CPN-Maoist Secretary Netra Bikram Chand ‘Biplav’ is known for his shoot-from-the-hip approach to political negotiations and media handling. Viewed as a crucial power broker within Baidya-led Maoist party and an important inter-party interlocutor, Chand had a candid conversation with Republica’s Biswas Baral and Kiran Pun on the failure of the recent round of negotiations and where the party is headed as the country enters the final stretch of scheduled November 19 election.
Has the rationale for further talks disappeared?
You never say never in politics. But we felt during negotiations that the parties were not serious about our demands right from the start. It was not the case that the talks were going fine and all of a sudden they took a wrong turn. In truth, they never took off the ground. [break]
Was this lack of seriousness evident on both the sides?
I think so. Neither side seems to have taken talks seriously and seen them as a way out of the current crisis. Like I said, this lack of seriousness was evident right from the start. We (CPN-Maoist) felt that the four parties were in dialogue process only because they wanted to show to the people they had made an effort to bring us onboard.
Keshav Thoker
Constituents of the 33-party alliance have said that talks failed since the key to opening locked doors lay elsewhere.
It is evident that external forces want to play a decisive role in shaping things here. But I still believe that if the political parties were sincere, we could still have had a breakthrough.
What next?
We will continue to push for an agreement through dialogue, especially on elements of future constitution. But if that is not forthcoming, it will mean that the desired end to the transition—consensus, peace, change and prosperity—might not be achievable. In other words, it means that the battle over control of state and law apparatus will start anew.
Competing versions have emerged on CPN-Maoist bottom-line during negotiations. What actually was your bottom-line?
One, we wanted to settle on a mechanism that could facilitate a way out of the current crisis. We said that this could be roundtable conference which could provide a legitimate platform for all the political forces to thrash out issues in the absence of the Constituent Assembly. Two, we wanted intensive dialogue on the shape of the future constitution. Three, we wanted the remaining parts of the peace process like issues related to martyr families and disappearance settled. Four, we had certain demands on the kind of government we wanted.
There is a belief that talks broke down after the head of the government declined to resign from the post of Chief Justice, as you wanted.
That is not true. This is only a technical issue, not a political one. Our main issue was constitution.
You mean you wanted agreements on nitty-gritty of future constitution?
Yes. We wanted to explore why the last Constituent Assembly could not write a constitution. This issue should be settled before we embark on another constitutional process. All other issues are subsidiary.
How do you counter the allegation that you never wanted election in the first place since CPN-Maoist was unsure about its poll prospects?
Not true. The course of events does not support that line of thought.
You mean you are ready to go to polls right now given the right conditions?
Taking part in election is a relative concept. We might in certain cases, and in some cases we might not. Congress and UML had boycotted the CA polls announced by (former prime minister) Baburam Bhattarai. Even an established democratic party like the Pakistan People’s Party recently boycotted Presidential election in Pakistan. We don’t believe election is the one and only way out of the current crisis.
What about your demand for the postponement of CA polls?
Election is a part of broader political agenda. It was not because there were no elections that the country had to go through the civil war. Nor was it the case that talks broke down because there could be no agreement on new government. You have to look at the issue in its essence. The civil war and current impasse are directly related to the rights of the people, to the faulty state structure. If you leave aside this essence, there is no point in talking about subsidiary issues. If you look at our four-point demand, our emphasis is clearly on the nitty-gritty of future constitution, not if the current head of the government should forego his CJ duties.
Aren’t we going to CA election again precisely because there could be no agreement the last time around?
There is no rationale to electing a new CA at this point. Unless we properly diagnose the diseases that ailed the last CA and ultimately led to its death, there is no point in electing a new one, for it will meet the same fate. New election without political consensus will be a meaningless exercise.
Can we decide in advance how the new sovereign Constituent Assembly elected by fresh mandate should function?
If we can get a prior agreement on constitution, we might not need new election at all. After all, we have tried the CA mechanism once, and it failed. The Constituent Assembly where the Maoist party went with its agenda on the back of people’s mandate has already failed. It appears like other parties are looking for a CA where all the important agendas raised by the Maoists can be conveniently sidelined. Again, why do you need a CA? We can have a constitution through political consensus, or through an expert-drafted panel. Why give such importance to the Constituent Assembly, which is, after all, only a means, not the end?
But isn’t it also a question of legitimacy? Won’t an assembly with popular mandate have greater legitimacy to draft a constitution than one produced through other mechanisms?
If the then CPN (Maoist) which had never taken part in an election can enter the House with 73 representatives, if there can be prior agreements on republicanism and federalism, why can’t we have a constitution through political consensus? If people approve of something, it automatically becomes legitimate. People had endorsed the people’s war, hence it became legitimate. They had also endorsed the political agreements leading to the last CA election. People will endorse any agreement that will help end the current impasse, which is how it will become legitimate. What people want right now is a constitution, not election.
There appears to be a fundamental difference in how you interpret the current situation and how other political parties do. How do you find a meeting point from such polar opposite positions?
The meeting point is the constitution. It is the end point of all the political agreements post 2006. It was the envisioned end of the civil war. Now if you set aside this all-important agenda, what is the point of talking?
Can we say that chances of your party taking part in the scheduled CA election are nil at this point?
Yes, as things stand, there is no such possibility. We won’t go into an election without a concrete agreement at hand.
What is your action plan then?
We will boycott the election, as well as the current government and the state apparatus. We might also be forced into interpreting our sidelining as an end of justification of the Comprehensive Peace Accord or as breaking of transition rules. If other political parties turn their back on the peace and constitution agenda, the responsibility for whatever happens now on rests with them.
CPN-Maoist, as you point out, is ready for a path of confrontation. But aren’t there inherent dangers? What happened at Dhulikhel last Sunday (when CPN-Maoist cadres set alight a bus with passengers inside) might be repeated.
Yes, such incidents might be repeated and the responsibility must be taken by the four major parties. Tell me something: Why did the political parties have to wait till the time when only desperate acts can get their attention? Who forced us into this situation?
But shouldn’t you take ownership for incidents like Dhulikhel in which your cadres were directly involved?
We do. We will own up all such incidents where we participate.
How do you expect to get people’s backing through such inhumane acts?
People are already with us. It is the state’s writ we are challenging. These kinds of incidents are to be expected in the course of a revolution.
But surely you can’t set alight a bus filled with passengers?
In my knowledge, agitators set the bus on fire only after all passengers were out. But we shouldn’t go into such individual cases. We should rather learn to look at the bigger picture.
Don’t you believe that incidents like this will badly damage the party’s image?
If there have been mistakes, we will correct them. But let us not trivialize the broader message of that day’s banda by linking it with one incident. We carried out the banda to forestall a catastrophe that lies in wait for the Nepali people. Such small incidents should not be used to distort our central message.
How can you say that setting a bus filled with passengers on fire is a small incident?
Let us not go there. What has happened has happened. What you have to understand is that if people take to the streets, many conventional limits will be broken. This is the law of revolution. No revolution is peaceful. Our response will be directly proportional to how the state treats us.
You have been quoted as saying that if the party is to go to polls it might as well unite with the mother Maoist party.
I did say so but in the sense that if there was larger political agreement and there were clear political alignments, then there could be a working alliance with UCPN (Maoist). I didn’t mean unification. But since we will now not be taking part in polls, that chapter has been closed.
Senior UML leader Madhav Kumar Nepal told us in an interview that although he was trying his heart out to get CPN-Maoist on board, you couldn’t even convince him on what you really wanted.
I believe Madhav Kumar Nepal was convinced on our four-point demand. Prachandji was even more convinced. He had repeatedly said that the issues we had raised matched his own agenda. What made them make a U-turn is a mystery.
A foreign hand?
Ultimately, we can only arrive at this conclusion.
Let us assume that the HLPC and the government push ahead with November 19 election. How will you respond?
We will try to convince the people that the whole process is unconstitutional and against the spirit of the CPA and the transition period. We will try to impress on them that that we cannot find solutions through the parliamentary system that has failed them for so long and how the parties are again conniving to revive the old parliamentary practices.
Do you believe election will be held on November 19?
The way things are going right now the parties seem determined to hold election on November 19. They are not in a mood to alter the date. We on the other hand will oppose any kind of election on November 19.
There have been questions over the legitimacy of CA polls without CPN-Maoist on board. How do you see this?
It is true. There is no question of legitimacy of a constitution that is written without addressing the root cause of the people’s war and the need for the CA. If a force like us which is dissatisfied with the old ways of doing things and one which has been fighting for radical changes in the society is left out, how can a progressive constitution materialize, and what legitimacy will it have?
Do you foresee confrontational election?
We will appeal to the people to reject election. On whether we will take the path of confrontation, it all depends on the response of state forces. People reserve the right to revolt if the state tries to impose its writ without their consent.
What is your position on banda as a protest medium?
We realize that banda entails hardship on common people. We are exploring alternatives. In the past too we have been forced into organizing banda. It is not something we do voluntarily. After our scheduled banda (on September 25 and 26) to foil election candidates from filing their nominations, we will try our best not to resort to bandas again.
Related story
Dhulikhel Hospital ward building inaugurated
_20240808104125.jpeg)
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
