Nepal Maoists in transition

By Krishna Pradhan

The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) chief Pushpa Kamal Dahal "Prachanda", his second in command Dr. Baburam Bhattarai and their foreign policy czar C.P. Gajural have been attempting to streamline their party's foreign policy and diplomatic relations with two key objectives of largely contradictory nature. Understandably, they are in a difficult transition both by design and default given their internal party dynamics and external ground realities.

First, as a "revolutionary" insurgent outfit that followed a bloody trail with a high-pitched outcry of nationalism and radical transformation, they want to continue to appear standing firmly against the so-called "expansionist" and "neo-colonialist" regional and global bullies as has been done by many insurgents across the continents in the last five decades to sustain the general public's attention.

Second, having come to the conclusion that they are unlikely to succeed to power solely through the "barrel of the gun" given the geostrategic, economic and political realities of contemporary Nepal and the world they now want to have relations with the regional and global powers whose policies and power-play they have all along termed objectionable to their radical ideology or interests.

The compulsion resulting from the second objective probably explains why Comrade Prachanda played to the gallery during his last June visit to New Delhi with his lavishly India-friendly pronouncements and was showered with frenzied media coverage and a wide approval from a broad range of intellectuals and businessmen. The CPN-M's relations with India appear to be cooling in recent months given the Indian realities of having to deal with their own fast expanding Maoist threat, its democratic polity, politico-economic interests and narrow margin of cosying up to the Nepal Maoists under its present state of troubled transition.

As an alternative as well as a covert threat to the Maoists to toe the earlier line, India seems to be manipulating Madhav Kumar Nepal and the UML's aspirations and ego and advised the latter to cosy up to the NC as was obvious from the red carpet treatment afforded to Madhav Kumar Nepal and his two-colleagues in New Delhi recently. This is nothing unusual in international politics and diplomacy. But the wisdom of our leaders, particularly the Eight-Party Alliance, will lie on the choices they make in the sustained national interests that will benefit them as well as the nation in both short and long terms.

In the aftermath of the Indian diplomatic pilgrimage, the Maoists are continuing their charm offensive towards the powers that matter. It was evident in Prachanda and Dr. Bhattarai's exceptional courting of visiting former US President Jimmy Carter during and after their meeting to help the Maoists establish communication with the US Government "at any level" and lobby to drop the "terrorist tag". Carter's statements indicated that the Maoists will have to wait to be treated as a normal political outfit by the sole global superpower and will depend much on further behavioural change on the part of the Maoists; including its reigning on YCL.

A person of a former president's status coming from a country with an institutionalised democracy like the United States would probably not publicly recognise relevance of communication between the Maoists and the United States even at a personal capacity without some perceived receptivity on the part of his Government.

However, Carter was honest in expressing his limitations by saying he had no authority to pressurise and would pass his report to President George W. Bush who, being a conservative hardliner, may take any advice on being soft on those perceived to be less than fully reformed "terrorist" with a pinch of salt as his policies elsewhere indicate.

Let us remember that other countries neither appoint nor treat ambassadors as trash as Nepali politicians seem to do most of the time.

Maoists' policy of "equidistance from India and China" is also flawed on two grounds. First, it attempts to court India eagerly at times and wants to move closer to China when that does not work. Second, mutual interest between nations, including economic and strategic, constitute the core basis for diplomatic relations in the contemporary world not any concept of a distance. For China, support for "one China doctrine" and some trade with a stable Nepal not inclined to irritate it too much by excessively pro-India or pro-West cacophony may be important. Nepal and India have a lot more areas of mutual benefits and conflicts to sort out.

Nepal needs the west and Japan to enhance development and reclaim its past image of stability, tranquillity and panoramic beauty. It is hardly a viable option to attempt to play one against the other or unduly please one or two at the cost of the others in an open and globalising world.

Nepali politicians and diplomats, including the Maoists, will have to read the international pulse better and play it effectively in the national interest without being bogged down by jargons. The major focus of the contemporary world is on economic diplomacy, conflict resolution and anti-terrorism, and democratisation. However, the move towards joining the mainstream and peace building represents a good opening for improved international relations.

In short, the Maoist foreign policy at the moment appears to be in both confused and pragmatic transition dictated by the past "revolutionary" rhetoric and a new desire to brace the contemporary domestic, regional and global politico-economic and strategic realities. They may have to shape up their foreign affairs, economic agenda and eliminate their "violent" and non-law-abiding image sooner.

The Maoists may benefit by enhancing their contacts and communications with independent and experienced Nepali experts who understand as well as command the respect of the international community, including the UN and donors, to further rationalise its foreign policy and firm up its shift to a peaceful competitive politics to build strong bridges with the rest of the world. Clearly, they deserve support from all concerned to cement their commitment to pragmatic diplomacy, sound economy and inclusive democracy. INAV

Charisma will count

By Arun Nehru

The Rajya Sabha season is on and as 56 new MP's are to be elected the political activity will be concentrated on these important six year appointments. The House of Elders has changed along with the politics of the day and whilst it is true that a handful of political workers will be inducted on merit [caste and religion besides political service] the vast majority will come in different categories and will reflect the services they provide to the leaders of the day. Political leaders near election time always suffer from 'insecurity' and look for 'total' personal loyalists who perform a variety of services and these are not necessarily linked to party interests [Left parties are a exception] and in Coalition politics with a diffused power base we will see many 'new' entrants. Business tycoons and others with asset management skills will be the 'favored' loyalists as there is little transparency in fund collection and 'assets' are controlled by the leader and rarely reflected in the party accounts, there will be media loyalists [owners with business interests] and there will be lawyers and chartered accountants and perhaps we may see a super star or two from Bollywood and in all fairness many in this category have a very solid following in their area's. The political reality is that 'security' comes from 'numbers' won at the ballot and a Rajya Sabha election should be used to strengthen the party base at the grass root level but no one is really looking at this long term option and as I see it the field for the 2009 Lok Sabha election is wide open and the UPA, NDA and the Third Front all have a fighting chance of being apart of governance in the future.

There are important election in many states and I don't see any real reason for a early election unless the Congress makes the Nuclear issue a test with the Left and as I see it success in the state ballots will be determined largely by the anti incumbency factor unless there are charismatic leaders who can carry the state on their individual merit.

Regional leaders are sometimes more insecure than National leaders and rarely encourage another power base in the party but the Congress and the BJP can take full advantage of 'charismatic' individuals to assist their 'top' leaders and I think you will find that the BJP [Shatrugan Sinha, Navjot Singh Siddhu, Smriti Irani] have done this well. Politics has changed and will continue to change and besides politics we have many a 'new' super star who engage in the public domain and attract a great deal of attention from the 'new' generation [35 years and below]. Amitabh Bachhan, Shah Rukh Khan, Aamir Khan, Javed Akhtar, Shabana Azmi to name a few can all be formidable campaigners as can many of the current cricket super stars! We are not taking of movie star's and Bollywood entertainment, we are not talking of athletic skill but we are talking of intelligent 'super performers' and role models with leadership skills and they will always attract public support cutting across caste and religion.

We will have a good budget and I have few doubts that we will sustain a 8.5% plus growth over the next few years but the important point to consider is if this will ensure political longevity to the government of the day? Governance is not about brilliant individual performers but team work and the Economic policy and initiatives of the Central government have to be sustained by the state administration and a very important part of this is to reform our archaic laws and make corruption and extortion a non issue. I believe that almost all governments in the States have failed miserably in tackling the vested interests within the system and Goa is a classic example where the people were driven to the edge of desperation and only then were the SEZ's cancelled! Delhi is another example where archaic laws make everything a violation and after putting the entire city in uncertainty and tension resulting in 'selective' demolitions and sealing of establishments the Master plan surfaced and the government legislated to halt the demolitions and could all this not have been done earlier? Take any state [Gujarat is a possible exception] and you will find that very little has been done to deal with corruption, extortion and sheer harassment to the general public. The anti incumbency factor will almost certainly prevail against all governments unless there is a outstanding leader who can beat the trend by performance and personal integrity.

Mayawati and the BSP are on a political rampage and you cannot control her by the CBI or Income tax probes and as things stand she will cut into the Congress vote in all the States by 4-7% and can hurt the Congress more than anyone else. The Delhi rally should not surprise anyone and she will make more than a impact in the Assembly elections at the end of the year. The BSP will win close to 50 seats and the damage to the Congress will be immense in Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, MP, Rajasthan and Maharashtra and it is ironical that in all these states the Congress is in direct conflict with the BJP. The only exception is Haryana and here the BSP may be in 'alliance' with Bhajan Lal and his party. The BJP will do little to halt her progress as it suits them and for the Congress it is a challenge and the only way to control her is to attack her base in UP. As I write this column Lalu Yadav entertains us all by his budget speech and the Railway's in keeping with the overall growth have done well but will all this help him and the RJD in their electoral battles in Bihar with Nitesh Kumar and the JD[U]/BJP combine?

Make a new World Bank

Dr Bharat Jhunjhunwala

The World Bank and International Monetary Fund are successfully leading the world economy into a recession. These institutions have run the world economy in a way to suck entire world's wealth and reach it to the Western countries - America in particular. They forced the developing countries to open doors to entry of multinational companies (MNCs) instead of trying to develop domestic entrepreneurship. The MNCs earned monies in the developing countries and repatriated profits to their headquarters based in New York and London. They also used cheap labour and natural resources of the developing countries such as iron and coal to produce goods for their home consumption and thus transferred these resources to the West. They have persuaded the developing countries to do this willingly as our Commerce Minister is eager to provide subsidies for exports so that more of our resources are sent for consumption by Americans. In this way the Bank and Fund have made America and Europe richer and developing countries poorer. The world economy was designed by these agencies like a huge pastureland with jersey cows romping around and eating all the grass. But India was saved from this fate despite efforts of Finance Ministers such as Manmohan Singh, P Chidambaram and Yashwant Sinha because opposition to FDI prevented opening of the Indian economy as the Bank would have liked.

There are limits to such suction of world wealth, however. The Zamindar can scarcely consume all the better made in the village. Similarly, the developed countries are made to digest the incomes and are sliding into recession. The problem is that repatriation of profits by MNCs does not create jobs for American workers. The benefits percolated, if at all, to the shareholders. Jobs of the American workers were eaten away by Indian and Chinese workers. The MNCs transferred advanced technologies to these countries to exploit their natural resources and cheap labour. This technology slowly percolated into the host economy. In due time, Indian and Chinese businesses were able to offer competition to the MNCs just as Tata has challenged the well-entrenched auto-majors of the world by producing Nano. Industries in Western countries closed down; workers were rendered jobless; and they could not repay the housing loans they had taken in expectations of future incomes. This led to the sub prime financial crisis. Their workers do not have incomes to consume skirts and t-shirts imported from India and their banks do not have inclination to give loans to American businesses. The root cause of this is policies of the Bank which tried to transfer incomes of the developing countries to America instead of developing domestic entrepreneurship and markets of the developing countries.

The developing countries must think differently now. This can be understood by an example. Head of the joint families are seen to work in two different ways. Some head keep all powers in their own hands and treat rest of the family members as virtual servants. Other heads provide freedom and opportunities to the young and encourage them to make their own path in the brave new world. They are satisfied if children of the family prosper independently even if it means loss of power wielded over them. Similarly, the world economy can be managed in two different ways. The Bank have followed a model that is focused on interests of Western economies. For example, they supported the inclusion of patents in the WTO because Western countries stood to benefit from this. Other approach is for the Bank to support development of entrepreneurship and technologies in the developing countries and help them use own capital more effectively even if it means loss of power of the West over the developing countries.

It is necessary to make a New World Bank and a New International Monetary Fund to realize this possibility. The existing the Bank are working like a vacuum cleaner. They are sucking the wealth of the world and reaching it to New York. The new the Bank will work like a blower. It will reach India's wealth to distant parts of the world. India has a long history of sending monks to West Asia, Indonesia and China. These monks settled in their host lands and became theis. The new the Bank will do the same. They will facilitate the migration of the better-off developing countries like India and China to the hinterland like Nigeria and Rwanda. The key principle being that overseas investment will be migratory - never to return to home country nor to repatriate profits but to live end empower the host countries permanently just as was done by our monks.

Fortunately, India is in a position to initiate such a bank. Our huge forex reserves of $300 billion can be deployed in this bank. We can take a lesson from President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. He had persuaded about a dozen South American countries to jointly establish Banco del Sur. India can do the same at the global level.

It is argued that such an approach will weaken India. We will be deprived of capital coming in from New York and London. The Reliance Power IPO was oversubscribed many times, in part, due to huge investments from overseas. This tap will close the capital will start fleeing our shores as seen in the recent collapse of the share markets. The $300 billion of forex reserves about which we are feeling mighty will evaporate into thin air. My assessment is that this view is based on a wrong premise that American and British money is coming into India from New York and London. In truth, New York and London are mere clearing houses for other players. They are like the field boy who deposits the bosses' check into the bank. The actual source of capital coming into India is West Asia and Japan and maybe even China. West Asian oil exporting countries are earning huge monies from oil exports. They are depositing this money in New York who are investing in India. China is likewise earning huge monies from export of its natural resources and cheap labour power. This money is being sent to New York by the Chinese Government to accumulate forex reserves which have now exceeded a Trillion dollars. India is getting huge monies from remittances by the manpower reported in the form of NRIs. The final impact of collapse of Western economies will depend upon the direction in which money from West Asia, China and Indian expatriate flows. My assessment is that this money will continue to flow to India only the route will change. The Royal Family of Saudi Arabia will deposit its money with State Bank of India directly instead of routing it through banks in New York or London. The capital of the world will go where they expect to earn profits. Capital has no 'nationalist' colour. And India is in a vantage position to attract world capital with her cheap supply of labour, low level of FDI penetration and high level of domestic entrepreneurship. Thus we should promote the new the Bank without fear of sinking along with America.