Yubaraj Ghimire
The Indian Express
March 30, 2015
The Maoist forces that joined the peace process in April 2006 have split five times so far, but no faction has gone back to the “capture power by the gun” campaign. Two weeks ago, the two key groupings — the Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (UCPN-M) headed by Prachanda and the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-M) headed by Mohan Baidya Kiran — inched closer to reunification, almost three years after the UCPN-M split.
Baidya’s group had called the parent party and its leadership “revisionists” when they broke away in June 2012. What triggered the divorce was Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai’s decision to integrate the one-time insurgents — the “Peoples Liberation Army” — with the national army as well as rewriting their worldview to call India a trustworthy ally and not “a hegemonic and enemy country” any more. This, however, was only expected, since India had facilitated the Maoists’ entry to the peace process and their central role post-insurgency.
Subsequently, the CPN-M boycotted the general elections in November 2013. Politically, it not only failed to build a powerful organisation but also suffered a further split. The sudden and apparent seriousness of the bid for reunification does not, however, guarantee a more credible face for the revolutionaries of yesteryears. Rather, it exposes the vulnerabilities and diluted credibility of the Maoists in the country — especially after the drubbing they got in the last general elections. The Baidya faction appears more vulnerable as its more militant cadres deserted the party to join the newest front, while those Maoists who had tasted power or harboured ambition had stayed with Prachanda.
How will this unity bid address complications like the perception of India? It should be noted that all Maoist groups, except the UCPN-M, are reduced to non-entities in Nepal’s politics. And even the UCPN-M has failed to bring the ruling coalition of the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) around on issues like ethnicity-based federalism in the future constitution.
The Supreme Court’s recent judgment that there can be no general amnesty for heinous crimes or gross violation of human rights during the insurgency has severely demoralised the Maoists. The judgment precludes their preconditions for agreeing to the formation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and one on disappearance, which they had pledged to constitute more than eight years ago. Not a single Maoist leader, especially at the top is free of such allegations. Prachanda has all along been party chief, Bhattarai has headed the “people’s government”, and together, the two are seen as responsible for the executions of “class enemies”.
Hundreds of cases against Maoist leaders and cadres were withdrawn when both Prachanda and Bhattarai were prime minister. But that executive decision will not come in the way of the two commissions. Also, the court’s verdict curbs the possible withdrawal of cases on the TRC’s recommendations.
A serving army colonel on UN deputation was arrested by the British 15 months ago on charges of torturing detainees during Nepal’s conflict. The UK has declined Kathmandu’s pleas to return him for trial at home and the UN has refused him immunity. Such incidents are scaring Maoist leaders too. The court’s verdict has now made Maoists, ministers and former PMs equally vulnerable. Feeling vulnerable, Maoists’ choices are limited — either stand united and resist possible futuretrials or relaunch the insurgency. The Maoists may have exhausted their energy, but it’s needless to say that the costs of the latter option will be enormous for Nepal.
