Opinion
Weary new power
Bhattarai is still accountable for what happened during the decade-long Maoist insurgencyKhagendra N. Sharma
Baburam Bhattarai, the greatest leftist ideologue and co-producer-cum-director of the so-called people’s war resulting in the death of over 15,000 Nepalis, has shunned his Maoist mask and is busy building a New Force (NF). Until now he had been upholding the concept of people’s power, which is the highest political power, and he had made people believe that the UCPN (Maoist) was the embodiment of that power. It is not certain how and why he decided to leave that powerhouse and create an NF. He has many things to answer for in terms of ideology, political goal, mobilisation of people and several other aspects of statecraft.
Changing colours
Politics is the relationship between the end and the means: The setting of the ultimate goals and the determination of the means to achieve those goals. Marx, for example, set the goal of establishing a classless society by means of a bloody class war between the capitalists and the labourers in a highly industrialised society. But all the communist movements that were successful in grabbing state power belonged to the lesser developed agricultural societies. Nevertheless, Marxism still retains charm and attracts people who want change. That charm had once caught Baburam and then he mastered to apply it in Nepali politics.
Although Baburam has now left the Maoist party, he will still remain accountable for what happened during the decade-long Maoist insurgency. Baburam is said to have drafted the 40-point memorandum presented by the Maoists to the then Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, on the eve of their departure to the jungle to start a people’s war in 1996. That memorandum included as many as 19 points referring to the adverse relationship with India including the 1950 treaty. May I, on behalf of humble citizens of Nepal, ask Baburamji how many of these 19 points were settled when he himself had the opportunity to visit India as the Nepali PM? If my memory does not deceive me, not a single one of those 19 points was even included in the agenda of bilateral discussion. I, nevertheless, give him credit for having entered into the controversial Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (Bippa), even though it was not successfully implemented.
Not for the people
Another question that I have for him is ideological. The Maoists call the armed insurgency a class war, which is not true. The so-called people’s war started in the remote and backward district of Rolpa where the locals were living peacefully. It was the Maoist leaders who started a guerrilla war against the state. The Maoist leaders represented the exploiting class, not the exploited one. They were dissatisfied with the distribution of the state power among the political parties and wanted to take revenge, for which the Maoists gave it the garb of a people’s war. It was by no means a class war. But it gradually gathered power and the Maoists became a formidable force in the national political stage. The strong Maoist presence in the first Constituent Assembly (CA) was the proof of that power. Although that power was significantly reduced during the second CA election, the Maoists are still the third largest party in Nepali politics. Having shunned that power base, what kind of an NF is Bhattarai aspiring for?
Apart from the deviation from the avowed political ideology, Baburam is accountable for the rampant impunity prevalent in the country. For leaders like him, the rule of law is hogwash: The judiciary is a subordinate mechanism that should bend before the executive. He had once given shelter to one of his henchmen sentenced by the court on murder charge. I also remember him challenging the court to dare catch and charge him for the murder of an innocent boy whose parents were in hunger strike craving for justice? He was powerful enough to defy the conventional power system, but he was not satisfied with such power.
Unanswered questions
Now, people are confused in several respects about the new wave he is trying to create in his proposed NF. In this short feature I would like to point out just a few logical and logistical aspects. Ideologically speaking, what is the goal of this new concept and what are the means to attain that goal? More specifically, has he shunned the Marxist ideology of class war? If so, the nation would demand a rational explanation of the decade long insurgency. If not, a more convincing rationale is expected from an ideologue like him. How does Bhattarai want political science to evaluate his new power? Is it only a hunger for power or is there some new philosophy behind this?
Logistically, if the NF has to compete with the existing political forces, it has to be a nationwide organisation. Who are going to be the bona fide members of the NF at the grassroots level? The original list of supporters—worn-out film artists, ex-civil servants and an odd mixture of pedestrian-looking figures—does not give a political colour of any shade. Are they there to contribute to or gain from the NF? If they are there just as ornamentation, then who constitute the core group?
Another important logistical question is where the funds for this new party will come from. The nationwide organisation will need massive financial support. If the plan is to raise the funds from membership fees, this is not going to be sufficient. If the source of the funds is the rich and affluent industrialists, the less affluent will have a clash of interest. What modus operandi will be applied to resolve this clash of interest?
Sharma is a political analyst. He can be contacted at [email protected]