-Not to settle for less than constituent assembly; prefers UN’s mediation-

Kathmandu: The Maoist Supremo, Comrade Prachanda alias Pushpa Kamal Dahal, better late than never, has come up with his political rendition of his own doctrine governing the entire movement, the Prachanda Path-the Prachanda way, and has reiterated again that all that he and his party would demand is a “round table conference”; an “interim government” and “election to a Constituent Assembly”.

Obviously, Comrade Prachanda in an article printed in a broad sheet daily dated January 20, should eulogize the theory, the Prachanda Path, for the Supremo of the said movement considers that the way charted by his insurgency in his own name has “provided a new dimension of ingenuity and creativity to the communist movement with the proposed new idea of Development of Democracy in the 21st Century”.

Comrade Prachanda dismisses others’ who might not possess faith in his “Way” by saying that those would differ with his philosophy who “fail to understand this ingenuity and creativity of the ideas and view it from old perspectives”.

This is his claim.

Prachanda has in his article outlined a few points, for example, he touches upon the political approach of his party and then talks of political tactics acquired by his party and then dwells at length on the political aspects of a new constitution wherein he reiterates on what should be on the political, economic, social and foreign policy.

Reading his article, affirmatively an interesting one, one gets carried away and thinks that if his party were in power, the country could be equated with what the mythological Lord Ram had in Ayodhya-the Ram Rajya.

One would wish that things happened Prachanda’s way.

However, charting out plans and thinking somewhat absurd in the given context is one thing, and the materialization of the same is an entirely another.

Nevertheless, Prachanda’s article has appeared a week later of the UML’s roadmap appeared in town and hit the media headlines.

Examiners of the political events in the country see nothing new in Prachanda’s article except that he is still unbending on his demand for a constituent assembly. Surprising though it may appear, however, the fact is that though Prachanda is harsh on the institution of the monarchy but then yet has not spelt out whether his new “democracy” would have or provide any role for the monarch or not. This is intriguing.

As usual, Prachanda has come down heavily against the United States and claims that the US wishes to expand its role in South Asia. This is nothing new as the Maoists have been ventilating their anger against the United States from day one of their insurgency.

Nevertheless, what is really important and significant as well is that for the first time a top-hat of the insurgency, Prachanda himself, does talk about the “unequal” treaties which he says have got to abrogated altogether.

Look what he has to say of the past treaties. “Abrogation of all unequal treaties from the past and conclusion of new treaties and agreements on a new basis”.

Markedly, if one were to recall, the Maoists statements made in the recent months and years, they summarily tried to avoid any thing that could be considered as a snub to India. However, Prachanda now in clear terms says that his party would wish the past treaties abrogated which means that either he is annoyed by India in the recent weeks or felt the need to woo the psychology of the national population.

Or else why so suddenly Prachanda hints that the treaties Nepal signed with friendly countries in the past, India implied, had remained unequal and need to be abrogated. A grand departure from its stance indeed.

Talking of unequal treaty, what is the general impression in Nepal is that the treaty of 1950 is not only controversial one but an unequal one. Is it that Prachanda is pronouncing of that treaty mentioned earlier? Should this mean that Prachanda apparently is not that happy with the Indian establishment for obvious political reasons that surfaced after Madhav Nepal met him in Lucknow and the ensuing Indian criticism within and without.?

Pleasingly enough, Prachanda reiterates that the sort of foreign policy he would prefer for the country does talk about China as well. “Promotion of good neighborly relations with neighboring India and China with mutual cooperation in the fields of utilization of natural resources, trade and transit for mutual benefit, keeping in view the particularity of economic, political, cultural, historical and geographical relations with them”.

However, the use of the term “particularity” by Prachanda is rather hazy which needs to be clarified.

The rest that he reiterates in his foreign policy issues is more or less same even at the moment.

Talking on the party’s political strategy, Prachanda says that the scheme is geared to “free the Nepali society from feudalism and imperialism through the bourgeois democratic revolution” and adds that the “military strategy of the people’s war is objectively based on the goal of achieving this political strategy”. According to Prachanda, his party “wants” to institutionalize a republican form of state through the constituent assembly and believes that in a free and fair election the mandate of the Nepalese people would be in favor of a republic.

A casual glance at this statement does make it clear that Prachanda would wish to jump into the fray of a constituent assembly and would not mind if the verdict went against his consideration. Is he saying this by implication?

The party only “wants” a republican form of state in Nepal but is not sure what would happen next. Although he believes that the people will favor his demand for a republic. However, what makes him so sure about this is intriguing. The Maoist supremo then says that “if free and fair elections” could be held, his party would come out with flying colors. This again means that usually in Nepal, elections are not free and fair. He is speaking correct.

Prachanda in an established manner claims that Nepal at the moment had two ideologies, two armies and two states in the country. This means that we have a state within a state. He however, opines that he would wish to go in for the election of constituent assembly provided the UN were brought to the scene in demobilizing the “two” armies at time of the said election.

To recall, Madhav Nepal’s Roadmap too talks of the UN mediation. Interesting indeed. Some how or the other, the two ideas converge. A matter of serious debate indeed.

The government side has brushed aside the idea of the demobilization of its army at time of the elections.

All put together, analysts conclude that Prachanda’s inner wish is to sort out the differences in between what he calls “two states” amicably. All that he wishes is the election for a constituent assembly (supreme modality of democracy as per Prachanda) and is prepared seemingly to accept the verdict of the people. What is the harm in giving second thought to Prachanda’s “hints” of a friendly overture” contained in the article?

All that the nation needs now is a seasoned facilitator who has the idea on how a conflict is managed and that too satisfying both the contenders.

Political analysts at the Tribhuban University conclude that Prachanda’s article is worth reading though there is room to differ. At least his article would initiate a sort of debate which might provide positive ways to tackle the issue confronting the nation. It’s time that the government, the old regime, too furnishes its own version or comments on Prachanda’s formulae. Is the old regime listening?