 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. Almost everyone accepts that the peace process in Nepal is at a crucial, if not decisive phase and so is the constitutional writing process in that country. And right at this time we have the Nepal Prime Minister Dr. Babaram Bhattarai visiting India and everyone expects that this visit is also key to the conclusion of the peace process in that country. We have with us here Mr. Shyam Shrest, a prominent civil society activist and a prominent left intellectual based in Nepal and with whom we shall discuss these issues right now. Welcome to NewsClick. Thank you very much. The bond homie with which Dr. Bhattarai was received in India, although no major agreements were signed except investment proposal agreements and soft line credit treaty which is already there in the past. Babaram Bhattarai seems to have been welcomed far more graciously in open arms and warmly than has been the case in the past for other Nepali leaders. So do you think that this signifies a major shift in the Indian stance towards the Maoist per se, their traditional distrust has melted to a great extent? You know Indian government was always positive to Babaram Bhattarai before also and now also and the government of Babaram Bhattarai was possible when Indian government gave some green signal and some Madeshi party joined the alliance of Babaram Bhattarai. So since then it was positive. It is not the happening of recent time therefore in my view the attitude of the Indian government seems to be somewhat softer than before. And that softness has contributed in some way the recent ambassador of India to Nepal is also not so much intervening as the previous one that has also made some difference. Not only the attitude but the change of the person also made some difference. The former ambassador used to act like some kind of chief minister of his state. But this ambassador is not doing that. He intervenes but he does not intervene as before. So this has also made some difference. But as I am following the discourse in the Indian phase, the Indian intelligentsia and Indian ruling class both are somewhat more positive to the government led by Maoist than before. At the time of Prasanda it was not so much positive. It was positive when Madhav Kumar Nepal was there but that was a different thing. So I think that this government was possible because of the Indian positiveness. And after this government is coming to the power, Indian attitude somewhat changed. But still there is two-pronged policy towards the Bawram Bhattrayi too. On one side there is positiveness and on the other side there is some restraint also not to join other parties in the government to pressurize Bawram Bhattrayi government to succumb more in the RBI integration process. So this two-pronged approach is there but taken as a whole, there are more positive. You mentioned that the Indian establishment views Bawram Bhattrayi more favorably as compared to the other Maoist leaders. Incidentally within the Maoist party also, there is a full blown two-line struggle going on now. And detractors of Bawram Bhattrayi and Charman Prachant who are now seem to be in the same camp seem to argue that the current government has betrayed nationalistic interests in that sense. And a full blown campaign is now being launched by sections of the Mohan Baidya Kiran Latt camp. Where do you think this fissures within the Maoists are leading towards? Is it going to jeopardize the peace process, is it going to jeopardize the unity of the party itself? And how much credence would you give to the criticisms that Bawram Bhattrayi is receiving from these people? You know the facts of the Mohan Baidya Kiran is telling that Bawram Bhattrayi is pro-Indian, pro-Indian establishment they say that is their claim. And they are criticizing from that perspective about Bawram Bhattrayi's government. But seeing the writings of Bawram Bhattrayi, seeing his past, he cannot be a lackey of Indian establishment. He has some software attitude to the Indian establishment. He does not speak very vocally against the Indian establishment, that is true. And some of his thinking about Indian establishment may be criticized also, critical also because he says that there is no contradiction with Indian establishment now. We have our chief establishment, chief contradiction is with internal, you know, that is his thinking. But these are other things in my view, main thing is that Bawram Bhattrayi is being criticized by the dextraxion Mohan Baidya Kiran on the question of seeing the revolution of Nepal. You know the perspective of seeing the revolution in Nepal is different, quite different between Bawram Bhattrayi and Mohan Baidya Kiran, between Prasanda and Mohan Baidya Kiran. What they have accomplished in Nepal is also a kind of bourgeois democratic revolution. The revolution of 2006 was a revolution, but that revolution was not a traditional kind of, you know, revolution as down in China, as down in Russia. It is a different kind of revolution at the ideological leadership of the communists, but with the alliance with the bourgeois people. This is a kind of revolution. And this revolution has to be completed by writing a new constitution with the new progressive elements and by completing the army integration process, by completing the other peace processes. This is the thinking of Bawram Bhattrayi and Prasanda. So writing the constitution for them is completing the revolution. But for Mohan Baidya Kiran, you know, since they have come to the peace process, they have come to a quagmire, you know, a parliamentary quagmire. And it has been very much difficult to get out of this quagmire. Therefore, they don't want to complete the revolution. They want another, you know, revolution, insurrection in Nepal. And therefore, they have questioned that the revolution has gone astray. And they are seeing the revolution as a type of Chinese revolution that is not going to happen in Nepal. Therefore, they are very dissatisfied. This process, you know, if it is to be completed, the thinking is that this army integration should be done in a respectable way. On that point also, they have difference. And they have difference on organizational part also. They said that, you know, too much power has been centered in the hands of Prasanda. And there is, you know, a kind of individualism there. So some questions that they raise may have, might have some reasons also, such as the cultural process in the party has been corrupt. That is a very true, you know, criticism. But on the question of revolution, I think these people, Mohan Berdekiran has some dog batist thinking, a kind of mechanical thinking. Copying the model of China or copying the model of Russia will not happen in Nepal. In every country, socialist revolution or bourgeois democratic revolution happens in its own way, in a unique way. And they also seem to underestimate the importance of having the constitution. You know, they, you know, actually the, you know, proclamation of the republic in Nepal, that was a very, very historical event. You know, Nepal's monarchy was 2000 years old. Ending that monarchy was a, you know, epoch-making event in Nepal. And that was possible because of the agenda of the Maoist, yeah. And this proclamation of the, you know, federal structure is also a very, very historical event. Nepal becoming a secular state, also a very big event. You know, in India, some 9% of the parliamentarians are women. In Nepal, it is 33%, yeah, just double than United States of America. So men and women are equal in many sense in Nepal. That is far progressive than India, yeah. So inclusiveness of the concerned assemblies is also exemplary in Nepal. So all these achievements are not achievements for Monbedekiran. They have done a big change in the, in the polity of Nepal. Only the remaining thing is socioeconomic transformations. That is, that has to be completed. But seeing politically, the change in Nepal is historical in every sense. And this change has not been realized by this faction. That's the problem. This ideological differences between these two factions, do you think they can be contained within the structure of the party or it has the possibility of an implosion? You know, this depends upon the three things. One thing is that in the coming Central Committee, how they will discuss the thing, how they will settle the disputes, that will depend on that. If the other faction, if the, you know, the faction of Prasanda and Baburam becomes democratic enough to give them enough room to have inner party discussion and stop the outer party discussion and to conduct the discussion in a democratic way, if that is possible, then some room will be available, some space will be available for them, for launching the discussion until the next party congress. That will depend on that, one. Next is, if army integration is done in a respectable way, then they will have less room to make a rumor that the things are going astray and there will be less possibility of party being split. So the modality of army integration will be very, very important on that question. Third is the attitude of Mohan Baddi Kiran himself. Mohan Baddi Kiran is not in favor of party being split, party split, but some leaders of his faction are like Sipiga Zurel, Commander Sipiga Zurel is paymentally, you know, trying hard, striving hard for the split, but Mohan Baddi is not. So long as Mohan Baddi is in command of the faction, party will not split and party will be united because he has some kind of responsibility, some kind of sense. But if the faction within the faction. So finally, normatively speaking, you would think that if the CPN Maoists avoids a split and continues this, you know, momentum that it has generated now for the completion of the peace process, at least some of the key issues in the peace process and also pushes the constitution writing process into the right path. Given what progressives like you and left intelligence want, that direction would be ultimately reached. That is what you are trying to say. You know, if the constitution writing is, you know, writing will be successful and if the army integration also will be successful and if this socio-economic transformation and transformation of the steady structure also will be possible, then all things in combat, Nepal will go to a very, very big change, a major leap forward will be there. If army integration will be there and consul's writing will be there, but no socio-economic transformation and no restructuring of the state. If the state of the structure and power structure in the state will be the same, controlled by the elite class, class in Kathmandu and no change, no economic change in the feudal structure of the economy and semi-feudal and semi-colonial structure of the economy and then what happened that the top world only will be changed, you know, only the super structure will be changed and major thing will be intact. Now the risk is that, you know, Mao's leadership is trying to adjust in the, you know, existing power structure. Power structure has not changed in Nepal. It is same at the hand of some feudals, some bourgeoisie, big bourgeoisie, some compared to bourgeoisie and some, some kind of higher middle class. The same is during Nepal, yeah, it has not changed. So the working class, the intelligentsia, lower middle class, they are, they are suffering the same fate in the present context, present context too. Therefore, if this is not settled, then Maoist army will be indicated, but next revolt, next revolution will take in Nepal, yeah. So if this is the change, but it is the beginning of the change, first change in the politics, then change in the economy, then change in the strata structure and change in the culture also. If this comes in this way, then the change will be tremendous. So in which way Maoist will go, it is not certain now that the way it is going now, it is going in an erroneous way also. I want to find out here that erroneous in the sense that strata structure is intact, the former strata structure is intact, power structure is intact, the class structure of the society is intact and they are trying to make agreement after agreement, compromise after compromise on these questions. They are going to adjust in the, you know, readymade strata structure and not going to change that. If that becomes successful, then what happens? Republic will come in Nepal, but the masters of the country will the same class, yeah. And the feudalism, the remnants of feudalism will be there, control of the Nepali economy by the foreign big capitalists will be intact, what will happen? So on these questions, there should be a very, very clear court discussion, clear court line and on these questions, what will Maoist leadership do, will determine the future of Nepali revolution. So, complete change, you know, regime change, class regime change or another revolution, there is no alternative in Nepal.