"Yes, Yes, Yes….. No, No, No…. But, But, But…. Definitely Maybe!" - Nepali Maoist Leader's Interview on CNN-IBN

(Courtesy: Comrade Libre)

If doubts remain over the direction of Nepal's Maoist movement, the anachronistic nature of the Maoist leaderships' thought process, or about the Maoists' interpretation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (and the related Arms Management Treaty), the interviews below are a MUST SEE!!

CNN-IBN's Karan Thapar does a splendid job of hitting almost every issue of significance to contemporary Nepali politics (except the Bhutanese refugee crisis) and preventing Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal (a.k.a. "Prachanda") from his well-noted tactical digressions.

Regular and pointed interjections by Thapar throughout the interview keeps the session focussed and Thapar's intermittent summaries of Prachanda's responses provide "black and white" positions on questions of relevance.

In summary:

On the Monarchy

• Prachanda is happy that the second amendment to the interim constitution provides the basis for removing the monarchy but insists on removing the monarchy before the CA polls, regardless.
• Implication: Begin watching for Maoist allegations that the monarchy is meddling in preparations for the CA, with a view to undermining the polls.
  
  http://www.ibnlive.com/news/india/06_2007/live-webcastdevils-advocate-43520.html
  http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/43520/06_2007/devils_prachanda_1/devils-advocate-prachanda.html
  

On CA Poll Results

• Prachanda maintains that his party will "respect" the results of first sitting of the constituent assembly (should the assembly vote to retain a ceremonial monarchy). However, he also states that should this unlikely event occur, the Maoist party will proceed to "educate" the people that their choice has been wrong.
• Implication: The Maoists will not accept a ceremonial monarchy regardless of the verdict of the constituent assembly. They will "respect" (meaning they will cosmetically accept the results) but they will also immediately proceed to launch yet another movement ("peacefully") to once again, rid the monarchy. Once more, this is a subtle threat being issued by the Maoist leader and a way to keep the masses in constant fear so that voting is held along the lines of appeasement, not free voter sentiments.
  
  http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/43520/06_2007/devils_prachanda_2/devils-advocate-prachanda.html
  

On the Surrender of Arms, YCL and Maoist Control

• Prachanda believes that allegations against the YCL are highly exaggerated; he wants people of focus on how the YCL has helped clean city streets, build roads, etc.
• Prachanda also stated explicitly that his party has not "surrendered" their weapons that the "compromise" that has occurred is premised on Maoist and Nepali Army integration.
• Prachanda feels firmly in charge of his organization so theoretically, he should be held accountable to for the murders, kidnappings, extortion that his people continue to carry out.
• Implication: Look out for a certain former Nepali Army General that the Maoists will bring on board to push for military integration. Although not mentioned during the interview, it is very likely that retired General Chitra Bahadur Gurung will take this spot.
  
  http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/43520/06_2007/devils_prachanda_3/devils-advocate-prachanda.html
  

Overall, this interaction session is one that Prachanda probably wishes he had not had. There was nothing difficult about Karan Thapar's questions; most of Prachanda's answers should have been qualified "yes's" or "no's."

Instead, what blurted out of Prachanda's mouth was a series of incongruent (and incoherent) responses, non-existent English vocabulary, and a very clear intent to disregard any political development that is at odds with a Maoist vision of a restructured Nepali State.

Once again, the Maoist leadership has told the world what their intentions are and how they plan to proceed forward. And once more, sections of Nepali intelligentsia, the Nepali media and all parties making money off of Nepal's peace process, say nothing.

The lesson learned is this: There is not a single individual or group, or party in Nepal that can challenge the Maoists in the terms that Karan Thapar did.

Why? The answer is simple. During the Gyanendra's rule or the imperfect democracy before Gyanendra, people could go to the state authority for protection if threatened by the Maoists. Today, no editor or civil society activist or writer can operate with a clear conscience because should the Maoists come after them, there is no one they can turn to - especially not the Home Ministry.

This is the status to which "Loktantra" has been diminished. Where are all the protestors abroad and at home, who took utmost pride in championing the 12 Pont Agreement and appeasing the Maoists? Where are all those people who revelled in fighting Royal tyranny and spoke of "morals" and dedication to liberal democracy in Nepal?

Related Links:

The Bitter Truth About Melamchi – Maoist Ideology at Odds with the 21st Century Political Economy
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/05/bitter-truth-about-melamchi-maoist.html

What Next?
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-next.html

Discrepancies in Maoist Weapons Inventoried by UNMIN – Do the Math
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/02/discrepancies-in-maoist-weapons.html

The Idiot’s Guide to the Maoist Playbook
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/01/idiots-guide-to-maoist-playbook.html

Surreal Politics - How Nepal’s Intellectual / Political Class, Continue to Look the Other Way…
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/01/surreal-politics-how-nepals.html

Thoughts on Retired Nepali Army General Chitra B. Gurung’s Proposition
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/12/thoughts-on-retired-nepali-army-general.html

Farewell Ambassador James F. Moriarty

(Courtesy: Mr. Remo)

“I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly.” - Winston Churchill

Ambassador Moriarty may not exactly be Churchill and the fate of the World, unlike 1939, isn’t at stake if the Maoists “win.“ Yet, when his term ends this summer, he’ll be remembered for sticking to Churchill’s principles of non-appeasement and practical thinking as central tenets of his diplomatic policy in Nepal.

People like Churchill may not be admired anymore in this post-modern world where “talks” are prescribed as bromides for every social affliction. Dictators and murderers are not driven by deadly pathological ambition, hatred, and a dark soul - but are merely leaders representing “victims.”

There is no evil in post-modern society, no flaws in the very nature and character of humans as Thomas Hobbes postulated, and culture and history as a determinant of a society’s fate are trumped by more therapeutic interpretations handed down by self-absorbed elites. If there is elemental evil in Nepal, we are told that it exists in the Auschwitz-like conditions perpetuated by the Bhairabhnath Battalion, among the Nepalese Army, among “royalists”, and the United States government.

But when Moriarty’s detractors wake up, they will still wake up ugly. Not necessarily physically ugly (though most are but 238 years of Shah rule is undoubtedly the “root” cause) but ugly by way of their incoherent and self-appointed morality, misguided analysis (at best 50 percent correct on a good day), a peculiar melding of elitist arrogance and resentment, and a propensity for delusional and craven behaviour. A dreadful, dreary, predictable and grim lot these detractors of Moriarty.

When Ambassador Moriarty first arrived, the balance of power was shared among the triumvirate of the Monarchy, political parties, and the Maoists. The Maoists were already labeled as terrorists and were waging an insurgency aimed at dislodging a relatively stable government moving on what some might call an “organic” growth trajectory.

True, the Palace enjoyed inordinate amounts of power (and revealed itself as an institution stuck in the 17th century Nepal) and the political parties were guilty of gross dysfunction. But neither were eliminating class enemies en masse and systematically and violently eliminating the presence of the State and Nepalese society.

Surely, in this scenario, his thinking must have been driven by the fact that stability was the preferred alternative. Stability has its benefits: schools say open, thereby, providing the skills for Nepalese to compete in the local and global economy; businesses feel secure and their investments enable growth and keep kids off the streets; and with increased wealth, “feudal” barriers break down and society becomes more modern and, hopefully, more prepared for handling the responsibilities that go with democracy.

When King Gyanendra (also an eventual detractor of Moriarty) launched the February 1st movement, it was not with the blessing of Moriarty - nor has Moriarty tried to “save“ the King. The counsel that was given King Gyanendra was to restore Parliament - before it was too late. King Gyanendra failed to heed this counsel in time (how silly then and now the notion of “granting an audience” when your country is a borderline colony).

Gyanendra is now on the verge of paying close to the ultimate price for his (and his only) woeful risk management. Maoists are on the verge of unearned legitimacy (recently ordained by Jimmy Carter).

Yet, columnists like the venal C.K. Lal and the self-appointed moralist-in-chief Kanak Dixit and a caste of dozens from “civil” society, politics, and the media attacked his positions and engaged in misrepresentations of his statements and reverted to the hackneyed anti-American rhetoric as substitutes for rational discourse.

Moriarty advocated common sense, a characteristic lacking in politicians, activists, and our media. Even as his term ends, Moriarty continues to issue warnings that actions and the words of Maoists should be closely evaluated and acted upon: this played for a long time to the deaf years of this group, who are conditioned to respond in Pavlovian fashion to words like “imperialism”, “colonialism”, and “the Iraq War” rather than real threats to the freedom they so glibly talk about.

And recently, Ambassador Moriarty offered up (on behalf of his government) a way out for the Bhutanese refugees, who have languished in limbo for more than 16 years. Most refugees, it appears, want this opportunity - except perhaps for leaders who have benefited from their misery.

Yes, justice will not be done if there is third-country repatriation and this grates on any advocate of justice. The King of Bhutan (far more a demon than Gyanendra) ethnically cleansed some 20 percent of his population and the chances for “justice” are slim.

Sure, there should be some Braveheart-like battle for FREEEEEDOOOM, but the reality is that the Bhutanese refugees will end up in some Orwellian Palestinian-like camp in perpetuity - while their leaders and UN staff benefit financially, much like the top leaders of Hamas and Fatah.

Ambassador Moriarty is advocating the practical way out through third party repatriation.

So while he may not get a great send-off in the press and many might say good riddance, there are many reasonable Nepalese who will see in him the essence of Sir Winston Churchill. And his detractors will still wake up ugly.

Related Postings:

James F. Moriarty - Farewell Speech
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/06/reproduced-as-posted-at-following-url.html

Life is Good When You Are a Nepali Intellectual Elite
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/06/life-is-good-when-you-are-nepali.html

Thank You Daniela - But Nepal is Already on "Plan B"http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/05/thank-you-daniela-but-nepal-is-already.html

Nepal's Struggle with Feudalism and Fatalism - Moriarty, Martin and Manmohan as "Gods"
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/05/nepals-struggle-with-feudalism-and.html

Where are Moriarty's Haters Now?
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/03/where-are-moriartys-haters-now.html

The Idiot’s Guide to the Maoist Playbook
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/01/idiots-guide-to-maoist-playbook.html

Surreal Politics - How Nepal’s Intellectual / Political Class, Continue to Look the Other Way…
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/01/surreal-politics-how-nepals.html

Myth #1: Dispelling the Myths of Nepal’s Peace Processhttp://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/10/myth-1-dispelling-myths-of-nepals.html

Myth #2: “Moriarty’s insistence on Maoist disarmament is interventionist policy.”
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/10/myth-2-moriartys-insistence-on-maoist.html

Myth #3: “The Americans are contributing to an eventual meltdown in the peace process, which will ultimately precipitate another political crisis in Nepal
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/10/myth-3-americans-are-contributing-to.html

April’s Sizzle and February’s Chill in Kathmandu

(Courtesy: Dr. Saubhagya Shah)

There must be something in our national psyche that makes the Nepali mood swing so swiftly between irrational exuberance and incorrigible pessimism. The present moment is no different. Those who joined the April 2006 uprising to overthrow the royal regime and those who subsequently assumed the reigns of power exuded irrepressible confidence and spoke of nothing short of righting all the wrongs and writing up a brave New Nepal. Meanwhile, the ordinary citizenry, having suffered through such promises in the past, was always somewhat wary while those who had lost out in the royal debacle were understandably forlorn. Come February 2007, the national mood was back to self-doubts and despondency, a far cry from April’s giddy height. There was more to this year’s St. Valentine’s Day chill in the Valley than just the freak snowfall in sixty-two years.

Although not much water has flowed past Bagmati bridge at Thapathali, much has happened politically since the April upheaval. Standing upon the royal ruins, the third parliament was reinstated, Hindu Nepal was declared secular, the victors of the April uprising formed a coalition government, the Maoists signed a much awaited shanti samjhauta with the new government, an interim constitution was promulgated and an enlarged interim legislature assembled that included the Maoist rebels. These were not insignificant developments and generated immense enthusiasm for the future. The whole state machinery, the political parties, civil society, and the regional and ethnic forums were beginning to focus their collective energies to the task of holding the elections to the constituent assembly. For a moment it seemed as if paradise was within our grasp and we could all live together happily ever after.

Alas, except for the small matter of the South that had somehow been forgotten during the celebrations. The sudden passion, mayhem, and violence that engulfed the eastern Terai not only drove away the January sheetlahar but also left April’s triumphant paradigm in tatters. There was the pitiful sight of mighty leaders and their auxiliary intelligentsia first dismissing the Madhesi uprising as the handiwork of a handful of miscreants; then threatening to use the force of arms to suppress the raging inferno supposedly instigated by the fundamentalists and reactionaries; and, finally making a 180-degree turn to embrace the same revolt as their own, all within the span of a week! Hubris had met its match, and is now groping for a rationale, a cohering narrative to piece together the impossible pieces of thought and action, rhetoric and reality suddenly unhinged and exposed by the Southern salvo.

While it is only understandable that the eight-party ruling coalition should differ on their ideological intonation and policy grammar, they have displayed an overwhelming consensus on the nature of the malaise that has been afflicting the Nepali nation. Over the years, especially during the past year, the “238-year old monarchy” has been identified as the single most unremitting evil that has plagued the country politically, economically, and culturally. According to this explanatory matrix, subscribed not only by the political parties and civil society formations but also endorsed by the Indian establishment and the West, this country can not hope for salvation as long as the author of the unitary state and the “feudal” Hindu culture - the House of Gorkha - is not done away with.

If this is the considered and principled conclusion of the victors of the April uprising, what is delaying the declaration of a Nepali republic? What the King offered on April 24 after 19-days of urban uprising was an unconditional surrender: the crown has already put its head on the chopping block. It is now up to the victors to carry their conviction to its logical conclusion and swing the axe to clear the last hurdle and then get off the high horse, roll up their sleeves, and get on with the real task of creating jobs, health care, and education for the masses. Enough pulpit pyrotechnics: people need bread, not just circuses.

As the Speaker of the legislature has reminded the parties on several occasions, the parliament that has been resurrected on the strength of the revolt has unlimited powers, including the one to terminate monarchy permanently. If this is the political reality, the constituent assembly might turn out to be another dogmatic fetish that serves no practical purpose. When the interim parliament can write any constitution or law, the proposed constituent assembly election is likely to turn out to be nothing more than the proverbial cat - an expensive one at that - tied to the shradda post. What can it possibly accomplish which the existing legislature cannot do?

Since the communist and the liberal parties that have passionately espoused the anti-monarchy line have a complete control over the 330-member interim parliament, a proposal for a federal republic or any other restructuring that is deemed fit will sail through with an absolute majority...unless of course if the money is not really where the mouth has been.

After all the republican fire and brimstone on the streets, it was rather uncharacteristic of the new regime to defer monarchy’s fate to the rather nebulous “first meeting of the Constituent Assembly.” Even more redundant is the recent amendment to the Interim Constitution that allows the interim legislative parliament to declare a republic if the King is found to be “seriously” engaged in obstructing the yet to be announced Constituent Assembly elections. If the main crime is already established, what kind of a system waits for a potential misdemeanor in the future to proceed with the prosecution?

The ambivalence and ambiguities are encoded, perhaps unwittingly, in the 2006 accord itself that was signed between the seven party government and the Maoists. The historic deal was not christened shanti sahamati - peace agreement or shanti sandhi (peace treaty) but as shanti samjhauta, meaning peace compromise or compromised peace. Does the choice of words convey that the deal was a negative convenience for both parties rather than a positive consensus? The interpretive slippage between compromise and agreement perhaps reveals something about the quality of the new peace. Interestingly, all the English renderings continue to mask this compromise as an agreement, even though that is not samjhauta’s meaning, nor intention.

Thus, within a year of the great janaandolan II, the national mood is back to self-doubts and despondency. The sense of victory and epochal accomplishment has been overshadowed by anger and accusation, suspicion and cynicism in every quarter. Interestingly, nowhere is this sense of foreboding shriller than among the main actors who coalesced to defeat the old regime and institute the New Nepal.

Nepal: Decaying nationalism?

(Courtesy: Dr. Hari Bansha Dulal)

Many westerners know Nepal as a tiny Himalayan nation that is home tothe bravest of brave-Gurkhas. We are proud of our history. We take pride in mentioning the bravery of our founding fathers who gave uptheir lives so that we, the Nepali people, could live free. Needlessto say, Nepal's non-colonial survival during the nineteenth century is the result of the bravery of the countless men and women that gavetheir lives for territorial integrity.

Whether one would consider Nepal's non-colonial survival as beneficialor not is debatable depending upon their perception. Some may value freedom over material well-being, whereas others might preferdevelopment and economic well-being through colonization.

No matter what side of the fence you are on, the unquestionablereality is that the Nepali citizens, not the political leaders, are largely nationalists. They want to be identified as citizens of asovereign nation.

However, when it comes to the Nepali politicians, for the most part,the term "pseudo nationalists" better fits their character. Most of our leaders pose as diehard nationalists, but their frequent visits toour southern neighbor to seek the blessings of Indian politicianswould make it seem otherwise. It appears that for Nepali politicians,the buck stops at the Indian prime minister's door.

The frequent southern sojourn of Nepali politicians provides a veryimportant message: the power center lies in New Delhi. The list ofrecent visitors include stalwarts of both the Nepali Congress andUnited Maexist Leninist (UML) – Madhav Nepal, K.P Sharma Oli andBharat Mohan Adhikari, Chakra Pd Bastola, Sekhar Koirala and Ram BaranYadav. An increase in the frequency of visits and the subsequentbehavior of the politicians has clearly revealed that Nepali politicians cannot agree among themselves unless India forces them to.

The inability to come together and build consensus on pressingnational issues among the politicians is further enhancing the levelof dependency and reliance on India to solve our problems, which certainly is not a good thing. As citizens of a sovereign nation, weshould be able to make decisions that are good for the people withoutreceiving directives from our neighbors.

Madhav Nepal, the supremo of the UML termed his recent visit as, "One of the most successful political visits to India in recent times." Hisreasoning behind this is that the visit was important in guaranteeingIndia's continued support towards establishing peace and stable democracy in the country.

Like Madhav Nepal, many of our politicians are disillusioned aboutwhere the solution to our problem lies. They seem to think that thesolution to all our problems, including securing peace and stability and strengthening democracy, rests in New Delhi. Their actions revealthat they have completely lost faith in themselves; that they cannotget all the players on the same page until they get directives fromthe politicians in India. Is this a sign of decaying nationalism?

With passing of each day, India's indulgence in Nepal is increasing byleaps and bounds. It appears that the politicians have handed over thedecision making authority on Nepal's internal affairs to politicians in New Delhi. The general public is bitter about India's overindulgence in Nepal's domestic affairs, but we need to look at theroot of the problem. It is not India who is forcibly intruding intoour internal affairs, but our political leaders that are inviting India to intervene in our domestic affairs.

There is no problem that we cannot solve on our own. Our inability tosolve the problems is due to our politicians' inability to see thingsbeyond partisan politics. They cannot agree on things that are detrimental to securing peace and prosperity in Nepal. They havecompletely bypassed the constituents. It is hilarious to see themindulge in bitter rhetorical exchanges when at home, but when Indiawants them to flock together for whatever reasons it might be, they kiss and make up.

As far as India's selfless desire towards establishing peace andstable democracy in Nepal is concerned, it may not be as selfless asIndia would like it to seem. India's stance on democracy is highly questionable. It preaches democracy but supports Bhutanese monarch'sautocratic regime wholeheartedly, which has forced thousands ofgenuine Bhutanese citizens to languish in refugee camps and wastetheir precious lives. India's silence on both the Bhutanese refugee problem and the restoration of democracy in Burma clearly exhibits thedouble standards on the principles of democracy.

It's not only Bhutan but other south Asian countries, such as Pakistanand Bangladesh, where democracy has been choked to death. When it comes to democracy in Pakistan and Bangladesh, India seems to be indenial. To the dismay of millions of freedom loving people in SouthAsia, India is encouraging and perpetuating the military dictatorshipof General Musharraf by engaging in peace dialogues with General Musharraf. In other words, instead of making conditions conducive foremergence of democracy and helping citizens overthrow a dictator inPakistan, India is bestowing a political legitimacy on GeneralMusharraf. There is a difference between talking-the-talk and walking-the-walk and when it comes to democracy and democratic rights,India is certainly not walking the walk.

So, the question that arises now is: Is India selflessly for democracyin Nepal or in a long term plan to create the likes of Dasho Jigme Khesar Namgyal Wangchuck, monarch of Bhutan and Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom,the president of Maldives, who would serve Indian interest and helpIndia administer proxy rule in Nepal?

If it is really for democracy in Nepal, why is India turning a blind eye on other South Asian countries where people's right to freedom anddemocracy has been choked to death and dictators are having theirfield day? How are democratic rights of Nepalese people more valuablefor India than the democratic rights and freedom of millions of peoplethat have been crying for freedom and democracy in Pakistan,Bangladesh, Burma, the Maldives, and elsewhere in Asia? It is hightime we reassessed India's motives and restored confidence among ourselves. We have got to learn to trust fellow citizens and learn towork together to solve our problems; we have got to learn to governour nation ourselves.

India helped us defeat the despotic monarch and we are thankful for that. But there is only so much India can do for us. At some point intime, we have got to learn to deal with our problems on our own, andthe sooner the better. Let us acknowledge the fact that India cannever be an honest neighbor and selfless well-wisher of Nepal because of its short term and long term agenda here. India's national interestand the security concerns come way ahead of Nepal's overallwell-being. Nothing is free in this world. If services are rendered,you have to pay for it. The encroachment onto Nepalese land in SustaVDC, Nawalparasi and other places by India clearly demonstrates howIndia makes us pay for all its help and noble intentions.

Seeing the politicians crossing the border to obtain lessons and directives on how to tackle domestic problems is painful for averageNepalese citizens. It is neither jingoism, nor hatred towards India.It is love towards the nation and the desire to be perceived by theworld as an independent and sovereign nation. Our politicians can definitely do a better job than merely work on New Delhi's directives.A democracy that is home grown and nurtured by the very people whohave a stake on it is far more functional and durable than the onethat is forced to work by external forces. Thus, instead of enhancingdependency and relying on India to solve all our problems, our leadersmust learn to trust fellow citizens as well as to solve problems ontheir own. They should instill the habit of listening to the constituents. That will definitely make us feel proud.

The Mysterious "Environment" and the Bogey of Elections

(Courtesy: Siddhartha Thapa)

It is now becoming increasingly apparent that the government will miss the election deadline for December yet again. Political parties need to urgently asses the law and order situation and consequently chalk out a realistic time table to conduct free and fair elections. As the political deadlock ossifies (due to the failure of the Koirala government to conduct timely elections in June), new sets of political challenges now daunt the interim phase, hampering a smooth transition towards permanent peace and a functioning liberal democracy.

Quintessentially, the political parties need to urgently elaborate and clear any lingering ambiguities with the term “environment”. Although senior leaders belonging to all parties keep thundering that a “conducive environment” is a prerequisite to polls, they fail to clarify their definition of this mysterious environment. On the other hand, the Maoists are adamant regarding holding early elections. However, increased YCL violence and their bullish attitude have proved to go well beyond the influence of the party leadership; the indifference will ultimately lead to a political crisis.

The recent attack on the American ambassador and the stoning of the German ambassador’s car in Kathmandu, demonstrate the inability of the government to protect diplomats. These unfortunate events clearly reflect the actual state of the law and order situation of the country.

Earlier this week, Kantipur, the Nation’s premier media house met with a crisis as the Maoists established yet another trade union within the parameters of a press establishment. Consequently, senior journalists and media houses fear similar repercussions and have concluded that the independence of the press is at stake. They are contemplating a relocation south of the border, as a last resort to safeguard the independence of free press.

Worse still, ordinary citizens remain traumatized by the step up in YCL extortion in all sectors. Even housing colonies in and around Kathmandu Valley have not been spared. Interestingly even Nepali international UN staff have been targeted by the Maoists and have fallen prey to their extortion spree.

Tragically, a large volume of UN staff members of Nepali origin have left Nepal due to insecurity. The political unease created by the rumor that senior Maoist leaders have gone underground and the fact that the Maoist militia still possess a considerable number of sophisticated arms, raises genuine concerns regarding the peace process.

It is comforting to observe that there has been a change in heart in New Delhi, vis-à-vis the transforming political scenario in Nepal. Encouraging is the observation of the positive role India has been playing to bridge the gap between the NC and UML and in tandem, aggressively condemn the increased violence perpetrated by the YCL. At this stage, it will prove foolish to ignore India’s renewed commitment to democratize Nepal. However, India must acknowledge that it had overestimated the Maoist’s commitment to peace time politics in the past.

On the other hand, the international community backed UNMIN, is fast proving to be a disappointment. The failure by Ian Martin to adhere to bi-partisan values from the onset, is now apparent. But more interestingly, as Ian Martin and Lena Sundh cease to protect Maoists interests, it is foreseeable that growing resentment will build against UNMIN, invariably resulting in growing hostility towards UN staff members in Nepal by the Maoists themselves.

Even ordinary citizens can gage that the present peace process is in danger. Koirala is now caught in a catch 22 situation with no viable exit strategy. Therefore, it is imperative that Koirala urgently re-asses the political situation with a broader view.

Sadly, there are no signs indicating that the government will objectively review the law and order situation. Koirala needs to immediately take a strong stand in order to be seen as firm and uncompromising on the law and order situation in the country.

Yet, as the government continues to neglect the deteriorating law and order situation, it becomes apparent the government is only touting the bogey of elections. The consequences of the failure to improve the law and order situation of the country and elections are directly correlated. By October, the political predicament will have taken a clear shape and the failure of Koirala to make gargantuan policy changes in reference to security will have a final word regarding the probability of elections in December – the chances are bleak.

Unfortunately, if Koirala fails to take concrete measures in improving the law and order situation of the country, and as a consequence elections are postponed; the Maoists will opt to launch an armed urban based agitation. The Maoist’s would then be forced to negotiate with either the security forces or other authoritarian institutions for power sharing that will most certainly remove the parliamentary parties out of the equation.

Either way the future of Nepali political is heading towards extremism. Sensing the ability of the Maoist to launch a successful armed urban revolution that could force Koirala out of power; Koirala might come into a closed door agreement with the Maoist through which he would do well to secure his post. In doing this, the fundamentals of the democratic process will be compromised. Therefore, it might make sense to predict that the present parliament will inevitably transcend into a constituent assembly, as an amicable compromise for both the Maoist’s and Koirala.

UNMIN Clarifies its Role but Just in Time to be Humiliated by the Maoists

(Courtesy: Comrade Libre)

A much awaited press briefing by UNMIN’s Ian Martin was held on the 12th of June, 2007. The text of this briefing (which has “surprisingly” failed to appear on UNMIN’s official website) begins with the following declaration: “I can at last confirm that the second stage of registration and verification of Maoist army personnel will begin this week at the main cantonment site in Ilam, in the east of Nepal (Ian Martin, June 12, 2007).”

Less than 2 days after Martin trumpeted the initiation of the second phase of arms monitoring, the Maoists unilaterally postponed the event. UNMIN’s response was limited to a whimpering “expectation” to hear from the Maoists when the second state of arms registration may proceed.

Once again, UNMIN’s ability to effectively deliver on its mandate, was severely undermined in the eyes of the Nepali public (and those who care to follow developments in Nepal, internationally). This still didn’t stop former US President Jimmy Carter from announcing that the Maoists were in compliance with UN and international regulations, but this is a topic for another time.

In essence, this is how Nepal’s peace process has progressed all along – at the whim of the Maoists.

Independent third parties that assist in conflict resolution remind their audience from time-to-time, exactly what their mandate is. Coincidentally, such reminders tend to surface close to situations when third parties have prior knowledge of difficulties ahead and feel the need to distance themselves from impending humiliation.

In such cases, third parties engage in “risk-management” by clarifying their precise roles and responsibilities, to avoid controversy later. This is exactly what UNMIN’s press statement of June 12, 2007 was all about – predicting areas where Nepal’s peace process is likely to falter and getting UNMIN’s name as far (and as quickly) disassociated from such complexities, as possible.

According to Ian Martin, UNMIN is not responsible for the following:

• The processes and procedures by which Maoist combatants are to be paid is outside the UN’s area of responsibility – This clarification indicates the risk of funds (that have been allocated to the Moaists) not making it into the hands of Maoist combatants (further escalating a crisis that is sure to be had).


• UNMIN is not responsible for the improvement of conditions at Maoist cantonment sites, although they have offered to “help” – Again, signs that funds allocated to the Maoists through Hisila Yami may not achieve their intended allocation goals.


• UNMIN is not responsible for verifying the “suitability” of Maoist combatants for integration into the national army – Another highly contentious issue that is unlikely to be resolved, before Constituent Assembly elections.
  

The rest of Martin’s press release presents a realistic set of challenges to holding “free and fair” elections. Many of the same points were outlined in Moriarty’s farewell speech and then reiterated in Jimmy Carter’s summary (a spectacular feat in which Carter summarized 14 months of progress by engaging in 4 days of meetings, proving the point that former Presidents are either exceptionally smart or borderline senile).

To the dismay of many however, Martin’s press release focused on protecting UNMIN’s image and pointing out the challenges that lie ahead, but made absolutely no mention of treaty violations that have been documented to date, or the consequences of continued violations.

As signatories of the “Comprehensive Peace Agreement, 2006” and the “Agreement on the Monitoring of the Management of Arms and Armies 8 December 2006,” the Maoist “party” of Nepal is in flagrant violation of numerous articles of signed and ratified accords.

Partially as a consequence of a delayed second round of UNMIN verifications and mostly as a result of systematic breaches, the Nepali Maoists are in violation of the articles (extracted from the “Agreement on the Monitoring of the Management of Arms and Armies 8 December 2006”), outlined below:

Section-1.1: Both parties agree to not include or use children who are 18 years old and under in the armed forces.

• Mr. Ian Martin: Didn't the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict express hope that children in the ranks of the Maoists be demobilized and reintegrated at the earliest? (http://www.nepalnews.com.np/archive/2007/may/may12/news07.php) Then how can you claim ignorance and say that any mention of child combatants was from Human Rights Watch, alone? (http://www.nepalnews.com.np/archive/2007/may/may16/news17.php)


• Mr. Ian Martin: Please learn to treat the average Nepali person with some respect. Do not assume that because many of our countrymen did not grow up with running water that we are ignorant. We know when we are being taken for a ride. For example, when you tell us in the same paragraph that: One, you cannot verify whether the Maoists have bought foreign arms; And two, that UNMIN has inventoried AK-47s in the Maoist arsenal. We are smart enough to infer that the AK-47s you found did not drop out of the sky. (http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2007/feb/feb23/news07.php)


• Mr. Ian Martin: We understand that you are operating in a difficult position. We only ask that you carry out your duties professionally and transparently and that you exercise complete impartiality in your dealings with the Maoist leadership (and the YCL), and that you not make excuses for either. We do not particularly care about your personal leanings or your political orientation. We do care that you carry out what you are paid to do - ensure that Nepal's peace process is realistic, sustainable and not lopsided.
  

Further evidence of continued material violations of Section-1.1 are documented below:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/05/08/nepal15862.htm

No comment on these continued violations has surfaced from UNMIN, Mr. Martin or the JMCC. The Nepali people deserve to know why?

Section 1.2 (8): Maoist Army Combatants: For the purposes of this agreement this will include regular active duty members of the Maoist army who joined service before May 25 2006, who are not minors and who are able to demonstrate their service, including by CPN(M) identify card and other means.

• Using the same evidence presented above, the Maoists are in complete violation of this article because they continue to employ child soldiers, below the age of 18.
  

Section 3: The Nepal Police and Armed Police Force shall continue the task of maintaining law and order and conduct criminal investigations as per the spirit and sentiment of Jana Andolan and peace accord as well as the prevailing law.

• Through the YCL, the Maoists are in material violation of this article also. The most blatant violation was the Maoist shooting of a madhesi protestor in Lahan, which sparked civil unrest and led to numerous killing. Why has the guilty party not been brought to justice and why has UNMIN not declared that and number of YCL activities as being in material breach of the agreed upon articles of signed treaties?
  

Section 4.1.3: All Maoist army combatants will be registered at the main cantonment sites.

• Ian Martin himself knows that this article was violated the very day the YCL organization was set up (he has expressed as much behind closed doors). Senior members of the YCL have admitted publicly, their involvement in the assassination of former IGP of the APF (Mohan Krishna Shrestha). There is ample evidence which links YCL cadre to Maoist combatants and UNMIN is fully aware of this. So the question is, why has UNMIN remained silent of this issue? Clearly, not ALL MAOIST ARMY COMBATANTS are registered at the main cantonment sites? Why has UNMIN failed to point out this violation?
  

Section 5.1: …..the parties shall scrupulously refrain from:

Holding and carrying arms in violation of the law. Displaying arms, intimidation and any type of use of violence is prohibited, and use of arms is legally punishable.

• Examples of Maoist violations are documented below. UNMIN has failed to comment on these violations, thus giving Maoists added impetus to continue their disregard for agreements and continue their violations.
  
  http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2007/jun/jun16/news02.php
  
  http://www.nepalnews.com.np/archive/2007/feb/feb27/news03.php
  
  http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?nid=97991
  
  http://www.nepalnews.com.np/archive/2007/feb/feb24/news05.php
  
  http://www.nepalnews.com.np/archive/2007/may/may04/news05.php
  

Harming or intimidating any person, including internally displaced persons, humanitarian and development workers and other non-combatants, and any seizure of their equipment and property;

• Where systematic violations of this article is concerned, there are only three words that need be said: “Young,” “Confused,” and “Lost” (YCL).
  
  http://www.nepalnews.com.np/archive/2007/mar/mar19/news04.php
  

The above are a select few articles that the Maoists are in violation of. The bigger picture of course is as follows: Maoist combatants are supposed to be registered and in cantonments; instead we find Maoist combatants amongst the YCL’s leadership, roaming urban centers and terrorizing the populous.

If as Martin stated, UNMIN is “strongly committed” to the achievement of “free and fair elections,” what is UNMIN doing (but turning a blind eye) to heaps of evidence that has mounted, pointing to systematic violations of agreed-upon principles that underpin Nepal’s peace process?

Jimmy Carter (as a private citizen) may have the audacity to claim that the Maoists are in compliance with UN and international norms; but this does not excuse UNMIN and Ian Martin from not pointing out a pattern of systemic violations and non-compliance, demonstrated by the Maoists since the day UNMIN set foot in Nepal.

Mr. Martin’s job is not an easy one. But hiding facts that are so apparent to every Nepali and every international observer, doesn’t make the prospects of UNMIN’s long-term success any better. Ian Martin should know that responsible Nepali citizens will not stand by idly while he replicates the mockery of a peace process that he led in East Timor.

It is advisable that Mr. Martin get with the program and get with it quickly. It is vital that Martin exercise some of the transparency the United Nations is famous for enforcing on others by speaking not only of things that manage exposure to his organization (and what UNMIN isn’t responsible for). He needs to also talk about things that UNMIN is responsible for and Mr. Martin needs to start (at a minimum) by ensuring compliance with accords signed in his very presence. This, he needs to do without exception.

Related Links:

Words for the Wise on the Management of Insurgent Armshttp://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/11/words-for-wise-on-management-of.html

The "New Nepal" - The Maoist Way or the Highway?
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/12/new-nepal-maoist-way-or-highway.html

US House of Representatives, Resolution 1051 – In Support of Peace and Democracy in Nepal
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/12/us-house-of-representatives-resolution.html

The UN and Maoist Arms Controversy: Overkill or Negligence?
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/02/un-and-maoist-arms-controversy-overkill.html

UN Fast Losing Credibility in Nepal
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/03/un-fast-losing-credibility-in-nepal.html

Young, Confused and Lost (YCL) – The Hammer of the Maoist “Party” of Nepal
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/05/young-confused-and-lost-ycl-hammer-of.html

Second Amendment to Nepal’s Interim Constitution – No Cause for Maoist Joy

(Courtesy: el Gordo)

The second amendment to the Nepal’s interim constitution permits the removal of the monarchy (prior to CA polls), with 2/3rd majority if the monarchy is found to be “meddling” in the country’s politics. The same amendment also permits a vote of no-confidence to be tabled on the Prime Minister (with 1/4th support) and passed with 2/3rd majority.

There were only two republicans in parliament who seem to have understood the ramifications of the passage of this bill and voted against it. The rest of the “sheep” followed the “herd” causing overwhelming joy within the ranks of the pro-republic portion of the Nepali population. But this joy is certain to meet its short lived fate as the practical implications of the second amendment, slowly set in.

Maoist demand for a republic before CA polls, nullified

From a strategic point of view, the second amendment to the interim parliament has given the monarchy longevity – at least till the constituent assembly polls are held. Any talk of removing the Monarchy before the CA elections is now effectively quashed.

For the Maoists, this is a body blow of biblical proportions. They are desperately in need of rationale to justify their 12 year murder spree; killings, that ring fresh in the minds of voters specially in parts of Nepal the Maoists claim to be their strong-holds.

There is no mystery behind the growing anti-Maoist fervor in places such as Rukkum, Rolpa, Sallyan, Jajarkot and Pyuthan. The Maoists are no longer welcome in their base-areas and should free and fair elections be held, it is almost certain that the Maoists will lose.

Every day the abolition of the institution of monarchy is delayed is a day less for the Maoists to fully legitimize their cause. It is also a day more for republican ideologues to think twice because there is no certainty that CA elections will vote the monarchy out.

The Maoists’ fear a CA poll result that legitimizes the monarchy more than anything else because such an outcome will cause the Maoist “revolution” to self-combust from its very core. Survival of the monarchy in any form will be a death-blow to the Maoist rationale, a situation the Maoists are bound to avoid at any cost.

Without fully realizing it, the Maoist MPs just voted themselves one step closer to an end-result that could possibly bring the Moist house of cards, crashing down.

Space for a democratic alliance, created

With the current level of leftist representation in the interim parliament, the impetus for a democratic alliance is now cemented. Whether it be an official alliance or an understood voting pattern, the need for self-preservation through a platform that distinguishes communists from democratic forces has been created by the second amendment. This platform is the monarchy.

By creating a system that can both eliminate the monarchy and the Prime Minister with 2/3rd majority, the Nepali Congress has tied its own fate to the fate of the monarchy. For the Maoists, the provision to eliminate the monarchy and then to eliminate Girija Prasad Koirala was too attractive a platform to forego. For non-communist parties, the opportunity to capitalize on the sympathy that the monarchy still retains (up to 40% of the voting population – as evidenced by the latest polling numbers), was an opportunity they could not forego.

The meeting ground for these competing interests is embodied firmly in the second amendment to Nepal’s interim constitution. It is the Maoists’ expectation that the same 2/3rd majority that could potentially eliminate the monarchy would also vote to eliminate the NC leadership in the interim parliament. It is the non-Maoist forces’ hope that the ambiguous nature (“meddling in CA polls”) of the second amendment is sufficiently vague to keep the monarchy intact at least till elections are held.

The net result of these competing interests is as follows: a necessity for the Maoists to start looking for every possible conspiracy to force a vote on the monarchy and a necessity for the non-republican forces to ensure that each conspiracy theory is publicly falsified.

Neither is hard to do but the end result will expose the hollow Maoist agenda for what it is, make the Maoists look increasingly desperate, and without any firm political agenda other than a rabid anti-monarchy stand. The same will make the democratic alliance appear a thousand times more plural, mature and cognizant of due process and the legitimate right of the Nepali people to exercise universal suffrage.

A distinction has been drawn between individuals and the institution

Yet another achievement of the second amendment is that it implicitly draws a line between Gyanendra and Paras, and the institution of monarchy. The conniving and calculated political machine the Nepali Congress is, its leaders have formulated a sound strategy by de-linking the individuals that represent to the monarchy from the institution that is the monarchy.

This is a key distinction that sets the stage for moderate leftists, moderate rightists and the centrist parties to unite. The point of compromise is as clear as day – remove the wildly unpopular Gyanendra and Paras as the faces of the royal institution and allow the sympathies (and affection) that the Nepali people have toward the royal institution, to influence their voting.
Whether Nepal’s leftist ideologues care to admit it or not, there remains ample sympathy for the crown, particularly from lines of patronage that accrue to the liberal King that Birendra was. Additionally, Gyanendra may be ambitions, arrogant and self-deluded, but he is also the single reason why all the discredited politicians (including the Maoists) are in positions of power today. And not only are these miscreants back in power, they are fully legitimized in the eyes of the Nepali population – thanks to Gyanendra.

For persons who comprehend the potency of these ideas, they also understand that the second amendment to the interim constitution firmly sets in motion a compromised outcome (and space) for Nepal’s royal institution. The compromise will include Gyanendra giving up his title of kingship (and Paras renouncing his), in return for the institution of monarchy being allowed continuity through the ballot box.

Once more, this spells distress for the Maoists whose political existence hinges on the removal of the Nepalese monarchy. For moderates on both sides of the fence, an opportunity to compromise (and prove that violent politics does not pay), will prove irresistible.

Conclusion

Prachanda’s claim that conspiracies are abound is true. Only his use of the term confuses the issue. What Prachanda calls “conspiracy” is simply “politics” but since he and his ilk do not understand any political discourse other than their own, Prachanda’s confusion is understandable.

The second amendment to the interim constitution bodes well for a sweeping compromise on the issue of monarchy – it removes the monarchy temporarily as the focal point of all political discourse and guarantees that no party comes to power using the monarchy as its prime stepping stone.

The amendment forces Nepal’s political agents to go to the people with firm political agendas and reform packages of substance. The days of riding a platform that ties overnight development and prosperity to the removal of the monarchy alone, are over.

For better or worse, the second amendment to the interim constitution is also a valuable lesson to the rising stars of Nepal’s political ranks: Radicalism does not yield sustainable change and challenging party lines by adopting others’ agendas, makes one’s position weaker in the long run. The political mantra to sustainable peace in Nepal is simply “compromise, compromise, and more compromise.” There is no room for radical change, the consequences of which are impossible to forecast.

Related Links

Electoral Alliance and the Shifting Political Paradigm in Nepal
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/05/electoral-alliance-and-shifting.html

A Democratic Alliance, Accountable to the People
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/05/democratic-alliance-accountable-to.html

After a Year of "Loktantra" - Is it finally time for a Democratic Alliance?
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/04/after-year-of-loktantra-is-it-finally.html

Hedging Against Nepal's Leadership Crisis
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/09/hedging-against-nepals-leadership.html

Defining the Mainstream
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/06/defining-mainstream.html

The Interim Parliament’s Second Amendment to the Constitution

(Courtesy: Roop Joshi)

Today’s news hearkens that the draft of the second amendment to the constitution providing “for removing the monarchy by 2/3 majority of the parliament, if the proposal is tabled by the cabinet” has been approved by the Interim Parliament. Is this a joke? What right does a parliament which essentially has been appointed, not least with the support of communist guns, have to take a decision of this magnitude?

Over two centuries of the monarchy cannot be washed away like left-over food. King Prihivi Narayan Shah, the promulgator of the present Shah dynasty, created Nepal through blood and guts and the nimble mind of a superb military strategist. Yet this Interim Government had the gall not to celebrate Prithivi Jayanti this year, signifying its total disregard for national unity and sovereignty.

Agreed, there were many weak monarchs who succeeded Prithivi Narayan, but national integrity and sovereignty were maintained throughout the period of the British Raj in South Asia. King Tribhuvan led the ending of 104 years of Rana oligarchy and brought in the dawn of Democracy, with B.P. Koirala as the first elected Prime minister of Nepal. That democracy was further re-confirmed by King Birendra in 1990. It is not an exaggeration or royalist propaganda to affirm that the monarchy in Nepal has served as a pivot to the political evolution of this country.

The present interim Parliament is composed of individuals who last ran for elections almost a decade ago. They are not accountable to their constituencies, i.e. the People. To make matters worse, the Maoist rebels, who precipitated over 13,000 Nepali deaths over the past decade, have been made partners in the government. Without firing a single bullet against state security forces in Kathmandu, they have achieved participation in government – not elected by a single Nepali. The Seven Party coalition has appeased the Maoists to gain a momentary fleeting peace; the ghost of Neville Chamberlain arises now in Nepal.

Were the parliament to proceed with a vote on the monarchy, firstly, it is almost certain that a two-thirds majority to abolish the monarchy would not be achieved. Secondly, were it to be achieved, the Nepali people will not be taken for granted by a bunch of opportunist power-hungry politicians with hues from red to pink. They will arise and demand to have a say in the future of the monarchy. They will demand for a referendum.

These are demands that cannot be ignored by the government. Should the demand be ignored, who is to say that appropriate action to protect our time-honoured institution – which still serves the needs of Nepal – is not justified?

The YCL and the Madhesis have shown us what “appropriate action” means to them. The people of Nepal will therefore show all and sundry what appropriate action they will take to stop a handful of unelected politicians from making fools out of them.

The common Nepali is seen as a docile individual bending readily to authority. From the common Nepali milieu, there have also been historical figures like Balbhadra Kunwar and Amar Singh Thapa who have not shrunk from fighting to preserve the sovereignty and national unity of their beloved country. Let us also not forget the legendary bravery of the Gurkha regiments who have fought for the British and the Indians. Nepalis are not loathe to fight for what is right. They will not be cowered by anachronistic philosophies or power-drunk politicians. Let there be no doubt about that.

Instead of playing political games with the constitution, it behooves the Interim Government to proceed swiftly and efficiently towards ensuring fair and secure elections for the Constituent Assembly in Mangsir (by end November 2007).

Democracy in Nepal cannot be safeguarded without these elections. There are two important aspects here: the political awareness of the voters and their security at the polling booth. Voters must know what they are voting for, not just who they are voting for. The parties’ platforms must be made clear to the voting public. Hand in hand, the government security apparatus including especially the Nepal Army must ensure that every voter who wishes to vote can do so freely and without intimidation.

The brevity of this writing is a reflection on the need to stop beating around the bush and tackle the priority issues. Time is running out. Empty words will never replace timely action. The time for action is here. It is now.

U.S. ENVOY CONCERNED ABOUT MAOIST FAILURE TO STOP VIOLENCE

(Reproduced as posted at the following URL: http://nepal.usembassy.gov/sp_06-12-2007.html)

Speech by U.S. Ambassador James F. Moriarty To Friends and Supporters of the Community Information Center – Pokhara

Shangri-La Hotel, Pokhara

June 12, 2007

Thank you all very much for coming today. It is a pleasure to be back in Pokhara again. Soon I will depart Nepal, after completing my three-year assignment as Ambassador here. I love Nepal and its people. My wife and I have thoroughly enjoyed the privilege of living among you, enjoying your culture, and making many new friends.

Concerns for the future

It is because of my own personal admiration for Nepal, and my country’s interest in your successful democratic transition, that I came to speak with you today. I am concerned about the future of Nepal.

This year can be a turning point for Nepal. A successful Constituent Assembly election, carried out in a free and fair manner, should prove a giant step forward in the establishment of a peaceful, prosperous, and democratic Nepal. That is the hope of the Nepali people. That is the goal of American foreign policy in Nepal. Indeed, my Embassy has been working hard over the past year to support your election. We will continue to do this, especially now that the Government of Nepal has decided to hold the election in Mangsir [mid-November to mid-December]. Nepal has many friends and admirers in the United States, all of whom want to see Nepalis decide their own future through a free and unfettered democratic election. Former President Jimmy Carter is one of these friends, and, as some of you know, he is visiting Nepal for three days beginning tomorrow.

The promise of a peaceful, prosperous, and democratic Nepal is, however, in danger. These threats are growing; we read about them every day in the newspapers. Maoist Young Communist League cadre kidnap businessmen and attack political leaders from other parties during their meetings. JTMM cadres confiscate private property in the Terai and kill locals. The list of these crimes is long and growing.

I have been told repeatedly over the last year that the most important thing in Nepal is the peace process. I have been accused of derailing this process by speaking out against atrocities by Maoists and other groups. I think many would agree, however, that these atrocities, not my words, are threatening the peace process. Peace is not just the absence of war. Maoist violence and intimidation are derailing the peace process, and the consequences threaten the future of all Nepalis.

Obstacle One: Maoist Conduct

Like you, I share the hope that Nepal may soon have a true, lasting peace, and that it will establish prosperity and democracy for the long-term. There are two main obstacles to this end goal at the moment. The first is the Maoists’ failure to bring their conduct in line with the standards of mainstream political parties in multiparty democracies.

Over the past year, we had all hoped that Maoist behavior would improve in line with their various commitments. That has not happened. We had all hoped that the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Accord would mean that all People's Liberation Army combatants would be placed in UN-managed cantonments. Instead, this resulted in a massive, cynical recruitment drive by the Maoists and those cantonments were filled with fresh recruits, many of whom are children. Those recruits have now received over five months of military training and political indoctrination in the camps.

Meanwhile, many seasoned PLA combatants remained outside the camps and were placed by the Maoist leadership in a new organization: the Young Communist League. Most of the leadership of the YCL consists of senior PLA officers, including one who bragged in a recent interview that he had assassinated a senior police official in Kathmandu. Why are these PLA leaders still active in the countryside when they were supposed to be in the cantonments?

We all wished that inclusion of the Maoists in the Interim Parliament would lead to an improvement in their behavior. Instead, we find Maoist parliamentarians bringing pistols into the Assembly, threatening their fellow MP's, and repeatedly gherao'ing the Speaker.

Finally, we had all hoped that the entry of the Maoists into the government on April 1 would prompt them to behave like a mainstream political party. Instead, the Maoists have forcefully reminded the people of Nepal that April 1 is also called April Fool's Day. Since that date, the YCL has run amok, the Maoist ministers of Forests and of Local Development have called for bandhas against the government they work for, and the Maoist Minister of Information and Communications has publicly stated that the Prime Minister, his boss, has a criminal mind. Once again, the Maoist leader, Mr. Pushpa Dahal, has stated in a public interview that the Maoists have no intention of joining the political mainstream. His party's actions over the past year suggest that all Nepalis should take these words of Mr. Dahal very seriously.

No mainstream political party anywhere in a multi-party democratic system is allowed to maintain its own armed groups. Yet this is exactly what the Maoists have done. Nor should a political party be permitted to carry out, with impunity, crimes of extortion, abduction, and intimidation Again, however, this is exactly what the Maoists continue to do, particularly through their YCL.

In the two months that Maoists have been in the Interim Government, they have certainly made clear that when their leaders talk about creating their own “political mainstream,” it is one with no place for the civil give and take, the transparent debate and decision-making, or the critical commitment to nonviolence that characterize normal political parties in a democracy.

As our Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor said recently in Kathmandu, the message of the United States is clear: Nepal cannot have ballots and bullets in a democratic process. Intimidation and violence have no roles whatsoever in the democratic development of any country. Nothing justifies the use of violence as a political tool. Yet hardly a day goes by without the press reporting on Maoist atrocities. And let me be clear – there is no difference between the YCL and the Maoist leadership. They are two parts of one whole and the actions of the one are a direct result of the decisions and intentions of the other.

On Sunday, Mr. Pushpa Dahal reportedly assured the Prime Minister that the people who threw stones at the UN car I was traveling in in Damak were not YCL cadre. That is simply not true; the individuals who threw the stones were local Maoists who carried YCL placards. Mr. Dahal should acknowledge that fact, and should ensure that in the future neither diplomats nor Nepali citizens are treated with such contempt by the YCL.

Obstacle 2: Ethnic division

The second obstacle to peace, prosperity, and democracy in Nepal is ethnic division. There is an urgent need to address this issue of inclusiveness -- all groups in Nepal must be given a voice in the political, economic, and civic affairs of the nation. How this happens is a matter for the people and political leaders of Nepal to determine. No group has the right to turn to violence to push its agenda. But if the grievances of marginalized groups are not addressed soon, the level of violence will almost certainly increase, especially in the Terai. And the growth of violence among ethnic groups, would raise the specter of chaos and even disintegration in parts of Nepal.

While striving to include all groups and address their concerns, Nepal must simultaneously focus on law and order. It is extremely important that the rule of law be reasserted in society. Nepal has solid criminal laws, and crimes are crimes. JTMM cadre members guilty of murder and kidnapping must be held accountable for their actions. Similarly, cleaning garbage from a park should not absolve anyone of the crimes of abduction, extortion or physical abuse. All perpetrators of crimes, no matter what their political affiliation, should be arrested, tried and, if found guilty, punished.

Ten days ago, the Maoists abducted Mr. Prasai, held him overnight, publicly humiliated him, and then handed him over to the police. Mr. Prasai had serious accusations of financial malfeasance against him. The police should have arrested him before, and the Government should have ensured it happened. People should have publicly been demanding his arrest. But before they seized him, the Maoists had not called for his arrest. Nor did they use their position in the government to press for his arrest. So, let's call the Maoist action what it was: politically-motivated vigilantism. If the Maoists can practice vigilantism, why can't other groups? Why can't other groups arrest YCL members who are kidnapping and intimidating people throughout the country? I'll tell you why not: because that would lead to the law of the jungle and to the total collapse of law and order. Vigilantism was wrong when it was perpetrated by pro-royalist groups in Kapilvastu under the King's regime and it's wrong when practiced by the Maoists.

Freedom from Fear

The Nepali people deserve to live their lives without fear. Removing this fear will be absolutely crucial to the success of your Constituent Assembly election. Freedom from fear is everyone’s basic human right. After a decade of armed conflict, and a year of continued Maoist impunity, it is time the people of Nepal enjoyed this right. Fear must be drained from Nepal so optimism and confidence take its place. In order to do this, democracy must triumph over totalitarian, one-party rule.

Democracy means rule of the people, by the people, and for the people. It includes transparency in government institutions; politicians accountable to their constituents; and consultation and consensus building. It is a process, not a one-time, end result, and it is a system tolerating many parties and opinions, not one party backed by paramilitary thugs which forces its views on all others.

The United States is pleased to support the Nepal Government’s efforts to fulfill its mandate to provide peace and democracy to the people. This year the US Government will provide more than $50 million in foreign assistance to Nepal. Of this, we are planning to allocate $8 million for democracy programs that support the elections process, the justice sector, and human rights organizations. We will provide nearly $18 million for health program activities, including the fight against HIV/AIDS, and $6 million for vocational education and agriculture programs. The US Government has provided $8.3 million for food aid and humanitarian assistance programs this year as well. We will also give more than $10 million to support national and local peace-building initiatives and efforts to improve public understanding of the requirements of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the code of conduct, and a Constituent Assembly process.

In this context, I want to talk about a recent development that is particularly worrying to me. According to Human Rights Watch, there are an estimated 6,000-9,000 children now living in the cantonments with the Maoist People’s Liberation Army. This is in direct violation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. No country should tolerate having children living in such conditions. These children belong in schools, not in cantonments. This is an egregious violation of the human rights of these children. By addressing this issue quickly and removing the children from the camps, the Maoists could demonstrate a real, concrete commitment to the peace agreement.

It has been more than a year since their insurgency ended, yet the Maoists’ addiction to violence, extortion, and intimidation continues unabated. Last February, I expressed my desire to welcome the Maoist leader to the democratic mainstream by shaking his hand. I have had the honor to shake many Nepalis’ hands during my time here, yet it looks like I will depart Nepal without shaking Mr. Dahal’s. Given his failure -- and his party’s failure -- to renounce violence, I could not do this in good conscience.

An Historic Opportunity

Pushpa Dahal and the rest of the Maoist leadership have an historic opportunity before the Constituent Assembly election to prove to the Nepali people and the world that their party really is committed to democracy and peace. I hope the Maoists seize this opportunity and genuinely renounce violence. Maoist assurances that they are peace loving democrats have been proven hollow daily by the violent actions of their cadre. If the Maoists want the people’s trust and support, they must win it through democratic competition and free elections – and not through violence.

In April 2006, the Nepali people rose up and demanded peace and democracy. They demanded transparency and accountability from all sides. The process of building a democratic government and democratic culture is a long one, but it is absolutely essential. I urge all of you to continue to have the strength of will to attain, and then sustain, democracy. The United States, like other friends of Nepal, will help you where we can. But in the end, as you well know, Nepal’s future is the hands of the Nepalis themselves. Make the best of it.

Related Posts:

Where are Moriarty's Haters Now?
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/03/where-are-moriartys-haters-now.html

Should Indian Federal Tax Rupees be Used to Fund Nepal’s Communist Experiment?
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/01/should-federal-indian-tax-rupees-be.html

The Idiot’s Guide to the Maoist Playbook
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/01/idiots-guide-to-maoist-playbook.html

Myth #1: Dispelling the Myths of Nepal’s Peace Processhttp://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/10/myth-1-dispelling-myths-of-nepals.html

Myth #2: “Moriarty’s insistence on Maoist disarmament is interventionist policy.”
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/10/myth-2-moriartys-insistence-on-maoist.html

Myth #3: “The Americans are contributing to an eventual meltdown in the peace process, which will ultimately precipitate another political crisis in Nepal
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/10/myth-3-americans-are-contributing-to.html

Calling a "Spade," a "Spade" - "The Antics of Maoist Collaborators in Nepal's Parliament"
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/09/calling-spade-spade-antics-of-maoist.html

The Sitaram Prasai Episode: An Embarrassment to the Maoist Leadership

(Courtesy: Comrade Libre)

There was much jubilation when Sitaram Prasai was paraded by the Young Communist League's (YCL) leadership. The press went into a frenzy, the SPA leadership went completely silent and the public opinion remained sharply divided on the intent and future consequences of the YCL's actions.

Based on the information that has surfaced (since the incident), the following conclusion may be drawn: Sitaram's abduction, subsequent kidnapping and the associated fallout has repercussions far beyond the legal and technical parameters that either the populist press or the public-at-large are able to fully fathom.

Illegal but necessary or legal but vigilantism?

Per the YCL's intent, the populist acclaim it expected (from the Sitaram Prasai episode), materialized. The idea was to seek de-facto public pardon for the YCL's activities in other areas - namely, for their extortion, intimidation and coercion tactics - by bringing Prasai to "justice."

Had the YCL "apprehended" and then "released" Prasai to the Police immediately, their ploy for popularity would have succeeded, no questions asked. But, the YCL got greedy and despite their publicized populist gesture, the following details paint a slightly different picture:

• The YCL took Prasai into its custody for over 17 hours, in complete and utter disregard for the country's standing law and order provisions. (The door is now open for any group consisting of semi-literate, heavily indoctrinated youngsters to do the same; the YCL itself is a prime target for such action).
• During the 17 hour period when Prasai was abducted, the YCL leadership made repeated attempts at extorting 2 crores from Prasai. Prasai is learned to have refused payment. (This "little" detail didn't make it into the media - had Prasai paid the YCL, he would have walked)
• SP Dhak Bahadur Karki received Prasai from the YCL and stated that citizens have a right to hand over criminals to the police. (His words immediately diffused the situation then, but SP Karki is sure to have greater difficulty finding the right words when criminal elements from the YCL are brought to his door step in the days ahead).
• The YCL's 17 hour kidnapping clearly violated sections of the "Agreement on the Monitoring of the Management of Arms and Armies 8 December 2006,” which establishes the Nepal Police (and the Armed Police Force) as the upholders of prevailing laws. (Since there are so many more systematic and more serious violations of all agreements with the Maoists, the keepers of Nepal's peace, UNMIN, had nothing to say).
  

Timed perfectly (by the YCL) and in perfect time (for Wagle and Gupta)

The YCL brought Sitaram Prasai to justice. Can they also demonstrate similar resolve in reversing the "special court" pardons handed down to former Ministers Chiranjibi Wagle and Jaya Prakash Gupta? Probably not.

Prasai's alleged fraud pales in comparison to the alleged wealth amassed by Wagle and Gupta (during their respective tenures in office). But the YCL as an instrument of Maoist policy, cannot dare to exceed political party boundaries at Wagle and Gupta's level.

The YCL-generated focus on Sitaram Prasai permitted criminals with political backgrounds (Wagle and Gupta) to walk free. Interesting to note here is that both Gupta and Wagle are criminals who belong to the NC-D and that the Nepali Congress is in the midst of a planned merger.

Perhaps this is Sher Bahadur Deuba's idea of "dignified" Congress unification - Koirala pushes to have all criminal cases on corruption charges pardoned, and Deuba regains his legitimacy as more than just a royal pawn. In the meantime, the Janajati-centric YCL plays the role of a smoke screen that masks the political machinations of all "Bahunist" power plays. Sound familiar?

Also noteworthy is the manner in which Jaya Prakash Gupta manoeuvred within the Madhesi Forum - from corrupt Minister of Information and Communications, to criminal defendant, to leader (alongside Upendra Yadav), back to an independent (owing to philosophical differences with the Madhesi forum). Rather convenient that as soon as Gupta severed his ties with his own people (the Madhesis), he was exonerated by a "special court" of all corruption charges.

Because of the media storm that Sitaram Prasai's abduction and kidnapping generated, other, equally (if not worse) criminals like Jaya Prakash Gupta and Chiranjibi Wagle, walked free. These miscreants have a lot to thank the YCL for - the extortion fees the YCL had hoped for from Prasai, will likely be provided in the form of "thanks" from the private coffers of Gupta and Wagle.

Perfect timing for Prasai's abduction and a perfectly timed pardon by the Girija and Deuba (for Gupta and Wagle). The YCL won't dare anger Girija baje by going after Gupta or Wagle. After all, the YCL is nothing more than a bunch of peons, unknowingly doing the bidding of the "Bahunists" wielding power.

Bad news for the Maoist leadership

Whatever the public image may be, the YCL's actions represent a dangerous and reactionary precedent whereby Maoist leaders are forced to take public responsibility for the increasingly unruly activities of its former combatants; in private however, there is much confusion, worry and dismay within the Maoists' rank and file.

The YCL's approach worked. They successfully replicated their wartime guerrilla tactics, in the urban centre. The YCL exposed the level of state incapacity that exists along with the culture of corruption, and lack of law and order.

The YCL also effectively demonstrated the most vulnerable pressure point in the SPA and Maoist alliance; i.e., the individual parties' divergent thoughts on corruption and how to deal with corrupt leaders, in their midst.

But the beauty of all this is that the YCL abducted Prasai, demonstrated that they are ready to take the law into their own hands, made sure that criminals like Gupta and Wagle would walk free (unnoticed), pushed the "button" that caught Girija's undivided attention, and the YCL did all this, without approval from the Maoist leadership.

While the newspapers were busy printing accounts of Pushpa Dahal and Krishna Mahara assuming responsibility for the YCL's abduction (of Prasai), they missed the other story about Dahal and Baburam Bhattarai snivelling at Girija's feet, explaining to the Prime Minister that the Maoist leadership had nothing to do with the Prasai debacle.

Further, people seemed to completely missed the bigger picture that had Prasai paid off the YCL, that's where the episode would have ended; had the Maoist leadership wanted to confront Girija at this juncture, many other (less controversial) platforms are at their disposal.

The YCL's agenda of choice (bringing the corrupt to justice) spells disaster for the Maoist leadership. It shows how far apart the leadership and the Maoist cadre have grown and how dangerous for the leadership's legitimacy, the YCL actually is. Irrespective of the short-term populist currency that an anti-corruption drive entails, the Maoists' entangling themselves on many crusades (on multiple fronts), is detrimental to none other than the Maoists themselves.

Conclusion:

The Maoists have attracted the fleeting attention of Kathmandu's lower middle class masses for now, but they've also alienated the affluent and educated, upper middle class that values due process and the rule of law over sporadic vigilantism.

Whether the Maoists realize it or not, Sitaram Prasai will be a free man tomorrow, thanks mostly to the Maoists - the unorthodox method used in Sitaram's apprehension is unlikely to stand in any rational court of law. Plus, if Gupta and Wagle can be acquitted for robbing the Nepali masses (of millions in development dollars), what sense does it make (especially in Maoist thinking) to incarcerate a man who has defrauded Nepal's wealthy?

Although the Maoist leadership is loathe to accept it at this point in time, the Sitaram Prasai episode was a complete disaster to the leadership's overall image. It is very apparent that every incremental victory for the YCL drives the wedge of division deeper within the ranks of the Maoists; every episode that challenges the essential 8 "party" unity at this juncture, further jeopardizes the overall peace process.

Sitaram Prasai may be guilty of fraud and Wagle and Gupta are definitely guilty of corruption. But more importantly, the Maoist leadership is soon to be guilty of gross political miscalculation and stupidity of a magnitude, new even to Nepal's political elite!!

Related Postings:

Young, Confused and Lost (YCL) – The Hammer of the Maoist “Party” of Nepal
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/05/young-confused-and-lost-ycl-hammer-of.html

What’s Got the Maoists on Edge?
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/10/whats-got-maoists-on-edge.html

Nepal Government "Pays" Maoists for Peace

(Courtesy: el Zorro)

Three successive meetings of the Joint Monitoring Coordination Committee (JMCC) (which comprises Maoists, Nepal Army, Government and UNMIN personnel) failed to move ahead with the second round of arms verification. The point of disagreement was on the timing of the disbursement of funds to 32,000+ Maoist combatants (at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month and it is unclear if this is in addition to the Rs. 180 per day that the government agreed to provide, earlier: http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2007/feb/feb25/news05.php).

With combatants abandoning cantonment sites, the Maoist "army" leadership found itself begging the government (of which they are now a part), to release the promised funding.

Reinforcing the Maoist plea (with the urgency of their own jobs at stake), Jan Erik Wilhamson (Security Lead for UNMIN and Chairman of the JMCC), also asked for the disbursement of funds. Jan's point was that his team was ready to conduct second phase verifications as soon as the Maoists' permitted them to proceed. The Maoists' permission of course, was premised on the distribution of funds.

There is no clause in either the "Comprehensive Peace Agreement" or the "Agreement on the Monitoring of the Management of Arms and Armies 8 December 2006” that identifies the need to disburse funds to the Maoists, prior to the completion of the arms management process - in its entirety.

Further, an objective view compels one to consider why 32,000+ Maoist combatants are being paid Rs. 3,000 for a month, when UNMIN hasn't been able to verify that all 32,000+, are bona-fide Maoist combatants. The certification of combatants is to be based on UNMIN observers identifying underage Maoists (child combatants), identifying combatants who joined after May 25, 2006, and relieving all such personnel from the ranks of Maoist combatants.

If the estimated number of child combatants (and combatants who joined Maoist ranks after the armed insurgency was declared over), was negligible, the funds wouldn't be as big an issue. However, with estimates as high as a third of the total Maoist combatants being under the age of 18 and half having joined the Maoist ranks after the 25th of May, funds are definitely something to be concerned about.

The explicit assumption is that the second round of arms verification will be concluded within a month (the Rs. 92.5 million accounts for roughly a month's salary for the Maoist combatants). The implicit assumption is that when UNMIN observers disqualify (say for example) 1,000 combatants, the Maoist leadership will return Rs. 3 million (1,000*Rs. 3,000) to the State's coffers.

Both assumptions are incorrect. The first being false leaves the Nepali Government in a position where it is forced to write another few (Rs. 92.5 million) checks to sustain the Maoist combatants till UNMIN can do a thorough job. If this doesn't happen, UNMIN will have an excuse for why the completeness and accuracy of the second phase verification cannot be ascertained - "we were rushed!!"

The consequences of falsifying the second assumption needs no explanation. The only thing the Nepali government will get back from the Maoists at the end of the second round of verification is a blank receipt and a blank stare - "What money are you talking about? We incurred costs on the way to and from the salary distribution sites."

The point being made is that this whole haphazard process is ludicrous. Granted, the government had agreed to disburse funds in order to keep the Maoists in their cantonments. But this agreement was based on the idea that the Maoists' would also honour the CPA and the "Agreement on the Monitoring of the Management of Arms and Armies 8 December 2006.”

In reality, all we read about in the media is examples of how the Maoists are dishonouring the commitments they had agreed to. All we hear about is example after example of Maoists working around their obligations (e.g. the creation of the YCL, kidnapping, extortion, denial of access, failure to return private property, etc.), and the government, bending over backwards to accommodate the Maoists.

Something is very wrong. Nepali tax payers shouldn't have to pay taxes twice - once to the state and a second time to the Maoists (via extortion and now, salaries). The state shouldn't be paying anyone but its own security forces to keep the peace. The state should most certainly not have to pay the Maoists to keep them from committing acts of violence!!

There's a term for payments of this nature. They're called EXTORTION fees. And there's a term for the mindset we find our government in. It's called DELUSIONAL.

The Maoists are where they are today, because of their radical leaders and their nonsensical ideology. The Maoist leadership is increasingly isolated by its own cadre-base and by the international community because both realize what this whole 12 year war was about: Baburam Bhattarai, Pushpa Dahal, Chandra Prakash Gajurel (and other Brahmin leaders') inability to come to power democratically.

This insurgency wasn't about equality or inclusion and it certainly wasn't about democracy. If it was, every Maoist cadre would be at par with every other Maoist but we find no evidence of such equality; every Nepali, Janajati, Madhesi, Muslim, Hindu, Chhetri, Bahun, Christian would be on equal standing, but we know they're not; every political entity would be chanting tolerance, democracy and competitive politics, and yet, the Maoists are the first to admit their goal is still a communist republic.

So where does all this sympathy for the Maoist leadership come from? Why does Nepal's Civil Society stage 12 hour sit-ins to satiate the Maoists' will? Why do we continue to pretend that everyone is a guarantor of the peace process except the Maoists (who raised arms in the first place)?

Ultimately, the Nepali Government's disbursement of funds amounts to this: A "reward" of Rs. 92.5 million for 14,000 dead and 12 years of terror. Or, here's a slightly different perspective: An additional month of peace, "bought" at the expense of law-abiding, tax paying Nepalis that another segment of Maoists (the YCL), continues to extort on the side.

Related Postings:

What Next?
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-next.html

Nepal's Challenging Road to Peace: Divergent Perceptions (1/6)
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/08/nepals-challenging-road-to_115518368869932816.html

Nepal's Challenging Road to Peace: Cautiously Optimistic but Seriously Concerned (2/6)
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/08/nepals-challenging-road-to_115518358698784571.html

Nepal's Challenging Road to Peace: Inflection Points (3/6)
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/08/nepals-challenging-road-to_115518349599856869.html

Nepal's Challenging Road to Peace: Possible Maoist Interpretations (4/6)
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/08/nepals-challenging-road-to_115518331283543027.html

Nepal's Challenging Road to Peace: Possible Maoist Interpretations (5/6)
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/08/nepals-challenging-road-to-peace_10.html

Nepal's Challenging Road to Peace: Navigating Choppy Waters (6/6)
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/08/nepals-challenging-road-to-peace.html

Life is Good When You Are a Nepali Intellectual Elite

(Courtesy: Mr. Ripley)

When self-absorbed Nepalese elites dictate their vision of the “how-things-should-be” to the Nepalese , it’s the masses that ultimately bear the burden.

Paras continues his addled ways; heads of media, politicians, civil society activists, and top leaders of the Maoists continue to send their children overseas to study; and international Brahmins in the NGOs and the United Nations continue to moralize their way to the bank.

Whether dying in a suicidal frontal attack on an army outpost for the “people‘s“ liberation army; taking a couple 0.303s from an Enfield Rifle with no body armor for a pre-modern monarchy that still lives in a 17th century cocoon; having to keep THEIR children home due to bandhs; suffering the failures of culture and society and waiting forever for clean drinking water, sewers, roads, or basic justice – its that abstract concept that we call “the people”, the beasts of burden, who quietly and desperately carry this burden on a daily basis.

Mr. Kanak Mani Dixit, who is emblematic of this biased elite group-think, offered us this piece in the Nepali Times: “Enter the Politician – Charting the Course Back to Pluralism (http://www.nepalitimes.com/issue/246)” served to demonstrate how much garbage our blow-hard elites can generate in just 1,000 words.

The basic thesis of his attempt at spinning the politicians and the UN to undeserved glory and the whiny tone against any well-intentioned diplomatic efforts (their evil imperialist nemesis Moriarty) are worthy of reading only to validate how elites can say what they want with no worries about anyone calling them on it.

In the fast moving world of the news, few really bother (or have the time) to check up on facts, analysis, or even basic logic – so, much like oil-painting, one always has the opportunity to deliver correcting brush strokes, overlaying the previous color as if it never existed. Skies become sand and trees become snow.

Following up on the above piece, Mr. Dixit, evidently stoked by his democratic zeal during the April 2006 uprising gave us an even more verbose analysis of 5,000 plus words in Himal Magazine (http://himalmag.com/2006/march/cover_story_1.html), a publication that can only be described as a reflecting pool for South Asian narcissistic leftist intellectual bores.

He gores King Gyanendra as the all-time villain and indulges in contradictory statements about the-then RNA. On the one hand, the RNA are bad because they never took the offensive, and then later to prop up another position, he argues:

“With the army refusing to engage them in the field, the Maoists could not hope for firefights and battles to show their fighting mettle. All in all, for the last few years the rebel fighters have been reduced to clandestine ambushes of security forces, laying down improvised explosive devices on public roads, as well as blockades and highway closures.”

Later in the same piece, he offers up this ridiculous lament:

“Due to domestic, regional and international considerations, therefore, the Maoist decision to come to a ‘safe landing’ is convincing to all players. All players, that is, other than some diehard members of Kathmandu’s royalist elite and the American ambassador, who in mid-February conducted a frenzy of meetings, speeches and letters-to-the-editor trying to convince whoever would listen of an impending Maoist takeover of Kathmandu, and of the need to reject the Maoist siren calls that the 12-point understanding and the Maoist interviews represented. Lacking a nuanced understanding of the fast-changing Nepali political discourse, and obviously running to the dictates of his own administration’s ‘fight against terror’, the ambassador managed – it is hoped momentarily – to deflect the debate and the search for peace. Whereas a civil cautionary note to alert the political class of the dangers of Maoist doubletalk would not have been untoward, the ambassador was acting very much the American cowboy in a Nepali china shop. As the royal regime’s detainee, civil-society leader Devendra Raj Pandey said from jail on a mobile phone, “The ambassador’s statements are designed to take the country back to civil war, more bloodshed, and away from a political solution.”

While he is correct about the need to make the incredibly stubborn King Gyanendra heel, Mr. Dixit’s over-the-top attempts to show us why the Maoists should be trusted and his juvenile anger against more centrist diplomats are now completely off the mark.

More than one year later, the Nepalese “people” can see how his thesis is playing out. From what one can observe, the facts appear to be as follows:

1. Basic security is non-existent in many parts of the country. Bandhs are back and schools and businesses are taking a hit - keeping yet another generation of Nepali middle and lower-class kids from opportunity.

2. The YCL is becoming entrenched, metastasizing into many seams of Nepalese society.

3. Mr. Dixit’s beloved politicians have reverted to true character.

4. Economic growth is almost at a standstill - even as India and China are both clocking near double-digit economic growth rates.

5. Armed groups are multiplying. And why not? If the Maoist cause has been sold as “legitimate”, why isn’t the Madhesi cause or a Hindu cause or any other cause “legitimate”?

6. The Nepali Army is sidelined. The same Army who Mr. Dixit has denigrated over the years (what exactly, Mr. Dixit, is a Maoist “activist“? ) as 90,000 royalists hell-bent on preventing democracy. Never mind that this is the very army that demonstrated great restraint last April despite Maoist hopes of drawing them in to kill a few hundred of the “people.” Mr. Sitaula, the weasel of a Home Minister of “New Nepal” has created more “martyrs” than Jana-Andolan II.

7. Political “inclusiveness”, instead of the promised palliative, appears to encourage fragmentation along ethnic, tribal, and caste fault lines.

But Mr. Dixit need not worry. He can continue to pontificate, show up at rallies to demonstrate he is a man of the people, commune with like-minded international Brahmin elites, and sell the masses his vision of how things should be. He can sleep easy that if he is wrong, he can say something else the next day, and if that is wrong, tweak it a little more another day - and ask the “people” to be patient.

Every day is a new day in New Nepal where you have nearly 30 million suckers who will pick up the tab.

If you’re a "Mr. Dixit," life is indeed very, very good.

RELATED LINKS:

Where are Moriarty's Haters Now?
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/03/where-are-moriartys-haters-now.html

The King, the Populists, the Herders and the Sheep
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/02/king-populists-herders-and-sheep.html

Surreal Politics - How Nepal’s Intellectual / Political Class, Continue to Look the Other Way…
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/01/surreal-politics-how-nepals.html

Nepal: Can We Ever Reconcile Our Relative Truths?
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/11/nepal-can-we-ever-reconcile-our.html

Perpetual Denial – The State of Nepal’s Intellectual Class
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/11/perpetual-denial-state-of-nepals.html

Democrats are from Venus and Maoists are from Mars
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/11/democrats-are-from-venus-and-maoists.html