.The Maoists have not uttered a word against India after the opposition to the Mahakali Treaty. It is not a coincidence that Prachanda did not say anything against the Laxmanpur Barrage, against the infamous "Nepal Game Plan," or against the Rasiyawal Khurd Lautan barrage. After the 1 June incident, the Maoists stated that the killings were associated with the "Gyanendra-Girija Nexus." They were blamed for carrying out the massacre and the Maoists even went ahead and announced the end of monarchy and birth of a republic. Sections of the Indian media spread rumours that the Maoists were surrounding the capital immediately after the massacre. Also, around this time, the meeting to decide on the "institutional development of the republic" was held in Siliguri.
The republic, it had already been decided, was in existence. So to institutionalise it why could the Maoists not have held a meeting in Rolpa, Rukum or any other part of Nepal? Why did they have to pick the spot where the Indian Naxalites were born and crushed? The Indian police in the past could easily enter a house in Baneswore and conduct a search, so how can you believe they were not keeping an eye on a house in Siliguri? The Indian government has been suppressing the Indian Maoists, but surprisingly it has not uttered a word against the Nepali Maoist forces now taking refuge in India. A serious question thus arises: "Are the Maoists and their movement being controlled by a third party?"
The Maoist have said that nationalism and a republic are two wheels of the same chariot and that both must be established in Nepal at the same time. Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, for his part, has requested that the monarchy not be called into question. How can the Siliguri meeting and the prime minister's request match? In what way is Prachanda's process for establishing a republic from Siliguri different from BP Koirala's methods of sending troops from India to capture Okhaldunga? Does the process fall within the parameters of the international communist movement? If the South Asian Federation has been formed for such actions, then political analysts are correct in saying that this movement is anti-nationalist and detrimental to our nationhood. Rumours had it that there was a plan by some communist groups to form a "government-in-exile" during the 1990 movement. The forces of nationalism were successful and so that could not happen. Will the proposed Maoist (parallel) government also be announced at Siliguri? Will the success of the peoples' war and the "institutionalisation" of the republic depend on India's generosity and kind-heartedness?
The Maoists say that the relationship between leaders and followers is like water to fish. Their leaders stay in Delhi and Siliguri and formulate their plans there. What type of relation do they have with their followers who are fighting in Rolpa and Solu? Isn't it contradictory to say that "leadership should remain with the war group" and then make decisions in Siliguri? The only explanation the Maoist leaders may have for their followers is that everything had to be done to take advantage of the infighting within the enemy camps, which is itself possible because of the greatness of the Prachanda Path and the success of its political philosophy. They are going to confuse the rank and file by comparing their words and their recent actions (which were contradictory) with the Stalin-Hitler pact and Chou En-Lai's Ping-Pong diplomacy. The UML's fears about the threat to sovereignty are now proving to have a basis, and this is emerging as a major obstacle to the Maoists' desire to have a unified left front and a possible parallel government. The Siliguri connection will continue to haunt the Maoists.
.Finally here's a prescription for the Maoist cadres borrowed from Karl Marx: