Maoism In India And Its Appearance In Nepal
By Kamala Sarup
India being a big neighbour, it is nothing wrong having co-operation in terms of military supplies and sharing of
defence intelligence information. Although India, the U.S. and Britain have given the Royal Nepal Army weapons and
training, the army lacks in intelligence and capability to carry out offensives. Unless the strong neighbour like India
gives direct military support, it is difficult for the army to get an upper hand with the Maoists.
On return to its military support to tackle the Maoists, New Delhi wants a change in the 1953 extradition treaty to
incorporate a clause for allowing Indian police to enter Nepalese territory to investigate activities of its enemies and
handing over nationals of third countries if New Delhi considers them as criminals. Another proposal is that Indian
security personnel will assist authorities at the Tribhuvan International Airport, citing the 1999 hijacking of an
Indian Airlines flight. Civil society in Nepal feels that Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, who no longer has the
advantage of being an elected prime minister, is giving in too much to get Indian support for tackling Maoist
insurgency. Of course, it would be better for Nepal not to depend too much on external military support if it could
devise means to tackle insurgency by itself. But then, the Maoists and the Nepalese army are neck and neck, with the
former having capacity even to carry out strategic offensive. The other factor to be considered is that taking Indian
military support in suppressing the insurgency may boomerang resulting in the Maoists gaining more sympathisers. Dr.
Arul argued.
India is a regional hegemonic power and Nepal and Nepalis have to live with that. India's position on the armed maoist
insurgency in Nepal is not static. Initially India considered this Nepal's internal problem. Maoists used the open
boarder between Nepal and India very effectively for shelter, and to ferry arms and other vital supplies. It was only a
matter time before the resourceful Nepali maoists made links with maoist groups on the Indian side. Recently, long
divided Indian maoist groups have agreed to wage a united campaign against the Indian state, and Nepali maoists have
pledged to lend their full moral and strategic support to this cause. Indian security may have evidence that Nepali and
India maoists conduct joint political and military training on Indian as well as Nepali territory. All added up, the
Indians have suddenly realized that this is not only Nepal's, but a regional problem with definite spillover effect into
key bordering Indian states like Bihar, UP, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Bengal, and beyond. Schalor Dr. Anup Pahari argued.
India has her own bag of trouble with insurgencies, including the Indian Maoists. She has not been able to bring them to
any meaningful negotiations there. Further, she has not been able to discourage the involvement of the Nepali Maoists
with the Indian Maoists with explicit declaration of forming a "Compact Revolutionary Zone" including the territory
extending from Nepal to Andra Pradesh. At best India could do is expend more effort than currently being made to control
the open border to prevent the Nepali Maoists form using India for refuse, and export of clandestine of weapons and
other logistic materials into Nepal. Limiting the scope of action of the Maoist in this way could perhaps force the
Nepali Maoists to opt for genuine negotiations.Misras also said.
The revival of the Maoist movement in India and its appearance in Nepal represent a phenomenon that goes against the
trend of international communism. At a time when the doctrine seems to have run its course in both Russia and China -
once the two main bastions of the creed - and is surviving precariously in isolated outposts like North Korea, Cuba and
Laos, it is a matter of surprise that the most violent version of the dogma has reared its head in South Asia.
"It would have been understandable if the Maoists had grown in numbers and organisational skill in the 1970s when China
under Mao Zedong openly urged them to spread the 'prairie fire' of revolution. It was indeed as a result of Chinese
inspiration that the Maoists under their charismatic leader Charu Mazumdar broke away from the Communist Party of
India-Marxist (CPI-M) in West Bengal in 1969 to emulate the Maoist example of guerrilla warfare in the countryside. The
first shots - or, rather, bows and arrows - were fired in Naxalbari village in West Bengal in 1967, giving the uprising
the name of the Naxalite movement. Peace activist Chiranjibi also said.
Even security has been tightened along the Indo-Nepal border area after recent incuidents of unrest in Nepal. "Our duty
is to keep track on Maoist activities, track them down and take necessary counter measures," said Himanshu Kumar, the
Director General of the Special Services Bureau.
He said a massive combing operation has been launched in the area and police have also set up temporary posts as they
with the merger of the Communist Party of Nepal India merging together there is fear of exchange of weapons going on
though there is no notice of any kind of joint strategy between the two.
"Communist party of Nepal and CPI (India) merged together to there will definitely be exchange of weapon but there is no
notice of any joint strategy between the two," he added.
New Delhi is a key ally in Kathmandu's efforts to end the insurgency and is keen to see it quelled quickly. India also
urged Nepal to invite insurgent Maoists for peace talks.
"And they have to be convinced that they cannot win an armed struggle and that their bargaining power would diminish if
they continued with their agitation for long," Indian Ambassdor Saran told a seminar on Nepal. "Certain assurances such
as a level-playing field have to be given to them and some parts of their programme accepted to convince the Maoists to
come to the political mainstream and participate in elections," he said.
"The Maoists are seeing a fractured polity in Nepal. The political parties, in their rivalry, do not seem to understand
that the need now is to rise above their differences to ensure that the multi-party system survives," he said.
It is known that the special security relationship between India and Nepal was re-established during the 1990 New Delhi
visit of Nepal's PM Krishna Prasad Bhattarai and during the 1991 visit to India by Nepalese prime minister Girija Prasad
Koirala. Even during the Indian PM's visit to Nepal in June 1997 the two sides reiterated their determination to work
closely to fight violence and the Home Secretary level talks were also held and all matters relating to security were
discussed in detail. After the Joint Working Group on Border Management and Home Secretary level talks, effective border
management measures were taken to counter the misuse of the open border. India recently passed the Prevention of
Terrorism Ordinance to ban various political groups, including the India-Nepal Solidarity Forum-which has been working
in India to build support for the Maoists in Nepal.
It is true Nepal is very close culturally to India than any other country and it is also true, India has condemned the
widespread violent attacks by Maoists and opposed the recourse to violence and extremism in the pursuit of political
objectives.
Our definition of security depends heavily upon our relationship with India, which nearly surrounds our territory. We
have an open and unregulated border with Sikkim, West Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal. Our security
position has been adversely affected by our lower level of political and economic development. But the political and
military dimensions have predominated the situation. Even, India and Nepal have been having close relationship since
before 1857, and in 1950 India and Nepal initiated their intertwined relationship with the Treaty of Peace and
Friendship and accompanying letters that defined security relations between the two countries.
"Nepal and India have to learn from Vietnam. Vietnam was robbed of its ancient heritage and forced to accept the culture
of communism. Instead of a socialist paradise communist have obtained only poverty, hunger and misery. These facts have
become so clear and brutal that even many of the Communist Party's most ardent supporters are admitting that they have
failed.
In 1990, the leading Communist official Tran Bach Dang told the author Stanley Karnow, "Our belief in a Communist utopia
had nothing to do with reality. We tried to build a new society on theories and dreams--on sand. Instead of stimulating
production by giving people incentives, we collectivized them. Imagine! We even collectivized barbers. It was
preposterous. We were also consumed by vanity. Because we crushed the Americans, we thought we could achieve anything.
We should have heeded the old Chinese adage: 'You can conquer a country from horseback, but you cannot govern it from
horseback.'" Finally the Communists must look their failure in the face and confess their mistakes.
In a similar confession the unrepentant but realistic Dr. Duong Quynh Hoa, a high leader in the VietMinh, told the same
journalist, "I have been a Communist all my life, but now I've seen the realities of Communism, and it is a
failure--mismanagement, corruption, privilege, repression. My ideals are gone." In a later meeting she voiced the same
outrage saying, "Communism has been catastrophic. Party officials have never understood the need for rational
development. They've been hypnotized by Marxist slogans that have lost validity--if they ever were valid. They are
outrageous." Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh of Vietnam said.
(Kamala Sarup is editor to http://peacejournalism.com/ )