Former Taiwanese President Tours Cornell (in National News) Youth Commission Report Critical of S.F. Schools (in Bay Area News) Does China Deserve to Host the Olympics? (in Business) Yoshiki Watanabe's Reunion (in A&E) Emil Amok: Your Liberty Interests Affirmed Here (in Opinion)

Nepal: Intrigue and Insurgency

By Li Onesto/PNS

Click here for maps and information about Nepal, from About.com.

The assassination of King Birendra of Nepal and eight other members of the royal family hit headlines like a bizarre tale of regicide out of Hamlet or King Lear — with a Columbine, automatic-weapons twist. But like all such events, these took place in a context. And the context here is the growing strength of Nepal’s Maoist insurgency.

The defining political question in Nepal today is whether to support or attack the Maoist revolution. And Birendra had been deeply enmeshed in the crisis within Nepal’s ruling class over how to deal with the insurgency.

Current news stories about Birendra portray him as a figurehead. But in fact, Nepal’s constitution puts the king in charge of Nepal’s army. And one of the biggest disputes within the government over the last year has been whether or not to send the army against the Maoists. While some troops have been deployed to areas hardest hit by the insurgency, Birendra has been reluctant to unleash the army against the guerrillas. Now, there is speculation that the new king, Gyanendra, will be more eager to do this.

Another big factor is India, which politically and economically dominates Nepal. Birendra — as well as the ruling Nepalese Congress Party — have had long-standing ties with the Indian power structure. Any analysis of the political intrigue surrounding recent events must take this into account.

The crisis in Nepal didn’t make headlines in the United States until the assassinations. But concerns that the insurgency could shake the already volatile South Asian region have been underscored in recent months by the parade of diplomats from India, China, Britain and the United States — who held meetings with Nepalese officials where the Maoist insurgency was a major item on the agenda.

Nepal’s Maoist uprising is drawing strength from a number of different directions, most importantly the demand of the rural population for land and development, women for equality, and millions of Nepalis for democracy and independence.

For many decades, Nepal was ruled by a monarchy and all political parties were banned. But in 1990, after widespread unrest, King Birendra was forced to institute a constitutional monarchy with an elected parliament. Hopes for freedom and improved living standards were raised, but the new government, paralyzed by internal disputes and seen by many as thoroughly corrupt, has been unable or unwilling to deliver on its promises.

This was the setting — in February 1996 — for the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) to launch its “people’s war” to “surround the cities and seize power.” After five years, as many as 2,000 people have died in the fighting, which has hit almost all of Nepal’s 75 districts. Nepal’s press regularly reports on military encounters involving hundreds of guerrillas, and the Maoists now control large areas of the countryside. The insurgency has heightened the turmoil in Kathmandu, which has had 10 governments in the same number of years.

In the spring of 1999, I witnessed just how powerful and deeply rooted this revolution had become when I spent several months traveling with a squad of “people’s army” guerrillas through Maoist-controlled areas in western, central and eastern Nepal. I lived and talked with villagers, guerrillas, party leaders and military commanders. I saw the western districts of Rolpa and Rukum, where today some two million people live under guerrilla control.

Nepal is one of the poorest and most undeveloped countries in the world, and living conditions are extremely primitive even by Third World standards. Per capita income is $210, 85 percent of the people live in the rural areas without electricity, running water and basic sanitation. There are few doctors, if any, and malnutrition is widespread. Life expectancy is only 55 years.

Small farmers, who fed and sheltered us, spoke bitterly about landowners and corrupt officials stealing their tiny plots of land and moneylenders charging them exorbitant interest.

“We work all year,” one farmer angrily said, “but the crops we harvest only provide food for three to four months.” His face lit up when he described how the Maoists burned property-ownership records and redistributed land.

Nepal’s women give the insurgency much of its strength. Many are revolting against arranged marriages, rigid control by husbands and fathers, domestic violence, and denial of education. Thousands have been attracted by the Maoists’ offer of equal participation in the war and new forms of government. In the guerrilla zones, just about every village has a revolutionary women’s organization and about one-third of the guerrilla squads are female. Women in these areas have the right to own land, choose a husband, and go to school. One woman told me that after six unhappy years in an arranged marriage, she ran away and joined the rebels and now felt free for the first time.

In Kathmandu, I met middle-class intellectuals, artists, and even high-level government workers drawn to support the Maoists because of their program of democracy and ending of foreign domination.

The Maoists in Nepal refute the notion that “communism is dead.” They argue that global capitalism has failed the Third World and that Mao’s socialist model is as relevant as ever. I interviewed the leader of the CPN (Maoist), Prachanda, who pointed to the global impact of his revolution, saying, “Nepal is a small country, we are a small party. But we have a big perspective. Our People’s War may be a spark for a prairie fire.”

Two key issues on the minds of the political and military leaders of the insurgency were how soon the Nepalese army would be used against them and when India would get more directly involved in the conflict.

As the crisis deepens in Kathmandu and people begin to demand answers about the palace murders, it will become apparent that it was the inability of the king and the ruling Nepalese Congress Party to crush the Maoist insurgency that set the stage for this drama.