29 years since start of Maoist war

This week it will be 29 years since the Maoist faction of the Communist Party of Nepal launched its armed struggle against Nepal’s constitutional monarchy.

It had been just six years since the People’s Movement had forced King Birendra to abandon the absolute monarchy of the partyless Panchayat system. But the Maoist party felt that parliamentary democracy was too slow a process to end entrenched feudalism in the country.

They give Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, who was on his first term as prime minister, a 40-point demand and an ultimatum to fulfil them. There was no way many of those demands could be fulfilled in stipulated time, and Deuba went off to New Delhi on a state visit.

The Maoists did not even wait till he returned to launch armed attacks on police stations in Gorkha, Rolpa and other districts. At first the rulers in Kathmandu did not take the attacks seriously, and treated it like an ordinary law-and-order issue.

Read also: The geopolitics of Nepal’s politics…, Shristi Karki

But, as we know from history, the violence spread like wildfire across the country. With light weapons and low morale, the police were incapable of dealing with the spreading insurgency and added fuel to the fire with their own atrocities during the ‘Kilo Sierra’ operations.

The Maoists attacked the Royal Nepal Army for the first time in 2001, five months after the royal massacre and the fighting intensified. Many of the incidents of this frightful decade in Nepal’s history is included in Dhangadi-based journalist Dirgha Raj Upadhyay’s book द्वन्द्व पत्रकारिताको एक दशक.

One of the chapters deals with Prime Minister Deuba’s own providential escape during a Maoist ambush on his motorcade at Pahalmanpur on the highway to Surkhet in 2003. His bodyguards and the driver of the vehicles risked their lives to save him.

Deuba was the chief guest at the recent launch of Upadhayay’s book in Kathmandu, and with him on the podium was Lekhraj Bhatta, the former Maoist commander of Seti-Mahakali area (pictured). In his speech, Bhatta echoed what the Maoists had said after the ambush, that the attack was a mistake and not aimed at Deuba.

Read also: 14 years after conflict, no closure in Nepal

When his turn came to take to the podium, Deuba retorted: “It is a mistake to shoot anyone during a ceasefire. It was a mistake to resort to violence.”

The exchange showed that the memories of the 10 year conflict are still fresh, 19 years after it ended — however much the two opposing sides try to bury their excesses. Enemies are now the state, and have abandoned the bullet for the ballot but many Nepalis are asking whether the ten years of carnage was worth it.

Upadhyay’s book is a documentation of some of the greatest battles and loss of life in western Nepal during the conflict and after. He describes in graphic detail a government that was confined to district headquarters, but not safe even there. A terrified populace sought safety of the cities, or migrated to India. Maoists asked for ‘vias’ to enter their base areas, soldiers at security posts doing strict checks rudely interrogated civilians.

Reading all this takes us back to the decade of violence and conflict that left scars on the nation and society. There are descriptions of reporters being helicoptered into army bases while Maoists fired mortars nearby, of attending a Maoist meeting which dispersed on hearing gunships flying overhead, the battle of Pandaun, a field report of villages terrorised by both sides in Accham.

As the regional member of the Federation of Nepalese Journalists (FNJ) Upadhyay was called upon to mediate on behalf of journalists like Lucky Chaudhari in Kailali or Dekendra Thapa in Dailekh. Chaudhari was released by the Army, but Thapa disappeared and his body was exhumed after the war ended. He had been buried alive after torture. And he covered the death in custody of Maoist journalist Krishna Sen. The end of the war did not bring peace, and Upadhyay had to work to free journalists jailed and tortured after King Gyanendra’s coup, including Nagendra Upadhyay.

Like many war correspondents, much of this work was dangerous. And Upadhyay writes in his book: ‘The Nepali public relied on journalists for correct information. But who do we journalists rely on for our safety?’

The book draws attention to the fact that in most modern wars, it is the civilians who are caught in the crossfire. The Maoist conflict happened before social media spread, and both sides craved sympathetic coverage in the press.

It was perhaps expected that the Maoists, as a rebel force, would force reporters to write as instructed. But what was not acceptable was that the state and its security forces being democratically elected and adhering to the rule of law would also respect basic human rights and not use the media as a propaganda tool.