Dr. Bhattarai favors unity among prevailing dominant powers for positive results
Kathmandu: By now it has become clear that it is the Maoists insurgency that is swinging Nepali politics in a manner its leadership desires.
Bluntly speaking, it is the Maoists leadership that is forcing the country’s politics to take a shape as desired by them for it is seen that first the Maoists leaders issue a statement and instantly the mainstream political parties, more specifically speaking, the congress toes the line.
This shift has become most evident after the Royal step of October 4 which has been described as totally unconstitutional by Nepal’s major political parties and lately joined by the Maoists insurgency as well.
The Maoists apparently sent signals to the political parties that in their joint bid in deriding at the (mis)adventures of the constitutional monarch for his steps taken in series beginning October 4, they too were with them and time permitting could openly wage a joint struggle against the monarch and thus press him to correct the political aberration that the monarch brought in the functioning of the constitution.
A clever UML carefully studied the statements emanating from the Maoists quarters and appeared reluctant in arriving at a hasty conclusion. In doing so, the UML has had its own reservations which we will discuss later. In sum, the UML took the Maoists leaders’ statement in a different way that the congress, more specifically speaking, the Koirala congress did.
In the process, the Koirala congress apparently considered the Maoists insurgency a reliable ally with whom it could forge a sort of unity at least to frighten the monarch hoping that the monarch would yield as per the party’s demands. However, that was not forthcoming.
The Koirala congress got too much excited with the statements emanating from the insurgency quarters which spoke against the monarch to the extent that the former made a forced landing to New Delhi and met Dr. Bhattarai in Jalandhar, India and held “meaningful” discussions reportedly. However, whether Koirala met Comrade Prachanda or not is yet to be verified. The meeting apparently had been arranged through the kind courtesy of a controversial “socialist” leader who during Koirala’s premiership in the mid 1990s sneaked into the Chinese territory and upon return to Kathmandu made statements against China.
Informed sources say that Dr. Bhattarai rejected the plea of Koirala that the latter’s cadres be not killed by the Maoists insurgents. Sources say that Koirala and Bhattarai agreed on many counts. A beaming Koirala returned Nepal and began passing on threatening comments against the monarch. The monarch apparently listened to his Rajbiraj comments but has yet to retort to the formers’ fiery comments. Whether he would do so or not only time will tell.
But Koirala’s bonhomie with Dr. Bhattarai appears to have gone to the dogs. The man who expected much from the insurgency in pressing the monarch to yield perhaps should have received a major jolt after reading Dr. Bhattarai’s fresh interview granted to a newspaper Jan Awaj Internet edition.
Dr. Bhattarai in no uncertain terms has offered for talks and that too with those who believe in the institution of the monarch and those who consider themselves the followers of the parliamentary system.
“To avert the possibilities or the likelihood of a foreign intervention in the country, we advocate a sort of unity in between the monarchists, parliamentary parties and the Maoists insurgency”” says Dr. Bhattarai.
Not only this, Dr. Bhattarai adds: “it is not very important with whom the talks have got to be initiated. What is important at this juncture is that one should take into account as to who could be that the talks with whom yielded positive results. One has to take into account the very solid reality of the present “balance of power”. In saying so, Dr. Bhattarai clearly hints that the forces now in play in the nation were the King, the parliamentary parties and the insurgency.
This means that the insurgency still considers the King a major force of the nation and hence would not mind in initiating talks with the panel that includes the King’s nominee. This is implied indeed.
What also becomes clear is that the insurgency would wish to continue the now stalled talks but says that “the talks should not be only for talks”, but instead it should yield positive outcomes.
This clearly indicates that the insurgency disillusioned Koirala during his India sojourn.
Strikingly enough, Dr. Bhattarai wishes that mediatory roles could be played by interested national or internal forces which will keep the extraneous forces at a distance. In the same vein Dr. Bhattarai opines that the insurgency would not mind if some external neutral and independent institutions wish to act as mediator in solving the imbroglio.
This clearly means that the insurgency was open to the possibility of inviting a mediatory role for any one, national or international.
This leads us to think that the insurgency could accept if the United Nations or for that matter the recognised international mediators wished to come to the scene. It could be Denmark, the Netherlands, the Norwegians or for that matter Germany or France
A very positive development indeed,
The most important of it all is that Dr. Bhattarai has said that for the time being they could join the parliamentary system considering the geo-political location of the country.
“Realising consciously from the successes and the failures from the cases of China and Russia, we consider that jumping onto the people’s democracy at this juncture would not be a wise decision and thus, we wish to practice at least one step of the parliamentary democracy”, adds Dr. Bhattarai.
All put together, what comes to the fore is that Bhattarai wishes talks, it accepts the monarch as a force; it would not mind if some one mediated their case with the government; and that Koirala was simply mislead.
Is this a new strategy recently developed by the insurgency? Who knows? But yet if Dr. Bhattarai’s assertions were what he meant then what could be said that things will change perhaps for the better if both the sides stick to their utterances which at times offer double meaning indeed.
A clever UML knew in advance that the Maoists were playing hide and seek with president of the splinter Koirala congress and hence kept a comfortable distance with the insurgent quarters.