Skip to main content

Nepal army still stalling integration after 3 years






Prachanda (front) and Baburam Bhattarai

Nepal Maoists ask India to clarify army chief’s remark


Sudeshna Sarkar, Thaindian News, Bangkok, 28 December 2009

Kathmandu, Dec 28 (IANS) Terming a recent remark by the Indian Army chief as “naked intervention in Nepal’s internal affairs”, this country’s former Maoist guerrillas, who are seeking to get back to power, have asked the Indian government to clarify its position.

During a visit to India earlier this month by Nepal’s army chief Chhatraman Singh Gurung, Indian Army chief Deepak Kapoor was reported as saying that the Maoists’ guerrilla force should not be merged with the Nepal Army as it would lead to the politicisation of the national army.
Maoist chief and former prime minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda has asked the Indian Ambassador to Nepal, Rakesh Sood, to convey to the Manmohan Singh government that his party wants to know if New Delhi supports the Indian Army chief’s statement.

Prachanda held a meeting with Sood Sunday, five days after he accused Nepal’s ruling parties of being “wooden puppets dancing to India’s tune” at a public rally in the capital attended by hundreds of people.

Sood has left for New Delhi to brief South Block on the political developments in Nepal.

Kapoor’s remark was flayed by the Maoists, who signed a peace pact three years ago to end their 10-year war after a pledge by the ruling parties that their People’s Liberation Army would be inducted into the Nepal Army.

The proposed integration, yet to take off three years later, is a sore point with the Maoists, whose eight-month government fell as they tried to sack the previous Nepal Army chief, Rookmangud Katawal, for opposing the merger. However, they failed due to intervention by President Ram Baran Yadav.

“The statement by the Indian Army chief violates the peace pact,” Maoist spokesman Dinanath Sharma quoted Prachanda as telling the Indian envoy. “It could affect Nepal’s sovereignty. If it is true, we will be forced to start a movement against India.”

Sharma said Prachanda had asked Sood to convey to the Indian government his party’s objections to the Indian general’s comment and its suggestion that India should not interfere in Nepal’s internal matters.

Sood reportedly told the former revolutionary that India wanted to mend relations with the Maoists.

The Indian envoy also reportedly expressed concern at the renewed protests by the Maoists, which would culminate in an indefinite general strike from Jan 24.

The Maoists have also called for the scrapping of the Peace and Friendship Treaty signed with India in 1950 and other “unequal” agreements, an end to border disputes with India and the withdrawal of Indian troops from Nepal’s Kalapani area on the India-Nepal-China border.

However, analysts say the demand is mere rhetoric since India has shown its readiness to renegotiate the 1950 treaty and diplomatic parleys are already on.

Comments

DomzaNet said…
In these last three posts you have a very good revolutionary theory-and-practice exposition ranging over three continents and more than a century right up to date.

In Nepal, the remnants of the old-regime ruling class know what possession of the coercive arm of the state means, and the "Maoist" revolutionaries know what mass popular action means. The Mass Strike à la Rosa Luxemburg is set to follow on 24 January.

The victorious Nepalese revolutionary fighters have been confined in camps for three years while the defeated royal army insolently poses as the national force, with the connivance of the bourgeois Indian state.

In SA, the integration of the armed forces was similarly tardy and botched, leading to problems up to now, nearly 20 years after legalisation of the ANC and the SACP.

Popular posts from this blog

A warm welcome

. Why blog on ARS NOTORIA? I have set up this website,  ARS NOTORIA ,  (the notable art) as an opportunity for like-minded people like you to jot down your thoughts and share them with us on what I hope will be a high profile blog. . ARS NOTORIA is conceived as an outlet: a way for you to get things off your chest, shake those bees out of your bonnet and scratch that itch. The idea is that you do so in a companionable blogging environment, one that that is less structured - freer. Every article you care to write or photograph or picture you care to post will appear on its own page and you are pretty much guaranteed that people will read with interest what you produce and take time to look at what you post. Personal blogs are OK, but what we long for, if we can admit it, are easy-going, loose knit communities: blogging hubs where we can share ideas and pop in and out as frequently, or as seldom, as we like. You will be able to moderate and delete any of the comments made on 

Phil Hall: The Taleban are a drug cartel disguised as an Islamist movement

Truly the Taleban could have arranged as many bombings and terrorists acts as they liked in the UK. There are many Pashtun young men and women in cities in the UK who still have large extended families back in Afghanistan and who could be forced into doing something they should not. But guess what. So far there have been no attacks by Afghans on British soil. Why? It is a mystery. News comes from Afghanistan and the recent UN report that the Taleban and the drug trade are intertwined and that now the Taleban, who are mainly Pashtun, are officially in command of an international drug cartel.  News comes from Afghanistan that Taleban drug lords go to Dubai to live high on the hog and gamble and sleep with women and luxuriate in all the that the freedom to consume has to offer, while their footsoldiers, peasant fighters, are deluded and told that they are fighting a patriotic religious war.  And though they are told they are fighting a religious war what really matters to them in tr

Our Collective Caliban

At the risk of seeming digitally provincial, I’m going to illustrate my point with an example from a recent Guardian blog. Michel Ruse, who is apparently a philosopher, suggested that, whilst disagreeing with creationists on all points, and agreeing with Dawkins et al on both their science and philosophy, it might be wiser and more humane (humanist, even) not to vilify the religious as cretinous and incapable of reason. Which seems reasonable, to me. According to many below-the-line responses he is a ‘half-baked’ atheist, ‘one of the more strident and shrill New Apologists’ and, apparently, “needs to get a pair’. And that’s just from the first twenty comments. A recent article by a screenwriter at a US site was titled ‘Why I Won’t Read Your Fucking Screenplay.’ Tough guy. I wonder how his Christmas cards read. I’m going to sound like a maiden aunt dismayed by an unsporting bridge play and can perhaps be accused of needing to ‘get a pair’ myself (although, before you