America classifies it as a terrorist outfit, the rightwing magazine Economist (12-18 April) after speaking approvingly of the long lines forming at polling booths as it went to press, adds, "The Maoists are believed, in the absence of any reliable opinion poll, to be widely detested", and India really does detest the CPN(M) as viscerally as the Economist’s mythical Nepali voters. Jimmy Carter considers the Bush Administration foolish to continue to classify the CPN(M) as terrorist after it entered into a political agreement, locked up its guns and participated fair and square in the 10 April elections. Now as the results come trickling in, he implies that Washington is certifiably mad – his hopes pinned on a saner Democratic Administration next year. But then, America can’t stop putting its democratic feet into its two-tongued mouth over and over again; vide the previous "terrorist" election victors, Hamas and Hezbollah. Not to mention that even the legislature, Congress, declassified South Africa’s ANC of its terrorist status only two weeks ago! As for the Economist, well, I invite some kind reader to send the editors "reliable" salt and zesty pepper to garnish their diet of "widely detested" ill-informed utterances.

Almost a landslide

True, even this correspondent, writing in the Sunday Island of the 6th April (‘Nepal’s Tryst with Destiny’), did not foresee a Maoist victory on this scale, but did make it clear that the CPN(M) would emerge as a powerful force; in fact it is now within sight of an absolute majority in the constituent assembly cum parliament. Results keep trickling in, slowly, and the best estimate for the 240 directly elected seats is that the CPN(M) will secure over 120, the Nepali Congress (NC) and the reformist communist party CPN(UML) about 35 each, and another 30 will go to smaller parties of which the Madhesis Peoples’ Rights Forum (MPRF) will secure about 20. Repolling has been ordered in 22 constituencies and in the prevailing euphoria the Maoists are likely to make a sweep. An additional 330 seats (increased due to Maoist pressure from an initial agreement of 240) will be distributed on a proportional formula; their spread will probably redress the imbalance somewhat, as proportional representation usually does. There will also be 26 appointed members taking the new constituent assembly to a total of 601.

In the outgoing 330 seat parliament the NC had 133 seats, the CPN(UML) 83 and the smaller parties together 30; the Maoist CPN(M) was allocated 84 temporary unelected seats in terms of an inter-party transitional agreement pending the elections. Hence the NC and the CPN(UML), both parties that have been in power on previous occasions, have suffered a rout. The MPRF did not exist previously, it is a new party representing the ethnic minority people of the southern plains, and its first time showing is impressive.

A consequence of these numbers is that the Maoists may have secured a working majority and may be able to form a government on their own if they so choose, and more significantly, to push through a constitution much of their own making.

The fork in the road

The CPN(M) faces some testing times. There are three things it must do immediately with Leninist determination; abolish the monarchy and send Gyanendra packing thus eliminating a constitutional challenge; integrate the Maoist forces with the Nepalese Army in a way that rules out the possibility of any future coup (why not send the Generals out with Gyanendra, half of them are Delhi’s agents anyway); and launch an immediate anti-feudal programme of land reform, securing a base in the people. Before all else, the new government must secure itself, it must learn from the bitter tragedy of Chile in 1973; "all armed prophets have conquered", said Niccolo Machiavelli (quoted by Isaac Deutscher in ‘The Prophet Armed’).

The victory, to go by post-election comments, can be attributed to two perceptions - first, people were simply fed up with the established parties, did not trust them anymore and wanted change; and secondly, the Maoists stood up and fought. They fought the authoritarian monarchy and the self-seeking opportunist politicos feeding on the fat of the system like their Lankan counterparts. The lesson seems to be that a third force, when it occupies the moral high-ground, can win, but to occupy pole-position it must first prove itself in practice. In the case of Nepal’s Maoists and Palestine’s Hamas, the white hot rod of armed struggle has been the proving ground; in democratic Lebanon, Hezbollah engaged in a three pronged programme of social activities for the poor, Islamism coupled to anti-imperialism, and successful armed struggle; overall a more nuanced approach, to win its commanding political position. Actually, both Hamas and Nepal’s Maoists did have significant social programmes, but Hezbollah, out of necessity and propped by Iranian cash, outdid them both.

It now seems that winning the elections was the easy part for Nepal’s Maoists and even securing the regime and adopting a new constitution is within reach. The most daunting tasks will start after that; achieving national unity on the basis of a new federal constitution, carrying through a raft of long overdue social programmes, and of course economic development to improve the quality of life in this wretchedly poor country. This is a long haul and Nepal does not have many international partners who are going to pour in investment. She has neither oil nor glittering mineral resources to mesmerise Fortune 500 corporations, and worst of all an unfriendly India could make life difficult. But times have changed and so have priorities. it is imperative that the new Nepali government establishes friendly relations with Delhi; an embryonic economic common market and Indian assistance in the education, healthcare and transportation sectors could be valuable starting points. On the political front the CPN(M) will gain by structuring fraternal relations with the Indian CPs. Neither of India’s Communist Parties have ties of any significance with Nepal’s Maoists. They have both been on the parliamentary road for decades, hence no common agenda has existed so far to cement a relationship, but there is an opportunity for change now.

Who is a terrorist?

Everywhere however, conventional Western, American led, or Israeli inspired definitions of terrorism were ignored by the people. Nevertheless, a crucial dimension is that none of the aforesaid movements (Hamas, Hezbollah or the Maoists) isolated themselves internationally. They neither scorned international opinion, nor spurned international or regional relationships.

Where does the LTTE stand in relation to the various dimensions of the problematic outlined in the paragraphs above – involvement in social concerns such as economic welfare and modernisation, caste, land, women’s issues, and building international bridges ? Rather poorly I think, but not a zero either in that the Vanni mini-state seems to have some positive features going for it. From available evidence there seems to have been serious minded infrastructure development and the administration is said to be purposeful, efficient and clean. I will say no more in the absence of systematic studies and reliable information, and in any case war would now have disrupted whatever there was.

It is when one turns to international relations that the full measure of the LTTE’s failure is exposed. Imagine an organisation of its military clout, longevity, and influence in the diaspora, but with not one foreign state as a friend! This is a consequence of its own arrogance; the worst being the systematic and suicidal antagonisation of India.

Nevertheless, a return to a hotly debated inquiry of previous decades which asked "Who is a terrorist?" is timely. It is obviously relevant to any discourse on Lanka and the LTTE. Unfortunately, the white vans and goon squads dispatched by one side and the suicide bombers planted by the other, damp and discourage honest expressions of views except in involuted overtones, or by the careless or by risk-takers. I am not quite sure whether I belong to the category of the careless, the risk-taker or more likely, the plain stupid, but I honestly think we need to reopen the topic with worldwide developments, especially the victory of the Maoist "terrorists" in Nepal, as a backdrop.