The Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has once again accused India of interfering in internal Nepali politics, especially the process of government formation.
At a press conference on Monday, Maoist secretary and former chief of their international relations department, C P Gajurel said, “Unless we can stop Indian intervention, the political stalemate will continue. The older parties have not changed and that has allowed India to continue playing games to impose its own choice as Prime Minister. But the Maoists will continue to fight for national sovereignty.”
Mr. Gajurel's statement comes in the wake of allegations by a Maoist lawmaker Ram Kumar Sharma that he had received “death threats” from an Indian embassy officer. Mr. Sharma claimed that the officer had also threatened to remove his daughter from the embassy-run Kendriya Vidyalaya if he did not stop lobbying with Madhesi parties in favour of Maoist chairman Prachanda's candidature for Prime Minister.
Mr. Sharma had defected to the Maoists last year after being elected on a ticket of the Tarai Madhes Democratic Party in the 2008 elections. Before that, he was a member of different factions of the Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum, and been a part of the Maoists during their insurgency days.
The Indian embassy has dismissed the allegation, saying “We do not dignify such a baseless and irresponsible allegation with a response.” Embassy sources said it was usual for Indian officials to be in touch with Nepali politicians, but the allegation of “death threats” was an “outright lie”.
Meanwhile, a fresh controversy has erupted within the Maoist party.
In an interview to the BBC Nepali service, Maoist standing committee member Barshman Pun ‘Ananta' said party vice-chairman Dr. Baburam Bhattarai's private meeting with Indian Prime Minister's special envoy Shyam Saran was a “mistake”.
Mr. Ananta, who is said to be close to Mr. Prachanda, said, “Dr. Bhattarai is already seen as close to India within the party. He should clarify what was the need to meet Saran alone after all top leaders had already met him collectively.”
Sources close to Dr. Bhattarai rubbished the insinuation.
They said Mr. Prachanda knew about the meeting which was meant to understand the real purpose of Mr. Saran's visit and bridge the India-Maoist gap. Dr. Bhattarai's private meeting is understood to have helped pave the way for a telephonic conversation between Mr. Prachanda and Mr. Saran before his departure on Friday, where the latter assured the Maoist chairman that he would convey his concerns to the Indian Prime Minister. Dr. Bhattarai subsequently briefed the party headquarters of the discussions on Saturday morning.
Maoist politburo member and Dr. Bhattarai's confidante, Ram Karki ‘Partha', told The Hindu , “Our friends in the party need to be responsible and think about the implications of their statements. They should know the difference between making public speeches in open theatres and diplomacy.”
