Kathmandu: Beyond doubt the Maoists have stepped up their violent activities.

In the process the insurgents have at times violated their own forceful assertions that henceforth they would not cause any damage to basic infrastructures and that there would be no killings and for that matter kidnappings of the activists of other political parties.

Comrade Prachanda a fortnight ago gave the national population to understand that his party would abide by its declarations firmly. The people had reasons to believe Comrade Prachanda’s statement made in favor of the nation and the political parties that are aboveground.

Nepali academia had then assured itself that with Prachanda’s fresh declaration, no development structures would be mercilessly demolished. The political parties contended themselves hoping that Prachand’s new statement offered them all a sigh of relief. In the same vein, the lay men at the “neglected level” took the Maoist supremo’s expressions in good faith and concluded that the insurgents apparently were in a mood to initiate talks with the Old regime should some one mediated their affair.

(Clearly, Comrade Prachanda is sincere in his words. His sincerity can’t be challenged. After all he heads a powerful organization. However, supposedly what is troubling him is that his cadres down at the grassroot level do not wish to obey his instructions. Could be that some one in Prachanda’s own party differs with Prachanda’s fresh commitments that assures the population that the insurgency would cause no damage to the basic infrastructures of the country. Does this mean that the a crack has now developed in the insurgency? Could also be that Prachanda’s instructions to trickle down to the cadre level will take some more time?)

Keep on gusessing.

However, what became apparent later is that Prachanda’s statement could make no difference at all which gets reflected from the news-galore of the doings by the Maoists cadres that went contra to their own supremo’s frank and bold admission.

The fact is that things remain as it were prior to Prachanda’s fresh assurance.

Independent analysts here wish to interpret Prachanda’s assertions in the light of the events that have taken place in the days of the festivals.

In effect, not so many people know about it. The fact is that Comrade Dr. Babu Ram Bhattarai wrote an open letter addressed in the name of the incumbent American Ambassador, Michael E. Malinowski wherein he had suggested the US envoy not to meddle in the Nepali affairs. The letter dated September 26, 2003, from Dr. Bhattarai to Ambassador Malinowski implied that the Maoists would be more than happy if the US reduced its activities in this country.

How the Americans took the letter is not known. But what is known now is that apparently it is this letter of Dr. Bhattarai that compelled the US side to come up with the fresh notifications that now concludes the Maoists insurgency a group which poses a threat to the security of the US and its people. The Armitage statement and the instructions of the US Department of State that the Maoists would now be looked differently only supports to the analysts’ interpretation that Dr. Bhattarai’s letter in the name of Ambassador Malinowski was not taken in good taste by the Americans back home in Washington.

High placed sources in Kathmandu say that with the US new but apparently tough notification vis-à-vis the Nepali Maoists, the two i.e. the United States of America and the Maoists in Nepal are all set to confront each other. How they will confront each other is yet uncertain.

Nepali academia housed in the Tribhuwan University remain puzzled over the stance acquired by the insurgents vis-à-vis India. They question: “Why open letter only to Ambassador Malinowski? Why not such similar letters to other Ambassadors, more specially to the Indian envoy?

The academia, however, fail to understand as to why the Maoists, once upon a time a very strong critic of the Indian postures, do not see a need to protest the Indian penetration in the political affairs of this country. They recall how the Maoists in their forty-point demands had sought the summary abrogation of the controversial treaty of the 1950 with India.

Nepali intellectuals would love to know as to how the Insurgency under Comrade Prachanda and Dr. Bhattarai would wish to interpret their present day positions vis-à-vis India, mainly those four-points contained in their original forty point demand which basically were all against India. Have they changed their stance vis-à-vis India? Is it that they have been condemning the US so that Indian penetration remains as it is? Or is it that they have been doing all these sorts of US criticisms concluding that comparatively for the insurgency, the Indian establishment’s penetration would be friendlier that those of the US?

Nepali academia put it simply: Political penetration is same whether it comes all along from the US or from the Indian side. But what continued “friendly” penetration means, the leaders of the insurgency understand it better and perhaps it is these that had prompted to put on record the first four point in their original forty-point demand that stated clearly of Indian penetration or for that matter the Indian engagement in various spheres not in favor of this Himalayan Kingdom.

It is time that the Maoist insurgency explain their attitude towards India and her establishment vis-à-vis Nepali politics.