very clear on our vision and stand.

We are not headed into a traditional parliamentary arrangement or a communist arrangement. We are headed towards something new. It will be a new kind of a transitional democratic system. We are not trying to imitate Europe. But whatever it is, it will be reflective of the power distribution as thrown up by an Assembly.

It is necessary to discuss the shape and form of the proposed Democratic Republic right away, even before we go into a Constituent Assembly. That itself can be a trust-building measure. Let's have a public debate. There is nothing to hide.

On our part, this is what we see. First, the monarchy is abolished, and the sovereignty goes to the people. Two thirds of the Assembly or a referendum may decide on any matter except the country's territorial integrity. Second, the royal army is to be disbanded, and a new army is to be raised, to be under the parliament. Three, the national parliament will be supreme. Fourth, a full guarantee for periodic elections, multi party competition, adult franchise, rule of law, freedom of press and speech. Fifth, all oppressed groups - Janajatis and Madhesis - will have self rule and autonomy. Sixth, secular state. Seven, education, health and employment will be considered basic rights, and basic education and health will be free and guaranteed. Eighth, revolutionary land reform, land to the tiller. Self- reliant national industrialization, protection of national capital and properties. Ninth, dissolve the unequal 1950 treaty and other similar treaties. An independent, non-aligned foreign policy. Tenth, make room for other democratic forces in the Assembly to shape other political, economic and cultural details.

Democracy itself is alive. It grows, it changes.

Unless we - Maoists and parliamentary parties - make common cause and stand shoulder to shoulder, people are not going to come out into the streets in hundreds of thousands, and unless that happens, the king is not going to get out of the picture. We should make our conversations official and really get down to the business of talking things out in an authoritative way. Let's not waster this opportunity we have. The world looks upon us. Delays hurt the revolution.

Pramod Aryal: A Koirala Family Gone Mad On Leadership

The country is going through rough times, democracy is at stake. It has become imperative for the Nepali Congress to get clear on the issue of a Democratic Republic. Girija is extremely unclear and vacillating on the issue. The Koirala family's contributions to democracy get publicized, but their disservice to the same cause all through history is not that well known. Go look at the details. BP Koirala made major political blunders costing the country dearly just to retain the party presidency to himself. Ganeshman had written to Kisunji to oust Girija from the party during the movement, fearing his tendency to get weak with the palace. Girija sidelined Kisunji and Ganeshman, he disbanded a parliament, he forced Deuba to break away. All to keep the leadership to himself. Shashanka Koirala is a test tube baby being groomed. The Nepali Congress might get to the size of Praja Parishad. Democracy in Nepal does not depend on the Nepali Congress. Congress forgets its martyrs, its leadership instead listens to the nobodies like Govinda Raj Joshi, Arjun Narsingha KC, Laxman Ghimire, Ram Krishna Tamrakar. The party needs new leadership. Girija's poison words againt Gagan Thapa and Narahari Acharya are indicative. Nepal stands for change, Girija is not for change. Ram Chandra Poudel should run for party president. We have got to break the vicious circle of the Koirala family's hold on the party.

Ram Chandra Poudel: A Constituent Assembly Has Become Necessary

The Congress itself has to change before it can change society. There is no need for a monarchy in the 21st century. The state has to be restructuted bo provide equality for the Janajatis and the Madhesis. The Maoists need to renounce violence. A Constituent Assembly is our meeting point, that we are for with or without the Maoists. Globalization and liberalization trends have to be cashed upon. But socialism is still what we stand for. Prime Ministers have lead the army in the past. It has not always been with the king. There should be reservations for women, dalit, and janajatis. The Congress has to be unified. Internal democracy has to be introduced and institutionalized in the Congress.