Nepali Times
Plain Speaking
Hard choices



On Monday, the Madhesi parliamentary party offices in Singha Darbar were abuzz with activity in the run-up to the third round of voting. Leaders slipped in and out, even as there was an avalanche of rumours outside Upendra Yadav will split from the front; Bijay Gachchadar has threatened his MPs not to cross the floor; or the extended meetings are a way to keep everyone guessing but the decision to remain neutral has already been taken.

A little further away, in the CA building in Baneswor, the Maoists saw a flicker of hope in the divisions within MJF and launched a subtle propaganda war as to how they were sure to win.

The stalemate eventually persisted. But what was clear was that all political forces are in an extremely difficult spot, finding it hard to balance the pulls and pushes they are facing. Nepali politicians have a far tougher job than is often recognised.

Take the Madhesi front. There is a strong argument, made by Upendra Yadav and supported by a faction in the other parties, that this is the best time for the Madhes to strike a deal with the Maoists. Their bargaining position has never been better; they can thrive as long as the Big Three keep fighting; the Madhes is getting a chance to shape the central politics in an unprecedented way; and the Maoists are more committed to federalism and inclusion. Restless MPs who cannot wait to be ministers echo this line of thinking.

But an equally powerful counter-argument is that the Maoists cannot be trusted; they may just use the alliance with the Madhesi front to make a comeback in the Tarai; this would be suicidal since the mood in the plains is anti-Maoist; there is little guarantee that the Maoists are indeed interested in writing the constitution; and Pushpa Kamal Dahal is a master at using and disposing of partners. Add to this the pressure from the Indian establishment, which has made it clear that it will not take it too kindly if Madhesi MPs shift their allegiance to the Maoists.

Or consider the Maoists themselves. Dahal is closer to his aim of leading the government than he has been in the past year. He has shown remarkable energy and dynamism in trying to stitch together alliances, lure MPs, and engage with established power centres, unlike Ram Chandra Poudel, who appears to be merely going through the motions. The Maoist success in breaking the 'democratic alliance' and engineering rifts within each Madhesi party are major achievements for the party.

But Dahal's personal reputation has suffered in the process. Three defeats have made him a cartoonist's delight. His dalliance with royalists is public knowledge. And there is increasing pressure on him to withdraw and allow a fresh process, for an outcome through the present round of voting will not necessarily lead to a constitution which remains the official Maoist goal.

India has its own dilemmas. It invested considerable political capital in holding the Madhes back in the last round. But there appears to have been some confusion on Wednesday in Delhi about whether it made more sense to make the best of a bad situation and allow a Maoist-Madhes government, or stick to the policy line of keeping the Maoists in general, and Dahal in particular, out of power till they undergo a 'course correction'. For now, the old line has prevailed and the Madhesi alliance will be encouraged to stay together and remain neutral.

India has raised the stakes considerably by sending Shyam Saran as special envoy. Delhi will now get the flak for whatever happens if there is a result and Dahal wins, non-Maoist parties will blame them for having engineered it; if the stalemate continues, Dahal will ratchet up the rhetoric on 'foreign intervention'. But the criticism will be meaningless, and it would be a stellar contribution if Saran can use the authority of the Indian Prime Minister to encourage actors to think beyond the numbers game and get the broader process on track.

Madhesi leaders have told us the front will probably remain neutral once again in the fourth round. But there could be some increase in cross-voting. In addition, if the Maoists can get a section of the UML, CP Mainali's ML faction, and parts of RPP, Dahal has a chance.

At press-time, this remains an unlikely prospect for the potential costs of defecting to the Maoists remain high for all politicians, especially those from the Tarai. Nepal's parliament will probably make history by failing to elect a PM for the fourth time. If that happens, there must be an effort to begin the process afresh.

Tail between our legs, PUBLISHER'S NOTE
Nay to the government, INDU NEPAL
Following the paper trail, CK LAL
Systemic failure, ASHUTOSH TIWARI

1. bhaicha
Forum's Defectors happen to be the Chor mathi Chakar, they could extract money from the coffer of a party who collected the sum by extortion and levy collected from the absentee PLAs.  They voted UCOPN in the #3rd round of voting, but did not in the 4th one. They thugod the  loot the extortion money . Ha ,ha, ha!

2. Nirmal
The most important aspect of all this, is the general wreck of the political class. A resounding failureness. The other data, the sinking of the Madhesi alliance, although being kingmaker, was taken for granted. Apparently, Prachanda has been caught by the crisis. Prachanda is the victim of the elements. Nothing further from the truth. He is the bleeding victim of his own policy. A policy based on shortsighted tactic, but better, with which it intended to face a structural challenge.

Instead of exploring a third way with the NC, instead of fighting with determination and clarity by a federal and army integration horizon (horizon, somewhat laborious and complex, but horizon after all), Prachanda decided, even before arriving to Singhadurbar, to try something a lot easier (especially the controversial decision of 11 lawmakers from madhesi morcha). It was to group unhappy lots with status quoists. No need to know where he went, he just added a totum revolutum with three types of factionalism who barely had anything in common:the progressivism of anti-pahade or republicanism of madhesi leaders opposite to the bias of neocons, fading nationalism of royal era and the subsidiarity of Kathmandu centric polities.

As for the NC, grouping anti-maoists has been a tactical bargain. Over the times, it has allowed the NC and UML get much power, but they are driving to the beaches of the blue. This tactical bargain has been battered with good-natured spirit of the NC. But now the old conflicting promises become spears. And that kangressi will to please all has led to a maze. The NC seeks departure, but in each and every path it is encountered with an area discontent.

I do not remember who it was, who, reflecting on the character, said: "The slave has only one master, while the ambitious has as much owners as people who proved useful to amass his fortune.�

3. Suman
Anyone with mild intelligence should be able to see that India is clearly engaged in the PM election... through the manipulation of the Madhesi parties and also telling the NC to keep fielding the candidate. Divide and confuse! The sooner Prachad realizes that the Nepali PM's fate is tied to Delhi, the better off he will be.  He does not seem to have learned any lesson from Gyanendra's fate that even the Royal  Nepal Army could not (would not) save him.  So Prachand, have some sense and stop this continuous nonsense.

4. Arthur
"Madhesi leaders have told us the front will probably remain neutral once again in the fourth round. But there could be some increase in cross-voting. In addition, if the Maoists can get a section of the UML, CP Mainali's ML faction, and parts of RPP, Dahal has a chance."

Actually cross voting for Prachanda declined this time. Presumably because Madheshi politicians under "extreme pressure" (including threats of "physical action") managed to accidentally get themselves locked out of the vote.

Prashant Jha would do better to pay less attention to what people tell him and more attention to the underlying factors. (Though I would assume that the reference to extreme pressure from India is probably a relevant underlying factor).

"Dahal will ratchet up the rhetoric on 'foreign intervention'. But the criticism will be meaningless,"

Why is it meaningful for Prashant Jha to report extreme pressure from India preventing Nepal from forming a government not approved by India but meaningless for Prachanda to criticize this???

Just because it doesn't bother the author? Perhaps it may mean something to other Nepalese who would like to decide who governs Nepal by elections under a constitution instead of by "extreme pressure" from India.

5. ayoo ghorkali
OK... lets get it straight !  Who pulls the strings !  New Delhi with the backing from the Americans! So whoever India wants - that person will become the PM.  Its that simple ! If India can KICK OUT Gyanendra, what is there to say about these beggar politicians like, PKD and RCP. Its time for the women of Nepal to unite and revolt ! Let us elect a woman as PM !  Women will make great leaders, much better than these servile male bahuns ! Just look at the regional leaders of past and present like - Indira Ghandhi, Benazir Bhutto, Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton.  PKD and RCP, you should die from shame, you both lost 3 chances to become a leader with no power or prestige. We don;t care who is the leader in government, just feed the nepali people, give them education and health care - we don't for anything else. CAN ANYONE IN THE CURRENT LEADERSHIP DO THAT, or will they continue as is.  What else is there to say ?????????    

6. jange
In this issue of the NT the editorial says "It is now common knowledge that Indian intelligence sheltered and nurtured the Maoist leadership in Delhi during the war years."

And here is Prashant saying "What this all means for us is that instead of waiting for India, or anyone else, to rescue our politics and perennially look to Delhi for signals, we should put our own house in order."

  It is time to recognise that the Maoists are an illegitimate group and should have no role in the politics of Nepal.

7. saroj
Arthur You seem to have some old personal grievance against Prashant the way you write. Just examine his article again. He got it right last time and he got it right this time that there will be no result. More than a 100 MPs could not vote since they were outside and Maoists got even lesser than their seat share. But they may have got a bit more if everyone had attended. But it would have been the same result nontheless. And when Jha says the criticism will be meaningless, he adds right then that if Saran can get the process back on track. I would urge you to read his piece in the hindu on If your comments are motivated by some personal grudge, then it becomes meaningless for us to respond since you will nitpick and find something to criticise. Dont want to make this personal against you but you can have very little idea of what is really happening if you are not here and not had long conversations with the politicians themselves. underlying factors is a big excuse to theorise and miss all the details.

8. DG
 Course Correction.
Dahal and his cohorts  not only needs"course correction',but reeducation as well about Democracy Globally,Internationally, and Comparatively; in keeping with The 21stCentury.He should be asked to fulfil his commitment,the1st point of the three-point agreement,that has been forgotten in the political circus.In the mean timethe democratic alliance of NC,UML ,Madhesi Front and other small parties  must choose some one to lead them as Prime Minister if 5th round of election will materialize.
Kamred Prachanda ,let him take his time to correct his course and fulfill his past commitment. Once he does thst a new National Government of all party can then be made.

9. Thurpunsich
Is anybody among the 601 writing the constitution?

10. suman
Finally, Prashant Jha has learned how to incorporate Indian equation into his analysis.  This now makes his analysis readable.  The last two pieces are better than his "India would not allow this, and India would not allow that" type insertions.  The Hindu piece is also decently analyzed.  There are some journalists who are so "loyal" to Indian establishment that they write piece as if India does not exist.  Consequently, they sound so hollow.  Prashant, keep writing with an independent mind, and it will serve you better in the long-run.

11. Gole
"Punar musiko bhava."-"Covert yourself into a mouse again."

"His dalliance with the royalists is public knowledge."
"It is common knowledge that Indian intelligence sheltered and nurtured the Maoist leadership in Delhi during the war years....   ...   Indian operatives mollycoddled the maoist,as they did the Tamil Tigers in the 1980s, to co-opt and control them."
There is a story in the Hitopadesha about  a Sage and a Mouse.One day in the fprest a mousewas persued by a cat to eat it,who ran and took shelter in the lap of the sage. At this stage the sage converted the mouse into a cat.  Again the cat was pesued by a dog . t
The sage converted the cat again into a dog. The dog was scared of the tiger ,again the sage converted the dog into a tiger.
When the tiger heard about the gossip in the forest about the sage converting the mouse into the tiger,the tiger though tto himself," As long as the sage lives, this notorious story of my true nature will not vanish."
Thinking this, the tiger went to kill the sage. When the sage understood this, he said "Convert your self into a mouse." And again turned him into a mouse.
Excessive greed should is not beneficial .
PKD/C L to P to PKD/CL.

12. jange
I think the Maoists have added a new theory in revolutionary politics- that of the role of big, powerful neighbours in advancing the cause of proletarian revolutions.

Prachanda is our Lenin, Mao, Marx, Buddha, and all the learned sages and great people who ever lived- all rolled into THE ONE LEADER.

Aren't we lucky?

13. Battisputali
"I think the Maoists have added a new theory in revolutionary politics- that of the role of big, powerful neighbours in advancing the cause of proletarian revolutions."

Historically incorrect argument Jange brother. Great powers (or Regional Powers) have always played roles in revolutionary societies. Lenin's revolution in Russia was supported by the Germans in order to get Russia out of World War I. Both the Maoists and the nationalists became strategically important to the Allies during World War II and were given support. There is of course the classic case of Chinese and Soviet Support to North Korea during the Korean War. So yeah. Regional Powers or Great Powers directly or inadvertently advancing the cause of revolutions is nothing new.

14. Arthur
saroj #7, no I have nothing personally against Prashant Jha. In fact I find him the most interesting to read as he at least attempts to analyse tactics, so I criticize what I don't agree with.

I had not thought about the fact that 100 failed to vote, including some of the Maoists. You are right that this is evidence against my suggestion that Madheshi cross-voters under pressure deliberately got themselves locked out (though that is still possible). It does weaken my complaint that Prashant Jha wrongly thought there would be an increase in vote for Prachanda because of naively believing what politicians told him. With so many, and not just cross-voters, it could indeed be simply due to purely accidental lockout.

I don't think anyone seriously believed there would be a result, so getting that right proves nothing. A result remains unlikely until either or both UMLs and NCs (or perhaps Maoists) shift their position. But Prashant Jha seems to suggest that getting a result requires only the Maoists to shift their position, focuses on minor details of Madheshi parties shifting their position and takes Prachanda running while trying to influence that future shift by winning over some Madheshis as another reason to personally attack Prachanda.

Thanks for the link to Hindu article, which is better as there Prashant Jha points out that India needs to shift its position (which is the key to others doing so).

"... you can have very little idea of what is really happening if you are not here and not had long conversations with the politicians themselves. underlying factors is a big excuse to theorise and miss all the details."

True, and I value the fact that Prashant Jha reports on analysis after conversations with politicians themselves. But I still think he pays too much attention to the details and such conversations, and not enough to the underlying factors.

eg regardless of the details,  and what any politicians say, given the overall current situation, what is the point of blaming Prachanda for the deadlock? That seems much more like a personal grudge.

BTW I replied in detail to your #4 and #5 last week in #22 and #35 there. If you have any response, to that please put it here or mention here when you have put it there.

15. Arthur
Interesting remark by Bhattarai in this Monday interview:

"If there is no government on Aug. 18, we could be forced to go for election again."

It seems unclear from the context whether he is referring to yet another round of the CA electing a PM or referring to the people electing a new CA.

Is this more clear in the original Nepali version?

Normally if a legislature is deadlocked and cannot choose a government, fresh elections have to be held. This sometimes occurs immediately after a general election.

I haven't noticed anyone mentioning this "detail" which is easier to notice if you think about the underlying situation.

There could be less risk of the MKN government attempting to rule without elections now that it has had to admit its failure by resigning and become a caretaker.

The procedures for electing a PM cannot be changed without agreement among the main parties. So if the Maoists wish to force an election this could be a more favourable moment than at the expiry of the original term of the CA. If the other parties wish to avoid an election they may end up having to agree to a Maoist led government...

Battisputali #13, excellent reply to jange #12! I would add that it is also nothing new for counter revolutionaries to pretend that revolutionaries are agents of the foreign powers that directly or inadvertently aid them. The US denounced the People's Republic of China as "not even Chinese" (ie puppets of Russia) and did not recognize it until the 1970s. Even more remarkably, opponents of the Bolsheviks denounced them as agents of German imperialism!

This is also linked to philosophical world outlooks. Marxists look to the internal contradictions of a thing to explain change (eg revolution in Nepal resulting from contradictions in Nepal). Anti-Marxists look for external causes ("outside agitators", "foreign agents").

Although the current accusations that Maoists are nurtured by India are especially ridiculous given their actual relations with India (and the obvious subservience of their opponents to India). Nevertheless people like Kunda Dixit on the one hand and jange on the other may actually believe what they are now both saying - it fits with the way such people think.

Change arising out of the internal contradictions within a thing always seems to remain a mystery to them. If they had to give up on India as the external cause, they would switch to China, or the West (as some already do). They also rely on such external causes themselves - eg Kunda Dixit's regular calls for help from "internationals".

16. Nepali
yo arthur ko aru kehi kam chhaina ki kya ho. kuire, ta lai samyabad tyatro man pareko bhaye afnai desh ma pahile kranti garnu ni! stalin le gareka atyachar padinas? mao le kati manchhe maryo, thaha chha? pol pot chinya chhas?

17. Nirmal
15. Arthur
Interesting remark by Bhattarai in this Monday interview:
so what!!!!!!! you can't prove the contrary that there is a war going on between Prachanda, Baidhya and Bhattarai. For me none is diferent from eachother. The issue is not about who is more competent and who is not, it is all about personality clash and those putting fire on this game, mere reminiscences of old communism..... They are just new people in politics impressed by old books, old symbols, old working style everything old and old AND Mr. Arthur says that they will make a new Nepal. New Nepal.....? Not even in dream you are going to have it with these old lots. We need a real pacific revolution not the bloody TOTUM REVOLUTUM sponsored by these old lots like the Maoists, the best of the worsts.

You know Arthur, other parties as the NC and the UML fell down because of extrenal factors like corruption, incompetency, lack of political efficiency to respond to the needs of the country and uneagerness to accept changing times. It will take them a decade to appear as powerful electoral parties but the Maoists will fall from within due to lack of internal variability ie democracy and it will break into three: Maoists(baidhya faction), Stalinist(led by Prachanda) and Marxist(led by confused man like Baburam bhattarai), Matrika is alredy an independent Maoist. To avoid this, they ought to be clear on the very terminology DEMOCRACY. 

in that interview Baburam was refering to the election of the PM in CA, and there is no nepali version in Kantipur of the same interview....the maoists will not go to another elections to CA without them being in the govt, be sure of this. They know very well that they will be finished(pattasaaf in nepali)If there is held elections without a constitution and above all without their participation in the government. I can bet you about this real possibility.

18. SN
Battistputali (#13), you make a good point. Germans supported Lenin, and China and USSR supported North Korea to attain their specific goals. What do you think was India's goal in supporting the Maoists of Nepal? (Keeping in mind that they have a Maoist "problem" of their own).

19. Arthur
Nirmal #17, thanks for info that there is no Nepali version of this interview. I find that surprising. Surely the interview itself would have been in Nepali and would be of enough interest to people who only speak Nepali to publish the original. Is this practice common?

I did not quote the interview as evidence on whether there are differences or how sharp they are but only on the question of calling a CA election, which still puzzles me.

Naturally anti-Maoists hope that the Maoists will split. I see much more sign of the various anti-Maoists fighting each other and themselves (eg MJF and CPN-ML have split, UMLs and Congress are bitterly divided and there are at least 3  tiny panchayati parties). After a year in coalition together UMLs, Congress and Madheshi parties cannot even agree on a common candidate against Maoists.

It is that reality which produces the exaggeration of Maoist differences in the hope of a Maoist split.

The actual Maoist differences are merely a sign of a healthy party that doesn't passively follow leaders. It is entirely natural that there should be an internal debate about whether it is still worth trying to unite with the anti-Maoist parties so that Nepal could have a government capable of governing or better to just remain in opposition while they continue to prove that they cannot govern.

The gossip about them is typical of reporting by people used to reporting on court intrigues and the factional bosses of patronage networks.

As for your three factions I have mainly noticed that Prachanda often says optimistic things about the prospects of reaching agreement with the anti-Maoist parties, while Kiran often says pessimistic things that flatly contradict Prachanda's statement.

So far Kiran is usually right in the short term since the anti-Maoists keep on not agreeing despite Prachanda's hope that they will agree. But Prachanda ends up right in the long term as the anti-Maoists really have no other viable option and are just delaying.

Obviously an anti-Maoist government would try to rig the elections against the Maoists. But they were not able to do so successfully last time and the Maoists have since demonstrated that they are more powerful throughout Nepal, including the cities, not just in the Hills where they were previously dominant. So it would be more difficult to rig the elections, not easier.

Why else are the anti-Maoist parties not already calling elections?

20. mulya

Most of the commentors here seem to have found a platform to vent out thier inherited prejudice against the Maoists.

Only Arthur comments logically, coherently and with the ground reality.




21. rajesh
Dear Kunda ji,
Please publish this article of Baburam Bhattarai-it's just fantastic and it does have the ground reality of Nepal-Indian relationship. And in my view, I hope you and every Nepali, we should read and materialize his visionary thoughts for the betterment of Nepal. I'm 100% sure that you have read out this article which is published in and also saw the comments came from readers. It's just superb. please publish this-it will indeed spread a positive vibes in the people and as you know positivity is the greatest tool for the ultimate success. so please eventhough it's in Nepali but you can post it as a blog:::
प्रगतिशील राष्ट्रवादको अन्तरवस्तु:--वैचारिक राजनीतिक बहसलाई तर्कसंगत ढंगले खण्डन गर्न नसकेपछि कतिपय व्यक्ति गालीगलौजमा उत्रिने गर्छन्। लेनिनले यस्तो प्रवृत्तिलाई कमजोर मानसिकताको उपज भन्नुहुन्थ्यो। कसैलाई तर्क र तथ्यले जित्न सकिएन भने गाली गरेर मनको सन्तुष्टि लिने न्यूनपुँजीवादी प्रवृत्ति हो। यो पिछडिएको मानसिकता र संस्कारको अभिव्यक्ति हो। भारतसँगको नेपालको सम्बन्धलाई कसरी बुझ्ने र कसरी बदल्ने भन्ने सन्दर्भमा कतिपय मानिसमा यस्तो प्रवृत्ति देखापर्ने गरेको छ।

मैले विद्यावारिधी गर्दाखेरि 'दी नेचर अफ अण्डर-डेभलपमेण्ट एन्ड रिजनल स्ट्रक्चर अफ नेपाल ' विषयमा शोध गरेको थिएँ। त्यसको मूलभूत प्रस्तावनामा नेपाल अल्पविकसित हुनुमा दुइटा कारण प्रष्टाइएको छ। पहिलो : आन्तरिक कारण हो, जसमा लामो समयदेखि सामन्तवादी उत्पादन सम्वन्ध र राज्यसत्ता कायम रहनुलाई मुख्य कारण मानिएको छ। त्यसबारे कृषि, उद्योग, वित्त-व्यापार, बस्तीप्रणाली र सहरीकरण तथा भौतिक पूर्वाधार क्षेत्रको संरचनागत विवेचना गरिएको छ। दोस्रो : वाह्य कारण, जसमा सुगौली सन्धिदेखि यता नेपाल कसरी अल्पविकसित भयो भन्ने विस्तृत व्याख्या गरिएको छ। महेशचन्द्र रेग्मीका अनुसार, सुगौली सन्धिभन्दा पहिले नेपालको भारतसँगको व्यापारमा आयातभन्दा निर्यात पाँच गुना बढी थियो। सन्धिपछि त्यो उल्टिँदै गएर सन् १९८० को दशकमा आइपुग्दा निर्यातभन्दा आयात पाँच गुना बढी भएको तथ्य देखियो। गत वर्षमा त त्यो तथ्यांक सात गुनासम्म पुगेको छ। र, त्यो बढ्दै जाने प्रवृत्ति छ।

भारतसँगको यो असमान सम्बन्ध सुगौली सन्धियता आजपर्यन्त डरलाग्दो ढंगले बढ्दै गइरहेको छ। त्यसलाई मार्क्सवादी परिभाषा गर्दा 'डोमिनेन्स-डिपेन्डेन्स' सम्बन्ध भनिन्छ। समाज विकासको क्रममा एउटा अर्थतन्त्रमा पहिले पु"जीवादको विकास भएर जान्छ र अर्कोमा पुँजीवादको कम विकास हुन्छ। यस्तो भयो भने दुई अर्थतन्त्र र देशबीच असमान विनिमय सम्बन्ध हुन्छ। त्यो अन्ततः आर्थिक, सामाजिक, राजनीतिक रूपमा 'डोमिनेन्स डिपेनडेन्सी' भई अभिव्यक्त हुन्छ। ठूलो अर्थतन्त्रले प्रभुत्व जमाउने र सानो अर्थतन्त्र पराश्रित हुने हुन्छ। नेपाल-भारतसम्बन्धमा ऐतिहासिकरूपले यस्तो चरित्र देखिएको छ। मेरो शोधपत्रको निचोड पनि आन्तरिकरूपमा सामन्तवादी उत्पादन सम्बन्ध बदलिनुपर्छ र बाह्यरूपमा भारतसँगको असमान सम्बन्ध सच्चिनुपर्छ भन्ने रहेको छ। त्यो नसच्चिएसम्म नेपालको विकास र पूर्ण स्वाधीनता सम्भव छैन भन्ने निष्कर्ष निकालिएको छ।

मैले जवाहरलाल नेहरू विश्वविद्यालयमा मार्क्सवादी कोणबाट त्यहाँका वामपन्थी प्राध्यापकको सुपरिवेक्षणमा त्यो शोधपत्र तयार गरेको हुँ। आजभन्दा २५ वर्षअघि। त्यस बेलासम्म म विद्यार्थी र मजदुर राजनीतिमा थिएँ। पूर्णकालीन पार्टी राजनीतिमा आएको त्यसपछि हो। त्यस्तो पृष्ठभूमिसहित क्रान्तिकारी राजनीतिको यो ठाउँमा पुगेको मान्छे भारतप्रति कस्तो दृष्टिकोण राख्छ भन्ने बुझ्न त्यही किताब र त्यही शोधपत्र पढे हुन्छ। मैले जनयुद्धकालमा पार्टी र क्रान्तिको आर्थिक घोषणापत्रको रूपमा लेखेको ......जनयुद्धको अर्थ-राजनीतिक औचित्य'' आलेखको मूल सारतत्व पनि त्यही हो। यस तथ्यविपरीत केही व्यक्तिले मेराविरुद्ध गरेको अनर्गल प्रचारलाई विडम्बना नै मान्नुपर्छ।

नेपालका कतिपय व्यक्तिमा मण्डले राष्ट्रवाद वा सामन्ती राष्ट्रवादको रूप देखिन्छ। उनीहरूमा चर्कोरूपमा भारतको गाली त गर्ने तर आर्थिक तथा राजनीतिकरूपमा पूरै लम्पसार पर्ने, भित्रभित्रै असमान सम्झौता पनि भारतसँग गर्ने र मूलतः भारतीय उद्यमीव्यापारीको कमिसन एजेन्ट वा साझेदारका रूपमा काम गर्ने चरित्र छ। उदाहरणका लागि, विराटनगर जुट मिल नेपालको पहिलो आधुनिक फ्याक्ट्री हो। त्यसमा जुद्ध शम्शेर र कलकत्ताका मारवाडीको संयुक्त लगानी थियो। २५ वर्षअघि नेपालमा पाँच वटामात्र पाँच तारे होटेल थिए। ती सबै दरबारिया र भारतीय पुँजीपतिको संयुक्त लगानीमा थिए। अहिले त्यो प्रवृत्ति झनै बढेर गएको छ। टाटाको सिप्रदी, सूर्य टोबाकोलगायतका ठूला उद्योग हेर्ने हो भने अधिकांश दरबार र भारतीय पुँजिपतिको संयुक्त लगानीमा खोलिएका छन्। तिनै दरबारियाले झन् आफूलाई राष्ट्रवादी र अरूलाई अराष्ट्रिय भन्ने गरे। यो त नक्कली राष्ट्रवाद हो।

जनताको आँखामा छारो हालेर राष्ट्रवादको आवरणभित्र राष्ट्रघाती काम गर्ने र जनतालाई भ्रममा पार्ने जुन प्रवृत्ति दरबारिया शक्तिमा रह्यो, वामपन्थीको एउटा वृत्त पनि त्यसबाट प्रभावित रहने गर्‍यो। त्यो नेपाली कम्युनिष्ट आन्दोलनमा केशरजंग रायमाझीका रूपमा अभिव्यक्त हुँदै आयो, जसलाई 'रायमाझी प्रवृत्ति' भन्ने गरिएको छ। यहाँको लोकतन्त्रको लडाइभन्दा पनि राष्ट्रियताको लडाइलाई महत्व दिनुपर्छ, त्यसैले संसद्‍वादी शक्तिभन्दा दरबारिया शक्तिसँग नजिक हुनुपर्छ भन्ने नीति रायमाझीले लिए। त्यसका विरूद्धमा पुष्पलालहरू सामन्तवादविरुद्ध संसदवादी शक्तिसँग मिलेर लड्नुपर्छ भन्ने पक्षमा थिए। भलै संसदवादीमा पनि दलाल प्रवृत्ति थियो। त्यसैले कम्युनिष्ट आन्दोलनमा मूलतः दुई लाइन स्थापित थियो, रायमाझी र पुष्पलाल लाइन।

माओवादी आन्दोलनभित्र पनि यी दुई लाइनको बेलाबखतमा बहस चल्ने गर्‍यो। मेरो शोधपत्र र मान्यताअनुसार राष्ट्रियता र जनतन्त्र दुबैलाई जोड्नुपर्छ तर तत्काल लड्दाखेरि आन्तरिक जनवादको प्रश्नलाई हल गरेरमात्र राष्ट्रियताको प्रश्न हल गर्न सकिन्छ। आन्तरिकरूपमा जनतालाई अधिकार सम्पन्न नबनाएसम्म, आन्तरिक राष्ट्रियताको सबाल र वर्गीय, जातीय, क्षेत्रीय, लैंगिक सबाललाई हल नगरेसम्म सुगौली सन्धि यता भारतसँग रहिआएको जुन असमान सम्बन्ध छ, त्यसविरुद्ध प्रभावकारी ढंगले लड्न सकिँदैन।

राजनीतिकरूपमा पहिलो त सन् १९५० को असमान सन्धि बदल्नुपर्‍यो। विसं २०५२ को चर्चित ४० सूत्रीय मागको मस्यौदाकार नै म हुँ। जनयुद्ध सुरू गर्ने बेलामा तत्कालीन प्रधानमन्त्री शेरबहादुर देउवालाई त्यो मैले पार्टीको तर्फबाट ड्राफ्ट गरेर बुझाई हिडेको हुँ। त्यसका पहिला नौ वटा बुँदा राष्ट्रियतासँग सम्बन्धित छन्। पछि आएर संविधान सभा निर्वाचनका क्रममा पार्टीको प्रतिबद्धतापत्र पनि मैले मस्यौदा गरेको हो। त्यहाँ पनि मैले भनेको छु, यी दुईटा ठूला पहाड (आन्तरिक सामन्तवादी र वाह्य विदेशी उत्पीडन) लाई अन्त्य गरेर मात्र नेपाल स्वाधीन र सम्पन्न हुन्छ। दुईटैका लागि लड्नु त पर्छ, तर मुख्य आन्तरिक जनवादको प्रश्न नै हो। आन्तरिक राष्ट्रिय एकता सुदृढ गरेमात्र वाह्य हस्तक्षेपविरुद्ध लड्न सजिलो हुन्छ भन्ने मान्यता हो, जुन पुष्पलाल लाइनसँग बढी मिल्छ। इतिहास हेर्दा छर्लङ्ग छ, रायमाझी प्रवृत्तिका व्यक्तिले पुष्पलाललाई पनि गद्दार भनेका हुन्। जिन्दगीभर पुष्पलाल गद्दार भनी आरोपित भए। मरेपछि, ०४६ सालको आन्दोलनपछि मात्र उनी पुनर्स्थापित भएका हुन्। त्यो धङधङीबाट ग्रसित प्रवृत्तिले अहिले बेलाबखतमा टाउको उठाउने गर्छ।

हामीले अहिले राजतन्त्रको अन्त्य गर्‍यौँ। चुनवाङ बैठकपछि १२ बुँदे समझदारी हुँदै यहाँसम्म आइपुग्यौँ। राजतन्त्र त अन्त्य भयो तर सामन्तवादका सबै अवशेष अन्त्य भएको छैन। सामन्ती भूमिसम्बन्ध यथावत छ। क्रान्तिकारी भूमिसुधार नगरेसम्म किसानलाई लोकतन्त्रको खासै अर्थ रहँदैन। जातीय, क्षेत्रीय, लैंगिक उत्पीडन आदिको आन्तरिक जनवादको प्रश्न हल नगरेसम्म आन्तरिक राष्ट्रिय एकता बलियो हुँदैन र त्यो नभएसम्म वाह्य लडाइँ जित्न सकिँदैन। त्यो नभएसम्म बाहिरी थिचोमिचो सहेर बस्नुपर्छ भन्ने होइन। तर भित्रीरूपमा बलियो भएरमात्र बाहिरी शक्तिसँग लड्न सकिन्छ भन्ने हाम्रो आशय हो।

राष्ट्रिय उद्योगको विकास गरेर पर्यटन, जलस्रोत, कृषिको आधुनिकीकरण, तुलनात्मक फाइदा हुने उद्योगजस्तै सिमेन्ट, वनपैदावर, जडीबुटीआदि मार्फत् तीव्र आर्थिक विकास नगरेसम्म जतिसुकै चर्को राष्ट्रियताको कुरा गरे पनि सही अर्थमा कुनै माने रहँदैन। अहिले विदेशी ऋण नै चार खर्ब पुग्न थालिसक्यो। वार्षिक व्यापार घाटा झन्डै अढाइ खर्ब पुगेको छ। यस्तो स्थितिमा जतिसुकै चर्को राष्ट्रियताको कुरा गरेर पनि परनिर्भरता रह्यो भने, अर्काको ऋणमा रहनुपर्‍यो भने त्यसको अर्थ रहँदैन। त्यो मण्डले राष्ट्रियतामात्र हुन्छ। फेरि उद्योगधन्दा विकास गरेर देशका युवालाई रोजगारी दिन सकिएन भने रोजगारीको निम्ति युवा शक्ति लुकीछिपी विदेश पला


Fear!Fear!! & Fear!!!

Fear of not getting another chance! (Madhesi Party)

Fear of not able to rule the country as dictator!(Prachand)

Fear of not getting chance to make money!(Nepali Congress)

Fear of loosing lucarative power!(Madhav Nepal)

Fear of suffering!(Nepali people)

Fear of contineous torture & humiliation(Madhesi citizen)

All are in FEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The climate of FEAR is required to be removed.

BUT  who will do this--------C.K.Lal by his Comments or PRASANT JHA.

Anyway i enjoy reading them!.

23. Arthur
Thanks mulya #20!

24. Slarti
#21, If this piece of nonsense is what impresses you about BRB, then there is nothing that anybody can do for you.

The article is based on labeling others as something and then finding facts to justify the label, throwing in a bit of complexity (like the temple priest who has just lost an argument and resorts to curses) an then wrap it up by calling some names.

नेपालका कतिपय व्यक्तिमा मण्डले राष्ट्रवाद वा सामन्ती राष्ट्रवादको रूप देखिन्छ। - Wrong answer, Rshtrawad देखिन्छ, Mandale and Samanti is just an example of the type of labels that communists use to extend there arguments because they can't think straight.

राष्ट्रिय उद्योगको विकास गरेर पर्यटन, जलस्रोत, कृषिको आधुनिकीकरण, तुलनात्मक फाइदा हुने उद्योगजस्तै सिमेन्ट, वनपैदावर, जडीबुटीआदि मार्फत् तीव्र आर्थिक विकास नगरेसम्म जतिसुकै चर्को राष्ट्रियताको कुरा गरे पनि सही अर्थमा कुनै माने रहँदैन। अहिले विदेशी ऋण नै चार खर्ब पुग्न थालिसक्यो। वार्षिक व्यापार घाटा झन्डै अढाइ खर्ब पुगेको छ। यस्तो स्थितिमा जतिसुकै चर्को राष्ट्रियताको कुरा गरेर पनि परनिर्भरता रह्यो भने, अर्काको ऋणमा रहनुपर्‍यो भने त्यसको अर्थ रहँदैन। त्यो मण्डले राष्ट्रियतामात्र हुन्छ। फेरि उद्योगधन्दा विकास गरेर देशका युवालाई रोजगारी दिन सकिएन भने रोजगारीको निम्ति युवा शक्ति लुकीछिपी विदेश पला 

So, essentially the second-murderer-in-chief is spinning some silly little yarn about how he is going to follow the exact policy, described elsewhere, and end up with a different result.

I do hope BRB has the courage to post this stupidity here, translated into english as well, we will then see who has the brains to dazzle, and who is delivering bu*l*hit to bamboozle.

I dare you.

25. Battisputali
@ SN

I think that Indian perceptions of the historical relationship with Nepal  have more to do with the rise and fall of the strategic value of Maoists in India's Nepal policy as opposed to any narrowly defined interest.See my post on this week's "Plain Speaking" column.

(11 JAN 2013 - 17 JAN 2013)