Dear Kaveri, Thanks a lot. It's a valuable input. Of course a mind game is on at the moment, and no functionary of any major party is going to publicly open its cards at this hour. What is, however, significant here that no hard question is put. Gaujrel is not asked his assessment of the premature withdrawal of the "indefinite strike" and its impacts. The interviewer was perhaps too grateful for the grant of the interview.
One'd probably pardon me for pointing out that Gaujrel in his own way has substantiated quite few points I'm making rather consistently. Quote Efforts by the foreign countries, the EU in particular, to mediate proved ineffective in view of strong contrary stand taken by India. Unquote [Excerpt from my last post at < http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth/browse_thread/thread/751b606ece2c2557/caca3bf55bb83d46?show_docid=caca3bf55bb83d46&pli=1 >.] Also: Quote ... of all the foreign players, it's [i.e. India] the most influential for a variety of reasons including physical and cultural proximity apart from disproportionate strength vis-a-vis its tiny landlocked neighbour. Unquote [Excerpt from an earlier post of mine at < http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth/browse_thread/thread/6ebcc8137562fb0b >.] Compare: Quote Q. What about the role of other imperialist or foreign forces in this situation? A. The US is not very involved in this particular situation, or they have a lower role. They are not a deciding factor. We have had 10 or more discussions with representatives of the US when they called us during the strike. They questioned UML and NC about how long Madhav Kumar Nepal would stay in power. They see his unpopularity as something that will aggravate this crisis. The EU has been even more proactive, with Madhav Kumar Nepal even replying and telling them to mind their own business. Both these forces do not support the Maoists. But they think Madhav Kumar Nepal should resign because his unpopularity is undermining stability. Unquote In any case, not breaking into a customary rant against "imperialist or foreign forces" and in fact appreciating their roles in a muted tone, by all appearance to the disappointment of the interviewer, is something really remarkable. One should not , however, be too surprised if it is effectively denied in not too distant a future. Quote The present government has been installed by India to serve its interests, since India wishes to control all sectors of the political economy of Nepal. This government has not been put in place by internal forces. Unquote [Thus spake Gaujrel here in this interview. Nothing new. That's an old tune.] Compare this with: Quote Kathmandu: As the Maoist-led government in Nepal moved towards dismissing Army chief Rookmangad Katawal in the beginning of May, Prime Minister Prachanda sent an urgent message to India seeking the presence here of a high-level envoy to help forge an eleventh hour political consensus affirming civilian supremacy over the military. Revealing this in an interview to The Hindu at his official Baluwatar residence on Sunday, Mr. Prachanda said he asked Ambassador Rakesh Sood to request New Delhi to send Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon or some other senior official for talks on the increasingly tense standoff over the Army chief. With quiet encouragement from India, parties like the United Marxist-Leninist were changing their stand and siding with the general. “We knew some confusion is there between the Maoist-led government and India on this question,” said the Prime Minister. “I wanted to settle this issue through interaction and discussion with high-level officials from Delhi. But unfortunately, the ambassador informed me that this cannot happen now because the election campaign is going on, that nobody is there, that it is very difficult.” Unquote [Excerpted from 'Delhi missed chance to resolve Nepal crisis' by Siddharth Varadarajan at <http://www.hindu.com/2009/05/11/stories/2009051155040100.htm >.] Also: Quote Senior Maoist leader and former finance minister Baburam Bhattarai claimed that India mishandled the COAS crisis because politicians were too busy with elections and left it to blundering bureaucrats. Unquote [Quoted from 'Nepal’s Future: In Whose Hands?' Crisis Group Asia Report N°173, 13 August 2009 at < http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/asia/south-asia/nepal/173_nepals_future___in_whose_hands.ashx >.] So, Prachanda had sought Indian intervention to save his chair, but Indian leaders were too busy minding the prospects of their own chairs faced with the General Election. They had no time to spare. So Gaujrel's claim is nothing more than their routine rant. India, however, came back to scene soon after and supported the new regime fully more than neutralising the rest the world. Quote Q. What about the role of China? A. Like the US and EU, they will not like Indian interference in Nepal beyond a limit. Unquote [That's Gaujrel clearly affirming that India is in the camp of its own.] Also noteworthy: Quote India is the major war waging a proxy war against us and they chose UML as their backer as part of a strategy to use a so-called communist party as the main opposition to a true communist party. They prefer to back the UML than the NC against us, although the NC was their main force to use against the king. They were turning against the monarchy partially because the king began to defy India’s advice, by opposing emergency and purchasing arms from China. [In fact as the Janandolan II gathered momentum, India was compelled to stop arms sell to Nepal. China continued as it had no such comparable constraints.] Therefore at that time, India was supportive and in fact instrumental in organizing the 7 party alliance. [Gaujrel is evidently reversing the sequence.] Unquote Also noteworthy Gaujrel's vision of the coming days: Quote This means there are the following options for what happens after May 28: one, that the CA’s tenure is extended under our party’s leadership, an option provided for by the interim constitution; two, that the government will declare emergency, in which case the CA’s tenure will be extended by 6 months as per the interim constitution; three, worst of all, that Presidents rule will be established on an unconstitutional basis. If emergency is declared, this will be an unpopular move and we will oppose it. Unquote Compare this with: Quote Those who are holding "power" will, however, have an edge over their rival, more so in the context of the Maoists' repeated failure to trigger off a much pined for Janandolan III and thereby overpower and overthrow the incumbent regime. Even an extraordinary "solution" is now unlikely to do that given the widespread perception that the Maoists are equally, if not even more, responsible for the looming constitutional impasse. The Maoists going back to the jungles is also as unlikely as a military takeover. Unquote [Excerpted from < http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth/browse_thread/thread/751b606ece2c2557/caca3bf55bb83d46?show_docid=caca3bf55bb83d46&pli=1 >.] Sukla On 24 May 2010 14:16, Kaveri Rajaraman <[email protected]> wrote: > Nepal is rapidly approaching a deadline of May 28, 2010, when the tenure of > its Constitutional Assembly (CA) will expire. The UCPN (Maoist) emerged as > the largest single party to be voted in by the Nepali electorate in the 2008 > CA elections, but they resigned from power when Prachanda, Chairman of the > party, was blocked by the President in an attempt to dismiss the chief of > staff of the Nepali Army for opposing greater civilian control of the army. > A new coalition primarily led by the Nepali Congress (NC) and the Communist > Party of Nepal (United Marxist Lenninst) (UML) came into power, led by > Madhav Kumar Nepal, a man who has twice lost constituent elections, and > strongly backed by India. This new government proved unsuccessful at forging > sufficient national unity to fulfil the CA’s mandate of drafting a completed > constitution during its tenure. > > The May Day mobilization and the indefinite national strike that followed, > accompanied by more massive marches and rallies, were a show of the strength > by the UCPN (Maoist), to push for the resignation of the widely unpopular > Madhav Kumar Nepal and the formation of a new national unity government > under the leadership of the Maoist party, under whose tenure the CA could be > extended. The most important issue at stake for the people and the support > base of the Maoist party is the inclusion of the Maoist mandate into the > constitution, with issues of land redistribution, local rights over natural > resources, the implementation of federalism in the new republic, and rights > for workers, women, dalits, janjatis, and various marginalized communities > at stake. The more contentious issue is the question of the fate of the > cadre of the People's Liberation Army, and how many of its combatants will > be integrated into the state army or placed in other government positions, > as well as the fate of the Young Communist League which the ruling parties > want disbanded. > > In the context of the stalemate of negotiations between the ruling parties > and the Maoists, and the mystification of the Nepali people and UCPN > (Maoist) cadre as to the future steps the party and the country would take, > it seemed imperative to get a sense from the party leadership of how they > would play their cards in the next few days. Comrade Gaurav, also known as > C.P. Gajurel, was very accessible and courteous, and generous with his time, > in answering my questions: > > Q: Let me start with the most pressing question of the day. Now that the > strike has been called off, and it looks like the May 28, 2010 deadline for > writing the constitution will not be met, what are the expectations and > conditions under which the party will extend the tenure of the > Constitutional Assembly, and what is the party strategy if its conditions > are not met? What will happen after May 28? > > A. The political environment around May 28 will decide our strategy. Right > now NC, UML and India are continuing to hope that we will change our minds > at the 11th hour. Even if we deny this now, they are hoping for our last > minute acceptance of the extension of the CA’s tenure without our conditions > being fulfilled. But I can say this: no, we will not. > > This means there are the following options for what happens after May 28: > one, that the CA’s tenure is extended under our party’s leadership, an > option provided for by the interim constitution; two, that the government > will declare emergency, in which case the CA’s tenure will be extended by 6 > months as per the interim constitution; three, worst of all, that Presidents > rule will be established on an unconstitutional basis. If emergency is > declared, this will be an unpopular move and we will oppose it. It is > supposed to be declared, as per the constitution, based on the fulfillment > of one of three conditions: external intervention, uncontrollable internal > chaos, or severe economic crisis. If President’s rule is declared, we will > oppose it and view it as basically a military coup. Our tactics of > opposition will depend on the mood of the masses. > > Q. What about the conditions of negotiation of leadership of a national > unity government for extension of the CA’s tenure? How flexible are you > about the following options: having another party’s leader as president, and > having another Maoist party leader of the national unity government other > than the Chairman? > > A. If the proposal is to replace Madhav Kumar Nepal with a leader from a > party that is not ours, we will not accept this. In any case, he will not > resign voluntarily, and any negotiation to replace him with another party > member will not be smooth, and will involve their putting more conditions > before us. As for other leaders within the party, the party had decided long > ago that if we came to power, it would be best for the Chairman would lead. > However, we can be a little flexible about this. The important thing is the > party should lead, and any discussion of the conditions of leadership can be > discussed in the Central Committee or Politbureau, depending on the new > emerging situation. > > Q. Will the strike resume? > > A. This is not likely before the 28th, but these 4-5 days are crucial for > deciding tactics. Right now we have just planned for a centralization of > people around the 25th. Again it will be peaceful. Rumors of violence and > clashes w army were employed before May 1 to scare people from joining the > marches and rallies. But our cadre were very disciplined and so many people > joined us. Even the OHCHR commented that the peace and discipline was > “unprecedented”. > > Q. Why are fresh elections not an option that the party is seriously > considering? > > A. The present constitutional assembly (CA) was unable to fulfil its > responsibility. This CA has no right to write the constitution. However, > fresh elections are not an idea many people or parties are considering > seriously. Some trends within the NC and some monarchists are in favor of > this, but it is not a logical outcome of the expiration of the CA. If the CA > tenure is not expanded, then emergency is the only constitutional option. Of > course President’s rule is also an unconstitutional possibility. If the > present government continues, it will be merely a puppet government. > > Q. In Nepal, Madhav Kumar Nepal is clearly seen as a puppet of the Indian > government. What are India’s interests in Nepal and what was their goal > earlier in helping broker the peace deal between the Maoists and the > seven-party alliance? > > A. The present government has been installed by India to serve its > interests, since India wishes to control all sectors of the political > economy of Nepal. This government has not been put in place by internal > forces. Madhav Kumar Nepal is a rotten candidate. Having suffered two > electoral defeats in different constituencies, he is clearly unpopular and > has no moral ground. > > India is the major war waging a proxy war against us and they chose UML as > their backer as part of a strategy to use a so-called communist party as the > main opposition to a true communist party. They prefer to back the UML than > the NC against us, although the NC was their main force to use against the > king. They were turning against the monarchy partially because the king > began to defy India’s advice, by opposing emergency and purchasing arms from > China. Therefore at that time, India was supportive and in fact instrumental > in organizing the 7 party alliance. The alliance was supported against > monarchy upto a limit. Their interest was to keep the monarchy, but with > reduced powers. They just wanted to teach a lesson to the king, put the king > in place. But they needed a mass movement against monarchy, which is where > we entered the picture. > > When our movement went beyond their control, they sent Karan Signh to > negotiate and broker the peace process between the Maoists and the 7-party > alliance, because they thought the Maoists can be controlled by the peace > process. There are two ways to control a political party. One is through > conflict, and the other is the soft way, through political compromise. > Initially they tried the second approach, hoping that the process of > mainstream parliamentary participation would transform our party into > something like the CPM in India. The CPM was once radical, discussing even > ideas of Mao and New Democracy, but elections made it friendly to the > establishment and now it is playing a role against people’s movements in > Lalgarh, etc. India tried to tame our party the friendly way but failed. Now > India is opting for conflict with our party, and they are backing Madhav > Kumar Nepal knowing that if he does not resign, conflict will ensue after > May 28th. > > Q. What about the role of other imperialist or foreign forces in this > situation? > > A. The US is not very involved in this particular situation, or they have a > lower role. They are not a deciding factor. We have had 10 or more > discussions with representatives of the US when they called us during the > strike. They questioned UML and NC about how long Madhav Kumar Nepal would > stay in power. They see his unpopularity as something that will aggravate > this crisis. The EU has been even more proactive, with Madhav Kumar Nepal > even replying and telling them to mind their own business. Both these forces > do not support the Maoists. But they think Madhav Kumar Nepal should resign > because his unpopularity is undermining stability. > > Q. What about the role of China? > > A. Like the US and EU, they will not like Indian interference in Nepal > beyond a limit. > > Q. What has the process of constitution writing been like and how is input > being solicited from the masses on the nature of the constitution? Is this > input being solicited inside or also outside the party structure? > > A. We put forward our declaration before the people, as our election > manifesto. When people voted for our party, we modeled the content of our > draft of the constitution on the election declaration. We collected > responses from the people not just through the party, but through the > process of participating in the constitutional assembly. As part of this, we > as well as representatives of other parties visited constituencies and took > suggestions made by ordinary citizens. > > Q. As you continue to participate in parliamentary politics, what guarantee > do the people have that you will not turn into the CPM? What policies or > structures will you put in place to ensure people are not dispossessed in > the interests of the state or corporations? > > A. We want to implement revolutionary land distribution. We want to > confiscate the land of big landowners, without compensation, and distribute > to the landless and poor. Also the federal structure we propose will provide > rights to local people over natural resources, especially over land and > water. Janjati people will have rights over their forests, land, and rivers. > > > Q. What is the stand of the party on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)? > > A. We will have to decide on something since there are so many foreign > corporations and iNGOs not working in Nepal’s interests now. We are not > saying we are against foreign investment or foreign aid. But whether we > welcome it depends crucially on it being in the interest of the Nepali > people. But, our concept of development is not based on FDI, which can cause > rapid economic development, but at a cost. > > Q. What about installing safeguards against something like the Bhopal > disaster, where corporations get away with deep misconduct in the interests > of quick profits? > > A. Again, we will only invite foreign corporations if we are sure they will > help the Nepali people. We will not pursue projects not in the people’s > interest, and the local people will have a say. To control the behavior of > the corporation, we would depend on the judiciary for strong laws. > > Q. How will the rights and interests of women, dalits, janjatis, different > ethnic groups, and the LGBT community be safeguarded and represented? > > A. Categorically we want women representated as constituents in all spheres > of life, including political institutions. In our current draft > constitution, we would reserve 33% seats for women, but aim for full > equality. Adivasis or Janjatis and dalits would also have reservation. Also > the federal structure in our proposed constitution aims for more local > autonomy, which will give more rights to women and dalits, as compensation > for years of oppression. > > With thanks to Comrade Gaurav and to those who put me in touch, > Kaveri > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Free Binayak Sen" group. > To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<free-binayaksen%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/free-binayaksen?hl=en-GB. > -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
