The dramatic announcement of handing over the Maoist cantonments to the Nepal Army on April 10 and its quick follow-through is a belated but welcome breakthrough in Nepal’s peace process. It will undoubtedly facilitate and expedite the integration into Nepal Army of those former Maoist combatants who have not opted for paid voluntary retirement. The end of one major political party retaining its private army to strengthen its bargaining power augurs well for creating an atmosphere of greater trust and a more even playing field among political parties, which is essential in any functioning democracy. We all hope and pray that this will help expedite the drafting of a new fully democratic and progressive Constitution of Nepal.

As we celebrate this breakthrough, we must not forget the very high price that the Nepali nation has been made to pay and the many missed opportunities for a much earlier and better deal that could have been worked out in the best long-term interest of the ex-Maoist combatants as well as that of Nepal.

NEGOTIATING IN GOOD FAITH

According to the agreement signed by the UCPN (Maoist) with other major political parties on June 25, 2008, integration and rehabilitation of verified Maoist combatants was to be completed within six months, and that the government would not take any responsibility for combatants who were not integrated and rehabilitated after six months, whereas the time agreed for drafting the new constitution was two years. This agreement was signed as part of the process for constituting the new government under Maoist leadership following its emergence as the largest political party in the CA election.

But even before the ink could dry on that agreement, Maoist leaders began to dilly-dally on the peace process by saying that the drafting of the constitution and the integration and rehabilitation of their ex-combatants had to be simultaneous. Some Maoist leaders even argued that they would agree to disband their separate army only after they were satisfied that the new constitution would be “pro-people.”

Instead of negotiating in good faith for rapid completion of the integration and rehabilitation of their combatants, the Maoists reshuffled the command structure in cantonments, and grossly inflated the number of commanding ‘officers’ in a supposedly idle ‘army’ awaiting imminent dissolution. It did so with a view to claiming larger number of officer level posts in the process of integration.

Contrary to the spirit of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the Maoist leaders and negotiators sought to establish a certain equivalence between the NA and their “PLA” and argued that ‘integration’ meant the dissolution of both the NA and PLA and the establishment of a new “National Army” through the fusion of the two. Some Maoist leaders even argued that all of their 19,000-plus combatants were automatically eligible for integration into Nepal Army because their qualifications were ‘verified’ by UNMIN.

There were many constructive and creative proposals, including some presented by this writer way back in summer 2008, that would have yielded much better outcome for the Maoist combatants and for Nepal as a whole than the final deal that has now been reached after four years of acrimonious haggling, and expenditure of billions of rupees.

Nepal’s already disproportionately large army did not justify further enlargement through integration of large numbers of Maoist combatants. But as the spirit of the CPA had to be honored by integrating some combatants and rehabilitating the others, several constructive win-win proposals were made. I proposed one such formula whereby we would integrate several thousand ex-combatants, giving priority to such historically under-represented groups as women, Madhesis, Dalits, and certain Janajati communities. This would have helped make Nepal Army more inclusive—a position championed by the Maoists and Madhesis, and supported by many of us who stand for a more just and inclusive Nepal.

Besides making the NA more inclusive and gender-balanced, an additional justification for proactively integrating a larger number of women combatants would be to groom them for serving in Nepal’s UN peace-keeping forces and thus responding to UN Security Council resolution 1,325 which encourages member states to provide more women soldiers and officers in peace-keeping missions. Unfortunately, neither the Maoists nor representatives of other political parties advocated for any such progressive, affirmative action.

MISSING ‘PEACE DIVIDEND’

Another missed opportunity in Nepal’s peace process has been the gross neglect of any real focus on a meaningful rehabilitation program. Normally, post-conflict countries develop massive relief and reconstruction programs to revive their economy, to create jobs and to rebuild the country. Demobilized ex-combatants are then offered attractive rehabilitation package involving vocational training and skill development. Although many donors offered to help, the Maoists never showed real interest in any serious rehabilitation program. They always preferred either to get the maximum number of their combatants to join the NA or to squeeze the maximum amount of cash as “golden handshake”.

In the end, the Maoists did squeeze plenty of cash from the national treasury, but Nepal failed to attract any significant international support for a massive rehabilitation and reconstruction program as many other post-conflict countries have managed to do.

It was sad to witness how the Maoists did not cooperate with UN agencies and donors who were prepared to develop very attractive rehabilitation packages for the “disqualified” combatants, preferring instead to either get large financial hand-outs or to organize programs that would keep the ‘disqualified’ combatants in groups under the Party’s supervision. When neither of their preferred options worked out, the Maoists essentially dumped the ‘disqualified’ combatants with a very poor package.
Not only the radical Baidya faction, but also the establishment faction proclaims ‘state capture’ by any means as its ultimate goal.
Had the Maoists negotiated in good faith and helped conclude the integration and rehabilitation process expeditiously with focus on creating a real ‘peace dividend’ for themselves and the nation, thousands of ex-combatants would have been employed or returned to their communities as well-trained development workers with skills in badly needed jobs as health workers, teachers, mechanics and nation-builders. By now we would also have already promulgated a new constitution, and could have made considerable progress on the ‘democratization’ and right-sizing of Nepal’s security services as envisaged in the CPA. Some of us made specific proposals on all these important issues, but nothing could move forward as the changing of goalposts and mixed messages given by the Maoists on the peace process paralyzed progress on all other fronts.

It should be noted that the recent decision by the Maoist leadership to expedite the peace process, while most welcome, was not the result of a carefully thought-out, bold and enlightened decision as advertised. It was necessitated by the virtual breakdown of the chain of command in the cantonments, as the ex-combatants lost faith in their leadership because of many mixed messages and false promises; their anger at being used as bargaining chips by different factions of their Party; the lack of transparency in funds that were extracted from their meager allowances; and attempts by their commanders to extort funds from their voluntary retirement packages. Faced with what amounted to a dangerous call for mutiny within the cantonments by supporters of the rival hardline faction of the Party, Chairman Prachanda decided to salvage the situation by calling on the Nepal Army to restore order in the cantonments, and claim credit for his ‘bold leadership’.

Whatever the circumstances and real reasons for this ‘bold decision’, let us hope that it will help expedite the drafting of the new constitution, and encourage the Maoist leadership to stop giving mixed messages to its own cadres, to the Nepali people and the international community.

REAL BOLD DECISION NEEDED

Beyond integration and/or retirement of Maoist combatants and closure of their cantonments, it is now urgent to settle issues related to transitional justice, including the establishment of a credible Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Disappearance Commission. But the real test of whether the UCPN (Maoist) has become a truly civilian political party will depend on it formally renouncing the use of violence in politics. In a functioning democracy, no political party can have the option of “capturing the state” by using either ballots or bullets. And it must be noted that it is not only the radical Mohan Vaidya faction, but the Prachanda and Bhattarai factions too still proclaim “state capture” by any means—ballots and/or bullets—as their ultimate goal.

Some Maoists and their apologists label people who insist that the Maoists renounce violence as “feudal”, “extremist”, “anti-national” and “people’s enemy” for failing to understand the ‘compulsion’ of moderate Maoists. However, calling on Maoists to renounce violence is not a hostile act but a friendly suggestion that would definitely benefit the Maoists in the eyes of most Nepalis and the world at large. Instead of pleading with other parties and the international community to show ‘understanding’ for their ‘compulsion’, now is the time for the Maoists to be really bold and apply their philosophy of ‘kramabhngata’ to liberate themselves from their ideological dogma that glorifies violence.

Yes, we must fight to end the deep-rooted structural violence of poverty, inequality, exclusion and marginalization that has long persisted in Nepal, but that does not justify non-democratic and violent means, as two wrongs do not make a right, nor do noble ends justify ignoble means.

Published in Republica

Several pro-Maoist newspapers, media outlets and Maoist leaders have vilified me as a gang-leader of this “small group”, calling all kinds of names: ‘elites’ ‘conservative intellectuals’ and even “anti-national elements”—in a throw-back to the Panchayat-era denunciation of dissidents.

Experienced diplomats and thoughtful analysts know that no single private citizen’s views would carry such weight as to change the planned official visit of the United Nations SG to a Member State. Such visits are carefully planned by seasoned professional diplomats. I am sure the Secretary-General’s advisers got independent feedback and advice from UN officials in Nepal, and through other diplomatic channels. They may also have received feedback from leaders of Buddhist countries.

As far as Nepalis are concerned, it should also be noted that pro-government and pro-Maoist civic leaders, columnists and politicians also have privileged access to UN and European diplomats in Kathmandu, many of whom have erred on the side of giving the benefit of doubt to the Maoists.

A friendly act

Was the postponement of the visit such a national disaster anyway? Talking to some journalists at his residence on 22 March 2012, Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ himself said, “At a time when we should be engaged in completing the work of integration and constitution-writing, organising a conference with the participation of heads of state and government would have taken up 10-15 days. On a personal level, I would have been greatly pressured. From one perspective, therefore, I was relieved to receive the news from the United Nations of postponement of the visit. We can now concentrate on peace and constitution-writing.”

Indeed, it would have been in appropriate in mid-April 2012 to divert attention to organize a major international conference on Lumbini. But in his usual double-speak mode, Prachanda went on to denounce some “so-called intellectuals” as narrow-minded and irresponsible towards the country, and acting to “fulfil their self-interest” in preventing the visit.

If the Government of Nepal wanted Ban’s visit for the purpose of facilitating the peace process, they should have said so from the beginning and prepared the agenda accordingly. The government’s clumsy efforts to do damage control by recalibrating the purpose of Ban’s visit when the Lumbini conference became controversial, proved unconvincing in the eyes of the UN Secretariat.

The Secretary-General’s advisors did not want him to be associated with a poorly-timed and -prepared conference. The postponement was a friendly act, not an insult to Nepal, and spared us a potentially embarrassing fiasco.

The UN’s support for Lumbini’s development is very important, and we all want it. But Lumbini has been there for 2500-plus years, and will be there forever. A few months’ postponement is not a tragedy for Nepal. If we want development of the Lord Buddha’s birthplace, the first thing is not to drag it into political controversy.

The birthplace

Some have made the rather naïve point that somehow Ban attending a conference in Lumbini would have easily and decisively dispelled any confusion about Buddha’s birthplace being in Nepal. But let us remember that Ban already visited Lumbini in November 2008, and four other Secretaries-General of the UN have visited Lumbini before.

In my articles, I did not lobby for cancellation of Ban’s visit but merely pointed out why the timing was inappropriate. I also firmly believe that it would have been inappropriate for Ban Ki-moon to co-chair an international conference at Buddha’s birthplace with a leader who has not fully embraced Buddha’s teachings of peace and non-violence. I even made some constructive suggestions for the Maoist party to overcome their burden:

a) formally renounce the use of violence in politics; b) officially confirm that the proposed Truth and Reconciliation Commission will fully comply with the norms of UN Conventions to which Nepal is a party, and that there will be no blanket general amnesty for heinous criminal acts, war crimes and crimes against humanity; and c) complete the long-delayed integration and rehabilitation of Maoist combatants culminating in the closure of all remaining cantonments prior to the SG’s visit to Nepal.

Apparently, these conditions are considered unreasonable, ‘anti-national’, ‘conservative’ and ‘elitist’ by some Maoist apologists and even some independent ‘nationalist’ thinkers. But it is my humble sense that the vast majority of Nepalis and most diplomats agree with this position. If these considerations contributed to postponement of Ban Ki-moon’s visit, I feel proud that I have done service to my nation and honoured the sentiments of millions of Buddhists around the world.

Published in Kathmandu Post

KATHMANDU, March 9, 2012 (IPS) – Reports of United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s planned visit to Lumbini, the birth place of Lord Gautam Buddha, and a UNESCO World Heritage site in Nepal in April 2012, have caused a mixture of excitement and apprehension in Kathmandu.

The people of Nepal warmly welcome the personal interest of the head of the UN to promote the development of Lumbini. It was Burma’s U Thant, the first Asian Secretary-General of the UN, who took a personal interest in the development of Lumbini as a major world pilgrimage site.

At U Thant’s initiative the UN established an international committee for Lumbini, and helped prepare a master-plan for its development, which unfortunately has remained largely unimplemented.

Under normal circumstances, the personal commitment of the UN’s second Asian Secretary-General, and his desire to visit Lumbini to promote its development would be welcomed whole- heartedly, not only by Nepalis but the world’s one billion Buddhists. But these are not normal circumstances in Nepal.

The country is currently struggling to come out of a decade- long violent civil war which ended six years ago, but genuine peace has not yet dawned. The drafting of a new national Constitution has not been completed yet.

Fifteen thousand Nepalis, most of them civilians, were killed during the decade-long insurgency, and horrendous human rights violations were committed, some amounting to crimes against humanity. But not a single individual has been prosecuted for war-time atrocities, and many known perpetrators of heinous crimes are occupying high positions in government institutions.

Instead of establishing a credible Truth and Reconciliation Commission consistent with international norms, the ruling political party, the United Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (UCPN-Maoist) is negotiating the terms of blanket general amnesty with other major political parties.

The United Nations’ Mission to Nepal (UNMIN) was asked to leave the country before its task of helping complete the peace process was concluded. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is being thrown out of the country before the core issues of transitional justice and accountability for grave violations of human rights have been satisfactorily completed. And now, Ban Ki-moon has accepted an invitation to co-chair an international conference on Lumbini with the head of UCPN-Maoist, whose officially declared policy glorifies violence with the motto: “power comes from the barrel of the gun”.

Ban Ki-moon’s host and counterpart, Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, is the Chairman of the ruling Maoist Party, who was recently appointed as Chair of a national committee for the development of Lumbini by the incumbent Maoist-led Government of Nepal.

Dahal led a violent armed insurgency resulting in the death and disappearance of tens of thousands, and displacement of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Although Dahal’s party signed a Comprehensive Peace Agreement, contested elections and became the largest political party and formed a government under its leadership twice, it has not formally renounced violence as a method of political change. It continues to be the Party’s official policy to “capture state power” by any means – either through ballots or bullets, through its actions in the parliament, the government or “people’s revolt” from the streets.

The main rationale for UN’s involvement in Lumbini is to spread the culture of peace, not to condone the glorification of violence. It would be most ironic for the Secretary-General of the UN to co-chair a meeting with an unrepentant leader with blood in his hand in the holy birth place of Buddha, known as the Prince of Peace, who renounced his Kingdom to spread the message of peace and non-violence throughout the world.

If Ban Ki-moon is to co-chair a high profile meeting with Dahal, he must insist that Dahal’s party officially renounce the use of violence in politics in the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations. Otherwise, the Secretary-General co- chairing a conference with a leader who refuses to renounce violence would be contrary to the UN Charter, and to do so at a holy religious site would be a sacrilege insulting not just peace-loving Nepalis but millions of Buddhists around the world.

Ban Ki-moon must also take account of earlier attempts by a rather mysterious Hongkong-based private foundation called the Asia-Pacific Cooperation and Exchange Foundation (APECF), of which Dahal is a Co-chairman, to involve the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) rather than UNESCO which has a more legitimate role for the development of a World Heritage site like Lumbini.

When the highly unusual manner in which the Beijing office of UNIDO was found to have been enlisted to help APECF, without the knowledge or approval of its own Headquarters or the Government of Nepal, UNIDO was embarrassed and promptly disowned its country office’s decision and reprimanded its country Director.

Given this context, it would be most unwise for Ban Ki-moon to lend his name and the prestige of the UN to help white- wash the image of a political leader who refuses to renounce violence. One of the grave mistakes that Kofi Annan made for which he feels forever guilty and embarrassed was to call back General Romeo Delaire, the Head of UN Peace-keeping troops in Rwanda, just before that country plunged into a catastrophic genocide. Ban Ki-moon should be careful not to make a similar mistake in Nepal which he might have to regret.

As Nepal’s peace process is at a critical juncture, the Secretary-General of the UN could help expedite it and regain the lost lustre of the UN in Nepal by insisting on three preconditions for his planned visit: a) insist that Dahal and his Party officially renounce the politics of violence, b) officially announce that the proposed Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Disappearance Commission will fully comply with the norms enshrined in relevant UN Conventions to which Nepal is a State Party, and that there will be no blanket general amnesty for heinous criminal acts, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and c) insist that the long-delayed integration and rehabilitation of the Maoist combatants is completed in the next few weeks, culminating in the closure of all remaining cantonments prior to the Secretary-General’s visit to Nepal. Ban Ki-moon must convey such message bluntly and forthrightly, not in the ambiguous diplomatic language calling for “flexibility and compromise by all parties”. He should cancel his trip to Lumbini unless and until these preconditions are fully met.

It is understood that part of the reason for Ban Ki-moon’s strong interest in the development of Lumbini has to do with his devout Buddhist mother’s wishes. We Nepalis deeply respect her wishes.

If that is the case, Mr. Ban is welcome to visit Lumbini any time for a pilgrimage, but without mixing it with the political connotations of hobnobbing with Maoist leaders who refuse to fully abide by the Buddha’s teachings of peace and non-violence.

Published in IPS

GUEST COLUMN
Kul Chandra Gautam

The proposed visit by the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to Lumbini in April 2012 should have signified a welcome new commitment for the development of the birthplace of Lord Gautam Buddha which is a UNESCO world heritage site.

However, it would be untimely and inauspicious for the Secretary-General to visit Lumbini under present circumstances. Nepal is at a critical juncture, struggling to overcome the legacy a decade-long civil war that killed 15,000. Genuine peace has not yet dawned, the drafting of the new constitution has been delayed by two years, and there is rampant lawlessness and impunity.

The war saw horrendous human rights violations, some amounting to crimes against humanity, but not a single individual has been prosecuted. Many known perpetrators occupy high positions in government. Instead of
establishing a credible Truth and Reconciliation Commission consistent with international norms, the ruling Maoists are negotiating the terms of a blanket general amnesty with other major political parties.

The United Nations’ Mission to Nepal (UNMIN) was asked to leave the country unceremoniously before completion of the peace process. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is being thrown out of the country before the core issues of transitional justice and accountability are satisfactorily completed. And now, Ban Ki-moon is being lured to co-chair an international conference on Lumbini with Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal.

Dahal was recently appointed to chair a national committee for the development of Lumbini by the Maoist-led government. This is a man who led a violent armed insurgency resulting in the death and disappearance of tens of thousands, and displacement of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Although Dahal’s party signed a Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2006, contested elections, became the largest political party and formed a government under its leadership twice, it has not formally renounced violence. It continues to be the party’s official policy to “capture state power” by any means, either through ballots or bullets, backed up by a “people’s revolt” from the streets.

The main rationale for the UN’s involvement in Lumbini is to spread the culture of peace, not to condone the glorification of violence. It would be most ironic for the Secretary-General of the UN to co-chair a meeting with an unrepentant leader with blood in his hands at the holy birthplace of the Buddha.

If Ban Ki-moon is to co-chair a high profile meeting with Dahal, he must first insist that Dahal’s party officially renounce the use of violence in politics in the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations. The Secretary-General co-chairing such a conference at a holy site would be a sacrilege insulting not just peace-loving Nepalis but millions of Buddhists around the world.

Ban Ki-moon must not ignore recent attempts by a rather mysterious Hong Kong-based private foundation called the Asia-Pacific Cooperation and Exchange Foundation (APECF), of which Dahal is Co-chairman, to sneakily involve the UN Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) rather than UNESCO for the development of Lumbini. When this highly unusual deal involving the Beijing office of UNIDO was exposed last year, UNIDO headquarters in Vienna embarrassingly disowned its country office’s decision and reprimanded its Country Director.

It would be most unwise for Ban Ki-moon to lend his name and the prestige of the United Nations to whitewash the image of a political leader who continues to believe that political power flows out of the barrel of a gun. The Secretary-General could help expedite Nepal’s peace process and regain the tarnished image of the UN in Nepal by insisting on three preconditions for his planned visit:

that Dahal and his party abjure the politics of violence
announce that the UN will not cooperate with the proposed Truth and Reconciliation Commission if it does not fully comply with the norms enshrined in relevant UN Conventions to which Nepal is a State Party, and reject attempts to grant blanket general amnesty for heinous criminal acts, war crimes and crimes against humanity
insist that the long-delayed integration and rehabilitation of Maoist combatants is completed in the next few weeks to close all remaining cantonments prior to the April visit

Ban Ki-moon must convey such message clearly and forthrightly, not in the ambiguous diplomatic language calling for “flexibility and compromise by all parties”. If these pre-conditions are not fully met, he should either cancel his visit or come prepared to deliver such a message bluntly and boldly.

Part of the reason for Ban Ki-moon’s strong interest in the development of Lumbini has to do with his devout Buddhist mother’s wishes. We Nepalis deeply respect her wishes, and Mr Ban is welcome to visit Lumbini any time for a pilgrimage, but without hobnobbing with Maoist leaders who refuse to fully abide by the Buddha’s teachings of peace and non-violence.

Published in: Nepali Times

We three citizens come from diverse backgrounds and express ourselves, not always with the same voice, on myriad social and political issues. ‘Lalrakshak’, the magazine close to the UCPN-Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal, in its Magh-Falgun 2068 issue (February 2012) attacked us three with cover portraits and the accompanying declaratory headline, “These are the peoples’ enemies.” Against the backdrop of the Maoist party not having formally renounced violence, its continuing use of force and ‘physical action’ throughout the country, and its vocal threats of ‘revolt’ even as it leads the government, we have sought to understand why this mouthpiece magazine of the senior-most party leadership has embarked on this campaign against us.

In the royalist Panchayat era, the slogan of the autocratic state was: “All Panchas are Nepali and all Nepalis are Panchas.” Today, the ruling party would have everyone believe that all patriotic citizens are Maoists, and that only Maoist thinking is progressive and people-oriented. In line with its attempts to forcibly apply its agenda, the party named its violent armed insurgency as ‘people’s war’, its organisational structures as ‘people’s government’, and its kangaroo courts as ‘people’s courts’. It was party policy to label whoever challenged the official line as ‘feudal’ and ‘regressive’, and those who protested Maoist excesses became the ‘people’s enemies’.

We have not heard of the Maoist party having formally abandoned its policy of eliminating (safaya) its opponents. While underground, the party’s practice in relation to those it wanted to eliminate or disgrace through ‘physical action’ (bhautik karbahi) was to first humiliate such individuals in front of the cadres. In the present context, a party which has the announced agenda of introducing a ‘people’s constitution’ through revolt, if found to be necessary, has sought to instil fear among independent-minded citizens by labelling us ‘people’s enemies’. Simultaneously, the party seeks to excite and incite its own cadre through such labelling.

We do not believe that the mouthpiece magazine would take the extreme step of using the ‘people’s enemy’ attack without the explicit consent of the party chairman and other top leaders. However, we will not be cowed by this attack, and will continue to express our opinions independently in our different sectors of societal involvement. It is only cowards who seek to counter the presentation of ideas with guns, swords, threats and intimidation. The irresponsible and inciteful labelling of ‘people’s enemy’, devoid of any basis, evidence or investigation, is the result of the same cowardly approach.

Why this enmity?

It is important to try and understand why the Maoist leaders have decided to attack us, unarmed citizens, with this incitement to violence, even as they themselves move around with security provided by the state and dozens of bodyguards. We three have been expressing our independent opinions on the peace process, human rights and constitution-writing, which ought to be advantageous to the Maoist party as well. We have sought to promote a Nepali-led peace process over the years, with involvement in diverse arena from investigation in the Doramba killings of Maoist activists by the then Royal Nepal Army to the advent of the United Nations Mission to Nepal (UNMIN) and the Constiutent Assembly elections.

At the same time, each of us have been individually opposed to the Maoist party’s initiation of the armed ‘people’s war’, its use of violence in politics and its agenda against pluralistic democracy. The Maoist party seems to have decided on a need to proactively counter such perspectives and positions as it began to cheat on the 12 Point Agreement and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, under which it had agreed to come into open, competitive politics in peace and democracy.

There Maoist leaders may have had many reasons to disdain our openly expressed views, but the immediate cause for ‘enmity’ has perhaps to do with some of our recent positions. Kul Chandra Gautam has been consistent in his argument that the Maoist chairman’s involvement in the development of Lumbini must be more transparent, that the Maoists must abandon the politics of violence, and that the party must stand by its commitments on the peace process. Some say that the Maoists have been annoyed with Gautam for not being malleable to their ‘use and discard’ policy to which so many other civil society stalwarts succumbed. Subodh Raj Pyakurel has held a steadfast position against Maoist excesses, and stands in strong opposition to the ‘general amnesty’ agenda that the Maoists would like to implement. Kanak Mani Dixit’s latest writings about Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s ambitions to become a directly-elected president or prime minister could have earned him the party’s ire, enough to be termed a ‘people’s enemy’.

The attack on us three citizens seems to be part of a plan by the senior-most bosses of ‘Lalrakshak’ magazine to instil fear among the broader civil society, an attempt to force submission among independent citizens including journalists, rights activists, intellectuals and local leaders in the districts. What the Maoist leaders forget, of course, is that since 1990 the people of Nepal have been breathing the oxygen of freedom. The party may prevent the breeze of free thought to blow among its rank-and-file, but the broader Nepali society now revels in free thinking. The entire country is now an open society and there is no way that Nepal can be converted into a ‘people’s democratic paradise’ like North Korea or a former Albania.

Rightist and Ultra-Left

The time is past that in the districts and villages that the labelling of ‘people’s enemy’ can subdue Nepal’s citizens. True, in some places, amidst a stifled atmosphere some may maintain momentary silence, but the Maoist party would be mistaken to believe this as acceptance of its agenda and procedures. Because of the corrupt and extortionist proclivities of the Maoist party and cadre, we sense there is an underground volcano developing everywhere against their excesses. This hardly does the UCPN-Maoist itself any good.

There is also the danger that the UCPN-Maoist’s left radicalism is promoting the interests of the rightist flank, sometimes coddled as ‘nationalists’ by the Maoists, with whom they have periodically forged close links. This results in the narrowed space for the democratic middle of national politics. For sure, the current agenda and activities of the UCPN-Maoist will not (and should not) prevail in the long run. However, the true progressives of Nepal must seriously wonder whether the radical activities of the Maoist party help the rightists to sink roots in our society in a manner that will drag the country towards the primitive era.

The Maoists developed their party as a militarist organisation, and have been unable or unwilling to develop democratically after coming above ground in 2006. This is the reason why the party seems to have a need to prop up imaginary enemies, as a means to keep the cadre united through fear. And so, at different times, the party has declared the United States, India and the Nepali Congress as its enemies.

Today, even as the party’s own leaders have achieved nouveau riche status, living in the lap of luxury while providing protection and extracting ransom from wealthy businessmen, to cover the huge cost of its ‘whole-timer’ party membership, the top brass intimidates potential victims by creating fictitious enemies. This is also done by labelling whoever disagrees with the Maoist positions as ‘upper-class’, ‘aristocratic elites’ and the ‘well-heeled’. The Maoists seem to have calculated, quite correctly, that some civil society stalwarts and intellectuals, fearful of being thus targeted, choose to keep quiet about Maoist excesses, or tend to speak vaguely.

Don’t need protection

On 5 February 2012, we wrote a letter to Baburam Bhattarai, not as a Maoist leader but as the prime minister of all the people. In that letter, we did not seek individual protection from the state in relation to the incitement by the Maoist mouthpiece. Instead, we asked the head of government, whose foremost responsibility is to protect the citizenry, to give a public reaction to the attempt by ‘Lalrakshak’ cover article to spread fear through intimidation. We also sought appropriate action against a magazine and editor affiliated with the prime minister’s own party for using the cover of press freedom to incite violence which could lead to the ‘elimination’ of citizens whom it characterises as ‘people’s enemies’.

The neglect shown by Prime Minister Bhattarai to our twin demands indicates his lack of sensitivity on humanitarian issues and on the importance of independent thought. There was a phone contact from the Prime Minister’s Office promising us security, but that was not our demand, nor was it included in our letter.

This is what we say to the party that calls us ‘people’s enemies’: It does not behove those who sit protected by their circle of gunmen to try and scare free-thinking citizens by hurling abuse and threats. We cannot imagine a citizenry which has conducted two people’s movements, in 1990 and 2006, to ever accept a police state. The gift of our nation to its citizens in the 21st century is to enable them to live in an open society.

Some may say that there are deep divisions within the UCPN-Maoist, and the ‘people’s enemy’ attack is the work of only one faction. If that were so, why have the other faction(s) not spoken? While there may be some difference in political tactics, we fail to see any differences within the Maoist leadership when it comes to the use of violence in politics. The only difference is that some speak openly of violence while others are silently in support. ‘Lalrakshak’ has probably spoken for them all, in its attempt to scare the general populace as a way to take the party forward. Such an attitude in this day and age will benefit neither the party nor the country.

At this penultimate moment of the writing of the new constitution, the peace process is not yet over. We have no evidence that the largest party in the Constituent Assembly has abandoned its policy of political violence. If the UCPN-Maoist genuinely seeks a progressive social transformation which the world will respect and the Nepali people will welcome, then we humbly ask the party to place its hand on its chest and ask Nature itself to witness its formal renouncement of violence. Let the party seek forgiveness from the people for having taken recourse to violence in the conduct of politics. When the UCPN-Maoist transforms itself into a peace-loving, democratic and progressive political party committed to help transform the country, we will be there to wish it success.

———————-
(A shorter version of this article appeared in The Kathmandu Post daily of 28 February 2012. A Nepali version appeared in Kantipur daily, 20 February 2012).

Links:
Kathmandu Post Article

Kantipur Article

कुलचन्द्र गौतम, सुबोधराज प्याकुरेल, कनकमणि दीक्षित

फ रक-फरक पृष्ठभूमि र पेसागत इतिहास भएका र स्वतन्त्र रूपले विभिन्न विषयमा आफ्ना अलग-अलग विचार र विश्लेषण प्रस्तुत गर्ने हामी तीन नागरिकलाई माओवादीका अध्यक्ष निकट पत्रिका ‘लालरक्षक’ले ‘यी हुन्, जनदुश्मन’ आवरण शीर्षक र तस्वीरसहित लाञ्छना लगायो । औपचारिक रूपमा हिंसा त्यागेको घोषणा आजसम्मै नगरेको, मुलुकभर बलमिच्याइँ र ‘भौतिक कारबाही’को आडमा आम नागरिकलाई दबाउन कसरत गरिरहेको र सरकारमा छँदै विद्रोहको डाँको छोड्ने माओवादीको शीर्षस्थको मुखपत्रबाट यस्तो अभिव्यक्ति किन आयो, हामीले बुझ्न कोसिस गरिरहेका छौं ।

पञ्चायतकालमा ‘सबै पञ्च नेपाली, सबै नेपाली पञ्च’ भन्ने दुराग्रह गरेजस्तै माओवादीले सबै जनता माओवादी र माओवादीका विचार र मान्यतामात्र जनवादी र अग्रगामी भन्ने सरासर ढाँट कुरालाई बलजफ्ती लागू गर्न आफ्नो हिंसात्मक सशस्त्र युद्धलाई ‘जनयुद्ध’, पार्टीको संरचनालाई ‘जनसत्ता’ र आफ्नो ‘कङ्गारू कोर्ट’लाई ‘जनअदालत’ भन्यो । यस्तै जस-जसले आफ्नो दलको कुरालाई वैचारिक खण्डन गर्न खोज्छ, ती-ती व्यक्तिलाई सामन्ती र प्रतिगामीको बिल्ला भिराइदिने र आफ्नो ज्यादतीको विरोधमा उत्रने जोकोहीलाई ‘जनदुश्मन’ घोषणा गर्ने माओवादी नीति भएको सर्वविदितै छ ।

माओवादीद्वारा आफ्नो ‘सफाया’को नीति आजैसम्म विधिवत् निलम्बन भएको हामीले सुनेका छैनौं । आफूले भौतिक कारबाही अथवा ‘सफाया’ गर्न चाहने व्यक्तिलाई पहिला आफ्नो क्याडरमाझ घृणाको पात्र बनाउनु माओवादीको भूमिगत छँदादेखिकै तरिका हो । त्यसैले ‘विद्रोह’द्वारा ‘जनसंविधान’ ल्याइछाड्ने घोषणा गर्ने माओवादीले हामी तीन नागरिकलाई जनदुश्मनको संज्ञा दिएर अरू स्वतन्त्र नागरिकलाई समेत तर्साउन आफ्ना कार्यकर्तालाई उत्तेजित पार्न र उक्साहट गर्न खोजेको देखिन्छ ।

माओवादी अध्यक्ष लगायतका केही उच्च नेताको पूर्वस्वीकृति बिना ‘जनदुश्मन’जस्तो गम्भीर आरोप हामीमाथि लगाउने दुस्स्ााहस उक्त पत्रिकाले गर्‍यो होला भन्ने हामीलाई लाग्दैन । तर उक्त बिल्लाको त्रासले हामी तीन नागरिक डगमगाउने वा आ-आफ्नो क्षेत्रमा आफ्ना स्वतन्त्र विचार अगाडि राख्न कदापि पछाडि हट्ने छैनौं । कायरले मात्र वैचारिक मन्थन गर्नुको साटो बन्दुक, तरवार, धम्की, डर र त्रासको प्रयोग गर्छ । बिना कुनै आधार, परिस्थितिजन्य प्रमाण र बिना सोधपुछ ‘जनदुश्मन’जस्तो गैरजिम्मेवार र उत्तेजक आरोपको आड लिनुपर्ने बाध्यता त्यही कायरताको उपज हो ।

किन दुश्मनी !

आफूभने दर्जनौं अङ्गरक्षक र राज्यले दिएको सुरक्षा घेराभित्र बस्ने अनि निहत्था नागरिकमाथि जाइलाग्ने ‘फतवा’ जारी गर्न किन माओवादी नेतृत्व यसरी ओइरिएको भन्नेमा अलि खोतल्नु जरुरी देखिन्छ । हामी तीनले बेलाबखत स्वतन्त्र विचार र विश्लेषणद्वारा शान्ति प्रक्रिया, मानवअधिकार, संविधान लेखन लगायतका विभिन्न समयमा लिएको अडानले माओवादी स्वयम्लाई पनि राम्रो गर्नुपर्ने

हो । शान्ति प्रक्रिया, अनमिनको आगमन, संविधानसभा चुनावदेखि दोरम्बा हत्याकाण्डको अनुसन्धान, अन्तरिम सरकारको गठन र अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय जगतमा नेपाली ढाँचाको शान्ति प्रक्रियाको वकालत

गरेकै हौं ।

तर माओवादीको ‘जनयुद्ध’ थालनीको औचित्य, उसकै हिंस्रक राजनीति तथा लोकतान्त्रिक पद्धति विरुद्धको एजेन्डाको बारेमा भने हामी आ-आफ्नै किसिमले आलोचक भएको कुरा पनि सर्वविदितै

छ । माओवादीका लागि हाम्रा यी अडान त्यतिबेला अपि्रय लाग्न थालेजस्तो छ, जब ऊ १२ बुँदे सहमति तथा बृहत् शान्ति सम्झौतामा झेली गर्न थाल्यो ।

हुन त हाम्रा कतिपय अडान माओवादीलाई अपाच्य लागेको हुनसक्छ, तर ‘जनदुश्मनी’को कारण हालसालैका केही अभिव्यक्तिसँग सम्बन्धित हुनुपर्छ । हाम्रो अड्कलमा कुलचन्द्र गौतममाथि लुम्बिनी विकासमा माओवादी अध्यक्षको संलग्नता पारदर्शी हुनुपर्छ, हिंसाको राजनीति त्याग्नैपर्छ र शान्ति प्रक्रियामा माओवादीले गरेका कबुल उसले इमानदारीसाथ पालना गर्नुपर्छ भन्ने अनवरत अडान लिएकोले प्रहार गरिएको हुनसक्छ । कसैले त भन्छन्, अरू कतिपय ‘नागरिक अगुवा’जस्तो गौतमलाई ‘उपयोगी’ बनाउन असहज भएकोले पनि माओवादी रूष्ट भएको हुनसक्छ । सुबोधराज प्याकुरेल मानवअधिकारकर्मीको हिसाबले निःसङ्कोच देशव्यापी माओवादी ज्यादती विरुद्ध बोलेको र आममाफी एजेन्डाको सशक्त प्रतिवाद गरेकोले माओवादीको तारो बन्न पुगे । पछिल्लो समयमा पत्रकार कनकमणि दीक्षितले पुष्पकमल दाहालको ‘प्रत्यक्ष राष्ट्रपति’ अथवा ‘प्रत्यक्ष प्रधानमन्त्री’ बन्ने महत्वाकाङ्क्षाको खिलाफमा लेखेकाले उनलाई पनि जनदुश्मन घोषणा गर्नुपरेको पार्टीले ठानेको हुनसक्छ ।

‘लालरक्षक’ पत्रिकाका शीर्षस्थ हाकिमहरूले एउटै ‘जनदुश्मन’ प्रहारबाट बृहत् नागरिक समाजलाई पनि त्रसित गर्न र मुलुकभरिका पत्रकार, अधिकारकर्मी, बुद्धिजीवी, स्थानीय अगुवा लगायतका स्वतन्त्र नागरिकहरूलाई त्रसित बनाउँदै आफ्नो काबुमा राख्न खोजेको पनि अनुमान गर्न सकिन्छ । तर माओवादी नेतृत्वले यो कुरा बिर्सनु हुँदैन कि ०४६ यता नागरिकले स्वतन्त्रताको अक्सिजन चाखिसकेका छन् । माओवादीले आफ्नो पङ्क्तिभित्र स्वच्छ हावा बहन नदिएको होला, तर बाहिर विचार स्वतन्त्र छन् । मुलुकभर खुला समाज छाइसकेको छ र भूमण्डलीकरणको प्रभावले अबको नेपाललाई उत्तरकोरिया वा भूतपूर्व अल्बानियाजस्ता ‘जनगणतान्त्रिक भूस्वर्ग’मा परिणत गर्न असम्भव छ ।

उग्रवाम-दक्षिणपन्थी हिमचिम

कुनै पनि तरिकाले त्रसित बनाउन खोज्दा जिल्ला जिल्ला, गाउँ-गाउँमा अब ‘जनदुश्मन’को आरोपले नागरिक दब्ने अवस्था

छैन । हो, यदाकदा उकुसमुकुसबीच केही क्षण नागरिकले मौनधारण गर्लान्, तर यसलाई माओवादीले आफ्नो विचार तथा क्रियाकलापप्रति जबर्जस्ती सहमति जुटाएको ठान्नु गल्ती हुनेछ । माओवादीका खाओवादी क्रियाकलापले जनतामाझ एउटा भूमिगत ज्वालामुखी उम्लिएर विस्फोट हुने स्थितिमा देश पुग्ने ठूलो डर छ, जसले उसलाई पनि फाइदा हुने छैन । अर्को खतरा यस दिशामा छ कि माओवादीको वाम अतिवादले मध्यमार्गी लोकतन्त्रवादीको ठाउँलाई साँघुरो बनाइदिँदैछ र अर्काे माओवादीले ‘राष्ट्रवादी’ भनी हिमचिम गर्ने ध्रुवको दक्षिणपन्थीलाई बल पुर्‍याउँदैछ । अब सच्चा प्रगतिशील नेपालीले गम्भीर चिन्ता गर्नुपर्ने विषय त यो छ कि माओवादीका आजका क्रियाकलापले उसको आफ्नो एजेन्डा त सफल हुँदैन -र हुनुहुँदैन), तर दक्षिणपन्थीले समाजमा जरो गाडेर पुरातन युगतर्फ मुलुक धकेल्नबाट देशलाई कसरी बचाउने ।

सामरिक हिसाबले आफ्नो सङ्गठन निर्माण गरेको माओवादीले आफूलाई लोकतान्त्रिक बनाउन नसकेको अथवा नचाहेको हुनाले उसलाई आजैसम्म पनि ‘जनयुद्ध’को बेलाजस्तै काल्पनिक शत्रु घोषित गरेर कार्यकर्ता एकत्रित गर्नुपर्ने अवस्था भएको देखिन्छ । तसर्थ कहिले अमेरिका, कहिले भारत, कहिले नेपाली काङ्ग्रेसलाई उसले विधिवत् दुश्मनको संज्ञा दिएको छ । आफ्नै नेता रातारात नवधनाढ्य र विलासी भएको, ठूलठूला धनी-व्यापारीलाई संरक्षण दिएर ‘चन्दा’ असुलीबाट आफ्ना होलटाइमर पालेको कुरालाई ढाकछोप गर्दै, आफ्नो विचारसँग असहमति राख्ने जोकुनैलाई ‘कुलिन’, ‘सम्भ्रान्त’ ‘सुकिला-मुकिला’को पगरी गुँथाइदिएर अर्काथरी कृत्रिम शत्रु खडा गर्दैछ । यसरी शत्रुको आरोपमा परिएला कि भन्ने डरले

कतिपय नागरिक अगुवा र बौद्धिकहरूले जानी-जानी माओवादीको ज्यादतीबारे नबोलेको वा लटरपटर कुरा गर्नेछन् भन्ने ठहर माओवादीले गरेको देखिन्छ ।

ँजनशत्रु” को अडान

हामी तीन नागरिकले डा. बाबुराम भट्टराईलाई आफ्नो पार्टीको नभई समग्र जनताको प्रधानमन्त्री भएको नाताले २२ माघ २०६८ मा पत्र लेखेका थियौं । उक्त पत्रमा हामीले आफ्नो सुरक्षा माग गरेका थिएनौं, नागरिकको सुरक्षाको जिम्मेवारी पाएको शीर्षस्थ पदाधिकारीसँग हत्याको उक्साहट गर्ने र त्रास फैलाउन लागिपरेको पत्रिकाको उक्त आवरण र लेखबारे सरकार प्रमुखको सार्वजनिक प्रतिक्रिया मागेका थियौं । यस्तै प्रेस स्वतन्त्रताको आवरणमा ‘सफाया’ गर्ने प्रवृत्तिको उक्साहट गर्ने आफ्नो दलसम्बद्ध पत्रिका तथा सम्पादक विरुद्ध उपयुक्त कारबाहीको माग गरेका थियौं ।

प्रधानमन्त्री भट्टराईले हाम्रो मागको बेवास्ता गरेकोबाट उहाँको मानवीयता तथा स्वतन्त्र समाजबारे संवेदनशीलतामा कमी भएको झल्कन्छ । प्रधानमन्त्रीको कार्यालयबाट ‘सुरक्षा चाहिए दिन तयार’ भन्ने फोन खबर त आयो, जुन कुरा न हाम्रो पत्रमा उल्लिखित थियो न हाम्रो माग थियो ।

हामीलाई ‘जनशत्रु’ भन्ने दललाई हामी यसो भन्छौं ः बन्दुकको घेरामा बसेर अरूलाई तर्साउने जमाना सिद्धिइसक्यो । दुई-दुईवटा जनआन्दोलनले आर्जेको नेपालको खुला समाजमा अब ‘पुलिस स्टेट’को कल्पना पनि हामी गर्न सक्दैनौं । स्वतन्त्र नेपाली नागरिक हुनुको ऊर्जा नै यो एक्काइसौं शताब्दीको हाम्रो माटोको सौगात हो ।

कसैले भन्लान्, माओवादीभित्र ठूला चिरा छन् र हामीमाथि खनिने कुनै एउटा खेमामात्र हो । त्यसोभए खै त अरू खेमा बोलेको ? बाटा र रणनीति यदाकदा फरक देखिए पनि गन्तव्य एउटै हुनाले सबै माओवादी नेताको खोलमुनिको हिंसाप्रतिको लगाव उत्तिकै बलियो देखिन्छ । कसैले प्रस्ट भन्छ, कसैले मनमा राख्छ, तर भन्दैन । सायद ‘लालरक्षक’ले सबैको मनको कुरा बोलिदिएको हो, आम नागरिकलाई तर्साउँदा दल अगाडि बढ्छ कि भन्दै । तर यस्तो लगावले न माओवादी दलको भलो हुन्छ, न देशको ।

संविधान लेखनको यस अन्तिम घडीमा पनि शान्ति प्रक्रिया अझै टुङ्गएिको छैन । सदनको सबैभन्दा ठूलो दलले आफ्नो हिंसाको नीति त्यागेको प्रमाण कतै भेटिएको छैन । एक्काइसौं शताब्दीमा विश्व समुदायले आदर गर्ने र नेपाली जनताले गौरव गर्ने खालको अग्रगामी परिवर्तन चाहने माओवादी पार्टीको मनसुवा हो भने हामी विनम्र अनुरोध गर्छौं, माओवादीले जनतासामु छातीमा हात र प्रकृतिलाई साक्षी राख्दै राजनीतिमा हिंसा त्यागेको सार्वजनिक घोषणा गरोस् ! हिंस्रक राजनीति मच्चाएकोमा क्षमा मागोस्, जनतासँग । र त्यति गरेपछि उसलाई एक शान्तिपूर्ण, लोकतान्त्रिक, प्रगतिशील दलको रूपमा आफ्नो र यो देशकै रूपान्तरण गर्नमा सफलता मिलोस् !

प्रकाशित मिति: २०६८ फाल्गुन ८ ०९:३५

Link: http://www.ekantipur.com/kantipur/news/news-detail.php?news_id=264334

UNITED NATIONS, Feb 15, 2012 (IPS) – Facing implicit death threats from Nepal’s ruling Maoist political party, two former U.N. officials based in Kathmandu have appealed to the United Nations for help and protection.

Kul Chandra Gautam, a former U.N. assistant secretary-general and a longstanding deputy executive director of the U.N. children’s agency UNICEF, and Kanak Mani Dixit, a former press officer at the U.N.’s Department of Public Information (DPI) in New York and currently a senior Nepali journalist, have been declared “people’s enemies”.

A third individual under threat is Subodh Raj Pyakurel, executive director of Informal Services Sector (INSEC), the largest non- governmental human rights organisation in Nepal.

All three have been blacklisted in a cover story in the monthly magazine Lalrakshak published by the ruling Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (UCPN-Maoist).

“We take this fatwa not just as targeting three specific individuals, but as a more emblematic case intended to frighten, intimidate and silence other dissenting critical voices that might challenge specific policies or practices of the Maoists,” Gautam told IPS.

A letter to Nepali Prime Minister Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, signed by all three individuals, says the cover story is “an incitement to violence, and part of an all-out attack that is underway against a broad range of civil society actors from the districts in the capital, including journalists, lawyers and rights activists.”

Bhattarai has remained head of the coalition government since August last year.

The goal is across-the-board intimidation, reflecting the despotic perspective: “Those who are not with us are against us, and our enemies are the enemies of the people,” the letter reads.

The three under threat have also written to all heads of diplomatic missions in Kathmandu and U.N. agencies, including the U.N. Resident Coordinator and the representative of the U.N. high commissioner for human rights.

Gautam told IPS the main opposition parties have raised the matter in Parliament and also referred to it in a joint statement they presented to the Maoist party last week.

“At a time when Nepal’s peace process is still incomplete and the much delayed drafting of the new constitution is in limbo, these and other provocative statements and actions by the ruling party has created an atmosphere of intimidation and panic throughout the country,” it said.

One source told IPS that the chairman of the UCPN-Maoist, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, known as “Prachanda”, currently the most powerful political personality in the country, has been particularly offended by the repeated calls by Gautam, Dixit and Pyakurel urging him and his party to renounce the use of violence in politics.

More recently, Dahal also seems deeply offended by their critical questioning of his eagerness to lead an effort for the development of Lumbini, the birthplace of Lord Gautam Buddha, in what they say is a highly non-transparent and unorthodox manner.

In this context, Gautam said, serious questions have been raised about the appropriateness of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s reported plans to visit Nepal in March to co-chair, with Dahal, an international meeting for the development of Lumbini.

The people of Nepal and Buddhists all over the world are happy to know that the secretary-general has taken a special interest in the development of Lumbini, declared a World Heritage site by the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), he said.

The main rationale for U.N.’s involvement in Lumbini is to spread the culture of peace, not to condone the glorification of violence, said Gautam.

“If Ban Ki-moon were to consider co-chairing a meeting with Dahal, he must insist on the latter and his party to first officially renounce the use of violence as a method of political change in the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations,” he added.

For the secretary-general of the UN to co-chair an international meeting with a political leader who has refused to renounce violence would be contrary to the spirit of the U.N. Charter, and to do so at a holy religious site would be a sacrilege insulting not just peace- loving Nepalis but followers of Buddhism around the world, he said.

On Wednesday, a spokesman for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva told IPS, “We are concerned about the branding of these human rights defenders as ‘the people’s enemies’ by a magazine affiliated with the ruling political party in Nepal.

“The government of Nepal has a duty to protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all its citizens, particularly those of human rights defenders, who are frequently at greater personal risk because of their efforts to support human rights. At this critical stage of the peace process in Nepal, it is very important that the space for human rights defenders is not narrowed or threatened.”

Article appeared in: www.ipsnews.net

Circumstantial evidence, including blatantly false public accusations by Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ against the present writer just prior to the publication of the provocative story in Lalrakshak, known as a pro-Prachanda magazine, indicates that this is part of an orchestrated effort to intimidate and silence a broad range of civil society actors, including journalists, lawyers and rights activists across the country. The general message conveyed reflects the well-known despotic perspective: “Those who are not with us are against us, and our enemies are the enemies of the people”.

The media and intellectuals of Nepal have been so desensitized by the frequent provocative, duplicitous and contradictory statements by the UCPN-Maoists that such statements are not always taken seriously, and many people are actually afraid to speak up. The media, for example, has not made a serious attempt to critically analyze the grave charges labeled against the three ‘People’s Enemies’.

The silence of Nepal’s intellectuals reminds one of a famous statement attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen target groups:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.

While there has been a studied silence among most Nepali civil society leaders, intellectuals and journalists on the Lalrakshak story, a number of Maoist or pro-Maoist journalists have vigorously defended its accusations as factual, and pro-Maoist blogs including www.lalrakshak.com are full of hateful and virulent diatribes denouncing the “people’s enemies” with all kinds of imaginary charges and calling for lynching them.

In the absence of stories countering these allegations with factual information, there is a risk that some people, especially ordinary Maoist cadres, might actually believe Lalrakshak’s imaginary tales as true. While I would not wish to confer undue respectability by responding point by point to a magazine whose violent values are portrayed by the gun and grenades featured in its masthead, for the record, I flatly reject all allegations labeled against me by Lalrakshak in its cover story entitled: “These are People’s Enemies”.

No evidence whatsoever has been produced to back up any of the allegations by Lalrakshak in an article supposedly written after “investigation” by its Research Bureau (Khoj Bureau). On the contrary, most allegations are imaginary and fabricated pack of lies, simply intended to be sensational, and amounting to dangerous character assassination.

Here is a factual rebuttal of the allegations made against me, and the truth about them, which illustrates the fictitious and distorted nature of Lalrakshak’s reporting:

1.That Kul Chandra Gautam was known for hooligan attitude (mandaley prabritti) of Nepal Students’ Union during his student days: Gautam was never a member of NSU or any other student union in Nepal during his student days.

2.That Gautam was a lackey of America and was close to the CIA: As an international civil servant Gautam has had an impeccable reputation of being a scrupulously impartial and competent professional, which was the basis for his success in his UN career. In his student days in USA, Gautam was actually known for outspoken criticism of American policy in the Vietnam War and CIA’s efforts to topple the democratically-elected Marxist President Salvador Allende of Chile.

3.That Gautam aspired to become the head of UNMIN: The UN regulations normally do not allow the national of the same country to serve as head of mission as an international staff member in his/her home country. So it was out of question for Gautam to even contemplate this.

4.That Gautam sought to expel UNMIN from Nepal and foment a civil war: Gautam actually advocated for the establishment of UNMIN. His public speech to the World Affairs Council at the Himalaya Hotel in Kathmandu on 24 August 2004 “On the Possible Role of the United Nations in the Peace Process in Nepal” was one of the earliest statements articulating the rationale for UN’s support for peace in Nepal at a time when the royal regime and both of Nepal’s neighbours were opposed to any UN involvement. Gautam offered informal advice to UNMIN and even to the UN Secretary-General to make its role more effective, and was openly critical of UNMIN when some of its reports and actions seemed unbalanced and ill-informed. It would simply be counter-intuitive to imagine Gautam seeking to push the country towards civil war and military rule and the Maoists back to the jungle, by expelling UNMIN from Nepal, as alleged by Lalrakshak.

5.That Gautam was lobbying to become Ambassador to USA where he could also serve the CIA: Gautam never expressed any wish, nor ever lobbied with anyone for any such appointment. In fact, Gautam has consistently declined to serve in any full-time, official, paid government job even when he was approached by various political leaders. Wishing to serve the CIA is a cheap and calculated slander.

6.That Gautam tried to form an anti-Maoist alliance involving the diplomatic community: Members of the diplomatic community make their own judgments based on their assessment of the host country’s situation; what they believe to be in their own national interest and the values they subscribe to; and their wish to promote good relationship with Nepal. They do not operate in a conspiratorial manner as the Maoists and some other Nepalis imagine. It would be foolish for Gautam or any intelligent person to imagine or attempt to manipulate the diplomatic community into any parochial alliances.

7.That Gautam influenced the Supreme Court verdict on non-extension of the CA beyond May 2012: Gautam had no contacts or dealings with any justices of the Supreme Court, or with anyone else who deals with such matters, nor has he made any statements on this subject.

8.That NC leaders intend to install Gautam as Chair of a Constitution Drafting Committee: The speculation by Lalrakshak that Nepali Congress Party leaders Ram Chandra Poudel and Sushil Koirala secretly propose to make Gautam Chair of a new Committee to draft the Constitution, after the expiry of the term of the current CA, is a plain, fictitious story. It has never been discussed by anyone with Gautam, and he has no interest, nor expertise in such task.

9.That “Gautam and the Gang” conspired with some Nepal Army Generals; and tried to create misunderstanding between the NA and Maoist PLA: Gautam never met with any group of Generals, including those who were not promoted during Prachanda’s Government as charged by Lalrakshak. Nor did he seek to provoke or create misunderstanding between the Nepal Army and the Maoists by exaggerating the dangers of integration of Maoist combatants into NA as alleged. Gautam’s views on the subject of “integration and rehabilitation” of ex-Maoist combatants is a matter of public record and published articles. Far from misleading and creating misunderstanding, he came up with many constructive proposals which were initially acknowledged, even by the Maoists, as containing “win-win” propositions in the best interest of Nepal.

10.That Gautam was part of a “conspiratorial” meeting to “split and destroy” the Maoists: Gautam debunked this false allegation that he was part of a “conspiratorial” meeting against the Maoists at Maitighar/Babarmahal Revisited in his op-eds in the Nagarik and Republica dailies on 1 February 2012. He found it shocking and unethical that UCPN-Chairman Prachanda repeated this allegation even after learning first-hand from leaders who apparently were there that Gautam did not attend any such meeting.

11.That Gautam has been advocating against Presidential system of government: An article in the same issue of Lalrakshak by a pro-Maoist journalist Shubhashanker Kandel claims that a former UN official (UN-ka purba talukdar) stood up against the Presidential system of government, citing not his but the views of others, and thus implying “guilt by association”. Nowhere in Gautam’s extensive written or verbal communication is there any evidence of him taking any such position, as he clarified in his op-ed pieces. But taking such position, or in favour of any other democratic alternatives, is a perfectly honourable and democratic right of all citizens.

12.That Gautam was part of the core group of “elite aristocrats” who masterminded the May 2010 civic rally against the Maoist-organized “indefinite strike”: Like tens of thousands of other citizens, Gautam did participate in that huge civic rally, but he was not its architect or designer. Unlike the Maoist portrayal of that rally as a dark episode led by the sukila-mukila privileged elites, it will go down in the history of Nepal as a major turning point of true “people power” that saved Nepal from a dangerous descent towards authoritarianism. It should be recalled that the “indefinite strike” for which the Maoists bussed in tens of thousands of supporters from the countryside and brought Kathmandu to a standstill for 6 days, was meant to be the urban insurrection that would lead to their ‘state capture’. Instead, it became a spectacular failure because of widespread public resentment and the spontaneous civic rally in which some 100,000-plus people from different walks of life turned up in Basantpur Square which showed that not only did the people of Kathmandu resist the attempted insurrection passively, but were prepared to dare the Maoists actively – but peacefully. Joining in that genuinely popular and patriotic civic rally was one of the proudest moments of my life.

सायद संसारभर असफल र बदनाम भइसककाले एक्काइसौँ शताब्दीमा धेरैलाई प्रेरणादायी नहुने सिद्धान्त बोकेको भएर हो कि माओवादीलाई आफ्ना कार्यकर्ता र समर्थकहरूलाई उत्प्रेरित गर्न वास्तविक वा काल्पनिक जस्तो भए पनि शत्रुको खाँचो पर्नेगरेको देखिएको छ। त्यसैले उनीहरु सधैँ आफ्ना क्रान्तिकारी एजेन्डाविरुद्ध गोप्य षड्यन्त्र गर्नेहरु भन्दै ‘सामन्ती, पुँजीवादी, राजतन्त्रवादी, साम्राज्यवादी, विस्तारवादी वा तिनका दलाल’को लामो सूची बनाउने गर्छन्।
खरिपाटी वा पालुङटारजस्ता प्रत्येक विवादग्रस्त पार्टी सम्मेलनहरूपछि माओवादीले पार्टीमा एकता कायम गर्न कुनै न कुनै शत्रु वा षड्यन्त्रकारीको आधिकारिकरुपमै खोजी गर्ने गरेको पाइन्छ। त्यही क्रममा एकताका उनीहरुले भारत आफ्नो प्रमुख बाहिरी शत्रु र नेपाली कांग्रेस राष्ट्रिय शत्रु भनेर घोषणा गरेका थिए। यसबाहेक, आफ्ना विफलता ढाकछोप गर्न वा वास्तविक समस्याबाट ध्यान अन्यत्र लैजान वा पहिलेका प्रतिबद्धता उल्लंघन गर्ने बहाना बनाउनका लागि उनीहरुले जताततै थुप्रै सानाठुला शत्रुहरु खोज्ने र भेट्टाउने गरेको देखिन्छ।
माओवादी केन्द्रीय समितिको हालै पुस-माघ, २०६८मा भएको विवादग्रस्त र अन्तर्विरोधपूर्ण बैठकपछि एनेकपा (माओवादी) र विशेषगरी यसका अध्यक्ष पुष्पकमल दाहाल …प्रचण्ड’ले विगत केही महिनामा शान्ति प्रक्रिया र संविधान लेखनमा अरु राजनीतिक दलहरुसँग भएका सहमतिबाट विमुख हुने बहाना बनाउन कस्ता शत्रुको आविष्कार गर्लान् भन्ने धेरैले अडकल गरेका थिए। त्यसैले दाहालले चेतावनीको स्वरमा विपक्षी कांग्रेस र नेकपा (एमाले)ले माओवादी पार्टी फुटाउन साना पार्टीहरुसँग मोर्चाबन्दी गरेर माओवादीलाई घेर्न खोजेको आरोप लगाउनु खासै आश्चर्यजनक थिएन।
खन्ना गार्मेन्टमा यही माघ ४ र ५ गते भएको माओवादी कार्यकर्ता प्रशिक्षण कार्यक्रममा दाहालले काठमाडौंको बबरमहल रिभिजिटेडको एउटा रेस्टुराँमा ‘माओवादीलाई फुटाएर सखाप पार्न’ षड्यन्त्र गरिएको भनेर दिएको उदाहरण भने मलाई निकै रोचक लाग्यो। दाहालले कांग्रेस संसदीय दलका नेता रामचन्द्र पौडेल, संवैधानिक समितिका अध्यक्ष नीलाम्बर आचार्य, पत्रकार कनकमणि दीक्षित र म कुलचन्द्र गौतम त्यस ‘गोप्य बैठक’मा उपस्थित षड्यन्त्रकारीहरु मध्येमा थियौँ भन्ने बताएको सुन्दा म झन् आश्चर्यचकित भएँ।
मलाई आश्चर्य लाग्नुको कारण के थियो भने दाहालले भनेजस्तो बैठकका बारेमा न त मैले कहिल्यै सुनेको थिएँ न कहिल्यै उपस्थितै भएको थिएँ। त्यसैले मलाई दाहाललाई कसैले गलत सूचना दिएछ वा दाहालको सूचनाको स्रोत नै अक्षम र अविश्वसनीय रहेछ भन्ने लागेको थियो।
केही नेपाली सञ्चार माध्यममा आएअनुसार खन्ना गार्मेन्टमा त्यसो भनेको भोलिपल्टै दाहाललाई कांग्रेस नेता पौडेलले अरु नेताहरुकै सामु त्यस्तो हुँदै नभएको षड्यन्त्रको काल्पनिक आरोप लगाएको भनेर हप्काए रे। बबरमहल रिभिजिटेडमा केही मित्रहरुको अनौपचारिक भेला भएको तर कुलचन्द्र गौतम त्यहाँ नभएको पनि पौडेलले भनेछन्। पौडेलले दाहाललाई गौतमसँग आफ्नो भेट नभएकै झन्डै छ महिना भइसकेको पनि बताएछन्।
केही सञ्चार माध्यमले दिएका समाचारअनुसार दाहालले एमाले नेता माधवकुमार नेपालसँग पनि माथि चर्चा गरिएको कथित ‘बबरमहल षड्यन्त्र’ को प्रसंग उठाएर ‘माओवादीलाई घेराबन्दी गरेर सखाप पार्न’ खोजिएको गुनासो गरेका रहेछन्। नेपालले आफू पनि त्यस अनौपचारिक चियापानमा सहभागी भएको तर त्यहाँ दाहालले कल्पनागरेजस्तो कुनै ‘षड्यन्त्रकारी’ नियत नभएको भनेपछि दाहाल अलि आश्चर्यचकित भएर झस्किएका थिए रे। नेपालले पनि कुलचन्द्र गौतम त्यहाँ सहभागी नभएको दाहाललाई भनेछन्।
यी सबै घटनाक्रम सुनेपछि मलाई पक्कै पनि माओवादीको कुनै शुभेच्छुक सुराकीले गलत सूचना दिएको हुनुपर्छ र दाहालले कार्यकर्तालाई आफूले ‘शान्ति र संविधान’ तथा ‘जनविद्रोहबाट सत्ता कब्जा’ जस्ता अन्तर्विरोधपूर्ण नीति एकैसाथ अपनाउने क्रममा आफ्ना कार्यकर्तालाई अलमल्याउन त्यस्तो अतिरञ्जित ‘षड्यन्त्रको सिद्धान्त’को रहस्योद्घाटन गरेको हुनुपर्छ भन्ने लाग्यो।
सञ्चारमाध्यममा म त्यो कथित ‘षड्यन्त्रात्मक’ बैठकमा उपस्थित नभएको जानकारी पौडेल र नेपालले दिइसकेको सार्वजनिक भइसकेका सन्दर्भमा मैले यो घटिया राजनीतिक नाटकलाई बेवस्ता गर्नु नै ठिक हो भन्ने ठाने। त्यस खबरको असत्यता पुष्टि भइसकेपछि दाहाल स्वयंले उत्तेजकरुपमा रहस्योद्घाटन गरेर पछि लाजमर्दो भएको यस प्रकरणलाई अब अगाडि बढाउँदैनन् होला भन्ने मैले अनुमान गरेको थिएँ।
किन्तु, त्यस खबरको असत्यताबारे प्रत्यक्ष जानकारी पाइसकेपछि पनि दाहालले पश्चिम नेपालको चिसापानीमा गत माघ १३ गते भएको माओवादी कार्यकर्ताको वृहत् प्रशिक्षण भेलामा कथित ‘बबरमहल षड्यन्त्र’ प्रकरणमा सहभागी भनेर मेरो नाम लिएको थाहा पाउँदा म झन् बढी चकित भएँ।
दाहालको हैसियतको उच्च जिम्मेवार नेताले जानीजानी झुटो कुरा किन दोहोर्‍याएका होलान्? बनको बाघले खाओस् नखाओस् मनको बाघले खान्छ भन्ने नेपाली उखानमा जस्तै दाहाल पनि कुनै कारणवश मनको बाघसँग तर्सेकाले यसो भएको हो कि? नेपाली समाजमा आफूलाई अत्यन्तै असुरक्षित महसुस गर्दा वा कुनै अप्रिय सत्य लुकाउनु पर्दा यस्तो मनको बाघलाई देखाउने चलन भएको सर्वविदितै छ।
खबरमा आएअनुसार उक्त बबरमहल बैठकमा माओवादीले चाहेजस्तो राष्ट्रपतीय शैलीको शासन व्यवस्था आउन नदिने र संसदीय व्यवस्थामै सहमति जुटाउने भन्ने विषयमा चर्चा भएको थियो रे। सम्भवतः त्यसैले अध्यक्ष दाहाललाई क्षुब्ध बनाएको हुनसक्छ। म आफु यी दुवै प्रणालीप्रति खुला र तटस्था भावना राख्छु। बरु, पर्याप्त नियन्त्रण र सन्तुलनको व्यवस्था भएमा राष्ट्रपतीय पद्धति नै बढी उपयुक्त हुन्छ भन्ने पक्षमा छु। अतः मेरो सोचाइ राजनीतिक नेता रामचन्द्र पौडेल र टिप्पणीकार कनकमणि दीक्षितले आआफ्नैरूपमा लिएको सार्वजनिक अडानभन्दा फरक छ। तर, म उनीहरूको दृष्टिकोणको सम्मान गर्छु र लोकतान्त्रिक सिद्धान्तअनुरूप भएमा अरू प्रस्तावित विकल्पहरूको पनि सम्मान गर्छु।
कुनै राजनीतिक दल विशेषमा आफु सम्बद्ध नभएको र दलगत स्वार्थमा नलागेको व्यक्तिका रूपमा म कुनै षड्यन्त्रमा सहभागी हुने कारण पनि छैन। लोकतान्त्रिक सिद्धान्त र अहिंसात्मक राजनीतिमा विश्वास गर्ने व्यक्तिका रुपमा मैले सधैँ नै खुला र स्पष्टसँग माओवादीले राजनीतिक परिवर्तनका लागि अब हिंसाको माध्यम सधैँका लागि त्याग गर्नुपर्छ र विश्वव्यापी रूपमा मान्य लोकतन्त्र, बहुलवाद र मानव अधिकारका मूल्यमान्यतालाई आत्मसात् गर्नुपर्छ भन्दै आएको छु। यी मूल्यमान्यता अन्तर्गत रहेरै हामीले सामाजिक न्याय सुनिश्चित गर्न सकारात्मक विभेदका उपायसमेत अपनाउन सक्छौँ भन्ने मेरो धारणा छ।
माओवादीले यी मूलभूत विषयहरुमा द्वैध चरित्र देखाएको वा शान्ति प्रक्रियामा भएका सहमतिलाई एकतर्फीरूपमा बदल्न खोजेका अवस्थामा मैले उनीहरूको सार्वजनिकरूपमै आलोचना गरेको छु। यसरी नै मैले अरु राजनीतिक दलहरु वा राजा ज्ञानेन्द्रको शासनको पनि आलोचना गरेको थिएँ र अब पनि आवश्यकताअनुसार गरिरहने छु।
अहिंसात्मक लोकतन्त्रवादीका रूपमा म अलोकतान्त्रिक धारणा भएका व्यक्ति वा दललाई शान्तिपूर्ण रूपले ‘रूपान्तरण’ गर्नमा सहयोग पुर्‍याउनुपर्छ भन्नेमा विश्वास राख्छु। आफ्नोभन्दा फरक दृष्टिकोण राखेकै भरमा कुनै व्यक्ति वा दललाई निर्मूल पार्ने वा सफाया गर्ने’ जस्ता अमानवीय व्यवहार गर्ने प्रवृत्ति त अधिनायकवादीहरूको चारित्रिक विशेषता हो।
एडोल्फ हिटलरका प्रचारमन्त्री जोसेफ गेबल्स भन्ने गर्थे – ‘कुनै झुटलाई धेरै पटक दोहोर्‍याइरहने हो भने मानिसहरुले त्यसलाई पत्याउन थाल्छन्।’ मलाई ‘बबरमहल षड्यन्त्र’मा संलग्न भन्ने झुट दोहोर्‍याइरहिएको सुन्दा कतै जनसाधारण र सिधासाधा माओवादी कार्यकर्तामा साँच्चै पो हो कि भन्ने भ्रम नपरोस् भनेर मैले यो स्पष्टीकरण सार्वजनिक गर्ने निधो गरेको हुँ।
किन्तु, यस्ता दुष्प्रचारले स्वतन्त्र नेपाली नागरिकका हैसियतले सबैका लागि समता र सामाजिक न्यायपूर्ण समाजको निर्माणमा सहयोग पुर्‍याउन, हिंसा र आतंकको राजनीतिविरुद्ध स्पष्ट र दह्रोसँग बोल्न तथा लोकतन्त्र र मानव अधिकारका विश्वव्यापी मान्यतालाई बिनासर्त स्वीकार गर्नुपर्छ भन्ने पैरवी गर्न मलाई पटक्कै निरुत्साहित गर्ने छैनन्।
म माओवादी नेताहरुलाई शान्ति प्रक्रिया र संविधान निर्माणलाई गति दिनमा केन्द्रित हुन विनम्र आह्वान गर्छु। काल्पनिक शत्रु र षड्यन्त्रविरुद्धको संघर्षका नाममा समय खेर फाल्नुको साटो हामी सबै राष्ट्रिय पुनःनिर्माण र विकासको कार्यमा संलग्न हुनुमै यो देश र सबै दलको चिरकालीन कल्याण हुनेछ।

Published in Nagarik 31-Jan-2012

Perhaps because their outdated and universally discredited ideology is not persuasive enough in the 21st century, the Maoists seem to need to invoke real or imaginary enemies to motivate their cadres and supporters. Hence they always cite a long list of ‘feudals’, ‘capitalists’, ‘royalists’, ‘imperialists’, ‘expansionists’, or their ‘agents’, who they claim are secretly conspiring against their revolutionary agenda.

To unite their party after every major contentious conference, such as at Kharipati and Palungtar, the Maoists seem to find it necessary to designate some official enemy and conspirator. Thus India was once listed as their major external enemy and Nepali Congress as their national enemy. In addition, they seem to look for and find plenty of minor enemies in every nook and corner when they need someone to blame for their failures, or to divert attention from real issues to minor distractions, or to backtrack from their previously agreed commitments.

Following their highly contentious Central Committee meeting in December 2011-January 2012, many wondered what kind of enemies and conspirators the UCPN-Maoist and especially Chairman Prachanda might invoke to justify their extreme backtracking from many agreements they had reached with other political parties on the peace process and drafting of the constitution in the past few months. So it was not entirely surprising that Pushpa Kamal Dahal (‘Prachanda’) spoke in alarming terms about how the opposition NC and UML parties were trying to split the UCPN-Maoist and had formed an alliance with other smaller parties to ‘encircle and entrap’ his party.

I found it rather intriguing though that at the training programme for Maoist cadres at Khanna Garment factory on 18 January 2012, Prachanda apparently cited a specific example of a “secret meeting” held to hatch a conspiracy “to split and destroy the Maoists” at a restaurant at the Babarmahal Revisited complex in Kathmandu. I was surprised to hear that Prachanda went on to list NC parliamentary leader Ram Chandra Poudel, Chairman of the Constitutional Committee Nilamber Acharya, journalist Kanakmani Dixit and I, Kul Chandra Gautam, were among the co-conspirators who had attended that secret meeting.

I was surprised because I had never heard of, nor attended, any such meeting cited by Prachanda. So I assumed that Prachanda must have been misinformed by his informers or that his informers must be very incompetent and unreliable.

The day after Prachanda’s Khanna Garment speech, some Nepali media reported that NC leader Poudel had chided Prachanda in the presence of several other leaders that he was imagining a conspiracy when there was none, and that while there had apparently been an informal gathering of a few friends at Babarmahal Revisited, Kul Chandra Gautam was not there. Poudel went on to say that it had been nearly six months since he had last met Gautam.

Some Nepali media also reported that Prachanda had raised the issue of the “Babarmahal Conspiracy” by the above-mentioned people to “encircle and destroy the Maoists” with UML leader MK Nepal. Prachanda was apparently surprised when Nepal told him that he, MK Nepal too was at that informal gathering over tea, which had no “conspiratorial” intentions as Prachanda imagined. Mr. Nepal also reportedly told Prachanda that, in any case, Kul Chandra Gautam was not there.

Hearing these exchanges, I thought that there must have been a case of misreporting by some Maoist crony spook, and Prachanda must have found it a very convenient scoop to “reveal” to his party cadres to bolster his conspiracy theory to justify the ingenious compromise he had struck embracing both “peace and constitution” and “state capture through revolt” at the same time.

I thought that it was best for me just to ignore this little political drama, given the clarification reported in the media about my non-participation in any such supposedly “conspiratorial” meeting, as confirmed by Messrs Poudel and Nepal. I assumed that Prachanda himself would not pursue it any further given that the falsehood of the information he had “revealed” in a rather provocative manner had been embarrassing to him.

But I was astounded to hear that even after learning first-hand about its inaccuracy, Prachanda chose to cite my name and the “Babarmahal Conspiracy” case, when addressing a large gathering of UCPN-Maoist cadres at Chisapani, in Western Nepal on 27 January 2012.

Why would a responsible leader of Prachanda’s stature repeat a falsehood knowingly? Could it be, as the Nepali saying goes, that Prachanda is haunted by some frightening manko baagh (an imaginary tiger) imagining it as banko baagh (a real tiger in the forest)? In Nepal, an attack by an imaginary tiger is often concocted when someone is extremely insecure or to divert attention and hide an unpleasant truth.

On one specific issue that was reported to have been discussed at the Babarmahal meeting which irked Chairman Prachanda, namely, on the presidential versus parliamentary system of government, I am open to both, with a slight preference for a presidential system with adequate checks and balances. This is in contrast to the strong position that the politician Ramchandra Poudel and commentator Kanak Mani Dixit have taken separately in public. But I respect their views, just as I respect the views of others proposing other alternatives, so long as basic democratic principles are upheld.

As someone not affiliated with any political party or wedded to any partisan interests, I have no reason to be part of any conspiracy. As someone who believes in democratic principles and politics of non-violence, I have always spoken forthrightly on the need for the Maoists to renounce violence as a method of political change, and to embrace universally accepted norms of democracy, pluralism and human rights which, by the way, do allow and even require us to take affirmative action to ensure social justice.

Whenever, the Maoists have taken a duplicitous stance on these core issues, or sought to unilaterally change agreed goal posts on the peace process, I have publicly criticized them, as I also criticized King Gyanendra’s regime, and other political parties, and will continue to do so, as and when warranted.

As all non-violent democrats, I believe in helping “transform” people and parties who hold undemocratic views. Conspiring to “eliminate” a party or an individual simply because they hold different views is the trade-mark of self-righteous authoritarians.

Adolf Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, used to say that “If you tell a lie and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”. Noting a similar trend, I felt the need to alert the Maoist cadres, the vast majority of whom seek prosperity with social justice in a democratic Nepal, just as I and most other Nepalis do, not to be misled by some of their leaders’ repeated assertions that I might be involved in some conspiracy to destroy the Maoists.

But as a proud, independent citizen of Nepal, I will continue to speak out openly and strongly against politics of violence and intimidation, and advocate for the universally accepted norms of democracy and human rights, without any ifs and buts, to help build a prosperous society with equity and social justice for all.

I would urge the Maoist leaders to concentrate on expediting the completion of the peace process and the new constitution so that we can all get on with the task of national reconstruction and development instead of wasting everyone’s time battling with imaginary enemies and conspiracies.
—————–

Published in The Republica daily, Kathmandu, 1 February 2012: