Prachanda criticising India and US

[che_diwas]

A top Maoist leader, Prachanda alias Pushpa Kamal Dahal, has alleged that India still wants to protect monarchy in Nepal.




In an exclusive interview with the BBC Nepali Service, Prachanda said it was India and the Indian army which had been in the forefront in safeguarding the royal regime and assisting the Nepalese army. I have the feeling that it is trying to keep the monarchy through different channels. I don't believe that India favours the abolition of monarchy, he added.

When asked if his party was in favour of India getting a permanent seat in the Security Council of the United Nations, Prachanda said India should first reconsider some of its present policies towards smaller neighbours. "It presently follows what is known as Nehru doctrine under which it seeks to intimidate, interfere, expand its influence and dictate its terms on its neighbours. If India reconsidered such a policy then it would indeed deserve a seat in the UN security council," he added.

Talking to Sushil Sharma, Nepal correspondent of the BBC in Kathmandu last week, exclusively on issues related to the country's foreign relations, the Maoist chairman claimed that (founder of modern Nepal) Prithvi Narayan Shah's theory of seeing Nepal as a yam between the two boulders was a symbol of weakness. "(Instead) Nepal could be a dynamite between the two boulders. It could explode and break all boulders into pieces, if any external forces try to intervene, dominate or intimidate Nepal at this age. If it exploded, it can affect many.," he added.

When asked if he saw more threat emanating from India compared to China, Prachanda said it would not be appropriate to be that straight. "I would rather say that the Indian rulers have lately expanded collaboration with the US rulers. The American pressure and the vested interest of India's hard-line faction have merged as a hurdle to Nepal's independence and self-determination," he added.

Analysing Chinese policy towards Nepal, the Maoist supreme said China had traditionally been backing the king as a factor of stability. But the people's movement against the monarchy and the feudalism in the recent times capped by the 19-day agitation in April may have forced the Chinese government to reconsider its old policy.

The Maoist supreme, however, said he did not have any face to face meeting with any Chinese official so far. "I had had a meeting with a Chinese professor only. Apart from Professor Wang, no Chinese official has met me," he added.

When asked about the US interest in Nepal, Prachanda said he thought that the US had a global strategic interest in seeking to derail our movement. "We also suspect that the US and India have been collaborating to come here under a design. That has worried us even more," he added.

In response to another query, Prachanda said as his party was calling for self-determination for different ethnic people in Nepal, he believed that the Kashmiri people should also get such a right-- the right to decide their fate themselves. "Not only that, the people in the (insurgency-torn) north-east India should also be let to decide what they want. However, let me make it clear that self-determination does not mean separation (from the state)," he added.

"Tibetan people should also get such right to self-determination. But we think that the autonomy that the Chinese government has given there is in accordance with the aspiration of the Tibetan people," said Prachanda.

When asked about linking of Beijing with Lhasa by a Chinese train service and its strategic importance, Prachanda said Nepal had so far leaned towards the southern neighbour due to the economy, open borders, transport and communication etc. "This has put us in a disadvantageous position vis-à-vis India which, instead, is in a position to take undue advantage. In view of this, the train service from Beijing to Lhasa and beyond, to Kathmandu, would benefit Nepal in particular and the entire region in general. It would do no harm," he added.

When asked about al Qaeda attacks on the US and elsewhere, the Maoist chairman said Bin Laden's attacks on innocent people the world over under a blind religious garb are terrorist activities which we strongly condemn. "But it is the US which is a bigger terrorist than Bin Laden in the sense that it was the US which created him during the war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. As far as our relations with the US are concerned, we are not going to fight against it. Nor are we capable of such a fight. It is not that we do not want to have relations with the US once we go to power. All we want is to wage an ideological resistance against the US muscle-flexing in the world," he added.

In response to a question, Prachanda said (we) are definitely concerned over an upsurge in the activities of the international powers. But I don't believe that this alone will endanger Nepal's existence. Nepal, with 25 million people, is not a too small country. There are more than a hundred countries which are smaller than us. "It is not easy for the US to invade us, like it did in Afghanistan and Iraq. If India and China have such designs that would also not succeed, because forces have already emerged here on their own to counter such designs," he added

[Severian]

It doesn't seem particularly true that Indian policy is especially pro-monarchy. It's widely reported, even, that New Delhi brokered the agreement between the CPN(Maoist) and the Seven-Party Alliance.

The U.S. stuck with the monarchy longer, and China longest of all.

But the CPN(Maoist) has always been big on anti-Indian nationalism. It's one of their main propaganda themes. They've even been known to praise the monarchy (historically) as the defender of the Nepali nation against India.

This has some implications for the nationalities within Nepal, too, some of which are of Indian origin.

For example, the CPN(M) has suffered a splitoff of some of it's "Madheshi" members, who have set up a group called the Terai Jantantrik Liberation Front . The two groups are fighting each other, with weapons.

My point here is, that Madheshis are people of Indian origin, and this group split off, they said, because of anti-Madheshi discrimination within the CPN(Maoist). The CPN(M) admits it had a problem with this.

And what's the main excuse for anti-Madheshi bias in Nepal? "Nepal's ruling elites have forever been suspicious of Madhes because they think these people are of Indian origin, and therefore pro-Indian," source and more details

[I might comment, incidentally, that this growing factional conflict may be one reason the talks with the government seem stalled over disarmament or "arms management". Who knows, will the TJLF have to be part of that, along with the CPN(M) and the government army?)

Additionally, I've seen the Marwanis - another group of Indian origin - described in pro-CPN(M) literature (RCP stuff, specifically) as a "business caste".

Well, many Marwanis are successful in business, not only in Nepal but throughout the Indian subcontinent. They left their arid province (Rajasthan) seeking their fortunes elsewhere, and like Jews and many other groups they played a role as the commercial element in precapitalist or not fully capitalist societies. But scapegoating them is problematic for reasons which should be apparent.

Anyway, that's an aspect of CPN(Maoist) policy which I haven't commented on before, and which helps explain what's going on in this interview.