NEPAL: Prachanda's Call for Direct Talks with India- Not to be taken Seriously- Update No. 214

NEPAL: Prachanda’s Call for Direct Talks with India: Not to be Taken Seriously- Update No. 214

By Dr. S.Chandrasekharan

In a mass meeting at the end of the third phase of massive protests, Maoist leader Prachanda made a surprising statement that having failed in his talks with the Nepali Congress and the UML, he would hold talks directly with India.

In his speech he made more insinuations against India. He said that both Nepali Congress and the UML have no authority to decide on their own and that the Robots (which control them) cannot see the people and the nation. He obviously meant India, as earlier he, as well as his deputy accused India of interfering with the internal affairs of Nepal.

Prachanda then continued and said that his party had five points in his agenda to talk to India "to correct the unequal relations" between the two countries.

Since Prachanda mentioned more than five points, one has to guess what the five points were. These could be

1. Scrapping of the 1950 treaty between Nepal and India.

2. Revising India’s policy to ensure Nepal’s right to international transit.

3. A tripartite strategic plan to be drafted among Nepal, China and India for mutual development.

4. All border disputes including the Susta to be settled.

5. Indian Army to withdraw from the Kalapani area.

Of these, Prachanda has a case for scrapping or reviewing or even replacing it with a fresh treaty. If it is a case that the Nepalese are dissatisfied with the current treaty, immediate steps should be taken. In a limited poll conducted by a local newspaper in Kathmandu, 63 percent considered the treaty as a bane, 30 percent considered it as a gain while 7 percent did not have an opinion.

On international transit, Nepal is getting more exits than what is considered as minimal by international standards. India could then follow the international standards.

The tripartite strategic plan is the most mischievous one, giving China a handle to interfere in what is purely a bilateral relationship between India and Nepal

On the other two issues, talks are going on with Nepal and these should be expedited.

Another major point raised by Prachanda was that a "balanced trade treaty should be signed as Nepal was incurring heavy losses". This is certainly not the case and perhaps this could be taken along with the revision of the 1950 treaty where some sections in Nepal have been demanding that Nepal should be treated as a sovereign state ( which it is ) on all issues included issues relating to economy.

Prachanda’s statement was widely criticised by all non Maoist parties. The UML Politburo declared the speech as "anti national."

Sensing criticism all round, the Deputy Parliamentary leader of the Maoists- Narayan Kaji Shrestha told the press that Prachanda’s speech should not be taken literally and it was rather a satirical remark on the parties.

It looked more like an "angry outburst" given at the spur of the moment, but the issues had raised are serious ones that need attention.

The third day of the third phase of agitation of the Maoists witnessed less violence though sporadic vandalism did take place in Ilam, Pachattar, Morang, Chitwan, Makwanpur, Palpa and Bhaktapur.

Soon after the completion of the third phase, Dr. Baburam Bhattarai head of the UNPM ( United People’s Movement) announced the fourth phase of the agitation starting from 24^th of this month.

It was thought and there were indications that the Maoists were planning to focus against India for its interference and blaming India for all the problems in Nepal ( though some were created by themselves). Anti Indianism sells in Nepal ( I am not going into the historical reasons now) and the agitation could have ended in violence against Indians and people of Indian origin as it happened over the agitation against Bollywood Actor Hrithik Roshan.

Now it has been converted into a month long "awareness campaign" till January 24^th and also "action against the corrupt and the agents of foreign powers."

While still taking a belligerent posture, the Maoists have announced that they have withdrawn the protest inside the parliament, thus letting the Parliament tun smoothly from now on. It is a good sign as the Maoists must have realised by now that their campaign against civilian supremacy has its limitations and they cannot start another Jana Andolan on these issues or capture power by these protests.