On 2 September the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) declared a three-month long ceasefire to begin with immediate effect. In a statement the chairman of the CPN(M) Prachanda said that ‘the decision to go for a unilateral ceasefire would encourage all political forces within and outside the country that want peace with a forward-looking political way out.’
The CPN(M) has stated it will remain in a position of ‘active defence’ and will resist only if there is an offensive from the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) or if there are troop manoeuvres. However, it will break the ceasefire and embark on an offensive of an even higher level if the government increases military activities. The CPN(M) refused calls by the government to disarm.
This ceasefire has come about due to: firstly a stalemate in the military campaign which has led to great hardship for the Nepalese people; secondly, the recent decision by the opportunist Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist) to accept elections to the constituent assembly (a key CPN(M) demand) and thirdly the decision of the Nepali Congress (Nepal’s main social-democratic party) to remove the reference to ‘constitutional monarchy’ from its party statute. There has been a clear political shift amongst the bourgeois parties as a result of the king’s clampdown in February (see FRFI 184: King suspends constitutional rule). The dictatorial King Gyanendra has given little room for manoeuvre to these forces and their subsequent change in position has been almost inevitable. By adopting a republican agenda, the political parties have also essentially accepted that the 1990 constitution, which led to a limited parliamentary rule, is defunct. Developments have confirmed the CPN(M)’s prognosis that the age-old conflict between the monarch and the people can only be resolved by a constituent assembly that asserts the will of the people.
The king has so far refused to respond to the ceasefire and has also ignored pleas to re-open dialogue with any of the main parties. While he still has the RNA and his generals on his side he will continue to seek a military victory over the Maoist insurgency. Most imperialist analysts however believe that such an outcome is highly unlikely and are angered by his refusal to make any gesture of reform.
Reluctantly, imperialism has been forced to welcome the ceasefire but is
clearly troubled by the political developments that have brought it about. India in particular is increasingly alarmed at the king’s political self-made isolation and was infuriated at not being consulted before his clampdown on political and press freedoms in February. Prachanda has agreed to allow the UN to take a monitoring role in Nepal, but the king has so far rejected this possibility out of hand.
So far the US, Britain and India all continue to aid the RNA, despite recent developments. With one hand they gesture to the king to join the political process while with the other they arm his army. There is too much anxiety amongst the imperialists not to tolerate the king as their unruly puppet. Whatever crimes his vicious government continues to commit against the Nepalese people, in the final analysis they stand by his side. Imperialism is happy for a bloody stalemate to continue if that means the Nepalese people don’t take control of their own destiny. However, the Nepalese people are gradually gaining control, taking the initiative and becoming increasingly more united. The Nepalese revolution is entering another crucial stage.
Andrew Alexander
FRFI 187 October / November 2005
