Kathmandu: The Maoists leadership appears to have gone crazy.
They have begun talking any thing under the sun as if they don’t have any concrete schedule of their own to which they should stick till the end.
Look how the Maoists have been changing their stances of late.
” We will not talk with the Deuba government as it is more or less like a marionette sort of establishment”.
“Instead, we will prefer to talk to the real masters (the King implied) of the old-regime”.
Within a fortnight or so, the Maoists high command makes a U turn on its previous stands and indicates that they could even talk with this government provided the latter answered a set of questions posed to the government by the party. Should this mean that the Maoists are providing legitimacy to this government?
Without going into the details of the questions, analysts would wish to interpret the content of the six queries sent to Deuba by Comrade Prachanda.
The first question posed by the Maoists inquires whether this establishment can revert to a position prior to the days of October 4, 2002? In saying so, the Maoists hint that they would not mind the restoration of the now dissolved parliament, a line clearly being advocated by President Koirala alone. But then yet the fact is that Maoists’ spokesman, K.Mahara, only the other day told that it would be a futile exercise to restore the parliament as demanded by some forces of the country. Should this mean that Prachanda is close to Koirala’s line and his spokesperson rejects that theory? Should this also mean that Prachanda and Mahara differ tremendously?
The second question states that can the men in the establishment manage a sort of amicable relations with the parliamentary forces and prepare a conducive atmosphere for the talks going straight against the will of the military generals and of the Palace? In saying so the Maoists wish to hint that the talks were possible provided the Palace and the military establishment so desired. Should this mean that the Maoists consider the two, the Palace and the RNA establishment, coming in the ways of the talks? This does also hints that the Maoists still possess a sort of respect and honor for the parliamentary parties, which indicates their willingness in joining the democratic mainstream if things moved their way. Is this a change in their party’s stands vis-à-vis the democratic order for which they basically don’t possess any respect and honor given the past experience?
In his third question, Prachanda asks the establishment as to whether they can dare to trace and penalize the killers of Hem Narayan Yadav, a UML leader? In saying so, Prachanda cuts joke at the UML by implying that the UML could sacrifice any thing under the sun provided the party were elevated to the corridors of power. This question is strictly related with the UML wherein Prachanda would wish to examine the very credibility of the party-the UML.
The fourth query questions whether the men in the present government can exhibit its total and unequivocal sincerity, both in words and deeds, in making the people really sovereign through the Constituent Assembly? In saying so, the Maoists Supremo appears less confidant that the men handling the present administration would remain true to their words even if every thing is finalized in favor of the constituent assembly. A sort of mistrust persists in the minds of Prachanda, it appears.
The fifth question is bit exhilarating indeed. This inquiry is related with Nepal-India bilateral relations.
The query bluntly asks the establishment as to whether the men in government could bring in the good offices of the UN or some similar reputed International HR Commissions for arriving at a meaningful solution to the imbroglio by rejecting the military support from the Indian rulers?
In saying so, Prachanda hints that his party would not mind if the UN idea is dropped. But he would not settle for less than bringing in some recognized international bodies at time of the talks in lieu of the UN system. In the same vein, Prachanda shows signs of his displeasure over Deuba bagging India’s military support to crush his part led insurgency. The question implies that Nepal would do well if she rejected the Indian assistance. This also means that Prachanda wishes that no foreign power as such should intervene into the Nepali affairs either militarily or in the form of efforts aimed at mediation. Clearly, for Prachanda, India is the villain at the moment. Unexpected change in Maoists stance indeed.
The last question is again related with the Armed forces. Prachanda asks whether the men in the government can commandingly and convincingly prove with one example at best that conforms to the government’s claim that the RNA establishments were in total control of the government of the day? By implication, Prachanda hints that the government is a lame-duck one that acts under the influence of some powers and that the government can in no way go against the will of those powers.
Apart from the six questions, Prachanda also hints that if Deuba and his colleagues were really serious for the talks then he should answer the questions and expose those who were behind the curtains. If Deuba succeeds in exposing all those who are behind the curtains, we will come to the talks, says Prachanda.
He however, does not pinpoint those behind the curtains.
All in all, the six questions posed to the government by the Maoist leader is a positive one for he nowhere in the question rejects attending to the talks provided he gets plausible answers to his questions.
Analysts say the government would do well in answering the questions at the earliest and assure the lay men that peace were round the corner.
The questions are indeed tricky ones, which would test the political acumen of Deuba and his partners in government more so of the UML. A trying time for the Deuba government indeed.