Kathmandu: Dr. Babu Ram Bhattarai, one of the ideologue of the Maoist insurgency said that the new regime unfortunately preferred to accommodate our revolutionary demands of the formation of completely a new regime by effecting certain cosmetic changes in the existing constitution and with a change in the existing government which to even a lay men would appear two diametrically opposed thinking and hence a meeting between the two extremes was impossible.
“This led to the failure of the talks this round,” said Bhattarai.
But then, adds Dr. Bhattarai, to mislead the urban and the rural elite, the government of the day is propagating that the two political agenda that came from two different quarters were almost identical and that there still remained possibilities to sort out the differences and to reach at some substantial agreements after a few round of talks in between the two.
“Such false propagation has got to be exposed”, continues Dr. Bhattarai.
Dr. Bhattarai’s presumption is that today’s general consensus (including majority of the population, the parliamentary and non-parliamentary parties) is that for the institutionalization of a sort of democratic system in the country, two forces, the monarchy and the Military, were the real enemies and that unless their “future” is finally ascertained by the people, the possibility of the strengthening of the old sort of democratic system too appeared remote.
According to Dr. Bhattarai, it is only the election to the constituent assembly that could settle the problems and the issues of the monarchy and that of the Nepal’s traditional army and realizing this need, adds Bhattarai, that the insurgency has decided to push its agenda for the constituent assembly.
The Maoist camp also ridicules the government agenda which maintains that the existence of the monarchy in the country is a must. Dr. Bhattarai is also surprised to see the total absence of the talk of the army in the government-sponsored agenda.
If for the old regime the monarchy and the army were a must then for us the empowerment of the people with full and inviolable sovereign rights is a must.
He however opines that a mere reforms of the 1990 constitution can’t in any way decide neither the fate of the King nor that of the army. “The existing constitution which is as good as a corpse after the October 4 move of the King and hence to expect that effecting certain changes in it would do good for the country was simply a wrong view”, continues Dr. Bhattarai.
Dr. Bhattarai also explains that the role of the King too appeared reluctant in giving a proper shape to the proceedings of the talks as he, read the King, moved to London on the pretext of health-check up when the talks had entered into a crucial phase wherein his presence was warranted. The King, instead of meeting the leaders of the insurgency, preferred to send his emissaries who were as good as nothing.
Talking on the role of the parliamentary parties on the talks, Dr. Bhattarai says that they albeit supported the happening of the talks but failed to push the talks to attain positive results. “The failure of the parliamentary parties for their support to the Maoists agenda for a constituent assembly in effect emboldened the other camp”, said Bhattarai adding that had there been support from the parliamentary parties on the issue of the constituent assembly would have meant a very strong pressure on the King.
The Maoist ideologue is not happy with the United States. According to Dr. Bhattarai, the US desire continues to strengthen the hands of the King and the army in Nepal in order to serve its own strategic interests. He however, doesn’t mention as to which strategic interests the US has in Nepal?
According to Bhattarai, the US Ambassador exceeded his diplomatic limits when he appealed all to corner the Maoists.
All put together, what comes to the fore is that the Maoists are not happy with the King, the Army, the US and some other international forces which apparently abort the talks in one pretext or the other.
Dr. Bhattarai predicts that the King might now wage a sort of battle against the insurgency at the instigation of international forces and the parliamentary parties will come to his support.
“Whosoever comes to power will possess the character of a fascist sort of government”, presumes Dr. Bhattarai.
It is immaterial whether the Prime Minister is Sher Bahadur or Madhav Nepal, whosoever is that would not be that much different than Lokendra and Surya Bahadur, concludes Dr. Bhattarai.
Telegraph adds: With two diametrically opposed agenda in front, it appears remote if not impossible that the two warring rivals would soon come to table. Notably, Dr. Bhattarai has once again reiterated that his party has not at all abandoned the demand for a republican Nepal. He however, maintains that for the time being his party would wish to content with the highest form of democratic exercise and that being the election to the constituent assembly. If for the old regime, the monarch were two most wanted institutions, for the Maoists, the two appear more than number enemies. With this revelation of Dr. Bhattarai, it would be safe to conclude that the violence that has come into vogue from both the camps will continue for some time more unless some miracle bring them once again to the negotiating table.
Similarly, if for the old regime, its relations with the international donors and more specially the developed West were necessary, then for the Maoists these forces appear to have been working against their interests and hence they possess some sort of hatred against the countries who champion democracy here and there.
And by the same token, if for Nepal the countries mentioned above were needed to contain the threats of violence, more so the one perpetrated by the Maoists, then the same countries were number enemies in the eyes of the rebels as those countries have already joined hands with this country to contain any sort of threat of terrorism either by the Maoists or the violence created by some other methods by some other forces.
If for the Maoists the election to the constituent assembly could be one point for starting the dialogue again, then the agenda of the said assembly appears to have occupied lesser priority in the agenda of the old regime and the parliamentary parties now in agitation.
All put together, there appear little ground which could bring the rebels back to the table, at least for some time now. However, much will also depend on whether some emissary of the Maoists met the King in London or not? If yes then what transpired in between the two? Whether the King convinced the emissary of the rebels that he was ready to talk on their agenda or the rebel representative told the King that since he could not decide on his own and that he too had to convince his comrades and thus it would be advisable that the King met with his leaders upon return to Kathmandu.
To recall, the Maoists have time and again reiterated that they wish to see the King in person.
Nevertheless, it is yet to be ascertained as to whether the news that some one called Kiran from the insurgents’ camp supposedly went to London to meet the King is true or not.
If it is true then what could be surely said is that the talks will resume. If not then the rest is predictable.