After the 1 June incident, Prachanda and Baburam in their numerous and separate statements praised King Birendra to the heavens. They said he was liberal and understanding, had a positive opinion of the peoples' war and stood his ground against Indian forces. This is all fine, but that is exactly the opposite of what they said about him at their second national convention a few months ago.
The convention's documents were recently made public and though they do not directly accuse the late King Birendra of being India's stooge, they place the 1989 agreement at the same level as the 1950 agreement, in which India played a major role.
Is this comparison apt? If they think both agreements are similar, why are they saying Birendra never bowed down to Indian imperialists, but to the wishes of the Nepali people? They should clarify this.
Similarly, Baburam said in a recent statement that there were only three nationalist monarchs in the history of modern Nepal, Prithivi Narayan, Mahendra and Birendra. This too, is against the official party statement of the second national convention. Bhattarai says that although Mahendra was dictatorial, he took many steps that proved that he was a true nationalist. Meanwhile, the statements of the second convention say that Mahendra was not a nationalist at all. That statement further argues that Mahendra was the chief architect of the 1960 coup and he concentrated all power in his hands. He took the help of the landed gentry and forced the nation to accept the Panchayat regime. How could the incident of 1 June change the Maoist analysis of Mahendra at the second convention? How could a person, who was called an anti-nationalist before 1 June, now become a nationalist?
According to regulations passed by the second convention, a person who acts or thinks against the official party line can be demoted, sent for re-education, expelled from the party or have any punishment meted out to him that the party thinks fit. It is clear that both Prachanda and Baburam have gone against the official party line. People are curious to know whether any action will be taken against them or not.