Nepal’s Hindu monarchy fell more than two years ago following massive protests led by the Maoist Party. Nepal was declared a secular democratic republic. An interim government was established by a fairly honest election to develop a Constitution defining how the republic’s government will be structured, the rights of the people, and so on. The deadline was May 2010.
The election resulted in 229 seats (38%) for the Communist Party of Nepal – Maoist (CPN), 115 (19%) for the previously dominant Nepali Congress Party (NC), 108 (18%) for the Communist Party of Nepal - United Marxist-Leninist (UML), 82 for what became a bloc of four parties from the Tarai (southern plains bordering India) and 65 seats for 19 fringe parties. A coalition government was necessary. After long negotiations the Maoist leader, Prachanda, emerged as head of the interim government.
The Maoists had been accepted into the political process after ending their civil war and their large guerilla army was placed in temporary camps before returning to normal life. Prachanda declared their normal life would be in Nepal’s national army, the army chief refused to accept them en masse, Prachanda fired him, rival politicians declared that unlawful, Prachanda resigned and was replaced by the UML leader. That took months to unfold. Meanwhile there was and has continued to be no discernable progress on the Constitution or anything else. When the Constitution was not done on time, the politicians gave themselves another year and began jostling for who would replace Prachanda’s replacement. They held an election this past Wednesday with no winner. They held another two days later. Again there was no result.
The UML withdrew their candidate then abstained from voting after a last-minute alliance with the Maoists fell through (the two communist parties hold 57% of the parliamentary seats but are rivals). The Tarai bloc also abstained saying they will only vote for a candidate whose party supports an autonomous state in the Tarai. With nearly 200 MPs refusing to vote, neither Prachanda nor his NC rival can get a majority. UML leaders are urging the CPN and NC to propose new candidates to break the deadlock. Prachanda, once considered a visionary who led a successful revolution, now looks like a dog in the manger who would support other parties’ candidates instead of new leadership in his own party. Nepalis see all their politicians as self-seeking, treacherous and corrupt.
Yesterday evening Maoist chairman Prachanda announced "We have decided to stop the general strike considering the difficulty caused to the ordinary people, and also in view of the conspiracy hatched by this government to instigate violence".
What happened? He knew a general strike would “cause difficulty to the ordinary people”. It caused more than he hoped because it lasted longer - the government did not collapse. The trigger for his announcement was not a conspiracy but a rally of thousands of people earlier in the day organized by the Professional Alliance for Peace and Democracy (PAPAD). He realized the Maoists were about to lose any pretence of legitimacy. Their cadres were enforcing the strike with threats while soldiers patrolled ready to respond but there had so far been little fighting. The food shortage was growing acute, however, and now there was a Maoist-style mass demonstration by the people against both the government and the Maoists. He knew the strike could only be continued with real force. His claim to be fighting for the people would be destroyed by violence against them in full view of the media.
Today is the 5th day of the general strike in Nepal. The immediate future for my friends looks dangerous and the longer term looks worse. It’s heart-breaking. Yesterday I finished restoring spontaneity to Chapter 15, the last one about treks in Nepal, Sikkim and Tibet. Now I’ll do the same to the even-numbered chapters about history and culture. There’s the introduction and one more chapter to write (Mongol influence on Nepal and Tibet) then I can figure out how to publish it and turn to understanding the recent past in Nepal and Tibet to see their future more clearly and if there’s any way to be of real help.
In April 2008 the Maoist party won 30% of the seats in Nepal’s Constituent Assembly. The king had been forced to abdicate and Nepal was declared a democratic secular republic. The Assembly was elected to govern on an interim basis and develop a new constitution by the end of May 2010. There would then be an election for a new government structured to that constitution. There was confusion while leaders of the other parties jockeyed for position and ways to limit his power before Maoist leader, Prachanda, became head of a coalition government. Little or nothing happened after that until he fired the army chief who resisted absorbing Maoist “soldiers” wholesale into Nepal’s army. That was declared unconstitutional, the army chief was reinstated and Prachanda resigned. The coalition government has since then continued to make little or no progress on the new constitution or anything else.
We’ll never know how many of the April 2008 votes for the Maoists were fraudulent or forced. It was not the free and fair election reported by foreign observers but many people did like the Maoist promises. That support eroded when the Maoist-led government failed to fulfill its promises. Their remaining support is now dropping fast. Before the Peace Accord that made the 2008 election possible, Maoist guerillas had gained control of rural Nepal. They supported themselves by extorting food and cash from the villagers. After the Accord Maoist “soldiers” were housed in camps pending their return to civilian life or transfer to Nepal’s army. The camps are still full because most Maoist cadres are not trained soldiers and very few jobs exist in Nepal’s broken economy. Some have been quietly replaced by forced conscripts. They moved into the towns to extort money from business owners and “union dues” from the workers. They are the hard core of the current general strike. Media reports say the strike is peaceful. They do not report that villagers were forced to send one member of each family to join the demonstration or pay a 5,000 rupee “fine” (more than a month’s wages for most of those lucky enough to have a job). They do not report that “protesters” who tried to go home to plant crops when rain came were forced to stay by cadres with sticks. The media says shop-keepers can sell food from 6 to 8 pm, not that cadres with sticks force many shops not to open at all. Prachanda knows his remaining support is eroding fast. This strike is his last best chance to get power in a way that could look like popular will. He will not, I think, settle for a meaningless agreement to end this strike. That means it can only end when the other parties allow him to take control, or mobilize the army as strike-breakers. Army leaders must be lobbying for that because Prachanda will replace them if he gets real power.
The sugumbasi occupy open land on the Kathmandu river banks. I went with my friend Gandhiji to learn about them. Many are refugees from hill villages. They’re often from large families with enough land to support the parents but not enough for all the children. When the parents die the younger sons are left landless. They started coming to Kathmandu 25 or 30 years ago because they could get day laboring work. Later, some folks who rent shops in the city chose to live this way because it's cheaper.
The big change came when the government gave land to a few long-established squatters. Land that was worthless to whoever owned it from long ago suddenly had value because it might be bought by the government. Meanwhile the number of refugees grew, especially after Maoist rebels took over the hills a few years ago, supported themselves by stealing from villagers, and began abducting children for ‘education’. After a while new refugees were unable to find any open land to capture. They had to get someone already living there to move. That’s an established practice in Nepal. To open a shop in Kathmandu, for example, you must pay a shop-keeper to leave even though they do not own the shop.
How can you pay someone to move if you have no money? You must borrow. Why would anyone lend someone with no income the money for land they would not own? Maybe a higher bidder (the greater fool theory) would come or the government would buy that land and give it to the occupant who would then give half to the lender. The real estate bubble in Kathmandu has led some wealthy residents to pay people to come from remote villages and occupy land. Brokers go round looking for people who will move. Land in the northern suburbs now sells for around 6 lakh per ana. No need to explain lakh or ana, the ratio is what’s important. It will cost you half to two thirds that amount now to get a sugumbasi to move from river bank land he doesn’t own.
Oh, Nepal. The country is at a standstill again today. A three day general strike, the latest Maoist ‘agitation’, has closed all government offices, shops and schools for a second day, all transport is stopped and there’s fighting in the streets.
Seven months ago Prachanda the Maoist head of government resigned because his firing of the army chief had been over-ruled. The government and army used to report to the king but it’s not clear who has power now the monarchy has fallen. This strike is the latest of escalating protests over ‘civilian supremacy' which the Maoists say was infringed when the army chief was reinstated. He was refusing entry of all former Maoist guerilla ‘soldiers’ into the army, saying only those who are suitable candidates should be admitted. The real issue was the threat of Maoist ‘officers’ gaining control of the army.
The Maoists entered politics after signing a peace agreement in 2006. Their soldiers have been in supervised camps ever since. In last April’s election Maoists got 30% of the vote. International observers said the election was free and fair and so it was where they were stationed. In other places voters were intimidated and ballot boxes stuffed. It’s impossible to know how many legitimate votes were cast but the Maoists did have widespread support. The established politicians had accomplished nothing but their own enrichment. “The movers never move” as one newspaper reported “and the shakers rarely twitch.” It took four months to form a Maoist-led coalition. Many were optimistic even if they did not vote for the Maoists. They hoped new leaders could get the country moving. “But what did they do?” a friend said recently. “Nothing!” One with lower expectations showed me an article about Nepal’s most dangerous 251 gang-leaders. They rarely went to jail even for murder and never stayed more than a week before bribed politicians got them out but she said the Maoist leaders kept the murderers in jail.