What's Happening in Nepal
I've been surprised by the lack of diaries about what has been happening in Nepal. Its gotten some coverage in the corporate media, but the analyses are often so skewed that it is impossible to get an accurate picture of what is happening.
The single best source of information I've found is: http://www.insn.org/ operated by the International Nepal Solidarity Network. Banned in Nepal (always a good sign) it carries news from a wide variety of sources along with often passionate comments by readers of similarly varied outlooks.
As most people know by now there has been a huge wave of protests demanding that King Gyanendra step down (actually the preferred slogan was "Hang the King!"). A few days ago the King agreed to restore the parliament that he disbanded and to allow the parties of the disbanded parliament to select a Prime Minister. The governments of India and the U.S. urged the parliamentary parties to accept the King's offer, which they did. From the distance of the United States that might seem to be the end of the story.
What has not been as well reported is that the wave of protests were the product of a 12 point agreement between the country's Maoist rebels - the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) with the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) made up of the parliamentary parties. Understanding the circumstances of this agreement is critical to understanding the events that are presently unfolding.
Nepal is a very poor country characterized by a brutally exploitive social system divided by class, caste and ethnicity that has long been ruled by ostensibly divine Hindu Kings who stand at the apex of this essentially feudal system. In the early 1990s protests forced the King to allow the establishment of a constitutional monarchy with a parliament. The parliament was dominated by two parties, the Congress Party and the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist Leninist). The Maoist party participated in the parliament until 1995 when they came to the conclusion that it was a sham that would never be able to address the crushing poverty and oppression of the majority of Nepalis and so they decided to launch a "Peoples War" modeled on Mao Ze Dong's theory of peoples war. The insurgency began with small-scale assaults on police outposts, but it quickly began to grow owing to the corruption of the monarchy, ineffectiveness of the parliament, and brutality of the security forces. An estimated 13,000 people have died in the conflict, the vast majority at the hands of government security forces.
By 2001 the Maoists had established themselves over much of the countryside and the possibility that they might actually take power began to be taken more seriously. This is when the then-King Birendra and much of the royal family were massacred under highly suspicious circumstances by the heir-apparent Dipendra, and the King's uncle Gyanendra ascended to the throne. Gyanendra moved quickly to intensify counter-insurgency operations, procuring military aid from the U.S., India, the U.K. and Belgium and clamping down on the already limited democratic rights of the people. Then in February 2005 he disbanded parliament, paving the way for a rapprochement between the parliamentary parties and the Maoists.
While the U.S. has classified the CPN(M) as "terrorists" and Bush administration officials routinely compare them to the Khmer Rouge or Sendero Luminoso these comparisons are belied by the Maoist's declared support for the creation of a multi-party republic and their ability to operate in alliance with the parliamentary parties. It is clear that the Maoists enjoy broad support in the countryside and might well sweep elections for a promised Constituent Assembly to rewrite the country's constitution.
Indeed, there has been widespread criticism of the parliamentary parties acceptance of Gyanendra's offer without consulting the Maoists and in apparent violation of the principles of the 12-point agreement. The protests had repeatedly laid siege to the royal palace and there was good reason to believe that Gyanendra would have been force to flee the country or lose his head had they continued. The deal, while transferring executive authority to the Prime Minister (a hack who has held the position four times already) preserves the King's authority over the hated security forces. The Maoist initially responded by announcing that they would maintain their blockade on the capital until a Constituent Assembly was called. They subsequently changed course and announced a unilateral 3-month cease fire to allow the parliamentary parties to fulfill (or not) their promise to call a Constituent Assembly as their first order of business.
What is clear is that what is happening in Nepal is not just another one of the color-coded "revolutions" so beloved by CNN and the U.S. State Department. The Nepali democracy movement is a broad movement, but also one rooted fundamentally in a revolt of the poorest Nepalis who are demanding much more than the restoration of an ineffectual parliament.
As an article by Hari Roka on the INSN site put it:
If anyone has the illusion that this sea of people in villages, towns and cities have marched on the streets all over the country without caring for their own lives only to stage a change of government or to make certain individual the prime minister, nothing could be farther from reality. People now want to be sovereign citizens, transforming themselves from being subjects of absolute king. They want to have decisive and active role in sharing and making decisions regarding the national resources. Restructuring of the present state is essential for that to happen. In other words, people want the end of royal rule so that they could find ways to fulfill their goal of political, economic, social and cultural transformation and they become equal citizens in real sense.
Another thoughtful piece by Pratyush Chandra compares what is happening in Nepal to the Venezuelan Revolution. Its available at http://counterpunch.org/...
It's a good bet that this will not be the last we will hear about Nepal. The parliamentary parties have a long history of shady deals and the U.S. and India are looking to establish a regime with a little more plausible claim to legitimacy so that they can restore aid to the counter-insurgency against the Maoists, even though they are probably now the single largest and least compromised political force in the country.
I'd be very interested in what other Kossacks are thinking about whats going on in Nepal and if folks have other good sources of info.