Comments on the article ‘Arguing with Maoist, Sept. 07, 2006’
by Mr. Paramendra Bhagat (paramendra@yahoo.com)
of ‘Democracy for Nepal “http://demrepubnepal.blogspot.com/”
______________________________________
October 12, 2006
Mr. Paramendra Bhagat
Namaste and Happy Tihar.

Thanks for e-mailing me your article ‘Arguing with the Maoists’, appreciated. Allow me to make a few comments on it.

I am for ‘Democracy’ to be expressed through voting. However, it is only a superficial definition. True democracy must come with people discussing in rational plane and keeping all the views, interests on the table. Here the Socratic definition comes relevant that ‘Education is to understand opposing views and making an ethical judgment.’ The mechanical part of voting is merely an end game to conclude the exchange of views and deliberations. However, peace and respect for differences of opinion is the infrastructure on which it stands. We are loosing precisely that when dealing with Maoists. I see only force and threat from Maoists; and appeasements from political parties.

For example, till yesterday Nepal was a Hindu nation. Now they have declared it a secular state. Before we argue whether Nepal should be secular or otherwise, we must note the way it is declared. There were no discussions, there were no deliberations on merits and demerits, and there was no expression of people’s wish. Maoists threatened, and seven parties capitulated. No body bothered to ask what about our roots and values, people’s mandate? This is the symptom of deeper political problem in Nepal.

Problem is considering threat of force and terrorism as legitimate ‘politics’, and putting freely elected leaders and terrorists \ extortionists in the same status. Inability of democratic forces in Nepal to develop its own armed force is the crux of the problem. To believe Maoists will not demand its pound of flesh and will not cripple democracy and free society is nothing more than a fool’s dream. Do not take my word for it. Just observe their actions.

Let us have wisdom and strength to call a ‘spade’ a spade. What are Maoists? Never mind the name, but let us go by their action. What is their analysis of Nepalese problem and their solution? How do they assume right to terror and extortion merely by pointing to Professor Marx born in Germany in 19th century? If social justice is the issue then how public mayhem and public fear will create peace and justice? If poor economy is the problem then how chasing away investments and destruction of infrastructure will help? If lack of education is the problem then how closing schools and kidnapping students will help? If Marx was one of pioneer in scientific analysis of society, then what social science these Maoists are talking about? Let alone the multitude of social and economic theories around the world. How about acting simpleton and copying only what worked and leaving aside what did not? Our problem is weakness in moral, intellectual and political leadership.

Here are a few comments on your article:

Bhagat: You Can Not Argue Against A Constituent Assembly
The Nepali Congress might have talked of such an assembly half a century ago, but they messed up. BP Koirala gave the army to the king on a silver platter back then. He messed up. Parties like the Sadbhavana did talk of such an assembly post 1990, but did not make any headway. It is the Maoists who have taken the lead on the idea of a constituent assembly this past decade. The Nepali Congress and the UML both argued against the idea for as long as they could. But a constituent assembly makes democratic sense. You can not argue against it. You can only argue for free and fair elections to such an assembly.

Comment: Yes, I agree.

Bhagat: You Can Not Argue Against A Democratic Republic
Democracy and monarchy are like night and day. They do not go hand in hand. You can not argue against the republican agenda of the Maoists. And the country's mood has fundamentally shifted. The call of the April Revolution is a republic.

Comment: No, not necessary. You can have a constitutional monarchy like in Britain or Japan. Personally, I think monarchy was bad for Nepal; and King Gyanendra is not a bright person, let alone a benevolent and effective king. However, there are still many Nepalese who wants to keep Kingship alive. Besides, you never know how political parties, Maoists and army may behave. Personally, I would like to keep King honorably in Hanuman Dhokha (not Narayan Hiti) palace, with only duty of giving ‘Darshan Bheta’ to the tourists twice a day. However, it is up to the people to decide. Therefore the issue of republic or constitutional monarchy must be put to the national referendum.

Bhagat: You Can Not Argue Against Federalism
It is long overdue. 27 million is too many people to keep under a unitary state. Nepal is too diverse. This is the third idea on which the Maoists have taken a lead. The Sadbhavana is the only party in the seven party alliance that has had a map for federalism, but they were not listened to, not by the voters, not by the other parties.

Comment: No, it is not a good idea to have federal system. Where did you get the idea that Nepal is a big country? It will be a disaster to divide Nepal along the ethnic lines. Do you realize that it could lead to ethnic tension, if not a civil war? It also will hamper national integration and economy of scale. Yes, the geographical differences can be addresses through zones and districts. Such administrative zoning may be re-organized to address the issues of language and ethnicity also. No, Maoists does not have lead on it. Where is their analysis that federalism is good for Nepal? In what way? They are using the concept of federalism merely to mislead so called ‘Janajati’ or ethnic groups towards political un-stability.

Bhagat: You Can Not Argue Against Social Justice For The DaMaJaMa
The Maoists get credit here also. They sure have put this front and center, although the composition of their leadership has serious deficiencies on the same count.

Comment: Yes, of course it must be addressed. However, what exactly are the steps do you propose? No, Maoists do not get credit for this either. It is always easy to point out problems. Who denies that? The question is what do they propose as solutions? If injustices and lack of educational \ economic opportunities are the problems then what Maoists are doing? Are they creating jobs, schools? Matter of fact, they are chasing away investments and closing schools. Torture and murder of even a criminal is not justice. Matter of fact, they are creating ‘fear’ in the body politics of Nepal. This is precisely what negates justice. Look at the number of dead and displaced people. Are they so called high caste people or so called ‘DaMaJaMa’ people? Exactly how Maoists have benefited the ‘DaMaJaMa’ group? How many so called corrupt ministers, royalty and officers with huge ill gotten wealth are touched by Maoists?

I propose to understand the injustices, its effects, reasons and methods of exploitation, defining responsible parties first. Then outline the steps toward ameliorating the problem. However, a note of caution is that the solution should be within the frame work of over all progress of all Nepalese. It should not be about pitching one ethnic group against another.

Bhagat: You Can Not Argue Against Security Sector Restructuring
There is no escaping that. The security sector is part of the overall state. This is not something different from the state restructuring being talked about.

Comment: Yes, I agree. But what structuring are you proposing? Nepalese army should be loyal to the nation, democratic constitution and elected civilian leadership. It is a strategic mistake to include Maoist guerillas into the Nepalese national army. It is simply because the national army is a non-political, professional army. Whereas, the Maoists guerillas are politically indoctrinated army loyal only to the Maoist party. You cannot put both in the same standing. “What about Maoist cadres?” Yes, it is a good question. In my opinion, they must be helped to go back to peaceful and productive civilian life. Perhaps the government should design programs where they are given job trainings or incorporated into para-military organizations like forest guard etc.

Bhagat: You Can Not Argue Against An Interim Parliament
This parliament will not organize the constituent assembly elections. Credit for the April Revolution goes to eight parties, not seven. The interim parliament should reflect that fact.

Comment: No, it is a bad idea to let go existing parliament and constitute another. After all, the parliament deposed by King Gyanendra (technically by PM Deuba) is the only body elected by people in a free and peaceful atmosphere. Only this institute has the people’s mandate. It can be replaced only by another body elected similarly. How the proposed ‘Interim parliament’ get mandate of people? If you want to give credit to Maoists for the April revolution, then they also should get discredit for so much bloodshed and the infrastructure destructions. How do you propose to put members of parliament elected by people in peaceful atmosphere with unelected Maoist cadres practicing terrorism and extortion? If they are true to what they preach, “We represent people”, then so be it. Let there be free and peaceful election. Let people decide. Till then Maoists have only claim, not mandate of people. The free and peaceful election must be the only way to the august body of parliament. And only parliament can amend constitution and make land laws. Otherwise you are opening a political Pandora’s box. It also means you have no respect for people’s wish, nor you understand the basic principles of democracy.

Bhagat: You Can Not Argue Against Eight Party Governments Also At Local Levels
If you don't do this, you are leaving a vacuum. This is also a way to dissolve the local governments of the Maoists.

Comment: No, it again is another bad idea. Let us not forget that so called Maoist’s government is not chosen by people, rather forced through terrorism. It is not a legitimate government. You may claim that the Government of Nepal is too weak and therefore it is forced to make a political compromise. This is a valid claim. It is not nice but logical. However, to put legitimate elected leaders and illegitimate terrorists in the same standing is a strategic mistake. That is against the very ideal of democracy and peaceful society. Forget about solving current problem, it will bring only bigger problem sooner or later.

Bhagat: It is important to have this list of things we can not argue against when dealing with the Maoists. This will make us stronger on things that we can argue against.

Bhagat: You Can Argue Against The Presence Of The 100,000 Maoist Militia
Arms management applies to them first and foremost. If those 100,000 Maoist militia do not give up their arms, there is no point in holding elections to anything. Party cadres of any party may not bear arms. There has to be an agreement on principle. But if some Maoist cadres disobey, they will not be a party discipline problem, but rather a law enforcement issue. The Maoist leaders are going to have to agree to that.
Parties can not be in the law enforcement business. That is not allowed.
And if the Maoists refuse, they are not serious about holding constituent assembly elections. It would be time to call their bluff.

Comment: Yes, precisely. A free and peaceful election cannot happen with Maoists holding gun. This is a fundamental issue to our body politics. By the way, I do not think there are 100,000 Maoists militias. At best, it may about 10,000. By the way, what do you propose to do if Maoists do not agree with your proposal?

Bhagat: You Can Argue Against Lenin's And Mao's Rise To Power
Lenin used a constituent assembly to his nefarious ends. Mao held peace talks, he allowed a few small, insignificant parties to coexist with his after he came to power.
My idea of a constituent assembly and that of Lenin do not match. My idea of multi-party democracy, and that of Mao do not match. And this is no 1917. This is no 1949.
There are no two ways of understanding multi-party democracy, human rights, and rule of law. The Maoists have expressed commitment to all three. Let them come clean on each.

Comment: Lenin and Mao are not Nepalese. They are the products of different place, time and condition. Of course, it is of academic interests to learn about them. However, we also need being aware of individuals like – Lee Kwan Yu, Jefferson, Gandhi, Bill Gates and multitude of others. To talk only about Mao in today’s Nepal shows the bankruptcy of so called Maoist intellectuals. Ask them a simple question, “Where do Nepalese proletariats want to run away to? North Korea or South Korea?” And where their children are studying? Do Maoists express commitment to multi-party democracy, human rights, and rule of law? Matter of fact, by observing their actions and life trajectories of their mid-level leaders, I do not think so. Let us base our analysis on facts, not on wishful thinking. I will be very happy to be proven wrong. However, I have to see it to believe it.

With best wishes.

Winston Churchill: Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.