“It must be ensured that the Nepali army won’t harm democracy, won’t hatch conspiracies and won’t organize (any) coup. For this, armed forces must be democratized. The weapons of the Maoists should be kept in a ‘locked up’ position.” - UML leader Madhav Kumar Nepal in “Combat Law.”
Interpretation: Coming from the one man who took the initiative and exercised his constitutional powers (when Defense Minister) over the Army, this statement makes a lot of sense. It would be even more powerful if Mr. Nepal pledged to take part in the democratization of the army by teaching his contemporaries and his successors what it means to be an effective Defense Minister.
As the only member of Parliament to have ever forced an Army Chief into early retirement, Mr. Nepal has much credibility. One may deduce that his credibility would be even higher and his contribution material, if Mr. Nepal took a step beyond simply identifying what’s wrong, to explaining how to fix the problem.
As a senior leader in the SPA alliance, taking a more self-deprecating approach that acknowledges first the harm that his own generation has done to Nepal’s democracy and then moving on to explain how the Army can be further democratized, would probably yield more meaningful results.
The Nepali people have heard time and again that the SPA leaders have “learned from their past mistakes.” The debate on what the Army has done wrong and how to fix it should be had hand-in-hand with what the SPA’s past mistakes were and what steps the SPA leadership has taken to rectify its internal shortcomings.
The fist item in the order of merit begins with a lesson on how political consensus should be democratically garnered when it comes to the issue of mobilizing the State’s armed forces. The second item should discuss what it means to commit the Army to war and then to shamelessly deprive it of support. The third item (applies specifically to Mr. Nepal) pertains to lessons of mutually acquired trust – this means not involving the state Army in petty partisan politics by intentionally denying it access to intelligence that would otherwise serve the Army’s anti-insurgency campaign. And the list goes on.
As for Mr. Nepal’s awkward statement on what to do with Maoist arms, let’s pretend it was an honest mis-quote. Because it’s hardly a balancing act to chastise a rebel outfit that specialized in killing UML cadre (and subsequently in degrading the UML’s vote bank) with words that have no practical value, while the military that bled to ensure that people like Mr. Nepal and his political cohorts remained in business, are termed undemocratic, conniving and potentially detrimental to democracy.
“We think the parties and leaders are like servants, while the masters are living abroad.” – Maoist Strongman, Pushpa Kamal Dahal in “Combat Law.”
Interpretation: Yet another provocative statement coming from a man who is allegedly a newly born champion of peace and democratic discourse.
The choice of words are extremely interesting. In describing the “parties and their leaders” as “servants” and their foreign benefactors as “masters,” Mr. Dahal displays two simultaneous emotions: First, he exhibits the application of terms that only a very feudal mindset could conjure and second, he re-exhibits his utter disdain for political parties and their leaders by applying derogatory terms to describe a perceived relation that threatens Mr. Dahal’s political agenda. (How an individual who openly views his democratic contemporaries as "slaves" will actually function in state of democratic equilibrium is a topic of discussion for another time).
The analogy that Pushpa Dahal uses is an excellent display of the type of contradictions that have always plagued Maoist rhetoric. Putting aside the feudal mindset that Mr. Dahal is apparently absorbed in, an allegation that the parties are doing the bidding of foreign powers is a colorful accusation indeed.
But what of the advice that Mr. Dahal takes from foreigners in the Revolutionary International Movement (RIM) or the dictates he follows from CCOMPOSA (Collective Campaign of Maoist Parties of South Asia)? Using his own analogy, is Mr. Dahal also a “slave” to his foreign “masters” too or is he exempt from his own logic?
To place matters in deeper perspective, it’s supposedly alright to live in India (for an expanded period of time) at the Indian government’s mercy; it’s alright to forge an alliance with the SPA (at the Indian government’s insistence) and it’s perfectly alright to beg the UN to come and help sort out the mess in Nepal.
All these examples are inapplicable to the “master-slave” analogy because the Indians didn’t have anything to do with the 12-Point agreement (even though the Maoists were on Interpol’s wanted list at the time while parlaying openly with party leaders in the heart of New Delhi) or because the UN is being invited to Nepal at the Maoists beckoning. Not quite.
With the predictability that emerges from prolonged exposure to the mind-numbing ill-logic that is Maoist logic, Pushpa Dahal may even claim that in the examples above, the Indians and the UN are in fact, all Nepalis on some level. Not exactly.
This is how Mr. Dahal has to be gradually welcomed into the mainstream. Here, Mr. Dahal will get the best of all worlds. The media hype, the glamour and with it, the acrid criticism that allows one to taste the humiliation of being called a moron, when one runs his mouth like a moron.
If it’s alright for the Maoists to answer to the beck and call of their radical outfits across the globe, it’s equally alright for the parties to listen to advice from Nepal's well-wishers abroad.
Also, if Pushpa and his gang ever want to end the feudal mentality they so avowedly fight (even as their only goal in life remains to weild state power), a good first step to take would be for the Maoists (starting with Pushpa Dahal) to step out of the feudal mentaility themselves.
“Showing the February municipal elections to be a sham to the world was also the work of the People’s Army.” – Maoist Strongman, Pushpa Kamal Dahal in “Combat Law.”
Interpretation: What Mr. Dahal is saying here, without really saying it, is different from most other interpretations of unsuccessful elections. Ordinarily, low voter turnout because of any number of factors including poor candidacy, inadequate planning, etc. could invalidate general polls.
While the debate over the constitutionality of the February-1 move itself could have invalidated municipal polls, this is not Mr. Dahal’s insinuation. If it were so, he would have chosen to credit the low voter turnout to anything but the actions of the PLA. Because the actions of the PLA (which democratic party leaders shamelessly condoned), was limited to murder, assassination and intimidation.
If anything, what the murder of innocent poll contenders did (at the hands of the PLA) was it left people wondering whether the polls might have been successful had the prospect of death not factored into running for office, or voting in elections.
In a repulsive show of self-serving cowardice, not a single mainstream party leader said a word to condemn the PLA’s extermination of poll candidates. Even after self-indicting statements such as the one quoted above, no comments are made. Perhaps the culture of alleged impunity doesn't reside exclusively within the army after all!
Ironically, the PLA’s demonstration of what a sham the municipal polls were is precisely what worries the international community. The same thought also weighs heavily on the lily livered cowards who let the killing happen. What about the fate of the constituent assembly polls? What's to stop the PLA from pulling a repeat demonstration of their municipal poll invalidation, should constituent assembly polls yield unfavorable results to the Maoists? Pushpa Dahal's word of "honor?"
Thanks for the clarification Mr. Dahal. Your quote from above is precisely the kind of re-assuring rhetoric the party leaders (and the world) need to hear more of.
“India should not be surprised by my talking about autonomy and self-determination. This is our long-standing ideological position. We want to implement this in Nepal. Purely at a theoretical level we think that this is good for others, too. I have said this in the context of Tibet and other regions of China also.” – Maoist Strongman, Pushpa Kamal Dahal in “Combat Law.”
Is this man on crack or what? He wants to implement an autonomous and self-determined Nepali state by implementing a federal structure along ethnic lines – the single most fractious and potentially destabilizing attribute of Nepalese society? What sheer, administrative brilliance from a man who professes extremist nationalist tendencies and whose self-admitted vision entails an imminent confrontation between Nepal and India? No need for India to be "surprised," none at all.
Further, India (as Nepal’s southern neighbor) shouldn’t be worried because theoretically, Pushpa Dahal thinks segregationist wars in India should also flourish? That Kashimir should have its right to self-determination as should Tamil Nadu, Nagaland and ultimately Bihar and Uttar Pradesh? This, in addition to the burden India will bear from prolonged disharmony, disunity and guaranteed ethnic violence in Nepal?
Just to be fair, no one should be alarmed because theoretically, Pushpa has forwarded his unsolicited opinion on what he thinks would be good for Tibet, to China also.
Bravo! Mr. Dahal. We look forward to hearing more of your organization’s “theoretical” ambitions and your dissertation on deriving cohesion out of chaos. India and China, don’t be alarmed! Stand by for discussion of more theoretical possibilities from Nepal’s emerging Nobel Laureate!
But mind you, this is all just theoretical!
No comments:
Post a Comment