Written by Laurence Brahm - Published by ReviewAsia on 02/01/2008

The monarchy has abdicated and a republic declared, but the country faces new problems. How will the Maoists react if elections are delayed to appease outsiders?

Here's a strange thought: Guerrillas all but coming to power through revolutionary struggle, and then putting down their arms to herald democracy - just like that. While seemingly implausible to most Western observers, this is exactly what happened in Nepal last year, redefining the nature of revolution - not as violent struggle, but a movement for peace.

It was one of Nepal's most tumultuous political years. It began with a peace settlement when Nepal's Maoists put down their arms and agreed to enter politics as a legitimacy party last March. However, the monarchy and the Congress Party continued to delay elections for a constitutional assembly, allegedly at the behest of the US and Indian governments (according to sources from rival political parties).

Frustrated by the political pussyfooting, the Maoists withdrew from the seven party coalition governments in September. Their chairman and supreme commander, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, known by his guerilla name Prachanda (the sharp one), engineered the Maoist coalition-movement walk-out, putting three demands on the table--abolish the 800-year-old monarchy, declare a republic and herald free democratic elections.

For a time, the stand-off seemingly pushed Nepal into new strife and possible civil war, but the Maoists' very demands became prophesy. Nepal's unpopular and dictatorial king - historically supported by the US and India - finally abdicated in December, and Nepal declared a republic, heralding a new era of potential popular democratic participation - and prosperity.

Tourists are already flooding back for the Lunar New Year this month, underscoring new confidence in the promised peace. International investor confidence is expected to follow.

But how will the Maoists switch from organizing street protests to lobbying in the halls of parliamentary power? Another threat to Nepal's peace process now arises from the Tharai region bordering India, where 26 Hindu fundamentalist groups are armed, allegedly with Indian and US covert support.

Despite US attempts to keep the Maoists out of politics by blocking the democratic constitutional process, Prachanda's political daring in dropping arms and placing his guerillas in UN-supervised cantonments while evolving his movement into a parliamentary political parry, has been lauded across South Asia. It is even seen in Sri Lanka as a possible solution for the country's own Tamil Tiger insurgency.

"We did something new," says Prachanda. ''According to our assessment, we are fighting for peace. After 10 years of civil war, we must create a new Nepal through peaceful means. Dozens of comrades have sacrificed lives for peace. We are telling the world that these sacrifices have been for peace and democracy. We are interested in peace and being a legitimate party in government." That peace was almost derailed last year. Fearing a surge in votes for the Maoists, the US tried to keep them out of the coalition government. But other parties knew they needed the participation of the Maoists - who are massively popular among villagers and urban poor - to make any coalition government legitimate in the eyes of the Nepalese."

"We want democracy for poor people and suppressed groups and change in the whole society, economic and agricultural," says Prachanda of the Maoist vision. "We want to rebuild rural infrastructure and roads in mountainous areas and establish an infrastructure consistent with an independent country."

Sources said US representatives attempted to derail both the peace and democratic processes, by pressuring the monarchy and prime minister throughout 2007 to delay constitutional reform assembly elections, further deterring democracy, Ironically, the Maoists support a democratic agenda not unlike what many people are struggling for elsewhere - even in Hong Kong, for that matter. But for some reason, Washington insisted on labeling Nepal's Maoists as "terrorists", which was dutifully echoed by mainstream Western media."

The masses support our agenda and Western media cannot see it," says Prachanda." It is necessary to make a new interface and clear up misunderstandings." It seems Washington has lost sight of America's own historic revolutionary credentials, and is now promoting a fundamentalist agenda instead. As self-proclaimed monopolist exporter of American-brand democracy, US-engineered democratic experiments have failed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Pakistan. Meanwhile, a legitimate - albeit organic - one is underway in Nepal. But it is not even being recognized by Washington.

"We are for real democracy, not just dressing up as a democracy," says Prachanda. "We are for real peace and real change. We want social-economic change. Our struggle is against feudalism in society; economy and politics.

"We want a real democracy representing the entire population, not just a privileged segment of it. We are in favor of elections. We wanted to have elections in June 2007. But the Nepalese Congress Party conspired to postpone elections. We are in favor of elections but Western politicians have used the media blaming us in order to postpone the elect ions."

Even though the monarchy has stepped down and a democratic republic declared, problems remain. There will be no substantial changes until elections for a constitutional assembly scheduled this March. Prachanda is doubtful whether the government will hold elections. The Maoists command popular votes that the Congress Party, traditionally supported by the US and India, does not. Hence, it is in the interest of these two foreign powers to delay elections as long as possible. The scenario is worrying and many people are wondering how the Maoists will respond. Will it be by renewed armed struggle or by massive civil protests? Prachanda offers an answer. "We will mobilize the masses. Before, we are considered a minority in parliament, bur we are the majority in the street."

Both the democratic and peace processes are facing derailment amid continued militancy in the Tharai region of southern Nepal. Here, the US and India together support some 26 Hindu fundamentalist armed militias, openly engaged in extortion killing. Weapons and funding allegedly come from US sources. They also receive arms and shelter from India. Maoists have confiscated US-made pistols from members of these groups.

The Maudise People's Rights Forum, led by Upendra Yadav, has strong US backing. Last spring, in Gaur, the group was blamed for the massacre of 29 Maoists. According to sources, the US ambassador to Nepal met with Yadav on the eve of the killings. So is a mini-Afghanistan in the making?

"If this country [Nepal] disintegrates, the US and India will have a border that will be with China and this will have a direct link with Tibet," says Prachanda. "This is the real concern of the US in intervening in Nepal- it is China."

A new kind of Great Game is in play. "There are two big powers - China and India - that will challenge the US," Prachanda says of the problem Nepal faces. "So the US wants a unipolar world and to have this ability to control all of Nepal and this is their strategy. We are a poor country without resources, so they have no economic interest, only strategic interests. And they don't want progressive forces [in Nepal]. They want to create a dictator ship in the name of democracy. Like in Pakistan and Afghanistan - a dictatorship dressed as democracy."

But what does Prachanda want? What is the real agenda of Nepal's Maoists? "We are interested in peace and being a legitimate party in government," Prachanda insists. "Dozens of comrades have sacrificed their lives for peace and democracy. We are in favor of democracy and peace."

Does US foreign policy ever learn from its mistakes? If Washington really wants democracy in Nepal, it should bring the Maoists in from the cold. By isolating those whom they don't understand, Washington perpetually fulfills its own fears.

"Don't be afraid of the Maoist leadership," Prachanda advises America with a smile. "We are fighting for democracy and peace. Democracy and peace not only in our own country but in this region - all of South Asia!"

In doing so, is Prachanda calling for a new regional consensus?

"After the last time we met [with ReviewAsia's Brahm] I talked with my comrades in the Central Committee about the Himalayan Consensus," he says. "This is a new ideal that should be developed and crystallized. This Himalayan Consensus is special given the unique physical and spiritual dimension of this region, and the political and economic institutions developing here should encompass these ideas."

Closing 2007 by ending Nepal's unpopular, brutally authoritarian monarchy and replacing it with a democratic republic could be largely attributed to the Maoist pressure - all achieved peacefully. The Maoist-led victory shows the ultimate power of populist movements that have chosen to take the peaceful path of resistance. But will the victory hold?

Laurence Brahm is a global activist, international mediator, political columnist and author. He is the leading advocate of a fresh development paradigm - The Himalayan Consensus - an innovative approach to development.

Back to Top