Many political observers in Nepal believe that the government has adopted double standards in its dealing with what was until now a secessionist party led by CK Raut and with Netra Bikram-Chand led communist party which had no such secessionist agenda. Why did the government ‘coddle’ the former and ban the latter? For some insight, Biswas Baral and Kamal Dev Bhattarai talked to Mohan Baidya ‘Kiran’, the chairman of the Communist Party of Nepal-Revolutionary Maoist, who is also thought of as a political mentor of Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Baburam Bhattarai as well as Chand. 

 

How do you see the recent political developments, mainly the 11-point with agreement CK Raut and the ban on Netra Bikram Chand Biplab-led Maoist party?

These developments are of serious nature. The government should have dealt with those issues with a long-term vision but it has failed to do so. The handling of CK Raut and Biplab-led Maoist smacks of double standards. This reflects government’s weakness, intolerance and arrogance. 

 

Why do you say there has been double standards in dealing with Raut and Biplab?

Many issues related to CK Raut are unclear. Raut is talking about dividing the country. Biplab-ji is raising issues related to nationalism. The party which is taking up nationalism is banned, while there has been an agreement with secessionist Raut.

 

How do you evaluate the content of the 11-point agreement with Raut?

Point number 2 of the 11-point agreement, which talks about ‘Janaabhimat’, has double meaning. In the press meet with Prime Minister Oli, Raut defined it as a referendum, which is problematic. If there has been no such agreement, why did Raut mention referendum? Similarly, PM Oli signed the agreement with Raut without consulting anyone, even his own party members. It is good if Raut is now in favor of national sovereignty. As it is, there are suspicions the agreement could affect the country’s sovereignty and independence in the long run.

 

What should have been government’s approach in dealing with Biplab?

First, think of the nature of the Biplab-led Maoists. The party has not reached the level of waging an armed conflict. They have not attacked army, police and other armed forces. But the government’s treatment of it has been no different to the treatment of the mother Maoist party at the start of the Maoist insurrection in 1996. This is wrong.  The ban on party, and suppression and arrest of leaders are wrong. Such activities reflect an authoritarian bent. The government should be serious. The issues raised by Biplab are of political nature so they should be resolved through peaceful means and in a political way. The government for instance has not sent any official letter to Biplob Maoists asking them to come to the negotiating table. Why the sudden decision on the ban then? The government should immediately withdraw the ban and start a process of dialogue.

 

But Biplab-led Maoist party has exploded bombs in public places and there was even a human casualty. What other option was there for the government?

If the government thinks innocent people died, the same rule applies to all political parties who have launched movements in the past. Look at what the former CPN-UML or Nepali Congress did during the Panchayat regime, or what happened during the Maoist movement, Madhes movement and other political movements. Such incidents, as unfortunate as they are, happen during political movements.

 

What is your view on the political line adopted by Biplab?

There are some political differences with him. There were divergent views about the party’s future course when he split with us. We were in favor of settlement of differences through intra-party discussions. But Biplab left us and formed a separate party. It is not only about Biplab-ji but also other political forces. The divergent views do not mean that we have to view Biplav-led party in a negative way.

 

Isn’t it an irony that Home Minister Ram Bahadur Thapa and Biplab who worked so closely during the insurgency are now at loggerheads?

History seems to be repeating itself. During the 10-year insurgency, parties in government labeled our activities as looting and extortion. But on the foundation of the same insurgency, Maoist leaders reached positions of power. But now, almost overnight, they have changed their line 180 degrees. This is a surprise. Also, in politics, personal relations do not matter much.

 

But it is said personal reasons have contributed to strained ties between Biplob and the government.

No, not because of personal reasons. The main thing is that the political line taken of ruling parties is completely different to the one Biplab is walking on. 

 

Has Biplab-led Maoist emerged as a threat to this government?

We do not know what happened between them. It is obvious that the ruling parties and their leaders face various threats. It is up to responsible leaders who are in power to think of how to tackle those threats. In politics, everyone faces threats everywhere. Such threats should be dealt with politically.

 

The government is saying that Biplab was even forming a militia and that the party has prepared a hit-list of political leaders.

I do not know these things. The government has not officially informed such things even though there have been some rumors.

 

Do you think there are international forces at play in recent political developments?

There has always been international meddling in the internal affairs of Nepal. The main thing is what we do internally. If we are united and issues are resolved through consultations, there would be no international meddling.

 

Prachanda has been saying that there have been attempts on his life. Why is he saying so?

I don’t know. I have not talked with him about it. It is up to Prachanda to tell people.

 

Are there any chances of your party uniting with Biplab-led Maoists?

In the past, we held several rounds of talks on unification. But some ideological issues have emerged as obstacles. In the future, the fate of unity will be decided by our political line and political course. If there is uniformity in ideology, we are ready to unite, not only with Biplab-led Maoists but also with other revolutionary communist forces.

 

What is your party busy with right now?

Now, we are focusing on strengthening our organizational base. We are taking up the issues related to nationalism and those faced by common people. We are preparing for a mass movement on the same issues. We just completed a 15-day Mechi-Mahakali campaign. We want to establish communism through the path of socialism.

 

How do you evaluate the performance of communist government led by KP Oli?

We do not think it is a communist government. It is a government of parliamentary parties.  The old power and old system have been perpetuated. The government that introduced the ‘Prosperous Nepal Happy Nepali’ slogan has failed to deliver. Development expenditure has not exceeded 25 percent. The trade deficit has further widened and there is imbalance between export and import. Unemployment remains rampant and the border dispute with India is unsettled. Now, the government is projecting regular lawmaking as its achievement, which is a shame.

 

You were considered an ideological guru of Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai. But now the three of you occupy three opposing poles.

We had not even imagined such a situation. We were one in ideology and other political issues and we were committed to building a new Nepal. We had thought we would move ahead as co-fighters. Unfortunately, the opposite happened. I find it very odd. But in politics such odd things happen.

 

Can your party play a mediator between the government and Biplab-led Maoist party?

First we are not willing to mediate and I do not believe talks would take place under our meditation. So, we have not thought about it. Our advice to the government is that talks should be initiated by shunning the current approach of suppression. Political issues should be resolved politically.

 

What is your advice to Biplab?

I cannot give advice to Biplav because it is difficult to do such things in politics. But Biplab should make his political line clearer. He should clearly define his future political course. Biplab should move ahead with clarity on how to emancipate people.

 

Where is Nepal’s communist movement headed?

The communist movement has not ended in Nepal. Now it is weak. But it will again gain strength. Neoliberalism is crumbling, the parliamentary system is in crisis. The next option is scientific socialism. Now the oppressor is dominant and revolutionary forces are cornered. But things will change.