Of course, he has not named who “removed” the king and the popular UML chief but the reference to the southern neighbor is unmistakable. Neither has he provided any evidence for his claim. But he has kept himself on the same pedestal as the late king and the firebrand leader when it comes to fighting for “national independence”. [It is another matter that Bhandari, irked by the Royal Palace’s backroom maneuvers in Nepali politics, had challenged King Birendra to take off his crown and join politics].
Speaking at a function, “National independence and civilian supremacy”, organized by his party as part of the upcoming fourth phase of protests, Dahal claimed he has guided his party to fight for “national independence” of Nepal and would not be cowered with the fate of the two Nepali stalwarts. The intent is clear: His life too is under threat. His image having taken a nosedive after a series of gaffes and exposures (he has blamed Nagarik newspaper for twisting and indulging in “yellow journalism”), the current exercise is aimed at regaining the lost aura and earn sympathy. For those not in the loop vis-à-vis Dahal’s juggling of subjects, the Maoists’ latest switch – to fighting for “national independence” – comes after “civilian supremacy” failed to fetch him prime minister’s seat.
For Pushpa Kamal Dahal, to call the NC and the UML “slaves” of a man he was himself courting so assiduously is plain deception. So, this nationalism angle is too hollow. The sooner Dahal realizes this, the better for him and the country.
It would be easy to pass this off as nonsense coming from a frustrated politician. But not when it is being shaped as a narrative on nationalism. Dahal does not even remember what he had said or done in the past. Readers can judge themselves whether or not this man can be trusted for his new found love for nationalism.
In recent times, we have heard Dahal saying a lot about the Nepal-India 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship. He is not the only Nepali politician to raise the demand for revision (or abrogation) of this treaty as and when it suits them. A typical trait of such leaders is that when they are out of power and cannot come up with any other idea to engage the nation, they resort to India-bashing. “The treaty of 1950 is unequal” is all that they scream about. And then there is hush all around, with no genuine follow-up action. What is guaranteed, though, is that these amnesic nationalists would refer to this treaty again when convenient.
A little refreshing of memory for Dahal would serve him and his party well. The party has been calling for revision of this treaty since its birth. So, in September 2008, when Dahal went to India as prime minister, the issue did come up. The Indians, who have been hearing “revise 1950 treaty” call since CPN-UML’s chief and (later prime minister) Manmohan Adhikari first raised it, promptly agreed to review it and asked the Nepal government to name the provisions it wanted revised. It also proposed setting up a high-level committee at the foreign secretaries’ level to work on the treaty’s revision. Once back in Kathmandu, neither the Dahal government nor the Maoist party did anything about it. The 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship made a quiet burial only to prominently resurface at the Dec 20 New Baneshwar harangue of Dahal, an ex-prime minister trying all means to occupy Baluwatar again.
Take another example to pint himself as a true nationalist leader. In his dialogue-only-with-India declaration of New Baneshwar on Dec 20, the Maoist chief accused the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML as parties perennially in search of “master”. He repeated that on Saturday. Aware that his secret talks with the now ousted king, Gyanendra, would land him in soup, the Maoist chief has been trying to give a new twist to the tale of Maoists’ overtures to the unpopular monarch.
The NC and the UML were “slaves” of Gyanendra Shah is what we hear these days. What we don’t hear is this. That Dahal had condemned three of his party colleagues – Dr Baburam Bhattarai, his wife Hisila Yami and Dina Nath Sharma (current party spokesperson) – to labor camp in Rolpa at the behest of Shah.
Shah was cut up with Dr Bhattarai for alluding that he had a hand in the tragic Royal Palace Massacre of 2005. When the Maoists started flirting with the monarch, a line opposed by Bhattarai, royal one demanded that the party ideologue be punished.
Dahal and Shah’s coming together was done by anti-India glue. They also shared hatred for parliamentary parties. The king was angry with India for not supporting his regime; the Maoist chief was cut up with India, a benefactor which had been providing shelter and security to underground Maoist leaders, for turning on the heat on the then rebels. Gyanendra had said he would address the Maoist demands through his televised address on Feb 1, 2005. Two days before the address, on Jan 30, Dahal obliged Gyanendra by punishing the three party colleagues.
But Gyanendra Shah took the Maoist chief for a famous royal ride. He staged a coup and imposed a state of emergency in the country. Let alone addressing their demands, Shah did not even mention the M word. Furious at this betrayal, Dahal freed his colleagues and ensured that the Chunabang meeting that followed after the Feb 1 coup pass a resolution to work with the parliamentary parties. Soon after that, Dr Bhattarai was off to New Delhi to hold dialogue with the NC and the UML leaders and thus was born the 12-point understanding between the then seven-party alliance and the CPN (Maoist).
For Dahal, to call the NC and the UML “slaves” of a man he was himself courting so assiduously is plain deception. So, this nationalism angle is too hollow. The sooner Dahal realizes this, instead of coming up with different theories and startling remarks, the better for him and the country.
damakant@myrepublica.com
Related story
Mainstream Nationalism vs. Regional Nationalism
