Tag: Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist)

After Parliament Remains Disrupted, Nepal PM to Clarify in House Over Remarks on Indian Businessman

Dahal said that a Nepal-based Indian businessman had lobbied in India’s power corridors to make him the prime minister.

New Delhi: Nepali Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal will make a statement on his remarks that a Nepal-based Indian businessman had lobbied in India’s power corridors to get him the top job in the Nepal parliament, after the opposition disrupted parliamentary proceedings for the second day.

On Monday, July 3, Dahal was invited to launch a book called, Roads to the Valley: The Legacy of Sardar Pritam Singh in Nepal, about a trucking entrepreneur who had close links with the Nepal political leadership.

In his speech, Dahal acknowledged that Singh had made repeated efforts to make him the premier.

“He (Singh) had once made efforts to make me the prime minister,” Dahal said, as quoted by The Kathmandu Post. “He reached Delhi several times and held multiple rounds of talks with political leaders in Kathmandu to make me the prime minister.”

His remarks created an uproar with the opposition leaders, and even ruling coalition leaders, claiming disquiet at the insinuation that New Delhi decides on who will become Nepal’s prime minister.

With both chambers of parliament dysfunctional, the ruling coalition convened an urgent meeting on Thursday, July 6.

After the meeting, Nepali media quoted the CPN (Maoist Centre)’s chief whip, Hitraj Pandey, as saying that an agreement was reached that Prime Minister Dahal would make a clarification in parliament. They also rejected calls for Dahal’s resignation.

PTI quoted CPN-Maoist Centre secretary Ganesh Shah as saying that Prime Minister Dahal didn’t intend to indicate that India intervened in Nepal’s domestic politics, “but he should have used political and diplomatic words in a cautious manner while speaking about such a sensitive issue”.

Also read: India in South Asia: ‘Vishwaguru’ Slogans Meet Regional Realities

For the last two days, the House of Representatives and the National Assembly witnessed the principal opposition, Communist Party of Nepal-(Unified Marxist-Leninist) (CPN-UML), as well as the Rastriya Swatantra Party and Rastriya Prajatantra Party, refusing to let routine work proceed as per schedule.

They shouted slogans that said that a “prime minister appointed by New Delhi does not have the right to continue in the post.”

After the Speaker allowed him to speak, CPN-UML lawmaker Raghuji Panta said that Nepal’s dignity and prestige had suffered due to Dahal’s off-the-cuff remarks. “Shouldn’t we turn to the Nepali people to make somebody the prime minister? Why should anybody go to New Delhi to make somebody the prime minister?” he wondered.

“Is the prime minister’s post above the country’s pride, territorial integrity and dignity?” he wondered, as quoted by The Himalayan Times.

At a programme organised by the party’s affiliated students’ association, Dahal said that his words had been distorted. He said that the opposition parties were using his words to find a way to scuttle the anti-loan shark legislation which had been tabled and was scheduled to have been discussed.

“I wanted to show that Pritam Singh was not only interested in social service and transport business but also in politics and that he had lobbied with parties in Delhi as well as in Nepal to make him prime minister,” said Dahal.

Nepal: Is a Political Alternative To Established Parties Emerging?

The Rastriya Swantra Party, formed less than a year ago by popular television anchor Rabi Lamichhane,  has gained more ground in three recent bypolls in the Himalayan nation. While it will not pose any immediate danger to the ruling coalition, they should take notice of the people’s angst.

Is Nepal seeing the emergence of a new political force that poses a significant threat to the established political parties? That seems to the indication from the results of three constituencies where a by-election for the House of Representatives (HoR), which were held on April 23. The Rastriya Swantra Party (RSP), which was formed just 10 months ago, won two of the seats. Although the results may not accurately reflect the national sentiment, it indicates that the party, whose leader is the popular television anchor Rabi Lamichhane, is gaining ground.

In two constituencies, Tanahu-1 and Chitwan-2, RSP’s candidates Swarnim Wagle and Lamichhane himself won with an unexpectedly high margin. Wagle, a renowned economist who severed ties with Nepali Congress (NC) just ahead of the election, bagged 34,919 votes, while his closest rival Nepali Congress candidate Govinda Bhattarai secured 20,922 votes.

In Chitwan-2, Lamichhane secured 54,176 votes, while his closest rival Jit Narayan Shrestha secured 11,214. However, RSP did not perform well in Bara-2, where Upendra Yadav of the Janata Samajbadi Party, a member of the ruling coalition, won by a margin of 5,081 votes. The Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist-Leninist (CPN-UML) was relegated to the third position in all three constituencies.

This is the second time that the RSP has surprised its political opponents, after punching above its weight in the national elections of November 2022. The RSP was able to secure 20 seats in the HoR, and with growing dissatisfaction among the people towards the incumbent parties, the result in the by-elections was expected.

Also read: Political Instability, Churning Will Continue in Nepal

The by-election result indicates a clear upward trend in the popularity of the RSP, which poses a significant threat to the major parties such as the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, and CPN (Maoist Center) which have been in power for over three decades.

Resentment towards mainstream political parties

The poor performance of the major political parties has left people frustrated, leading them to seek either a reform in these parties or an alternative political force that can drive the country towards stability, economic growth, and progress. This resentment towards the established parties has further intensified due to poor service delivery, worsening economic conditions, and the rising cost of living. According to government data, every day more than 1,500 Nepali youth go abroad in search of jobs. In the past nine months, according to government data, more than a half-million people have taken labour permission to work in Gulf countries.

Consumer-price inflation stands at 8% which is choking the lower class of society. Since its formation on December 25 last year, the government led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal has been unable to improve service delivery, curb inflation, or alleviate poverty. The government’s failure to create new jobs has resulted in an increase in unemployment rates. Additionally, the Dahal-led government is yet to finalise its cabinet formation, providing a favourable environment for new parties like the RSP, which gained popularity by campaigning against major parties’ poor governance and failures.

Pushpa Kamal Dahal, or ‘Prachanda’, Nepal’s PM. Photo: Twitter/@cmprachanda

Over the past few years, political parties have weakened the key state institutions. The check-and-balances among the key state institutions have been severely compromised. Take the case of the Supreme Court. If major parties feel that the SC is going to deliver a verdict against them, they move an impeachment motion against the Chief Justice. In February last year, parties registered an impeachment motion against Chief Justice Cholendra S.J.B. Rana but did not take any initiative to settle the case until Rana retired – keeping the judiciary in limbo for a long time.

Till now, parties have not taken any initiatives to appoint the chief justice. The judiciary has become so politicised that people’s trust in it is dwindling. This is just one illustration of the broader problem of political parties having control over all state mechanisms, leading to their obsolescence due to excessive political influence. Corruption continued to thrive with political actors providing protection and involvement in major corruption cases, while anti-graft bodies are hesitant to investigate them.

Emergence of RSP

Amid such a scenario, Nepal held its national elections in November last year. In the six months since the elections, major parties invested their time and energy in either creating or breaking coalitions, doing very little for the people, leading to further dismay.

More than that, the same set of leaders have been in charge of the major parties since the 1990s. Only a few youth leaders have been appointed, that too to nominal positions and hence do not have much influence on the party’s decision-making. Although the formation of a strong government in 2018 kindled hopes of achieving stability and development, the dissolution of the House by K.P. Oli in December 2020 threw the country back into a cycle of political instability.

Also read: Nepal’s Ruling Coalition in Turmoil as Prachanda Supports Opposition Presidential Candidate

When Lamichhane was a TV anchor, his programme showed the plight of many Nepali migrant workers who were cheated or duped abroad, and played a role in rescuing them. He also took several initiatives to address the plights of migrant workers. As a result, he enjoys support from Nepalis living abroad, who urged their family members to vote for RSP candidates in both the November and by-poll elections. In light of the failures of the major parties, people at the grassroots level believe that Lamichhane could perform well if given the opportunity to lead the government. This is because even though he is outside the government, Lamichhane takes action to address the problems faced by ordinary people.

While the RSP is a new and untested political party, it has managed to attract a significant number of well-educated individuals, including economist Wagle. In the past, RSP’s founder Lamichhane had faced legal challenges related to his citizenship and holding dual passports, which resulted in him losing his position as a member of the HoR and his home ministry portfolio. In the lead-up to the by-election, an audio tape purportedly featuring RSP lawmaker Dhaka Ram Shrestha requesting funds for the party from a businessman was made public. The party has removed Shrestha from the party and parliament but there was no impact of those cases in the by-elections.

Although the by-election result is not expected to affect the coalition government, it serves as a warning to the major parties. Currently, RSP is supporting the Dahal-led government, but according to its leaders, it may withdraw its support in the future. Analysts suggest that if the heavyweight political parties fail to reform promptly, they are likely to face more electoral setbacks in the upcoming elections.

The traditional parties have acknowledged the need to reform, but their next steps remain to be seen. While this may prompt a debate on leadership changes within the parties, any outcome in that direction is unlikely given that the current chairs were elected only a year ago. To address criticisms, they may introduce some youth leaders into the party structure and initiate reform projects. Meanwhile, the pressure is on the 10-party coalition government led by Dahal to deliver results. If it fails, the possibility of street protest and movement cannot be ruled out.

Kamal Dev Bhattarai is a political analyst based in Kathmandu.

What is Delaying the Landmark Left Merger in Nepal?

Both Prime Minister Oli and CPN-Maoist Centre leader Prachanda need each other’s help to maintain the strength of the government and the unified party.

Kathmandu: In October 2017, Nepal’s two main communist forces— the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxists Leninists (UML) the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre)—announced their electoral alliance, and an eventual merger, ahead of the two-phase provincial and federal elections. Eleven years in the making, the proposed merger was widely welcomed in Nepal, as it promised a long-eluded political stability if the alliance could get two-third majority in the elections, which it did. But the formal merger, which Nepalis were told would take place soon after the elections, has not materialised in seven months.

As the pressure for unification mounted, the long delay, it was announced, would finally end on April 22, the birthday of Vladimir Lenin and the day Nepal’s first communist party was founded in 1949. But it wasn’t meant to be. This in turn has spawned many speculations about the proposed merger and the fate of the Left government in Kathmandu. And it will be difficult for both KP Sharma Oli, the prime minister and chairman of UML and Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, the Maoist chief, to back down from the merger, after securing two-thirds vote on the popular planks of ‘stability’ and ‘prosperity’.

Moreover, Oli needs Prachanda to continue to be the leader of a strong government with two-thirds majority as much as Prachanda needs Oli, as at the time of the announcement of the electoral alliance, it was reported the Maoist chairman would lead the new party while Oli ran the government. And this is why, even though there was no formal merger on April 22, the two of them took great pains to convince their sceptical countrymen that it would happen sooner rather than later.

Merger between ‘equals’

One of the reasons for the delay is the immense pressure that Prachanda has faced from his party rank and file, who want the merger on ‘equal terms’ rather than the earlier ‘60-40’ formula devised for selection of electoral candidates, with 60% of nominations going to the UML and 40% to the Maoists. The leaders in the 1099-member Maoist central committee fear ‘demotion’ in the new party which, according to UML-Maoist merger agreement, will have only 299 members in its central committee. The Maoist party members want a larger share in the new outfit’s decision-making pie.

But Oli reckons that such a demand is unjustified as even within the left alliance, UML had emerged by far the largest party in the country after the 2017 elections and hence it deserves to have more members in the decision-making bodies. Prachanda, for his part, wants a clear, written assurance that he will either get to become the prime minister after two and half years of Oli’s reign or that he will get to lead the combined communist party after its general convention. Oli is reluctant to offer any such written assurances.

But even if there was a written assurance, it might be meaningless, as the new party chairman will be chosen by the delegates to the future national convention via a secret ballot, and they might easily opt for someone other than Prachanda. There is also no guarantee that senior UML leaders will accept Prachanda as their prime minister.

Prachanda has of late become quite suspicious of Oli, especially after the prime minister transferred senior government bureaucrats without consulting him. He fears that Oli could strike a deal with Madhav Kumar Nepal, former prime minister and UML second-in-command, making arrangements for Nepal to be the new party chairman. And if Oli refuses to resign as prime minister, Prachanda will be left out in the cold.

All options open

Prachanda wants to retain the possibility of breaking away from the new party open, should Oli and UML renege on their promise. But according to electoral laws he will need the support of at least 40% of the central committee members to form a separate party. This is another reason why he is pitching for a near 50-50 UML-Maoist split in all important decision-making bodies.

Yet another bone of contention is whether to formally recognise the decade-long ‘people’s war’ in which nearly 16,000 people were killed. The Maoists credit the war as a harbinger the federal, republican Nepal, and its recognition in the new party’s statute is seen as mandatory. But UML fears the new party will be discredited, both nationally and internationally, if it formally recognises the ‘murder’ of so many people.

So there are some fundamental differences between the two sides. Yet there are also some compelling portents in favour of the merger. For instance, it had long been assumed here in Kathmandu that New Delhi was against the left alliance, which, in its reckoning, had Beijing’s imprimatur. But during his recent visit to India, Oli is said to have gotten a clear message from Narendra Modi that India too backs the left merger. “It looked like Modi was keen to have the soon-to-be-formed unified left party on his side before it had had a chance to cozy up to China,” according to a top Oli aide.

Placating Prachanda’s ego

Oli is reportedly keen on completing the merger before Modi’s planned trip to Nepal on May 11, to prevent suspicion that India had any role in it. Interestingly, the news of Modi’s Nepal trip came out on the same day the Nepali foreign minister, Pradeep Gyawali, had returned from an official visit to China to lay the ground for PM Oli’s formal visit. Perhaps Modi wanted to preempt Oli’s proposed China visit, which will now be impossible before the end of May for domestic reasons.  

A formal merger may soon be announced. But its longevity will rest largely on how secure Prachanda feels within the new party, particularly if he doesn’t get to lead it. In recent interviews Prachanda, who has continuously held party leadership positions since 1994, has consistently maintained that he is not used to being a ‘second man’.

How the new party handles relations with India and China, and how that plays out among the broader public, which is still largely sympathetic to China and wary of India, will be another big determinant of its longevity.

Biswas Baral is the editor of The Annapurna Express weekly published from Kathmandu. He tweets @biswasktm

What the Merger of Nepal’s Communist Parties Means for Their Two Leaders and India

The merger has has given the anti-India voice in the country a strong platform.

The merger has given the anti-India voice in the country a strong platform.

Nepal's Prime Minister KP Oli shakes hand with Chairman of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) Pushpa Kamal Dahal. Credit: Reuters/Navesh Chitrakar

K.P. Oli shakes hand with the chairman of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) Pushpa Kamal Dahal. Credit: Reuters/Navesh Chitrakar

The long-awaited unification of Nepal’s two big communist parties, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist) and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), has concluded. The two parties have signed a seven-point agreement that accepts Marxism and Leninism as guiding principle and calls for establishing the party’s hegemony through peaceful means.

According to the agreement, the Maoist Centre leader Prachanda and UML leader K.P. Oli will hold party president and prime minister’s posts by turn. This marks an end of official Maoism in Nepal, one of the most exciting chapters of the country’s Left history. Now there is no official communist party in the country that is guided by Chairman Mao Tse Tung’s thought or Maoism.

What Prachanda gains from the merger

By merging his party with the UML, Prachanda has, in a way, put a full stop to his own political career as a supreme leader of the party. From this point, he will not have the last words, as he is used to, in the party’s affair, but will have to acquiesce to the collective decisions of more influential leaders, including three current and former prime ministers Oli, Madhav Kumar Nepal and Jhala Nath Khanal.

Another leader, Bam Dev Gautam, is also no less powerful. In the party, these leaders lead factions. Although Prachanda is entering with his own set of loyalists, their number will be reduced sharply. As per the understanding, the highest decision-making body of the new party will have less than 100 central committee members and proportionally, Prachanda will not be able to merge his party with more than 15-20 members.

This is a catch-22 for him because even if he becomes the president of the new party today with the promise of being made the prime minister after three years, the central committee might rule out this understanding and let Oli continue to head the government for the full term.

Also read

It will be interesting to see how Prachanda deals with the new situation. Can he cultivate his influence in the new party or will he be cornered to the point of no return? This question has no certain answer but currently, the odds are against him, and by the looks of it, by accepting the merger, Prachanda has, in fact, signed his own political death warrant.

Merger helps UML’s disgruntled leaders

In the UML, there are leaders who dislike Oli. The feelings are so strong that they are ready to trust the outsider Prachanda as the party president. Oli became the prime minister in 2015 as a compromise candidate of three strong party factions of Nepal, Khanal and Gautam.

However, his elevation coincided with the unofficial economic blockade by India. It gave him the chance to enhance his clout inside and outside party by playing nationalist. When Nepal was hit hard and its markets, which are completely dependent on Indian goods, emptied, he used the situation to market himself as the staunchest nationalist leader who was ready to brave India’s pressure.

He fanned the hill-plain divide by blaming the Madhesi movement as India sponsored. In UML’s history, no other leader ever had such mass appeal as Oli has today. This has threatened the other three leaders and they have been looking for his replacement for long. By importing Prachanda, they have found one. Even for Prachanda, this is home ground. His whole career as a politician is an act of balancing contradictory views and taking forward his party. He will be hoping to use this expertise to remain relevant in the new party.

Lessons for India

The merger of two parties has given the anti-India voice a strong platform. In the last three years, India’s cult in Nepal has shrunk. Its eroding base in Nepal is its own doing. The 2015 economic blockade is a wound that will take a long long time to heal.

That painful blockade taught its people that total dependence on India has a cost. It is a lesson that clichés like ‘long-lasting friendship’, ‘unique relationship’ don’t exist in new India of Narendra Modi.

Consequently, it has forced Nepal’s leaders to look north for a reliable partner. Last May, Nepal joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Along with this, China’s investment in the country has increased manifold while India has reduced its aid budget to SAACR countries by almost 30-50% under Modi.

In 2016 India’s aid to Nepal saw a 30% cut even when the country was recovering from the devastating earthquake of 2015 and was looking for more help from friend India. However, this year it has increased its development aid to Nepal but that might not help now and Oli, with Prachanda onboard, is expected to keep sailing north.

Vishnu Sharma is a journalist based in New Delhi. He has written on India-Nepal relationship and other issues related with democratic transition in Nepal. He tweets @hellovishnu.

What the Success of the Left Alliance Means for Nepal

There is skepticism as well as a lot of hope, and it is now up to the big parties to lead Nepal on the path to peace and prosperity.

There is skepticism as well as a lot of hope, and it is now up to the big parties to lead Nepal on the path to peace and prosperity.

Pushpa Kamal Dahal, known as Prachanda, (left) greets outgoing K.P. Sharma Oli (right). Credit: Reuters

Kathmandu: The writing had been on the wall for the Nepali Congress (NC) for some time. The largest party in the second Constituent Assembly elected in 2013 – and the party that has, since its formation in 1950, been at the vanguard of all popular movements in Nepal – was struggling in the run up to the recent provincial and federal elections. It was struggling because its leader, three-time prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, had failed to articulate a single clear electoral policy. Missing a central agenda, Congress leaders instead tried to demonise their chief opponent, the recently formed Left Alliance, a strategy that backfired badly.

Earlier, the announcement of an alliance between K.P. Sharma Oli’s Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxists Leninists (CPN-UML) and Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda’s Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Center), with an eventual merger on the cards, had come as a complete shock. Until recently, the leaders of the two parties had been at each other’s throats as each tried to project itself as the only ‘genuine’ communist force in the country, and thus to monopolise the sizable leftist vote bank. The rank and file of the parties were kept completely in the dark about the alliance, and it was not hard to surmise that the partnership had pure electoral logic – the consolidation of divided left votes – the purported ‘ideological proximity’ acting as no more than a convenient smokescreen.

Badly shaken by this announcement of left unity between the second and third biggest political parties in parliament, the Nepali Congress quickly set about cobbling together a ‘democratic alliance’ of its own with the support of Madhesi parties. The problem was that, in desperation, it embraced not just the Madhesi groups but also various hues of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) that have been campaigning for the restoration of monarchy and a Hindu state.

This messaging confused voters. The NC claimed to be the chief usher of all progressive changes in Nepal in recent times. But then it was entering an alliance with parties whose main agenda was to roll back all recent changes, including federalism and secularism. Moreover, it appeared Deuba had no vision about how to take the country forward under the new federal dispensation, which has become operational after the recent elections.

Rather than talk about their own strength, Congress leaders on the campaign trail chose to raise the bogey of a ‘communist takeover’ of the Nepali state. However, with both UML and the Maoists well-established as legitimate electoral contenders, few people bought into this scaremongering about totalitarianism.

But perhaps the biggest reason people rejected the NC this time has to do with the 2015-16 shutdown of the Nepal-India border. As the Congress has always been close to New Delhi, its leaders were at the time seen as mincing their words in condemning the ‘Indian blockade’. But while they vacillated, Oli and his comrades felt no such qualms. They openly blamed India for bringing misery to Nepalis.

Sher Bahadur Deuba. Credit: Reuters

Deuba and company were seen as weak and doing ‘India’s bidding’. In contrast, Oli came across as a strong nationalist leader who was not afraid to call a spade a spade. Oli, the blockade-time prime minister, got the credit for courageously standing up to the ‘Indian bully’.

Oli back then also signed the landmark trade and transit agreements with China. These agreements ended Nepal’s total dependency on Indian ports for business with third countries and put paid – at least in terms of optics if not reality – to India’s monopoly on the supply of fuel. Both these acts were seen favorably by Nepalis who had felt humiliated by India’s highhandedness during the standoff. India-bashing has traditionally been a foolproof electoral strategy in Nepal, and Oli milked it.

Perhaps Prachanda, who has long since abandoned his revolutionary zeal, also realised that it would for the moment be wise to align with Oli and try to steal some of his thunder. On the campaign trail, Prachanda was seen as openly projecting Oli as the new prime minister. Apparently, the deal is that while Oli will lead the country, Prachanda will head the new party formed after the left merger. (A more cynical interpretation is that Prachanda is looking for Oli, who has multiple heath issues, to step down sooner rather than later so that he can then become the undisputed communist leader in Nepal.)

China’s puppet?

Speculations are rife that with the Left alliance poised for at least a simple majority, and very likely a two-thirds majority, the new government under Oli will firmly align with China. But this would be an over-simplification of the ground realities in Nepal. Oli understands very well – as does Prachanda, who in 2009 lost his prime minister’s chair after angering India – that no government in Nepal can afford to be seen as openly anti-India. Former Indian foreign secretary Shivshankar Menon rightly refuses to label Oli ‘pro-China’ and thinks of him as ‘just another politician doing whatever is convenient to get to power’.

Oli, who was until a few years ago among India’s most trusted lieutenants in Kathmandu, embraced the pro-China nationalist image because he knew it would pay off electorally. But once in power, he will not need to be so openly hostile to India and will, in all likelihood, make efforts to mend his frayed ties with New Delhi, safe in the knowledge that there is no immediate threat to his government.

Also read: Eleven Years in the Making, Left Alliance Could Herald New Era of Political Stability in Nepal

Also, these days, it is hard to find an ‘anti-China’ political outfit in Nepal. Even within the Nepali Congress there is now a big constituency that believes Nepal’s national interest is best served by maintaining a well-calibrated distance from both India and China, and that Nepal’s ‘special relation’ with India is losing its salience. So it would be wrong to see the new left alliance as ‘pro-China’, as if the NC these days is ‘anti-China’.

India would thus do well to welcome the new left government, which promises to herald an era of long-desired political stability. If India makes an effort to mend ties, Oli, the consummate politician that he is, will reciprocate, and there is no reason Nepal-India relations, badly damaged by the blockade, cannot come back on an even keel. Stability in Kathmandu would also help New Delhi chart out a clear long-term Nepal policy.

Whatever works

But what of the fear that the Left coalition is intent on establishing a communist dictatorship? Even Congress leaders who accuse Oli of harbouring dictatorial tendencies perhaps don’t quite believe that. Nepal’s precarious geopolitical situation makes that impossible. India won’t look kindly on it. Nor have the Chinese in any way hinted of their preference for such a government. All China has been saying all these years is that it wants a stable government in Kathmandu. If the Left coalition gets a two-thirds majority, coupled with more restrictive constitutional provisions on the  filing of no-confidence motions, Nepal could well have a stable government without having to resort to dictatorial means. China, which has assiduously cultivated the Nepali Congress in recent times, also knows that the party is only one election away from power.

Rather than autocracy, with some corrupt and criminal-minded politicians elected this time, the bigger fear is that the new government will be a kleptocracy that only works for vested interests in lucrative sectors like education and medicine. But if there is some skepticism, there is also a lot of hope — hope that the new federal set-up will finally help realise the age-old dream of decentralisation of power and resources away from Kathmandu. There are still misgivings on the part of the Madhesis and it is essential that the new government address these with an open mind and broad spirit.

With the successful holding of all three sets of constitutionally-mandated elections, the long political transition that started with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Accord between the government and the Maoists in 2006 has formally ended. There is now tremendous pressure on the big parties to take the country on the path of peace and prosperity, and work towards the realisation of Nepal’s goal of ‘graduating’ from the ranks of the Least Developed Countries by 2022.

It is true that not all political questions have been settled. But the new constitution is an evolving document, and will change with the country’s changing needs. What the recent elections have done is put the country firmly on the path charted by the new constitution. Not everyone may approve of this new path. Yet the forces that wanted to subvert the constitution have been silenced, at least for the time being.

Biswas Baral is a Kathmandu-based journalist. He tweets @biswasktm.

Eleven Years in the Making, Left Alliance Could Herald New Era of Political Stability in Nepal

The UML and Maoists have nationwide roots, and with the two now in an alliance, their combined organisational heft will be hard to match.

The UML and Maoists have nationwide roots, and with the two now in an alliance, their combined organisational heft will be hard to match.

UML leader K.P. Oli (left) shaking hands with CPN-Maoist Centre leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal “Prachanda”. Credit: Reuters

UML leader K.P. Oli (left) shaking hands with CPN-Maoist Centre leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal “Prachanda”. Credit: Reuters

Kathmandu: The communist movement in Nepal began with the formation of the Communist Party of Nepal in Kolkata, India, in 1949. The party, just like the Nepali Congress – the country’s oldest running democratic party – was forced to operate from India as political parties had been banned by the Rana rulers in Nepal. Since then, the communist movement in Nepal has undergone countless consolidations and splits. In more contemporary times, the first people’s revolution in 1990 gave birth to the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist), or UML, which came into being with the merger of the Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist) and the Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninist). The UML party has since morphed into a political juggernaut. It is the second largest party in parliament at present and emerged the largest party under its charismatic, if at times controversial, leader K.P. Sharma Oli in the recent local elections.

Meanwhile, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Center), led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, traces its origin back to 1994. The Maoist party wanted to establish a ‘people’s government’ through an armed insurgency (1996-2006). Under Prachanda, the Maoists fought state forces to a stalemate and in 2006 entered mainstream politics through the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.

Even at the time of the Maoist party’s entry into the political mainstream, there had been efforts to form a common communist force through a formal merger with the UML. At the time, however, the differences between the UML (which had become well-versed in parliamentary politics) and the Maoists (whose rank and file were still filled with revolutionary fervour) were too big to be accommodated under the same political tent. But informal efforts to unify all leftist forces continued to be made.

It has taken 11 years for these efforts to fructify. In what came as a complete shock to Nepalis, who were busy celebrating Dashain, their biggest festival, the two parties, along with former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai’s Naya Shakti Party, announced a new Left alliance for the upcoming two-phase provincial and federal elections. Not just that, the three parties said that they would formally merge following these elections.

Two posts, two folks

While it is true that efforts to unify all leftist forces in Nepal have been taking place for a while now, few in Nepal believed that it would materialise anytime soon. Even in the recent campaigns for local elections, there were open clashes between the cadres of the UML and Maoist parties, as the two battled it out for limited ‘Left votes’. Even before that there was always this underlying tension between the two parties, as each sought to portray itself as the real communist party. Whenever one did well in an election, the other invariably suffered.

But the same factor that made UML and Maoists bitter rivals also eventually brought them closer. If we look at the results of the recent local elections, had the two parties fielded common candidates, they could have won in up to 83% of all contested seats. This realisation hit home particularly after Nepali Congress routed both the communist parties in the third phase of local elections in Province No. 2.

Reasons for the alliance

Hence, in the reckoning of the top UML and Maoist leaders, it made perfect sense to forge a Left electoral alliance ahead of the provincial and federal elections to consolidate the Left-leaning voters. But there were several other reasons why the leftist forces decided to come together right now.

Perhaps the biggest of them had to do with personal calculations of UML chief Oli and Maoist chief Prachanda. Oli realised that given the proportional electoral system Nepal has recently adopted, there was no possibility of any one party getting an absolute majority in the upcoming elections. That being the case, there was a real chance of the continuation of the current Nepali Congress-Maoist coalition far into the future, not least because India seemed to have given this coalition its blessing. In that case, Oli’s ambition of becoming the prime minister again would have been thwarted.

Likewise, Prachanda was lured by the prospect of getting to be the undisputed leader of all the leftist forces in Nepal. If the new Left coalition garners an absolute majority, as is now likely, then Oli could become the prime minister while Prachanda could take over party leadership.

The crucial element

In case of Baburam Bhattarai, his Naya Shakti Party was going absolutely nowhere. While Bhattarai was the second in command in the Maoist party after Prachanda, since leaving the party in 2015, his political stature had been steadily declining. The recent deal with Oli and Prachanda once again puts him at the centre of Nepali politics, as he is sure to get a respectable position in the new party. Oli and Prachanda also seem to have calculated that having Bhattarai – who is reputed in Nepal as someone trusted by New Delhi – on board would help alleviate India’s concerns over the new communist coalition.

The last point is important because there are already rumors in Kathmandu, often backed by credible voices, that China put together the current communist coalition as a counter against the Congress-Maoist coalition that was backed by India. The Communist Party of China has long advised its communist cousins in Nepal to form a united front. But it would be a stretch to infer from this that the current left coalition was formed at China’s behest. There is no reason for China to pick favourites among the political parties in Nepal these days. It now has solid support among all three big parties in Nepal: Congress, UML as well as the Maoists.

But given New Delhi’s recent paranoia over Nepal being ‘taken over’ by the Chinese, Oli and Prachanda, both of whom have been suspected of harboring pro-China proclivities, clearly felt that Bhattarai could help allay any concerns of the ‘communist takeover’ of Nepal by China’s ‘lackeys’.

But what happens to Nepali Congress now, which is currently the biggest parliamentary party in Nepal? Following news of the Left merger, Congress president and Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba has been busy in hectic parleys to cobble together his own ‘democratic alliance’. Among the likely candidates to join this alliance are the pro-monarchy Rastriya Prajatantra Party, Upendra Yadav’s Federal Socialist Forum and the alliance of six small Madhes-based parties, the Rastriya Janata Party Nepal.

Deuba in the doldrums

Even if these disparate forces can somehow work out a viable electoral strategy, it is likely to be a poor match against the communist alliance. This is because only Congress, UML and Maoists have deep, nationwide roots and with the latter two now in an alliance – and an eventual merger – their combined organisational heft will be hard to match. History is also against Congress. In recent elections in Nepal around 50-60% seats at all levels have gone to communist parties, while the Congress has been able to get just 30-40% of the seats.

Nepal Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba. Credit: Reuters

Nepal Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba. Credit: Reuters

Had Deuba been able to take his party into provincial and federal elections with the Congress-Maoist coalition intact, there was a major likelihood that the two parties would together get absolute majority and again form the government. This, in turn, would have greatly strengthened Deuba’s position in his own party. But with the main opposition party’s hand strengthened, partly as a result of Deuba’s failure to convince Prachanda on continued utility of their ruling alliance, Deuba will struggle to exert himself in Congress. Some party stalwarts are already calling for a new generation of leaders to take over.

In the final analysis, this latest turn of events in Kathmandu has given rise to countless questions on the future course of Nepali politics, but there are few answers. For instance, what now happens to the agenda of constitution amendment that Congress and Maoists had together been championing and which the UML had bitterly opposed? With the new communist coalition making executive head of government their common agenda, is the old parliamentary Westminster system now doomed in Nepal? What happens to transitional justice, with the UML now having seemingly dropped its agenda of prosecution of grave rights violations from the decade-long Maoist war? As importantly, will the Deuba government even survive till provincial and federal elections?

Many fears, some hope

There is a lot of uncertainty, but Nepalis are also hopeful that the new wave of consolidation could also herald a new era of political stability. With the polity badly fractured after the 2006 changes, governments in Kathmandu have changed every nine months or so. But now there is a real possibility of a single party garnering an absolute majority and getting to rule for full five years.

Even amid these hopes and fears and general atmosphere of uncertainty, one thing is for sure: after the latest turn of events, Nepali politics will not be the same again.

Biswas Baral is a Kathmandu-based journalist. He tweets @biswasktm.

Nepal Faces Political Crisis as Maoists Retract Support From Government

Calling for a new government, Maoists cited broken promises by Prime Minister Oli, anger in South Nepal over the new constitution and delayed post-earthquake reconstruction.

Nepal's prime minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli, also known as KP Oli, observes a minute of silence for earthquake victims during an event organised to mark the 18th National Earthquake Safety Day and the official launch of earthquake reconstruction efforts in Bungamati village, Nepal January 16, 2016. Credit: Reuters/Navesh Chitrakar

Nepal’s prime minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli, also known as K.P. Oli, observes a minute of silence for earthquake victims during an event organised to mark the 18th National Earthquake Safety Day and the official launch of earthquake reconstruction efforts in Bungamati village, Nepal January 16, 2016. Credit: Reuters/Navesh Chitrakar

Kathmandu: Nepal was thrown into political crisis on July 12 when the main Maoist party withdrew its support from the ruling coalition and called for the formation of a new government, threatening to topple Prime Minister K.P. Oli.

The Maoists tried to unseat Oli in May but he clung on after reaching a power-sharing deal. An official from the prime minister’s Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist) said Oli would meet officials later on Tuesday to discuss his next move.

Oli came to power in October when the Maoists offered his party parliamentary backing to build a coalition in the impoverished Himalayan country.

The Maoists – who ended a decade-long insurgency in 2006 before joining mainstream politics – said Oli had broken promises he made in May.

They also accused him of failing to resolve festering anger in the south of the country over the terms of a new constitution, and of failing to speed up rebuilding of homes and roads destroyed in an earthquake last year.

“We believe that our decision to withdraw support to this government will help form a new alliance on the basis of national consensus among major political parties,” Krishna Bahadur Mahara, a top Maoist official, told reporters in Kathmandu.

Mahara said the opposition Nepali Congress party was ready to throw its support behind Maoist leader Prachanda to form a new government. Congress party officials were not immediately available for comment.

Commentator Lok Raj Baral said the Maoists’ move could force a no-confidence vote and end Oli’s term in office.

“I suspect these two parties have already made a deal, but we will need to wait and see how Oli and the UML respond,” he told Reuters, referring to the Maoists and the Congress.

The Maoists’ withdrawal of support is the latest political twist for Nepal since it adopted its first post-monarchy constitution in September.

The passing of the constitution looked like a rare moment of political consensus for the country, which became a republic in 2008, but it soon sparked protests.

Minority Madhesis, who live mostly in Nepal’s lowlands near India, imposed a four-month border blockade to protest against a proposal to carve Nepal into seven federal states, which they say would divide their homeland and deprive them of a fair say.

More than 50 people were killed in clashes before protesters called off the blockade in February.

Neighbours India and China compete for influence in Nepal and are both likely to be concerned by the prospect of more instability.

(Reuters)

 

We Haven’t Seen the Last of Nepal’s Unfolding Internal Political Contradictions

India will continue to be affected by the spill-over of internal turbulence in Nepal. India’s challenge is also becoming more formidable with the emergence of China as an assertive competitor for greater economic and strategic space in the sensitive Himalayan region.

India will continue to be affected by the spill-over of internal turbulence in Nepal. India’s challenge is also becoming more formidable with the emergence of China as an assertive competitor for greater economic and strategic space in the sensitive Himalayan region.

Nepali Maoist leader Pushp Kumar Dahal 'Prachanda' and Prime Minister K.P. Oli. Credit: Reuters

I can give you a bit more time: Nepali Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ and Prime Minister K.P. Oli. Credit: Reuters

The Oli government in Nepal has barely saved itself from collapse. On May 4, 2016, one of its major coalition partners, Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, the Unified Nepal Communist Party (Maoist) leader, decided to withdraw support and join the main opposition party, the Nepali Congress (NC) in a new government of national consensus. It took Prime Minister K.P. Oli and his colleagues in the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist), or UML, a couple of days of intense bargaining to dissuade him from breaking the Left-dominated coalition.

The crisis was precipitated by the internal contradictions of the Oli government. The prime minister is clearly in conflict with Nepal’s three key political players – the opposition NC, which lost the race to the prime ministership in October 2015; the Madhes and Janjati groups, on the question of constitutional accommodation; and its major coalition partner, the
Maoists. Even within the UML, there are leadership rivalries. Senior leader Madhav Nepal has blamed Oli for ruling with the support of his coterie and without consulting other colleagues. For the past two months, several voices have been raised against the inefficiency, corruption and non-performance of the Oli administration. Criticism has been centred on the government’s irritatingly slow movement on post-quake reconstruction, and,against a thriving black market in petrol and cooking gas, even after the normal flow of supplies from India was resumed. The Oli government has been charged with lack of political will to address the Madhes issue. The Madhes-government task force set up in January 2016 to address the issue of federal re-demarcation could not even finalise its terms of reference. After months of indifference and casualness, the first formal invitation for talks was sent to the Madhes parties by the government only a day after the present crisis of regime survival was resolved.

The Maoists have been particularly upset with the Oli government on four counts:

  • Carrying forward the peace process,
  • Constitutional amendments and implementation,
  • Power-sharing, and
  • Development and economic progress.

Of these, problems with the peace process and power-sharing have been critical. Maoist cadres have been restless over their inadequate share in the perks and patronage distributed by the Oli government, as also because of Maoists being kept out of key governmental decisions. The question of taking the peace process forward has arisen on account of a number of court cases slapped on important Maoists leaders in relation to disappearances and murders committed during the insurgency period.

The Maoists have been asking that such issues be dealt with under the “truth and reconciliation” process as stipulated in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between them and other political parties, rather than through traditional criminal proceedings. Under the latter, many key Maoists leaders could suffer life-imprisonment. Maoist chief Prachanda and his general secretary, Krishna Bahadur Mahara had publicly voiced concerns in this respect. In their assessment, the Oli government, under the influence of non-governmental human rights organisations and some European Union donors, was keeping this Damocles’ sword hanging over the Maoists to keep them politically subdued. Since the Oli government was not acting on its assurances to the Maoists on addressing these issues, Prachanda first decided to withdraw support and join hands with the opposition NC.

What prompted Prachanda to withdraw the threat he held out to the government was a written commitment from Prime Minister Oli that these issues would be resolved within weeks. A nine-point agreement signed by Prachanda and Oli clearly states that the procedures for withdrawing “political cases slapped for acts during insurgency” and the grant of amnesty for such acts would be expedited without any delay. This agreement also commits the prime minister to the granting of relief in respect of the “martyred” and “disappeared” victims (including Maoist cadre), as also action regarding transactions of land deals made during the political transition in Nepal. Prachanda has also been assured – informally but in good faith – that the prime ministership will be handed over to him after the budget session of parliament.

With these commitments, Prachanda found the NC’s promise of prime ministership and the other assurances of the Nepali Congress less credible. Hence the retraction of his threat to the Oli government. The key mediator for the Oli-Prachanda deal was senior UML leader Bamdev Gautam.

To camouflage the government’s internal contradictions, Gautam and other UML leaders have dragged India in. The Oli government’s moves to cancel President Bidya Bhandari’s scheduled official visit to India and recall Nepal’s ambassador in New Delhi for his alleged political role are part of the cover-up. The intention seems to be to buttress the Oli government’s nationalist image and its Left ideological stance in order to generate political consolidation.

There is no denying the fact that New Delhi is upset with the Oli government and would welcome its exit. But since January 2016, India has been trying to control the damage done by its “blockade” diplomacy and categorical support of the Madhes issue. India wants relations with Nepal to stay normal. India went out of the way to make Oli’s India visit in February 2016 comfortable, and invited President Bhandari in order to soothe Nepal’s hurt feelings. It is possible that both NC leader Sher Bahadur Deuba and Maoist leader Prachanda sought India’s blessings in their efforts for regime change in Kathmandu. India’s joining hands with them in the toppling game would amount to a tactical blunder as these leaders had also failed India on the constitutional issues New Delhi considered important. There are, in fact, media reports from Kathmandu that suggest China’s active role in ensuring a favourable Left-dominated regime under Oli’s leadership.

How long the Oli-Prachanda deal will last is anybody’s guess. It may not be easy for the Oli government to implement its nine assurances to Prachanda. Will the Maoist leader plan yet another coup if and when Oli fails to deliver – especially since his U-turn on withdrawing support to the UML-led government has further dented his credibility?

One wished Nepal would come out of the vicious circle of fragile governments and even-more fragile governance so that the country can focus on reconstruction, stability and development in the interest of its suffering people. But will it?

Sukh Deo Muni is Professor Emeritus at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi 

This article was originally published by the Institute of South Asian Studies, Singapore