E-Kantipur

In his recent piece (“Rum Positivism,” April 25, Page 6) Kanak Mani Dixit attacked both me and the organisation I represent. For Dixit, I appear to be both a Maoist sympathiser and a colonialist. Sadly I am not the first: Dixit has accused many others of similar sympathies. For Dixit, the United Nations, as an institution and including the General Secretary’s representatives, are Maoist sympathisers. Jhala Nath Khanal, the elected PM of Nepal, is actually a Trojan horse for Maoist ambition. So are most of the leaders of the Citizen’s Movement that led the Jana Andolan. And when the international community does not listen to Dixit, they too are angrily accused of gullibly towing the lines of the extreme left.

But if Dixit reads what I have written on Nepal he will see that I have held a consistent position: “past experience demonstrates that the exclusion of any one of the major three parties from power makes governing Nepal impossible” (“Saran’s brief,” Aug. 5, Page 6). I remain unable to see how seeking political consensus to pass a new constitution (when consensus has proved to be the only means forward) makes me a Maoist.

There are disappointing insinuations that I have overlooked Maoist violence. Two months after the Maoists declared the second phase of the “People’s War” after attacking Aathbiscot Police Station in Rukum district and Halori Police Station in Rolpa district on Feb. 13, 1996, I was one of the first to visit Rolpa and Dang districts from April 12-22, 1996 and denounce Maoist abuses after my return. The current organisation I am associated with has consistently denounced Maoist abuses from that time.

There is also a saddening attempt to portray me as an Indian colonialist. Dixit states that I am “perfectly happy if [Indian] interference were to favour the UCPN (Maoist)” and I am seeking to treat “Nepal’s post-conflict scenario as an internal [Indian] security matter”. Again, this seems to miss my point. In discussing Indian examples I was seeking to expose India’s double standards in its dealings with Nepal. It is more than a little odd that India opposes integration of the PLA in Nepal, while integrating its own insurgents into the Indian security forces, as it is currently proposing to do with the United Liberation Front of Assam.

Dixit and I can surely agree that India’s role, whatever semantics one uses, interference or cooperation, is nothing new. Since independence, India has had a role in the political processes of Nepal. Certainly, Nepalis will have lessons to offer to India, Indians and the rest of the world if the peace process can be taken to its logical conclusion. Until then, Indian experiences may be useful.

Finally, Dixit suggests that I am “unconcerned about what ethnically defined federal units may do to inter-community relations in Nepal”. Yet, in the same piece he asserts that the “genuine progressive seeks the advance of the poorest and the most marginalised through democratic politics, non-violence, economic growth, inclusion and equity”.

My point is this: if the politics of “democracy, non-violence, economic growth, inclusion and equity” fail to fulfil aspirations on federalism, then there are plenty of examples of violent South Asian uprisings that are highly suggestive of Nepal’s future, if the calls for federalism are not answered.

Federalism is a political reality in Nepal. Federalism is central to the Maoist’s vote bank politics. It is at the core of identity politics of the Mahdesis and Janjati groups. The issue has nothing to do with my concern or otherwise for ‘inter-ethnic relations’; the challenge, surely, is how to address it.

Just like federalism, the Maoists too are a reality. The Maoists are central to the current peace process as the largest, Mr Dixit please note, elected party and a signatory to the Comprehensive Peace Accord.  I remain unable to understand the logic behind excluding the party you are attempting to bring into the political mainstream, not least when they

hold sufficient seats to derail any agreement.

The problem for me is that so many of Dixit’s arguments against the Maoists can be made with equal vigour against the traditionally mainstream parties. Prof. SD Muni noted this in his critique of a recent article by Dixit on the new Jhala Nath Khanal-led government. Dixit had suggested that this new government was undemocratic (“Khanal the Trojan,” Nepali Times, Feb. 11, 2011).  He contrasted this with an assertion about the very democratic Madhav Kumar Nepal government. Yet, Dixit did not satisfactorily explain what makes the unelected Nepal democratic and the elected Khanal undemocratic.  Dixit then argued that the Maoists should not be allowed to hold the Home Ministry—an unusual condition in any democratic process. Dixit suggested that they shouldn’t be allowed to hold the office as they will abuse their power.  But no explanation is offered on how this abuse differs from any other party. Is Dixit really willing to suggest Nepali Congress’s Khum Bahadur Khadka’s time at the Home Ministry was a period of good governance and accountability? Khadka takes us to the core of Prof Muni’s argument:  as much as you try “we cannot allocate different values to different people and forces when the conduct is similar”.

The core problem is that Dixit appears unwilling or unable to accept that the 1990 settlement is finished. Nostalgia for a time that no longer exists and probably never did appears to have clouded his vision. He sees the red of Maoism everywhere. His widely broadcast views are of course influential, but sadly they appear to be helping hardliners on both sides. This is something I know he would not want.

Chakma is the Director of the  Asian Centre for Human Rights

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.