Prajatantra, Prachanda, in his interview in Kantipur, did not elaborate a lot of things. So his points, together with Baburam's misplaced puns, almost sounded like buoyant (ख्यालख्याल). In The Hindu, he has been quite meticulous and has done a good job explaining his party's position. Regarding Maoist's U-turn, if we seriously study Maoists' literature from the beginning of their war up to now, we will see that it really does not make a full U-turn. Maoist literature is full of references, although variously AMBIGUOUS, to their reservation about single party dictatorship. In that sense, we can view it as a <-turn. Regarding the Maoist-HMG talk after the King took over in 2002, I think it was a routine one. If King really wanted to strike a deal with the Maoist, he would not send Kamal Thapa. He would directly talk with Prachanda. A real proposal (Referendum, Constituent Assembly or something the Maoists would accept) and a phone call is all that would have needed. Unfortunately, that's not the kind of things the King took over power for. ************************************** Echoes, Interesting question. I think the political parties are not in a position to strike a deal with the King out of external pressure simply because their cadres are already overwhelmingly pro-republican. So Maoists are probably not worried about that. In the interviw above, Prachanda acknowledges that the "middle class" and "international community" are alienated from the Maoists. I think impressing upon this class is what the Maoists are after. On coming Monaday, a discussion on Maoist's interviews is being held in Kathmandu. It sure will give a glimpse of how well impressed are the "middle class" as the Maoists intended. Flyer: ------------------------------------------------------------- Politics Discussion Series No. 3 Speakers: Nilamber Acharya Prof. Krishna Khanal Sambhu Thapa Moderator: Kanak Mani Dixit Date: Monday, 1 Falgun (13 January) Time: 3:30 pm Place: Yala Maya Kendra, Patan Dhoka Participation and tea: Rs. 50 (suggested) Organised by Himas Birodh Abhiyan himsabirodh@gmail.com * Kantipur-The Kathmandu Post, The Hindu, The Nepali Times ------------------------------------------------------------- In Nep Dem Google Group too, we are having routine discussion on these developments. People are sharing their skepticism, reservation, questions, optimism, excitement and everything else. I am sharing one of my postings. This was during discussion regarding Kantipur interview. ----- Original Message ----- >From: ... >To: "nepal democracy" >Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 3:15 PM >Subject: [ND] Re: Prachanda's Interview in Kantipur > > Nonsense communist indoctrination of thousands of our youth for no good > reason and espousing violent method without giving non-violent method a > fair chance for legitimate ones among their political and social causes > are two fanaticisms I will hate the Maoists always for. (And as for > their war crimes, they are not for review. Every single one of them > must be brought to justice, although to many, that might look > unrealistic or out of priority for now) > > And it is exactly for these reasons, I find Maoists' recent commitment > to multiparty democratic mainstream and similarly democratic > interpretation of the demand of Constituent Assembly as positive > developments. > > Although I said RECENT, these developments are not really recent. > > Many observers, some from our own forum, have hailed Maoists commitment > to multiparty democracy as their miraculous quantum leap from the > ideology of communist dictatorship to democracy and have expressed > their cautious optimism for mainstreaming Maoists. However, the fact is > that Maoist's fundamental doctrine of "21st shatabdi ko janabad" itself > has a lot of references, although ambiguous, to political pluralism. > > So, yes, the Maoists are changing, however, not in an unexplainable > miraculous way. > > After wandering in ambiguity soaked in blood and destruction and being > resisted by monarchist political parties for 10 years, they saw a clear > light when our young and educated generation unambiguously stood for > republic democracy (remember "Mini-referendum" in colleges of Nepal in > 2004 ? More than 90% students voted for 'democratic republic'. Gagan > Thapa-jee can verify that.). I think it is nothing else but this > emergence of pro-republican generation that forced/inspired the Maoists > to become unambiguously committed to democratic republic slowly moving > away from all that ambiguity they were in before. > > How would have things been if the Maoists have had 'democratic > republic' as their unambiguous and ultimate goal right from the > beginning ? > > It probably would have achieved by now and that primarily by a peaceful > movement and means. We wouldn't have meaningless loss of 13000 Nepali > lives. We wouldn't have a decade of confusion and destruction. May be > some destruction but definitely no confusion of the scale and magnitude > we saw. > > So, who is responsible for all this ? The Maoists, of course. And what > is responsible ? Their ambiguity and confusion. > > What about the political parties in power ? They were confused too. > However, they were confused by Maoist's confusion. And they were > incompetent to get their own vision and clarity. Everything is > connected through a vicious network. > > The young pro-republican generation is here to destroy that network and > give a clear vision and hope to a confused nation. > > And by bringing the Maoists and political parties closer to a common > ground of republic democracy, they have already started to do that. > > Is the pro-republican voice and the mass REVERSIBLE ? > > I don't think so. > > The pro-republican voice and the mass is IRREVERSIBLE. > > And the Maoists have no reason, vulnerability and pre-text for and > advantage from shying away from the agenda of democratic republic. > > I don't see anything in the interview of Prachanda that gives even a > remotest signal that the Maoists are deterring from the agenda of > republic. > > The interview appears to be intended to impress the class of people who > are still skeptic about Maoist being mainstreamed in democracy and > adapting democratic lifestyle. They probably succeeded in it. > > >D....