|
The Narayanhiti press conference by Gyanendra before his departure evoked from two Maoist leaders statements similar to the pot calling the kettle black. Besides, the adage that pointing the index finger at someone results in three others pointing at self became true.
 "Maoist leader and Minister for Local Development Dev Prasad Gurung said the former king’s statement was full of feudal arrogance and haughtiness. Stating that Gyanendra showed no sign of repentance over his fascist and dictatorial rule, Gurung said, 'This has shown it will take a long time for the former king to transform into an ordinary citizen'" (TKP, June 12).
In previous articles, I had doubted if the word "repentance" featured at all in Maoist vocabulary. Gurung’s statement proves that our comrades use the concept but only for others. Thus before applying the need for repentance to the former king, Dev Gurung should ponder if the Maoists have ever repented of the torture, murders, disappearance, extortion, and other atrocities they have authored.
Repentance implies an about-turn, a hundred and eighty degrees reversal from previous actions. When Jesus’ predecessor, John the Baptist, asked for repentance, he urged Jewish exploiters to share their food and clothes with the needy, the tax collectors to ask just for the right amount, and the soldiers not to extort money, not to accuse people falsely, and to be content with their pay. Thus repentance has both positive and negative connotations, actions to adopt and to avoid. Only when the Maoists themselves truly repent can they urge Gyanendra to do so. This means returning confiscated property and pledging not to confiscate again, assuring that Ram Hari Shrestha was the last person killed by Maoists and others will not suffer the same fate (note the news that comrades are now targeting his brother Gyan Kumar Shrestha, TKP, June 15), reimbursing extorted money and not seeking such forced "voluntary donations" in the future.
Regarding Gurung’s accusation of haughtiness by the former king, we agree that Gyanendra has hardly made a name for humility. After his dictatorial take-over on February 1, 2005, Indian papers ran articles on Gyanendra’s personality. One reported an incident while the prince was studying in Darjeeling. When Nehru visited the hill-station, Gyanendra didn’t go with other students to cheer the Indian prime minister. The reason? Gyanendra argued that as a prince he had a higher status than Nehru’s!
Still, Dev Gurung’s attribution of "feudal arrogance" to Gyanendra makes us smile, more so because the Maoists are making the same mistake. By not returning the confiscated plots of land to the rightful owners but distributing them to Maoist sympathisers, the comrades have indicated their desire to become "feudal" lords as well. They claim to have settled former Kamaiyas and the homeless who will gratefully function as vote-banks for future elections (if a Maoist-dominated government will ever hold them). Also, the Maoists have been selective as to whose land they confiscate. Thus, the Maoist-appeasing Home Minister Sitaula, a major landlord, has escaped confiscation.
Here, the former king has one plus-point the Maoists lack. Though Gyanendra did raise his own salary to an astronomical level when Lokendra Chand and Sher Bahadur Deuba were prime ministers and most of all when he assumed all powers, he did not confiscate private property. The fact that the comrades still want to play Robin Hood betrays their own "feudal arrogance". One leading comrade told the BBC Nepali programme that the Maoists will not return confiscated land until a new “land-reform” takes place.
While Dev Gurung can accuse Gyanendra of being slow to change to an ordinary citizen, most Nepalis despair that Maoists may never become ballot-advocating, peaceful citizens by abandoning the bullet. With mass-murderers like Stalin and Mao as their idols, Maoist leaders, cadres and YCL continue behaving by the tattered, violent communist philosophy. They keep our hospitals occupied with bashed-up opponents. The public keeps guessing who will suffer Ram Hari Shrestha’s fate next.
"Dr Bhattarai said the next government will form a high-level commission to investigate the royal massacre of June 2001. ‘This is the demand of all Nepalese people. The people have the right to know the truth about the mysterious massacre,’ he said" (TKP, June 13). How true, yet how hypocritical!
True because most books on the palace massacre agree that the late crown-prince Dipendra could not have engineered the event. Suspicion persists for two main reasons (there are plenty of other minor, supporting evidences): no post-mortem took place and bulldozers levelled the building where the killing occurred. So, I agree with Dr Bhattarai that the Nepalese deserve to know the truth. Evidently, the high-level commission to function under Maoist leadership will then recommend punishment for the guilty.
Hypocritical because the Maoists responsible directly or indirectly for the death of 14000 plus citizens, people like Birendra Sah and Ram Hari Shrestha, countless mutilated, and thousand disappeared have evaded justice. Can they hide under the excuse that in a "people’s war" anything is permissible?
The Maoists started the rebellion in 1996 after the incumbent prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba refused to heed their 40 point demand. Still, Deuba’s stubbornness cannot be the justification for the Maoist killing spree. The irony is that if justice prevails, Maoist leaders, poised to head the next government, would be behind bars serving terms for various charges. Under our comrades’ leadership, it is doubtful if the Truth and Reconciliation Commission will ever function in our country.
Thus, Gurung and Bhattarai’s criticism of the former king is justified. However, justice should start with the Maoists themselves if they are to have the moral authority to pass judgments on others. Both the pot and the kettle are black!
This article was publsihed in TKP in June 17 Newer...
Older...
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
