Barsha Man Pun ('Ananta') of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is a member of the Constituent Assembly as well as a member of the party's Central Secretariat. He was deputy commander of the People's Liberation Army during the decade-long war, and is still responsible for overseeing Maoist combatants in the seven major cantonments spread throughout the country. He recently spoke with Himal Southasian about the current political crisis in Nepal, the constitution-drafting process and the recently released controversial video of now acting Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal ('Prachanda'). The following is a translation from the original Nepali.
Many of the other parties are accusing the Maoists of having fired the army chief, Rukmangud Katawal, for political reasons rather than in an attempt to bolster civilian control over the military. How would you respond to this?
It is clear from the prime minister's resignation that we were not motivated by politics. After the cabinet decision was not implemented, after the president took the unconstitutional step [of telling General Katawal to remain in his position], the prime minister felt a moral obligation to resign. At that time, there were already two army chiefs, two power centres. The prime minister could have taken a stand and ordered his chief to work. If that had happened, there could have been bloodshed, revolt or even civil war. Such a stance would have proved the other parties right in saying that the Maoists were taking a political decision. Why did we not do that, and instead resigned from the government? The resignation makes it clear that the party was not motivated by politics. The firing of the army chief was absolutely to establish civilian supremacy. Because that was not allowed to happen, the party was ready to quit the government.
The Maoists have said that they will not allow a new government to form unless the President Ram Baran Yadav's decision is reversed, which the other parties do not seem likely to allow to happen. What is the Maoist strategy for ending this political crisis?
Let us first be clear on the fact that the president took an unconstitutional step. This has been accepted by intellectuals as well as by legal scholars. There is now a case before the court. Nowhere does the interim constitution give the president any rights; rather, it only gives him some duties. Therefore, the reversal of the cabinet's decision by the ceremonial president is unconstitutional. We will protest that in both the Parliament and the streets.
It is not that we will stop the whole government-formation process. If the other parties can show a majority, then let them form a government. But even if it is a majority government, it will not be a secure one. At this time, when the constitution is being impeded, when it is not clear who has executive power and how much, when civilian supremacy has yet to be established, the government will be fearful of the army and the president, and will be uncertain of its rights. We, on the other hand, had established 'people's democracy' and civilian supremacy. We formed a government in which the cabinet was powerful, and the prime minister had decisive executive power. The interim constitution itself has provisions for a ceremonial president who accepts the leadership of the prime minister and ratifies his decisions. A government that is not formed within these guidelines will have no moral authority. We are not saying that we will stop the other parties or not allow the formation of a new government, or that we will keep the country in crisis.