SEBS Online - View News

I and Saroj recently organized a conference in my college (Williams College) called "Maoism, Monarchy and Democracy in Nepal." Here is a report of that event.

Conference Papers Â | Â Photos

The conference Â“Maoism, Monarchy and Democracy in NepalÂEopened up to a packed audience here at Williams College, MA on the 1st of March. It was an overwhelming response (people actually had to leave because there wasnÂ’t enough space!), and proved how much interest there is here in this country as to whatÂ’s going on in Nepal.

Professor Georges Dreyfus, who has lived in Nepal for more than a decade (as a Budhhist monk!) opened the conference, formally welcoming the guest speakers to Williams. The panel, consisting of H.E Murari Raj Sharma (Royal Nepalese Ambassador to the UN), Mr. Saubhagya Shah (Anthropologist, Harvard), and Dr. Chitra Tiwari (Political analyst, DC) seemed to be a promising one. After Prof. DreyfusÂEintroductions, Abhishek Basnyat ÂE4 (thatÂ’s me) read out a brief history of Nepal, and ended asking the burning questions that are on every NepaliÂ’s mind today: Â“So thatÂ’s Nepal in a nutshell,ÂEhe concluded. Â“An Army that has lain low and inactive for almost two centuries now, bickering political parties, a much weakened Monarchy, and after years and years of peace, a new war at our hands. How did we get here? What went wrong along the way? Whose responsibility is it? And where are we headed?ÂEThose were the questions we hoped to find some answers to.

(I shall now proceed to give a brief account of the most important points made by each of the speakers. However, this report is based mostly on memory. Please do not quote me on these. Also these are definitely not all the points that were raised ÂEtheyÂ’re just what I caught and thought were important. I shall put up a summary of each speakerÂ’s presentation, - written by each speaker himself ÂEin a couple of days in this website. For now, hereÂ’re my personal observations and interpretations).

The Ambassador went in first. He reiterated the age-old arguments about the obstacles to NepalÂ’s development, and how the government despite all these obstacles and its limited resources was doing its best for the countryÂ’s upliftment. He stated that while NepalÂ’s GDP was growing at the Â“Hindu-rateÂEof only 2 ÂE3% during the Panchayat era, it had jumped up to a rate of 5 ÂE6 % after the reinstallation of a democratic government until the Maoists launched their bloody and debilitating campaign. He outlined how the Maoists in Nepal had connections stretching as far as to the Shining Path guerillas of Peru, and how globalization had become the best friend of terrorists all over the world. In this he seemed to reaffirm support for President BushÂ’s (supposedly worldwide) War on Terrorism. America, he said, had expressed their whole-hearted sympathy and support for NepalÂ’s own war against terrorism. Though the MaoistsÂEdespicable acts were a terrible drain on the countryÂ’s limited resources, he maintained that the government was slowly but surely winning the war against the Maoists, and with continued support from the international community, the rebellion could soon be quelled.

Mr. Shah delved deeper into NepalÂ’s political history. He drew notice to the fact that any oppositional movement to the reigning government in Nepal had only been successful with IndiaÂ’s support, and had been ruthlessly crushed without it. King RajendraÂ’s quest to regain power from the hands of the Ranas was squandered due to the intimate relations between the Ranas and the British. King TribhuvanÂ’s was only successful because free India supported it. He presented some more less known examples from recent history ending with the rebellion of 1990 which too was precipitated by IndiaÂ’s blockade of Nepal that began in 1989. This rebellion again was successful because India had apparently grown frustrated and cold towards the Panchayat government. He pointed out that like ever before in history, the breeding grounds for the MaoistÂ’s revolution was also India, and what path this revolution took depended a lot on IndiaÂ’s stance towards it. Pointing out that Rolpa and Rukum ÂEthe heartland of the Maoists ÂEwas not among the poorest regions of the country, he tried to disclaim the oft-cited explanation that the Maoist movement is an economic problem. He thus brought out a fresh perspective on the MaoistsÂErebellion emphasizing more attention on the geo-political, particularly the role of India. Though not radical in its idea (Nepal has always been blaming India for its woes), the emphasis he placed on this idea certainly is a novel one. He presented a pretty convincing argument that the crushing of the rebellion may not depend so much on economic reform, solving questions of ethnicity, or on the strength of the Nepalese Army and government as much as it did on external or foreign factors.

Dr. Tiwari was the last to take up the stage. He presented a much more cynical, pessimistic and even alarming view of the problem. He held that the problem lay in the frustrations and sense of desertion that many Nepalese in the rural areas of the country had, due to the governmentÂ’s own apathy, been forced to harbor. The problem of ethnicity was a grave one and one that would continue to grow. One root problem was the Constitution promulgated in 1990 which was more of a compromise (between the Palace and the leading political parties) than an actual constitution. The Constitution, being contrived by the Palace and a few other political leaders chosen by the Palace, was hardly a PeopleÂ’s Constitution. In fact it was a blatant mockery of the rebellion and a clever tactic of the Palace to retain its superior position and privileges. The people had been cunningly cheated. This was what the Maoists had a deep grudge against. Secondly, the poverty and lack of development in the rural areas meant that the Maoists had only to tug a few cords before the populace came teeming to its side. In a pretty controversial statement, Dr. Tiwari declared that of the 3600 people that have been killed in this conflict, two-thirds is due to the governmentÂ’s actions. Citing the example of the failed ROMEO operation and other police brutalities, he claimed that the government had effectively managed to lose the trust and confidence of its people. Consequently, the Maoists enjoyed the support of the people and could depend on it. The Army on the other hand was much more alienated from the people and thus was on its own and at a severe disadvantage. In a striking analogy he compared the guerillas to fishes, and the rural masses as the water they could survive in. The Army, despite its superior weapons, had no such back support. In a shocking disparity of figures, Dr.Tiwari claimed the Â“Red ArmyÂEconsisted of 15, 000 guerillas as opposed to the AmbassadorÂ’s meager figure of 3,000. He asserted that a regular army required a ratio of anything from between 10 ÂE25 to 1 i.e. 10 soldiers per guerilla, while the ratio in Nepal was only 7 to 1 and even that was including the under-trained and ill-equipped police force. Referring to the shockingly successful Maoist attack in Achham last week, he warned that we may yet expect Â“many more surprisesÂEfrom the Maoists. This was in stark contrast to the sense of security and assurance the Ambassador had managed to impart in his speech earlier. To make matters worse, Dr. Tiwari continued, the governmentÂ’s already inadequate effort was more or less fated to doom by unthinkably high levels of corruption. No matter how much support we got from friendly nations, it would be to no avail until the government made a sincere and concerted effort to fight this problem (which at present is not happening).

That was the end of the first part of the conference. After that we had an open house an