a. Since the day the Maoists came to mainstream politics, leaving behind a decade-long war, they have promised in writing and at least half-a-dozen times that they will return the private and public properties they seized during the war years and refrain from such seizures in future.
b. Maoist-affiliated All Nepal Squatters’ Association (ANSA) led the encroachment at Dudejari forest in Kailali and the surge of squatters, Maoist sympathizers and cadres into the forest since Nov 25.
c. An all-party meeting held at Dhangadhi, district headquarters of Kailali, on Nov 28 and attended by Maoist district in-charge Hari Gyawali, concluded that the forest, a public property, was being encroached illegally. The meeting also decided that the encroachers would be asked to leave the forest and action would be taken as per the law of the land if they resisted.
d. The local administration used local FM radio, hand-held mikes and other means of communication and appealed to the encroachers to vacate the forest area and warned them that they would be evicted by force if they resisted.
In an open society, no one has a monopoly over what is the right way or over power. Power is always shared, and the right way is always negotiated.
e. The Maoists cadres, allegedly led by PLA combatants from nearby UNMIN-monitored cantonments, trained the squatters, mainly the younger ones, on ways to retaliate against the security forces if they tried to evict them.
f. The squatters attacked the security personnel with sticks, sickles, rocks and other home-made weapons when they arrived at Dudejhari. In the ensuing clash, at least four people including a policeman lost their precious lives.
g. One of the dead has been identified as Narendra BK, who, according to the Home Ministry, is a Maoist combatant from the PLA’s Seventh Division. The Maoists have refuted the claim and UNMIN is investigating the matter.
h. After the tragic incident that could easily have been avoided, the Maoist leadership held a press conference in Kathmandu, faulted the government over the incident and called a nation-wide general strike.
i. At an all-party meeting held at the local level in Dhangadhi Sunday, Maoist Kailali district in-charge Hari Gyawali, who had at a previous all-party meeting placed his signature on a document calling the encroachment illegal and approving of the law taking its course if the squatters refused to leave the forest area, made a U-turn and demanded that the dead be declared martyrs and the squatters allowed to settle in the forest.
The Kailali tragedy and many other incidents that have subsequently been overshadowed by Kailali, such as the extensive extortion drive, seizure of harvests from farmers and serious differences within the Maoist ethnic fronts, have all at once raised many serious questions: Are the Maoists acting out of sheer frustration? Out of power, have they become so cynical that they are willing to go to any extent to upset the current political arrangement? Is the Maoist leadership losing its grip on its militant cadres? Is the Maoist leadership deliberately and systematically stoking anarchy so that it can bring the present government to its knees?
These questions are troubling enough and have no simple answers. The Maoist party has somehow started drifting just as a critical moment in our country’s life approaches: We are only 171 days away from the May 27, 2010 deadline for writing the new constitution. This is not an ordinary deadline that can be deferred by the government or party leaders.
There is no provision in the constitution to defer the deadline unless a situation arises whereby a national emergency is declared. Whether they want to write a constitution in the next 171 days or agree on an alternative arrangement such as amending that constitution, they will need a consensus. That being true, why are the parties taking a confrontational path and wasting precious time?
Since the Constituent Assembly (CA) elections and perhaps because the poll results have gone to the heads of the Maoist leadership, their party now seems to believe that it can dictate the truth and also the political course to follow. That’s giving itself too much weight and importance. In an open society, no one has a monopoly over what is right or over power. Power is always shared, and what constitutes right or wrong is always negotiated. Nepali Congress (NC) leader Pradeep Giri recently made an interesting comment during an episode of Dishanirdesh, a TV talkshow hosted by Vijay Kumar Pandey. He said, “The CA election gave Pushpa Kamal Dahal a chance to become a leader; instead, he chose to become a dictator.”
When a party has just 29 percent of the popular vote and less than a majority of seats in the CA, it cannot dictate terms to the other parties. It must work with them and show leadership skills to work together. But the Maoists believed and still seem to believe that they can scare the other parties into submission. Actually, incidents like Kailali and increasing cases of intimidation across the country will only further dent the other parties’ confidence in the Maoist party and reduce their chances of getting back to power. There is a growing voice in the NC and the CPN-UML that says — why engage in serious dialogue with the Maoists and bring them back to power if they are not at all committed to writing the new constitution?
The Maoists must first make their intentions clear. And this time they can’t do so with words alone or even written agreements with the other parties— it must come through actions. The Maoists must change (reform) themselves and this is where they flounder. They have given up war, but still think that some degree of violence is acceptable in politics and sometimes ruthlessly practice this notion. They have accepted a multi-party system in theory, but still think the other parties must agree to everything they say. They said that they would accept the constitution written by the CA (once Pushpa Kamal Dahal even said that if the CA chose to retain the monarchy it would be acceptable to him) but they want the CA to write a constitution as per their own wishes. This political impasse will remain unresolved until the Maoists come to terms with the fact that in a multiparty democracy they cannot command support or favor from other parties; they must win it.
Related story
Maoists had difficulties winning elections even in their bastio...
