Written by Laurence Brahm - Published by South China Morning Post on 03/29/2007

“It was totally inevitable for a cause like the Maoists to arise in Nepal,” observes Ian Baker, a scholar, explorer and author of many books on the Himalayas and Buddhism.

“It is largely a rural-based revolution of people marginalized from Nepal’s development and evolution.”

Over recent decades, he notes, “western donor countries [by channeling aid money through the royal family] created an entire culture of corruption against which the Maoists rose up”.

Conditions in Nepal to a great extent resemble China’s in the 1911- 1948 Republican period, in which Mao Zedong led the Communist Party’s rise to power. The direct parallels are a defunct monarchy, a debauched royal class, landlords and a rural population largely bonded as serfs.

Pushpa Kamal Dahal – better known as Prachanda – the Maoists’ leader, grasped these similarities. He simply adopted the same ideology and organizational techniques that Mao used to gain power.

The current breadth of popular support for the Maoists creates the sense that their rise to power is inevitable. Their main obstacle is the US administration. It fears the Maoist brand – associating it with China’s turbulent, anti-imperialist past – and has allied itself with the monarchy. If Washington continues to adhere to its blinkered labelling of local political and social movements, another Cuba or Afghanistan could arise. On the other hand, if the US gains some deeper understanding of the organisation, an open and market-oriented Nepal could arise, ensuring security for its neighbours.

Indeed, the Maoists are looking to a pragmatic combination of market principles and socialism that can rectify Nepal’s internal economic problems and feudal social structure.

“There has been no creative response to the Maoists,” says Mr Baker. “The American government is in such opposition that they don’t even talk [to them] – labelling them terrorists.” This is certain to create the same kind of diplomatic fiasco that Washington has repeated with communist parties in China, Vietnam and Cuba. In each case, a new leadership wanted relations with the US and sought a market economy. But, because they were isolated, they fell into reliance on the former Soviet Union.

The Maoists have volunteered to put their arms in UN-supervised cantonments and enter mainstream politics as one party in a multiparty democratic framework. They pledge to embrace religious freedom and adopt principles of market economics. But the US administration still refuses to even communicate with them.

It is time not only to talk to Nepal’s Maoists, but also to understand and engage them. In this way, the specific social and economic problems that led to their rise can be rectified.

A secure and stable Nepal is in the interests of both China and India. Who would want to mess it up?

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