bagar and the len b

Addressing a mass meeting organized on 7 May, a day after withdrawing the indefinite general strike, UCPN (Maoist) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal told the ruling parties that the ball was now in their court and that his party would now be wait to see the response of the government. Dahal had served a two-day ultimatum to the ruling parties to respond to the ‘ball’.

Within the two-day deadline, political parties in the ruling coalition did respond to the ball but the response was not what the Maoists were anticipating. Instead of stepping down, PM Madhav Kumar Nepal asked the Maoists to sit in talks. Now it was the turn of the Maoist to respond to the ball kicked by the ruling parties. The Maoist standing committee meeting held on Sunday traded the response by setting deadline of May 24 for Prime Minister to step down to pave the way for national consensus and conclude peace process. And, we are waiting to see how the government will respond yet another ball thrown by the Maoist in the government’s court.

Maoists called off the indefinite general strike on the sixth day and presented itself as a responsible party. Many speculations were afloat regarding the hasty decision to call off the strike. Some analysts speculated that the strike might have been called off following intense pressure from international community and public, while some guessed that internal negotiation between Maoist and ruling parties might have forced the Maoists to call off the strike. But, this was not the matter alone.

Why Maoist decided to go back from the general strike despite overwhelming presence of party cadres and supporters? As people are saying public pressure, especially the one through peace rally, might not be the sole reason but can be a part of strategy drawn from the popular phrase of Vladimir Lenin ‘one step forward, two steps back’ which was used as the motto in a 1904 revolutionary pamphlet. Maoists may be waiting for an appropriate time following the idea laid down by Lenin that when enemies recollect retaliatory strength, there is not alternative to getting back and getting back is meant to move two steps forward when enemies lose their strength. Otherwise, there might not have been any reason for the standing committee meet to work out next phase of protest under the cover of ‘People’s Movement-III’. Along with this very reason, Maoist might have been compelled to think of yet another series of protest due to its failure in combining ‘urban revolution and rural class struggle’ in ‘people’s movement-III’, lack of the vision to estimate people’s mood and appropriateness of the time and incorrect synthesis of village and city. Maoist ‘movement’ was full of error. Maoist strategy of internalizing the fusion of Lenin’s urban revolt and Mao’s long term people’s war strategy was not practical. The fusion of combining villages in cities wasn’t possible either. This was the reason why city people retaliated country people-dominated ‘people’s movement-III’. Maoist leaders must have learnt from this failure as they have been maintaining that the demonstration was just a rehearsal of their premeditated ‘people’s revolution’.

Nepal’s geo-political situation, diplomatic, economic, social and political distinctiveness and intra-party differences are posing the challenges for emboldening of the Maoist to attain their objective. In the context where they have already entered in parliamentary democratic system, it will be no more than a pipedream of the Maoists to seize the power through so-called ‘people’s revolution’.

For people, Maoist movement had no significance. Every action should have the meaning and genuine reason. So-called movement of the Maoist was just a medium to vent the regret of losing power and to regain it.  Discarding the democratic process and toppling the government from the street is never justifiable in democratic society.

With Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal’s government failing to fulfill the mandate of promulgating new constitution within stipulated time and bringing opposition party to consensus and Maoist opting unconstitutional way for gaining  power, the country is sliding into a deep crisis. The climax of egoism is glaring as neither of the sides is ready to compromise.

While hailing the Maoist decision to call off the strike, it will be too early to conclude that withdrawal of the strike is an indicator to prove Maoist’s ‘maximum flexibility’. Maoists need to be more responsible. If the consensus will not be reached due to the Maoist single-handed demand of PM’s resignation and formation of Maoist-led government consequently bringing unprecedented political and constitutional disaster after May 28 (deadline for the new constitution), the Maoist party will be one of the shareholders of the historic mistake. After settling May 28 crisis, political parties should not prevent Maoists from leading the government. UCPN (Maoist) is the largest party and it deserves moral ground to lead the government.

Ruling parties have forwarded six issues, including the issue of army integration, disbanding the para-military structure of Young Communist League (YCL) and return of seized property, for the package deal.

Political parties should reach the common minimum understanding for finalizing these issues. But these are procedural issues and its implementation may take long time. So, it will be too late for the ruling parties if they wait for finalizing the implementation of all these issues before they let the Maoists run the national government. In this sense, Maoist Chairman Dahal’s statement — ‘the ball is in ruling parties’ court’ is partially correct.

bigyansharma@gmail.com