The greatest threat to peace in Nepal is misinformed, misguided, agenda-driven journalists like "The Guardian's" Isabel Hilton

(Courtesy: el Punto)

Isabel Hilton: "The greatest threat to peace in Nepal is military impunity"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2130575,00.html

Isabel Hilton's twisted and misleading critique of the Nepalese Army is anything but professional journalism. Her writing in The Guardian is a piece of intentionally misinformed, left-wing trash. It is distasteful propaganda that amalgamates fact with fiction, pointedly undermines reforms undertaken by the Nepalese Army, uplifts Nepal's Maoist agenda, and strains an already fragile peace process.

Examples of the half-truths in Isabel Hilton's reporting are as follows:

• There is no mention of any explicit number of Maoist combatants to be integrated into the Nepalese Army - how could there possibly be such a number when the peace agreement was signed before the verification of combatants was complete?
• A political agreement has not been reached on how/if "certified" Maoist combatants are to be integrated into the Nepalese Army - integration is certainly on the Maoist "wish-list" but is not the foregone conclusion that Isable Hilton presents it to be.
• The only thing "savage" about "Gyanendra's" war against the Maoists was the Maoists prancing around the countryside using villagers as human shields, assassinating political opponents, slitting throats of teachers and reporters, and decapitating their fallen comrades - the war was neither Gyanendra's, nor was it any more "savage" than war in general.
• The MoD may be the centre of focus for Isabel's criticism but it's the DFID sponsored version of the DDR model that Nepal's Maoists are categorically rejecting - Isabel would do well to investigate this further, so her writing doesn't come off completely in line with Maoist propaganda.

It is "thanks" to reporting like Isabel's that a discredited monarch continues to receive far more attention than he deserves. Instead of undermining the monarchy's value to a future Nepal, occasional reminders like Isabel's suggest a magnitude of control that Gyanendra simply does not have.

The fact is, neither Gyanendra, nor General Katual (individually or in tandem) have sufficient popular support to challenge the Maoists or the alliance of semi-feudal (Bahnun dominated) political parties in Nepal. Claims to the contrary are wishful thinking of the variety that preoccupy two groups - the hardcore, avowed Royalists and the ever-conspiracy conscious Maoists. Any takers on where Isabel's loyalties lie?

If Isabel had true cause for concern over Nepal's peace process, she may have criticized the United Nations for bargaining over the number of disqualified combatants (with the Maoists), or perhaps she could have mentioned the injustice that hundreds of thousands of Maoist victims continue to face - a fact of Nepal's 12-year long civil war that the international media refuses to report on.

But what is Isabel's focus? She hones in on the tragedy of Maina Sunwar, a case that has been internationalized and one that Hilton knows will resonate with every feeling and breathing human being (irrespective of his/her political inclination). Isabel Hilton brazenly abuses Maina's tragedy to fuel hatred against an institution she has little, if any first hand knowledge (or understanding) of.

For Isabel, the only issue is the impunity she parrots the Nepalese Army enjoys. For those familiar with the details of Nepal's 12 year insurgency, the issue is implication by association of each and every solider and officer who was ordered into combat, every politician (many of whom are currently represented in Nepal's interim parliament) who endorsed military action, and every single Maoist cadre who either committed first degree murder (or was party to such crimes against humanity).

Just because Isabel Hilton had no clue what went on in Nepal from 1990 till she decided to take up the Maoists' cause in 2005, doesn't excuse the Maoists for their heinous crimes against the Nepali people. Just because Isabel's telling is exclusively focused on the atrocities committed by 0.001% of a 90,000 strong national army, it doesn't erase the crimes to which 100% of Nepal's political leadership is party.

Isabel makes no mention of the current Prime Minister's (Girija Prasad Koirala) previous resignation from office on the grounds that the Nepali Army refused to engage the Maoists in combat. Had Isabel been aware of this fact, what would her criticism be then? Would it be that the Nepalese Army refused to kill its own people under orders from a democratically elected Prime Minster and thus, the Nepalese Army continues to be undemocratic? Probably. Because this is how twisted, ideologically brainwashed logic works.

What about operations Romeo or Sierra-II Kilo - the root causes of the armed Maoist rebellion? It is peculiar that Isabel makes no mention of such landmark "events" when criticizing Nepal's security forces. Could it be that that the massacre of thousands of villagers in Rukkum and Rolpa are best ignored because such operations were launched under the auspices of a "democratic" government and a "democratic" police force?

These are the larger issues that papers like "The Guardian" systematically overlook. Questions are forwarded but are posed in accusatory fashion with selective background and substance that guides readers to premature conclusions.

If Isabel Hilton's objective was to raise a stink about the Nepalese Army's human rights record, she has certainly made her mark. But at the same time, Isabel should know that the Nepalese Army is not the same old punching bag that will sit by idly and watch as its name and reputation are tarnished yet again.

The Nepalese Army is no longer operationally incapacitated by conflicting direction from the Palace Secretariat and Army HQ. The face of the Nepalese Army is a public relations Officer on whom a failed Maoist assassination attempt was launched. There are women serving in the ranks of the Nepalese Army (many of them, widowed by Maoist insurgents). The Nepalese Army's attitude and commitment to democratic rule is unconditional; as a demonstration of professional solidarity, not a single serving Officer attended King Gyanendra's birthday celebration. There have been more acts of visible discipline against the Officer Corps. over the past year and half than the last 7 years combined. Comparatively, the Officer Corps. of the Nepalese Army is a glowing display of ethnic representation – it is unclear which decade of data Hilton bases her racially divisive allegation on. But of course, these statistics are meaningless to Isabel Hilton because they don't support either her's or her Maoist buddies' cause.

Hilton ridicules General Katuwal's up-brining as an orphan. She shamelessly leverages the pain and mental torture of Maina Sunwar's family. She uses both arguments in pursuit of her own radical ultra-left wing ideology. Hilton portrays herself as a defender of human rights but doesn't skip a beat when equating a living human being to a "souvenir." If this isn't hypocrisy what is? And all this drama, in the name of peace for Nepal?

Here's a revelation for Hilton: If Nepal's peace process is derailed, it won't be because of General Katuwal, it won't be because of the Nepalese Army and it certainly won't be because of a spent King. It will be because of misguided media mavericks like Isabel Hilton who revel in expounding baseless theories in the international press, flaunting their non-existent expertise, and endangering a delicate process of political reconciliation that ideologues like Hilton love to hate.

Related Posts:

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

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

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

The Utility of a Professional Nepalese Army

(Courtesy: el Matador)

Introduction

Threats to national security are diverse, complex, intense and lethal. Of these threats, internal conflict – “the war within”- is the most impacting to the integrity and unity of a nation. Internal threats are represented by an explosive combination of political, social, economic and psychological elements combined with violence.

Threats to core national values and interests of a state justify and legitimize the use of military force – an essential component to any geopolitical entity. However, the ability to act (and react) in a timely and effective manner, hinges as much on the credibility of the leadership group in power, as it does on the general state of operational readiness.

Democratic Civilian Control

In the modern era, the responsibility of formulating a national security policy (and the implementation of such a policy) is upheld completely by the civilian authority, guided through its elected representatives.

Strong democratic civilian control must identify itself with two dimensions: institutionalized oversight of all military activities without politicization and promotion of professionalism. The prime reason for civilian control of the military is to retain the de jure authority to maintain control over the de facto power afforded by weaponry and military competence.

Military Power

Military power in its deterrent and employment dimensions is a significant security asset. Military power is a relationship comprising of means (men/women and material), methods and the will to sustains them when faced with adversities.

The new paradigm of war is based upon the concepts of continuous criss-crossing between confrontation and conflict. Today the opponents are mostly non-state actors. We are engaging in conflicts for objectives that do not lead to the resolution of the matter directly by force of arms. Therefore, wars are societal in their make, asymmetrical in nature and permanent in their durability.

Militaries prefer mandates that permit a more decisive use of adequate force and resent ambiguous missions and restrictive conditions. The civilian hierarchy prefer to create a conceptual space for diplomacy, economic incentives and political pressures to enforce a desired political outcome.

Nepalese Security Environment

The Nepalese people mandated the SPA to impel the Maoists to strictly extirpate their use of violence, join the political mainstream, and provide good governance to facilitate the conduct of CA elections. Unfortunately, the obduracy of some political leaders and the fractured political unity within (and amongst the political parties) have adversely impacted the overall decision- making process. The achievement of national consensus in any given issue is rendered a distant dream while the court of appeal is located abroad.

Division over ethnicity, community, class, caste, gender, religion and languages are indelible. Inequity in representation and opportunities indicate acute lack of inclusiveness. The aspirations created by a much hyped federal system of governance has opened a Pandora’s box, which if not guided properly, may insinuate sub-nationalism.

The proliferation of small arms and explosives (due to the Maoist insurgency and the open border), the proximity of numerous insurgencies in the adjoining Indian States, the establishment of the precedent that the use of violence delivers recognition (and a short cut to power), as well as the presence of additional vindictive armed splinter groups have debilitated the rule of law. The propensity of HR activists to “regret” rather than to “condemn” Maoist atrocities amounts to indirect support (be it due to fear of Maoist retaliation) or even, accelerated non-judicial, exoneration (of Maoist crimes).

The Nepalese Army

Threat perceptions emanate from internal vulnerabilities that remain neglected and unaddressed.. Neutralization of certain threats may require the application of legitimate coercive force including the military.

The Nepalese Army maintains a history identified with the unification process of Nepal. Despite sporadic HR violations regrettably committed while being blurred by the fog of war, the NA, at times in isolation, did force the Maoist insurgents to abandon their aspirations to achieve military victory. Even the latest ICG report of May 2007 states, “The then RNA proved to be a more stubborn foe than the Maoists predicted.” The NA has been universally recognized as the only dependable bastion that protected the nation from being destabilized. It remains the key obstacle that prevents the Maoists from consolidating power through the application of violence.

The Nepalese state of affairs requires the establishment and maintenance of a viable Nepalese military force structure with a rapid deployment capability. The need for a robust and versatile military force coincides with the national foreign policy stipulating the NA to participate in various UNPKO missions under chapters VI and VII and beyond perhaps, in future version of the “Coalition of the Willing.”.

The NA needs to further build and develop an effective response capability to counter transnational threats and stretch its roles and missions to new heights of professionalism. In terms of serving the people during peacetime, the NA must be capable and equipped to conduct civic actions, civil affairs, rescue and relief operations and national development programs.

Transparency, rule of law, accountability, equal opportunities, empowerment of the junior ranks and a strict military chain of command must be fully maintained in the organization. Inclusiveness must be inculcated but reservation quotas to the extent of compromising quality and merit must be avoided.

Down-sizing the NA and integrating the politically indoctrinated PLA into the NA are theoretical steps but should be considered redundant The Maoists may see victory as theirs and may want to dictate terms of state surrender, but their entry into the parliament is due to the liberal and accommodative stance of the SPA. The illegal YCL activities and the adamancy displayed by the PLA towards the process of UN verification are clear indicators that the resurgence of the old insurgency is still a possibility.

Referring to history, the Indian National Army was never integrated into the Indian Army. The Rakshaya Dal was composed of conventionally trained soldiers, that had been demobilized after the end of World War II. They neither indulged in acts of terrorism and extortion nor believed in anything but democratic rule.

The sanctity of the NA must be maintained. An appropriate security organization must be created and commanded by officers and NCOs seconded from the NA to accommodate eligible PLA combatants. The organization must remain under the jurisdiction of Military Law but the role, mission and capabilities must be secondary to the professional Nepalese Army.

Members of the PLA to be considered for integration, must fulfill physical, educational and medical requisites and must successfully graduate from the intensive basic training (to which all NA personnel are subjected). All political affiliations and beliefs must be surrendered. Human Rights violators and those involved in criminal activities must be banned from enlistment. Lastly, the violators of the existing laws, regulations and rules should be prosecuted without impunity.

Conclusion

The restoration of trust and confidence of the Nepalese people in their Army is a concept that needs to be developed and nurtured with priority. A realization must dawn upon the people that the dedicated participation of the NA in the counter-insurgency operations, prevented Nepal from succumbing to a totalitarian communist rule.

The NA, a professional and experienced fighting force (that has received international acclaim), needs to be maintained as a strong deterrent into the foreseeable future to safeguard both development and democracy. It must be clearly highlighted that simply assigning roles and missions to the NA without furnishing appropriate capabilities and resources will eventually position the SPA with all the “carrots” to entice would-be armed revolutionaries, but without any “sticks” to dissuade the politics of violence.

Related Posts:

Debilitating the State’s Security Forces
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/06/debilitating-states-security-forces.html

Apples, Oranges and the Maoist Victory in Nepal
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/06/apples-oranges-and-maoist-victory-in.html

Consolidating Peace in Nepal – General Mehta’s Way
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/06/consolidating-peace-in-nepal-general.html

Dissecting the “feudal” NA
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/08/dissecting-feudal-na.html

A 5 Point Salute to Brig. Gen. Dilip Rana
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/02/5-point-salute-to-brig-gen-dilip-rana.html

UNMIN's "Consulting" Mentality Not Conducive to Nepal's "Stakeholder" Needs

(Courtesy: NepaliPerspectives Group)

Presented below is an exchange between UNMIN and NepaliPerspectives. At the request of the UNMIN personnel with whom NepaliPerspecties corresponded, names have been withheld to respect generally accepted norms on private e-mail exchanges. As further consideration, responses provided by UNMIN are paraphrased whereas the responses from NepaliPerspectives Moderators are in their original form.

The need to publicly disclose the contents of this conversation are manifold. Chief amongm them are the following:

• An examination of the exchange below clearly demonstrates UNMIN's tendency to out rightly dismiss valid criticism by immediately falling back on its "mandate" excuse;

• This exchange clearly demonstrates the condescending attitude that UNMIN maintains towards its critics whereby critics are instantly dismissed (side-tracked) on the basis of being a detractor (as opposed to the substance of the criticism being forwarded);

• UNMIN's poorly negotiated mandate runs the immediate risk of giving the United Nations a "black eye" in Nepal;

• UNMIN demonstrates a very "consultant" like attitude towards Nepal's peace process whereas Nepalis view UNMIN as a "stakeholder."

• Like any other organization, UNMIN is only transparent when it is forced to be; in Nepal, since the vast majority of trained journalists, academics and civil society elite either directly work for or are affiliated with UNMIN, the necessary oversight is completely absent.

The points made above are amply demonstrated by the summarized exchange below.

- - - - - - - -

1. NepaliPerspectives forwards E-mail to UNMIN personnel

Given UNMIN's inability to enforce the terms and conditions of Nepal's "Comprehensive Peace Agreement" and the "Agreement on the Monitoring of the Management of Arms and Armies," a timely re-visit of the systemic shortcomings in UNMIN's mandate becomes necessary.

Catalogued below are posts on NepaliPerspectives that chronicle UNMIN's lacklustre performance in Nepal and ideas on how such deficiencies may be remediated.

FULL TEXT LOCATED AT THE FOLLOWING URL:

http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/07/uns-unmin-involvement-in-nepals-peace.html

http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/

- - - - - -

2. UNMIN Responds to the Original Message from NepaliPerspectives

After a cursory glance of the contents of the first paragraph (and without even the slightest consideration of what the provided link entails), an individual at UNMIN provides the following response (paraphrased based on request for privacy):

• UNMIN respondent "supposed" that he/she "could" thank NepaliPerspectives for the message.
• UNMIN respondent indicated that the NepaliPerspectives message was "somewhat confused."
• UNMIN respondent focused on NepaliPerspectives's mention of "UNMIN's inability to enforce the terms and conditions of Nepal's "Comprehensive Peace Agreement"' in the context of a call for review.
• UNMIN respondent accepted that UNMIN does not have a mandate to enforce the CPA.
• UNMIN respondent indicated that the Nepali parties did not ask that the UN have such a mandate.
• UNMIN respondent indicated that thus, to criticize the performance of UNMIN based on a lack of understanding of its mandate in a "unfortunate" result from such "prolific" commentators.
• UNMIN respondent offered to meet with NepaliPerspectives to provide a "brief" on "UNMIN's mandate and activities" so that NepaliPerspectives may be "fully informed."

- - - - - - - -

3. rejoinder to UNMIN (message not paraphrased)

Dear Sir / Madam:

Our moderators feel it is important for all sides to be heard. So we invite you to write to NepaliPerspectives, at your leisure.

Although contributors to our web log display varying degrees of (subject matter) knowledge, our combined moderator team is intimately familiar with UNMIN's mandate in Nepal. We are also well versed on conditions that have made UN missions successful in some peace keeping efforts and failures in others.

Our team takes the time and effort to push back when issues are confused and in this particular case, we would argue that it was improper for UNMIN to not negotiate an effective mandate for itself, at the start of its involvement in Nepal. And if UNMIN's mandate is the over-riding factor that underpins its delivery capabilities, then we would argue that it is equally improper for UNMIN to comment on peripheral issues that do not currently fall within a strict interpretation of UNMIN's mandate. If a strict interpretation is the thrust of your message to us, then it would behove Mr. Martin to refrain from commenting on any facet of the peace process that is not directly within the realm of your current, explicit mandate. Selective objectivity is neither a good display of independence, nor impartiality.

To further address your concern, we recognize that "enforcement" is not part of your current mandate. Why then, would your organization accept a mandate that it is ill-equipped to carry through to fruition? This, we believe, is the crux of the message that the post on NepaliPerspectives has delivered.

A related point is as follows: UNMIN had the mandate from all parties to use finger printing technology and mobile data bases during its first round of arms monitoring. This is something that was within UNMIN's mandate - something all parties had agreed to. Our question to you is, why did UNMIN fail to employ this technology in Nepal when this has become a proven, indisputable verification asset in other theatres?

It seems rather presumptuous to us (name removed upon request), that you would attribute an entire page of writing to an alleged misunderstanding of your mandate, by examining a single introductory paragraph. We would urge you to carefully consider the flaws in your own understanding of what is in UNMIN's mandate, what should have been in UNMIN's mandate, and how your organization plans to rectify these gaps before UNMIN's role in Nepal becomes defunct.

The point that is being made is rather simple (name removed upon request) - If something is not in UNMIN's mandate and you feel it should be, it's time to speak up.

As Nepalis and well wishers of Nepal, we realize the importance of UNMIN in the overall context of Nepal's peace process. However, we also realize (based on ample historical evidence) that the UN in peace keeping situations, tends to be more comfortable playing the role of a consultant as opposed to a stakeholder. It is our opinion that UNMIN's mentality needs a shift from its current "consultant" mode to a more responsible "stake-holder" mode, in Nepal.

Should Nepal's peace process fail, it is unlikely that the UN's critics, the international community and more importantly, 27 million Nepalis will take your interpretation of our misunderstanding of UNMIN's mandate, lightly.

We meet you on a weekly basis (name removed for privacy purposes). We "meet" you on the web, we "meet" you via e-mail and our colleagues meet you in person. Please consider this message a courtesy briefing from the NepaliPerspecitves Group on the external perception of UNMIN's performance-to-date.

It is our explicit desire that you also remain informed, at all times. We appreciate that you have taken the time to read (even if it was just a paragraph) of some hard hitting facts that you may otherwise be unexposed to.

In the tradition transparent conversation, the contents of this discussion (our original message, your response, and our rejoinder) will be placed on NepaliPerspecitves. If you have any objections, please let us know, immediately.

Thank you.

NepaliPerspectives Group

----------

4. UNMIN response to NepaliPerspecitves rejoinder

• UNMIN responder explicitly stated that his/her comment not be placed on NepaliPerspectives, that it was not a comment for publication, but rather a personal e-mail response.
• UNMIN responder reiterated his/her offer to attend a briefing.
• UMIN responder kindly requested that if the intent is to publish correspondences, that he/she be notified in advance.
  

- - - - --

5. NepaliPerpspectives response to UNMIN

Dear (name removed upon request):

Although it is not within our group's "mandate" to comply with your request (as we are not an an official media organization), we are compelled by professional (and moral) integrity to respect your request for privacy, so your request will be honoured.

There will be no mention of names, only paraphrased content that cannot be tied back to any individual. Our approach will be very similar to UNMIN's verification process where it is impossible to tie back weapon types, to the number of weapons or combatant counts, to disqualified combatants.

I am sure you can appreciate the irony in this particular exchange. It may simply be a misunderstanding of what it is you perceive to be the NepaliPerspectives Group's mandate, and we are happy to clarify this for you at any time.

Again, we thank you for your invitation to a briefing. As we'd mentioned earlier, our colleagues are in contact with you and your office on a near daily basis so a private briefing is not needed. We are certain your time would be better spent on more pressing matters.

On a serious note, we look forward to UNMIN's success in Nepal. Our goal in outlining deficiencies is not to weaken your organization's resolve, it is to strengthen it. Please do not misinterpret our group's self-declared mandate.

-- - - - - - - - -

6. UNMIN response to NepaliPerspectives

• UNMIN responder explained that he/she would continue to share media material with NepaliPerspectives.
• UNMIN responder expressed their (UNMIN's) deep respect for " the vibrant and independent media, and modern e-media, in Nepal, and the importance of this in the peace process and the wider democratic process."
  

- - - - - - - - - -

Related Posts:

UNMIN's Arms Verification Process in Nepal - More Timely Information and Transparency Needed
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/07/unmin-in-over-its-head-in-nepal-arms.html

UNMIN Clarifies its Role but Just in Time to be Humiliated by the Maoists
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/06/unmin-clarifies-its-role-but-just-in.html

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

Questionable Mergers

(Courtesy: Siddhartha Thapa)

Nepal's political discourse has entered the decisive phase where the future of tomorrow's Nepal will be charted through a Constituent Assembly. Throughout history state power has been captured through popular revolts and by paralyzing or more likely by destroying the morale of the existing state security apparatus. Similarly in Nepal an intense debate has ensued regarding the merger of a politically motivated armed outfit – the PLA; and the Nepalese Army. However, the state must strongly resist the pressure either domestic or international for the amalgamation of PLA into Nepal Army. In the unfortunate event that the merger takes place, prior to Constituent Assembly polls, it would be accurate to conclude that Girija has indeed thrown his last trump card and is preparing for the eventual surrender of power to the Maoists.

As the International Crisis Group states in its report vis-à-vis the Maoists, "their tactics, strategy might have changed, but not their goals". The Maoists today appear to be the only political party with a game plan. On the other hand the Nepali Congress is under an illusion that by virtue of being the largest Democratic Party in the country, the people will vote for them. Nonetheless, the realistic picture of Nepali politics is vastly different from what our leaders have been portraying. In fact, a few days ago senior EPA leaders Raghu Pant, Binay Dhoj Chand and Dinnanth Sharma conceded that the law and order situation has taken a nose dive and admitted that under present circumstances, the chances of holding the elections is only remotely possible. Due to Girija's failure to assert political authority, the Maoists have strategically unveiled their much expected move: to paralyze or trigger a mutiny in the national army by pushing for the integration of their ideologically armed outfit into the Nepal Army.

However, if Girija gives the nod under pressure to merge the two armies, it would be prudent for the Nepali Congress to weigh the political ramifications of such a move. There are several issues that need to be taken into consideration prior to giving consent for the merger of the two armies. First, it is important to consider that for almost a decade the Maoists took up arms against the state and the political system of multi-party democracy, in order to establish a communist republic. It is also important to note that there is no guarantee that the Maoists will renounce violence if the elections or the political proceedings do not go their way. Prachanda, Kiran Vaidya and C.P Gajurel, all senior Maoist leaders, have consistently maintained that their party will not accept any political solution that contravenes their agendas and party policies.

Nepal Army is a voluntary army and works in the interest to protect national security. In comparision, the PLA killed unarmed political opponents and anyone who dared to speak up against them. Even after the formation of YCL, the atrocities still continue: the recent killing of a journalist in far western Nepal by the Nepal Republican Army, reveal that there is little room to suggest that the Maoists have mended their ways. And there is still a significant threat of the Maoists going to war. Chairman Prachanda has boasted repeatedly about their ability to wage war at any given time if need be. It is also clear, that the political wing of the Maoist party has ultimately succumbed to the pressure of their military wing. Or perhaps it is the inability of the political wing to outmaneuver the political parties which has compelled the Maoist leadership to give more weight to the voices from the military wing. However, the ground reality is that the military and political wing are working in tandem to eventually overwhelm the state.

There are also social aspects too that need to be looked into. Family ties and ideological loyalty to the party makes it hard for the PLA to separate and decipher the importance of national security from party interest. It is a foregone conclusion that once the PLA and Nepal Army are merged, politically indoctrinated members in the armed service coupled with the infiltration of YCL and NRA, will undoubtedly undermine the impartiality of the army.

In retrospect it is imperative to look into past cases of tried and tested mergers. For example, even though the INA spearheaded by Subash Chandra Bose fought for India's independence, they were never integrated into the national army. In Britain, the IRA too was not made a part of the British Army. Likewise, in Congo, South Africa, Angola and Guatemala integration of state forces with the rebel army lead to serious indiscipline, internal confrontation, and misunderstanding that ultimately lead to the collapse of the structure of the army. Worse still is the case of Bangladesh where the opposition army assassinated the President. These past experiments of amalgamation must be taken into consideration before such mergers are implemented.

Even today, the YCL and NRA have failed to mend their ways. The crimes committed by the PLA, consistent negligence of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the constant abuse of human rights will make it harder for the UN to accept Nepal in future peace keeping missions if the rebel army and Nepal Army are integrated without trying those who are guilty. It is important to note that there is no mechanism within the PLA, that can punish the guilty and even if there were, it would be a hoax to designed to fool the powers that be. To conclude, the recent political upheaval in the Terai and concurrently, Maoist behavior at this particular juncture, will boost the confidence of other armed outfits in Terai and force them to demand the integration of their cadres into the national army along ethnic lines, as a precondition for successful talks.

Related Posts:

The Mysterious "Environment" and the Bogey of Elections
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/06/mysterious-environment-and-bogey-of.html

Nepal Government "Pays" Maoists for Peace
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/06/nepal-government-pays-maoists-for-peace.html

Reality Check for Nepal - Part-II
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/05/reality-check-for-nepal-part-ii.html

Reality Check for Nepal - Part-I
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/05/reality-check-for-nepal-part-i.html

UNMIN’s July 16 Press Release and Subsequent Q&A Disaster

(Courtesy: Comrade Libertad)

Ian Martin’s press conference of July 16, 2007 can be described by a single term – appalling. Martin's play on words, his "diplomatic" responses to straightforward questions and his purely consultant-like rejoinders were unbecoming an individual of his position, stature and responsibilities.

Judging by the nature of Martin's interaction with the press, one thing is clearer than ever before: The terms and conditions under which UNMIN was "contracted" to assist in Nepal's peace process are grossly inadequate. Furthermore, such inadequacies have not yet factored into the public's perception of UNMIN’s capabilities and as a consequence, have resulted in severely inflated expectations.

These mismatched expectations are a consequence of the fallacious argument that the Maoists were yearning to integrate into a generally accepted version of the democratic mainstream. They are and also a consequence of the UN's insatiable appetite for demonstrating its (virtually non-existent) peace making / peace keeping capabilities, at every possible juncture, despite the organization’s abysmal record of failure.

In laymen's terms, the factors outlined above amounted to an overzealous United Nations that blatantly failed to negotiate a mandate based on pre-defined success criteria and instead, rushed into a position that it was ill-prepared deliver on. By hastily entering an agreement (that resulted in the creation of UNMIN), the United Nations catered to the purported "urgency" of securing a position for itself that realistically, no other organization on the planet had the credentials to fulfil.

At the time of the signing of Nepal's Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), the United Nations was uniquely positioned to dictate terms amenable to all concerned parties. Specifically, the UN could have negotiated its mandate in a manner that would have positioned it for success as opposed to a never ending string of carefully moderated excuses. Ian Martin regularly performs the shameless task of doling out half-baked truths and self-aggrandizing claims, much to the growing disappointment of educated Nepalis and the international community.

Now is as opportune a time as ever, to consider replacing Ian Martin as UNMIN’s head of mission in Nepal. Martin’s independence is impaired, his partiality is blatant and his general ineffectiveness can no longer be permitted to jeopardize Nepal’s peace process. Ian Martin and his immediate circle of Nepali advisors should be dismissed urgently if Nepal’s peace process and constituent assembly elections are to regain momentum.

Outlined below are sample responses from the Q&A session that followed Martin’s press official statement of 16th July, 2007. (A URL to the original document will be provided when the official transcript is posted on UNMIN’s website).

- - - - - -

• “I am not going to give the figures.”
  This was Ian Martin’s mantra throughout the entire press conference. Despite the Nepali people’s right to information and the procedural transparency that the United Nations preaches to its member states, the UN’s own Ian Martin continually refuses to disclose vital information to our public. He refused to disclose the exact type and kinds of weapons that were documented during the first phase of arms registration and now he refuses to disclose the number of combatants that were found to be ineligible during the second round of arms verification.
  
  Martin went on to make the following statement: “I agreed that we would present the findings and discuss them with the Maoist leadership before we made a public statement on the findings.”
  The question we have for Ian Martin is on whose authority and with whose permission did Martin deem it necessary to seek de-facto approval from the Maoist leadership before disclosing UNMIN’s findings to the world?
  
  Martin continually defers to UNMIN’s mandate to justify his team’s incompetence. Our question is according to which agreement or what mandate is Ian Martin obliged to consult the Maoist leadership before making available what should be UNMIN’s independent findings? This is complete madness and this sort of tomfoolery must end with immediate and full disclosure of all information that UNMIN is hiding. By keeping such secrets, UNMIN is compromising its independence and utility to Nepal’s overall peace process and is jeopardizing the probability of continued peace in Nepal.

• In response to a question from a member of the Press Trust of India, Ian Martin clarified what is encapsulated in the “Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Agreement on Monitoring the Management of Arms and Armies”: “It provides for what has generally been referred to as “weapons separation” in Nepal: the storage of weapons, the storage of weapons under a single key arrangement under which the Maoist commanders retain the ultimate access to those weapons.”
  
  What precisely is the utility of separating weapons from combatants and then leaving the key with Maoist commanders? Did Ian Martin perform in his capacity as a trusted peace advisor to the Nepali Government and the Maoists by advising them that “weapons separation” alone only serves to prolong the threat of violence?
  
  Exposing the UN to a position where the Maoists enter government and then use the legitimacy of the UN to further their political goals (while retaining the threat of force) probably isn’t the smartest idea Ian has had. Then again, Sri Lanka’s humanitarian situation is just as bad today as it was when Martin was posted there and East Timor is even worse off than it was when Ian Martin served to make peace in that country.
  
  UNMIN’s posture of hiding behind technicalities in its mandate must be reversed immediately. It is ludicrous that Ian Martin should feel so incapacitated by a mandate that his organization negotiated for itself. If he truly feels constrained and unable to perform to expectations, it is Martin’s civic duty to appraise the UN’s Security Council of the urgent need to re-negotiate UNMIN’s role in Nepal’s peace process.

• In response to a question posed by a representative from the Voice of America, Ian Martin stated the following: “UNMIN is not working to any target figure: how many people would be excluded or verified as a result of those criteria, we don’t know ahead of the process playing out, and we are not working to any figure.”
  
  It is a universally accepted truth that one cannot have results before one carries out the requisite analysis. The question is why Ian Martin refuses to disclose figures that are known to him and his organization? If UNMIN is not working to a target figure (and it strictly implementing the 2 criteria outlined in its mandate), there is no reason why it is unable to share the results of its work with the general public.
  
  Challenges to UNMIN’s initial findings should be debated publicly and transparently. Hiding numbers (to which people can be held accountable) is very poor wisdom on UNMIN’s part. If Ian Martin wishes to continue being perceived as a fair, impartial arbiter in Nepal’s conflict, he’d best discontinue the practice of making personal agreements on the side with the Maoist leadership that go above and beyond what has already been documented, signed and ratified by all sides.
  
  Ian Martin must immediately discontinue the application of his self-mandated criteria of partial and preferential disclosure. Unlike the Maoists who worked towards arms figures that were leaked to their commanders by Krishna Sitoula, UNMIN should not be working towards figures either on behalf of the government or the Maoists!

• As part of his response to a question on whether Maoists are refusing to discharge minors, Ian Martin made the following statement: “There are other practical issues that need to be discussed, like the payment of allowances retrospectively for the period that people have been in the cantonments, which the government and the Maoists have agreed in principle but the modalities for that are obviously also relevant to the discharge arrangements.”
  
  Again, Martin is exceptionally sensitive to issues concerning UNMIN’s mandate, but only in areas where he knows the Maoists may take offence. But when it comes to issues that clearly put the Maoists at an advantage (e.g. the discussion of retroactive payments to Maoist combatants who are disqualified as minors), Martin does not seem to have any problems discussing such issues that are clearly outside of UNMIN’s mandate.
  
  Why on earth should Nepali tax payers dish out salaries for children that the Maoists have used (in contravention of international law), as combatants? It would seem that the act of paying allowances retrospectively is on par with condoning the use of child soldiers who will then be discharged in time to join the ranks of the YCL.
  
  Ian Martin seems at complete ease discussing principled agreements (for which the modalities have not been worked out) without taking into account the damage his irresponsible utterances entail. And yet, Martin displays displeasure and unease when he is asked to provide details on mandated tasks that his organization is expected to deliver on – tasks for which the modalities have already been agreed to.
  
  Martin needs to either strictly comment on questions that relate to his mandate or he needs to be prepared to openly discuss questions that pertain to all dimensions of Nepal’s peace process. Selective, biased responses are unacceptable.

• In response to a question posed by a journalist from the Independent, Martin made the following comment: “I stress that no group that pursues its aims through violence in this context will have any sympathy from the international community.”
  
  In passing this comment, Ian Martin seems to have forgotten how much sympathy the international community has bestowed upon the Maoists who for all practical purposes, are the interlocutors of the violent methods practiced by groups in the Terai. These are rather “tough” words coming from a man who doesn’t mind sipping beer in the company of Baburam Bhattarai, an individual who for the better half of his adult life has lived by the oath that “power comes form the barrel of a gun.”
  
  This is precisely why no one takes baseless threats from the likes of Ian Martin with any seriousness. The hypocrisy is just too obvious. As a long time sympathizer of the extreme leftist movement, Martin fools no one with his attempt at harsh language. Had he dared utter such words in any environment other than Nepal (and without the backing of a major regional power), Martin’s ass would have been back on a plane to New York in a heartbeat.
  
  As a seasoned peace expert, Martin should know better than to make hollow threats. It doesn’t suit his role, doesn’t suit his institution and such hypocrisy ultimately undermines UNMIN a thousand times in the eyes of the UN’s critics and increasingly in the eyes of the Nepali public.

• On a question about Maoist commanders now filling the ranks of the YCL, Ian Martin had the following to say: “It was agreed between the Government and the Maoists that some from the PLA could be discharged in order to participate in other ways in the peace process, the political process.”
  
  Who in the present government agreed to permit undocumented Maoist PLA personnel from participating in the political process? The Nepali people are entitled to know the names of the geniuses who negotiated this agreement with the Maoists. Furthermore, we are entitled to know why these individuals in the Government have not stepped forth to explain why such a monumental concession was necessary?
  
  Is the name of the culprit who permitted this slip with the peace process cracks Krishna Sitaula? Or was it coordination amongst the three sisters (Prachanda’s wife, Yechir’s wife and Sitaula’s wife) that made allowed for PLA combatants to be discharged before being registered?
  
  How dare Ian Martin say in retrospect that it would have been a better idea for the all combatants to first be registered and then discharged to take up positions in the YCL? Where was Ian Martin when the decision was made to prematurely discharge PLA combatants? Isn’t Martin a subject matter expert in these areas? Why didn’t he have the sense to recommend the enforcement of such criteria to before the YCL was created? Clearly, this isn’t the first time Martin has disclosed his knowledge of Maoist combatants running wild in the ranks of the YCL – he has made such disclosures to Nepalis behind closed doors on other occasions as well.
  
  Once more, UNMIN (and specifically Ian Martin) needs to highlight issues such as Maoist combatants being in the ranks of the YCL before these events occur. It may not be in UNMIN’s mandate to outline probable scenarios to all stakeholders in a transparent manner. By this measure, it should be in UNMIN’s mandate not to engage in wishful thinking after the fact.

• An RSS reporter posed a very pertinent question to Martin on the Oslo Forum and its perceived usefulness to Nepal’s peace process. In response, Ian Martin had the following disclaimer: “My invitation to that was in a personal capacity and didn’t have particularly to do with the current state of Nepal’s peace process.”
  
  In what capacity Martin was invited to Oslo is irrelevant at this point. However, what is relevant is that Ian Martin, even with his years of experience and his in-depth subject matter expertise, demonstrated a blatant disregard for a fundamental enabler that makes the UN what is supposed to be – an INDEPENDENT body.
  
  As for Ian Martin, pictures that circulated the internet of him introducing Baburam Bhattarai to Kofi Annan in Oslo, don’t bode well for Martin’s perceived independence. If nothing else, such public displays of disregard for an enshrined principle of the United Nations charter is an insult to every Nepali and all of Nepal’s well wishers who pray for lasting peace in Nepal.

Related Posts:

UNMIN's Arms Verification Process in Nepal - More Timely Information and Transparency Needed
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/07/unmin-in-over-its-head-in-nepal-arms.html

Lack of Law & Order in Nepal, Primarily a Maoist-Originated Problem
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/07/lack-of-law-order-in-nepal-primarily.html

Nepal Government "Pays" Maoists for Peace
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/06/nepal-government-pays-maoists-for-peace.html

The Forces that Undermine Law & Order in Nepal (and Suggestions on how to Minimize them)
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/06/forces-that-undermine-law-order-in.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

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

Peace or Appease Process?

(Courtesy: Dr. Hari Bansha Dulal - originally posted at http://drdulal.blogspot.com/2007/07/peace-or-appease-process.html)

One year has passed since the April revolution, but the country is going nowhere. Some might like to call the ongoing process a “peace process” but there is hardly any peace being restored through the continuous process; it would not be an exaggeration to call the ongoing process an appease-process. The Maoists have skillfully reduced the entire peace process into an appease-process whereby the mainstream political parties have been somehow convinced by the Maoists that the peace in Nepal is contingent upon the appeasement of the Maoists and the government's ability to appall and antagonize other forces that have dared to challenge the Maoists' fiefdom, in blunt words, the Maoists' existence in the terai.

Actually, the chance to establish peace was strangled the very day the mainstream political parties bought the idea that to appease the Maoists was the only way to achieve peace. One of the many reasons why the so-called ongoing peace process is failing is that the Maoists have never taken the mainstream political parties seriously and treated them as an equal partner. It's not the Maoists' fault but the fault of the politicians of the mainstream political parties, because they are the ones that are unable to portray themselves as an equal partner. The negotiations that took place prior to the Maoist joining the government were hardly negotiations. It was a complete submission by the mainstream political parties. They have nodded in agreement to everything that the Maoists have asked for so far. When you are submissive to such an extent, there is no need to take you seriously. So, the mainstream political parties should not be grumbling now about the Maoists' unruly conducts; it is they who have been providing the Maoists with a free ride on their backs.

Whether you agree or not, it depends on your political affiliation and biases. If you put down the ideological baggage and biases you carry and think as a neutral citizen, you will agree that the nation is undergoing a deep and continuous crisis. Despite all the efforts of the Eight Party Alliance (EPA) to defend the accomplishments of the past year, there is a colossal failure of EPA's effectiveness to navigate the nation and to provide solutions for economic, social, and political problems. There are no practical dividends of democracy in sight. The general public does not have the will to wait indefinitely, for the practical changes to occur; they will eventually get fed up with their ruling elites, who had promised heaven but delivered dust so far. What will happen after that is for the people to decide and the politicians to speculate.

It is one thing to remain optimistic but it is foolish to believe that the product is going to be beautiful even if the process is flawed. Just as the morning shows the day, the process shows the product. If the lawlessness, chaos, and lack of political accountability could translate into peace and meaningful democracy, most of the African nations that are now engulfed in civil war-like situations would have been thriving democracy long ago.

If you are among those who get pleasure from comparing post-revolution French or any other Western society to that of today's Nepali society, and think like France, we too are going to become a viable democracy sooner or the later, you are comparing apple to oranges. Today's Nepal is not even remotely comparable to the then French society. The political culture, societal norms, and the desire and ability to translate unstable and bitterly divided society into a meaningful democracy among the then French politicians and today's Nepali politicians is beyond comparison. In addition, the level of political accountability was way higher even then, in France, than what it is in today's Nepal. So this false solace and wishful thinking is not going to get us anywhere.

Let's get real for once. Nepal today does not need to define democracy, since the basics of democracy have been there for the good part of the last two decades. Nepalis first need peace and stability (which is not going to come through the mere appeasement of the Maoist), a safe environment to send children to schools so that they may grow up to change the face of the Nation, and the time to grow food. A free and fearless environment to progress and develop.The current home minister, who has miserably failed to maintain law and order situation is among many that are not further pushing the nation to the edge. Sitaula, who is known for doing the Maoists' dirty laundry, is all set to execute Prachanda's new game plan now: use the army against the rebelling Madhesis in the Terai. The latest two weeks' deadline for the talks and Sitaula's threat of stringent action is nothing but a preparatory step towards the future operation of the security forces, primarily against the agitating Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF), which is the main competitor of the CPN (Maoist) in the terai.

Sitaula for one is for sure digging the grave for Nepali Congress (NC) and dashing away the dreams of Nepali citizens. He is in the advent of annihilating those very people that helped NC remain in power during the post 1990 democratic era. While United Marxist Leninist (UML) maintained strong hold in the remote hills of Nepal, it was the terai that gave NC the seats it needed to remain at the helm of state affairs. Strangely, now, the NC is silent when its home minister Sitaula is all set to deploy the security forces at the Maoists' wink. What an example of gratitude the NC is exhibiting!

Sitaula might have been convinced by the Maoists that the ongoing rebellion in terai is a law and order situation. The truth that the Maoists do not want to acknowledge is that the ongoing rebellion in the terai is the result of the apathy of the elite in Kathmandu, and their failure to acknowledge the need of inclusion of the Madhesis into the process of building the nation. Leave alone the need of inclusion, for the most part, the elites in Kathmandu have chosen to ignore the existence of the Madhesis and silently questioned their nationalism. Thus, the ongoing rebellion is the result of pent-up frustration that has been brewing for a while. This is definitely not a law and order problem.

Sitaula is all set to dig a grave for himself and for the NC too. Stop him. The idea of using security forces against unarmed Madhesis will prove a disaster for the nation and suicidal for the NC. The retaliation in kind, and the mass voting against NC in the terai, is inevitable if the security forces are used against the Madhesi people that have suffered a lot, and for too long. The killing of one Madhesi in Lahan brought down the government to its knees a couple of months ago and forced the Eight Party Alliance (EPA) to amend the constitution. Think about what might happen if the security forces in its attempt to please Sitaula indulge in indiscriminate killings of Madhesis in the terai? The Madhesis will be forced to see fellow countrymen that are pahadis as insensitive and vindictive. And what might follow after that is simply unthinkable, but probable.


Related Topics:

Apples, Oranges and the Maoist Victory in Nepal
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/06/apples-oranges-and-maoist-victory-in.html

Lack of Law & Order in Nepal, Primarily a Maoist-Originated Problem
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/07/lack-of-law-order-in-nepal-primarily.html

"Yes, Yes, Yes..... No, No, No.... But, But, But.... Definitely Maybe!" - Nepali Maoist Leader's Interview
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/06/yes-yes-yes-no-no-no-but-but-but.html

Revisiting Recent Nepali History - A brief Collection of "Inconvenient Truths"
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/07/revisiting-recent-nepali-history-brief.html

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

New CA date: Reality or another farce?

(Courtesy: Mr. Raju Adhikari; initially published online at www.nepalnews.com)

A famous business executive once said ‘nothing fails like success’. He might have been referring to success and failure in business but it is equally true in other fields as well. When we are at the pinnacle of the success, we are most vulnerable to failure. Nepalese politics is passing through similar complex episodes of noticeable successes and immediate failures since the beginning of modern history of Nepal in 2007 BS (1950 AD). Sustaining the success has always been the key issue in the political arena of Nepal. Despite their great contributions and successes in 2007, 2015, 2036, 2046 and 2063 BS, Nepalese people have been deceived by rulers time and again.

The new date of twice delayed constituent assembly (CA) election has been announced after tiresome discussion among political parties and growing pressure from civil society. The issue of constituent assembly has been a mystery for Nepalese people. The agenda was first proposed more than five decades ago but it was not held because of several deferrals caused by the political situation of the country. Modern historians may have pointed fingers at then kings for not holding the election but then political leaders were equally to blame for not understanding the situation of the country and acting accordingly. Compared with those failed scenarios, the situation of the country has changed drastically because of the increased information exchange and the effect of globalization but it is still hard to believe the reality of CA poll this time as well until it really happens. Almost all Nepalese other than political leaders, who are feigning to secure their political future, are doubtful of the CA election being conducted. Even some political activists and sincere leaders are not fully confident of elections being held on time. Time is about to show whether the political parties and their leaders really want the CA election. The royalists might use all their might to make the election unsuccessful but even bigger threats are the current activities of political parties and incapability of government.

Analyzing the past events and observing the current activities and relation of political parties, it is fair to guess that the reality of the CA election is in question. Last November brought excitement to most of the Nepalese when Maoists’ entered into mainstream politics and the date of the CA election was announced. There were seven months to work for the preparation of the election and the situation of the country was much better than now. But government’s and political parties’ dillydallying behavior forced it to be aborted. Comparing with that, Maoists are now in the government but ethnic violence has escalated and this violence is sufficient to check the election from being held.

Unabated Maoists’ atrocities despite several requests and criticism from national and international level, growing violence and ethnic division in the Terai region and blurred vision and agenda of political leaders are major factors which may defer the CA polls date again. The government and political leaders should have addressed the Terai and ethnic issues from the beginning and used the opportunity immediately after the restoration of the democracy. Even with crystal clear image of past events and lessons from various political mistakes in recent years, our leaders are still not clever enough to analyze the situation and act accordingly. After the successful people’s movement, the Nepalese people had given a clear mandate to eight parties to do almost ‘everything’ immediately. Had that chance been utilized, Nepal could have been already running in a clearly defined roadmap of development and stability. The eligibility of eight parties as sole representatives of Nepalese people is already in question now. Different groups with specific demands have emerged, the royalists are making their sounds louder and Terai is no more under eight parties’ ‘control’. Even if CA election is held in the new date, the participation of these groups in the election is under doubt.

The election without mass participation does not give clear mandate to make any decision at national level. If the population of the Terai, which makes more than half of the country’s total population does not fully participate in the election because either by threat or by voluntary wish, the election results will be not different than the royal government’s local election result (held in 2005).

Though leaders are advocating the need of the CA election in words, it is getting clear that they want to delay it until the situation of the country favors their own interest. Girija Prasad Koirala and one faction of Nepali congress are aware of slip from constitutional monarchy despite his reiterations of indifference toward monarchy. Despite several bitter experiences with King and monarchy, the ideology of constitutional monarchy has not been abolished from Girija’s mind. His comments against the monarchy are targeted at the current king but not the institution. So it is easy to speculate that while Girija is in power, he will try all possible excuses to postpone the election until the situation turns better. Increasing republican ideology in young congress cadres has caused headaches to him and he and his faction is worried about possible republican set up in the country.

Though Maoists are the pioneer of the new agenda of CA election, they now are trying to deviate from their own agenda. Now, they are demanding the abolition of monarchy before the CA election. This clearly indicates that they are not interested in the CA poll; their main aim is to get rid of monarchy. Maoists seem to be afraid of the result of the election because they know better than others that if there is fair election, people will not choose Maoists because public have not forgotten the atrocities conducted by them in the past decade. If they are confident with their influence in national politics and sincere about the upcoming CA polls, they should immediately stop the ongoing atrocities. Unabated Maoist activities in the name of YCL shows that they are preparing to use force if the election is really held on time.

UML, which boasts of being the largest communist party of Nepal, is concerned about its possible loss at the hands of Maoists. Their speculation is not wrong either. The congress voters are almost unchanged even after decade long conflict and Maoists’ influence exists at the village level. The voters who used to be sympathizers of UML or other communist groups are the new supporters of Maoists. If the poll is held in this situation, Maoists will certainly snatch UML voters because of their political agenda and intimidation. Thanks to UML’s one decade of mediocre leadership, the Maoists are gaining confidence to become the largest communist party of Nepal and the UML leadership is aware of this which has caused the party leadership to seek possible excuses to push the CA date further.

Except some, other small parties and groups also want to keep the status quo because they are also not sure what will be the political direction of the country after the result of the CA election.
Unrealistic political slogans, high ambitions and plans without understanding the geo-political situation of the country by leaders and growing gap among the political parties may push the reality of the CA election. Recent remarks by Prachanda in a foreign news media about his wish to become the president of Nepal in two years time will certainly cause discomfort to the senior leaders of other parties and the fissure between them will certainly widen further. In this fluid situation, the leaders should have enough patience not to comment cheaply to gain short term popularity. Real leaders are those who are capable of handling adverse situations in the country and think national benefit is above their personal benefit. It is Nepal’s misfortune that it has not yet produced such leaders. The political leaders’ behavior is gradually being proved as counter productive for the CA polls.

Despite a gloomy political scenario, there are also hopes of holding the election on the proposed date. Because of growing pressure from their cadres and general public, the leaders are willingly/unwillingly forced towards the track of the CA polls. If political parties and their leaders are really sincere, they should work in the way they worked for establishment of the democracy. If they can show unity in the critical stage of the change, they should be able to continue that until real success is in their hands. We should praise Madhav Nepal for organizing meeting with Maoists, Prachanda for being extremely flexible to end the insurgency and Girija Koirala for not listening to the international players when including the rebels into government.

But that does not fulfill their responsibilities. There is a final daunting task ahead. Unless eight parties unite, the current political stalemate of Nepal will not end. Despite their policy differences, eight parties still can have common agenda until the election is held and that common agenda should be the successful CA election. If CA poll is held successfully and many pending decisions are made by the assembly, the country will be much relieved and Nepalese will be the real ruler of themselves. If all parties work together with national interest deep inside their hearts, all ongoing problems like Terai issues, ethnic issues and many other minor issues can be sorted out in a much easier manner.

While the nation needs healthy competition of the political parties in democratic practice to enhance the benefits of general public, there are certain periods in the history when nation needs unity of all major players with single purpose. Nepal is in such phase of history. It is almost certain that the political activists (except some) and general public are in favor of the CA election. A recent informal survey report published shows that 90 percent of the people are ready to take part in the CA election if the security situation of the country is improved. If political parties and their leaders cannot realize the situation and the newly announced CA election becomes a farce once again, the future of Nepalese people will be pushed back into a dungeon and history will not blame kings anymore but the shortsighted leaders.

The UN's (UNMIN) Involvement in Nepal's Peace Process: A turning point or another fiasco in the making?

(Courtesy: Various)

Given UNMIN's inability to enforce the terms and conditions of Nepal's "Comprehensive Peace Agreement" and the "Agreement on the Monitoring of the Management of Arms and Armies," a timely re-visit of the systemic shortcomings in UNMIN's mandate becomes necessary.
Catalogued below are posts on NepaliPerspectives that chronicle UNMIN's lackluster performance in Nepal and ideas on how such deficiencies may be remediated.

• UNMIN's Arms Verification Process in Nepal - More Timely Information and Transparency Needed
  http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/07/unmin-in-over-its-head-in-nepal-arms.html
  

• UNMIN Clarifies its Role but Just in Time to be Humiliated by the Maoists
  http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/06/unmin-clarifies-its-role-but-just-in.html
  

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

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

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

• Summary of Declared (by State) vs. Inventoried (by UNMIN), Weapon Counts
  http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/02/symmary-of-declared-by-state-vs.html

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

• Thoughts on the UN Secretary General’s Envoy, Ian Martin’s Proposition
  http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/12/thoughts-on-un-secretary-generals-envoy.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

India's Dubious Silence

(Courtesy: el Nino)

The clamor surrounding the probability of elections in November has triggered tremors in Kathmandu. A prominent youth leader on the condition of anonymity hesitantly conceded to the following: “elections can only be held if India decides this is what they want.” As a matter of fact, India is not wrong in concluding that the failure to conduct elections in November could derail the peace process. However, what India and the international community must clearly understand is that if the law and order situation does not improve, and as a consequence the government cannot conduct free and fair elections, the whole electoral process will prove to be futile.

As the countdown to the election date draws nearer, it becomes increasingly important to link YCL and NRA violence along with the violence perpetrated in the Terai by various other groups. This linkage will provide a realistic overview of the actual state of the law and order situation of the country. And this should be the main factor in deciding whether or not elections are genuinely possible.

A few days ago, senior SPA and Maoist leaders (while briefing journalist at the Reporters club) called for improved security as a precondition for successful polls. At this venue, the Chief Election Commissioner, Bhojraj Pokharel, broke his silence and commented that elections are impossible given the present state of affairs in the country.

It seems the government is left with two options:

• Forge national consensus among all parliamentary parties to conduct free and fair elections

• Push for elections ignoring the political ramification of “hollow” or “reasonably fair” polls.

Elections hold the key to the nation’s political and socio-economic future; it has the capacity to alter the dynamics of the national polity. In essence, Cuba, Zimbabwe and North Korea are all examples of countries that routinely conduct elections, but in reality, their governments are authoritarian in nature and oppose the necessity of constitutional liberalism.

Although in the past, elections have been held in hostile situations in places like Assam, Kashmir and Punjab, only Punjab can boast of a semi-functional democracy. Unfortunately, the other two states Assam and Kashmir have descended into a never- ending quagmire of civil strife. Nonetheless, both Assam and Kashmir have the privilege of relying on the Union Government as a fall back option. But does Nepal have the privilege of a fall back option?

If India and the International Community are bent on conducting elections in November without first taking into consideration the security of its political candidates, its voters and the prospective turn out, serious questions are bound to arise as to why the Indians and the international community, condemned the elections that were proposed by the royal regime. The same methods of assasinating candidates (as carried out by the Maoists and supported by the civil society, mainstream parties and nearly all opponents of the royal regime) are certain to mar upcoming elections. The precedent has already be set.

Now that Nepal’s politics is reaching a climax, most Nepali citizens hope that India and the international community will not remain silent about what they really visualize for Nepal. More importantly, India cannot afford to remain in the grey. It is imperative that the Government of India categorically state in its policy whether they want democracy or autocracy. Just maintaining the line “we respect the verdict of the people” will not suffice. Many scenarios need to be considered here: What if the elections are fraudulent? What if the elections turn out to be reasonably fair and the Maoists win? Would India accept a totalitarian state chosen by the people?

It is inevitable that India is going to have a loss of face given its present policy in Nepal. The findings of an Indian sponsored survey suggests an electoral victory for Nepali Congress and an unfathomable 13% for the Maoists. These findings point out to the fallacies in Indian policy that pushed for early elections in June. And even worse, the murmurings among the political circle indicate that an “influential group” within and outside the policy makers' circle, is refusing to link YCL violence and the Madheshi issue as problems that are directly linked to the elections.

The international community and more importantly India, have to come clean and genuinely express discontent against continuing Maoist atrocities, if they are to be the true champions of democracy. It is also essential that India gives serious thought to the probable results of the election and decides whether they are ready for a Maoist Nepal. And if not, what is the alternative? Or have the power brokers in Nepal already finalized the arithmetic of elections and satisfied both our southern border and the International Community?

Nepali Political Sorcery: Secularism’s Ritual Kingship and Communism’s Bourgeois Democracy

(Courtesy: Dr. Saubhagya Shah)

The Great White Chief came, saw, and conquered the ruling eight party alliance and affiliated NGOdom and civil society. Yet, Jimmy Carter, chief of an international NGO bearing his name has failed to lift the national mood that had begun to dip since last December. According to a long-time Washington insider, Jimmyji from Georgia had not received this much media adulation even from the Washington press when he came to the White House, circa 1970s. Trust our fourth estate to separate the chaff from the wheat and put things into perspective. Despite lionizing Girija Koirala as the greatest democratic hero and entertaining the Maoist supremo duo’s supplication for non-terrorist tag in his Soaltee suite, the one-time US president’s two-week long festivities in the local media during his recent daibik vraman (Godly tour) has left the country basically where it was, that is: high and dry. And I do not only imply the dry petrol pumps and frustrated drivers swearing and sweltering in mile-long queues or the bruised fingertips of peasant women trying to stick the paddy saplings into the parched fields in south Patan.

Where else in the world can one see a revolution carried out in the name of the peasants, using peasant blood and Maoist ideology that suddenly turns around from New Delhi to say that it is actually a struggle to strengthen capitalistic production relations and bourgeois democracy? By any measure, the ruse deployed to pilfer the peasant to provide for the prosperous must be considered history’s greatest heist.

Within a year of the great Janaandolan II, the New Nepal is back to self-doubts and despondency reminiscent of the Old Nepal. 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. Not even the announcement of the third constituent assembly election date in less than a year seems to have done much to dispel the foreboding. It is as if too many false gods have caused the population to inoculate itself against further disappointments with cynicism. In the absence of a basic national agreement on the purpose and modality of the constituent assembly election and an unflinching commitment to honor its outcome, the whole exercise won’t be worth the paper it is written on. The historical instances from Europe, Africa, and Asia tell us as much.

While the new dispensation contained several inherent structural and ideological contradictions that had been conveniently glossed over during the movement to overthrow the royal regime, it was the sudden firestorm in the Terai that not only swept away the triumphalism but also the very foundation of the new state alliance. With the benefit of hindsight, the original critique of New Delhi sponsored 12-Point Pact as essentially an ‘unholy’ one-point instrument of convenience rather than a larger national vision might come to haunt the eight party victors than has been given credit so far. The nature of the present peace - the normalization of violence and lawlessness as transitional alibi - is perhaps a poetic commentary on the perils of power shorn of ethics. Peace must be principled; otherwise it ends up being no different than war. Surely, if the peace is so costly, who needs war?

Had there been a more sober rather than a rhetorical assessment of the nature and scope of the April upheaval, perhaps the country would have been spared another bout of apprehension and despondency. Caught up in the euphoria of the moment, many enthusiasts characterized the April change as being unique, unprecedented, and a historic mark on the canvass of the 21st century. The Panglossic view even claimed that it was a world-historical event that would allow the world to be remade entirely anew again. What was forgotten was Marx’s caution to his revolutionaries that men (now women as well, I suppose) may make history, but only within the circumstances they find themselves in.

Objectively speaking, the April episode was not even a regime change, it was simply a case of regime collapse. Basically, a supremely incompetent regime in a weak state setting crumbled at the first serious challenge from a combined opposition. In a monumental miscalculation, the palace had jumped at the weaknesses of the political parties while completely failing to appreciate their collective strength that had both an internal and external dimension. It was this elementary political blunder which cost the crown its constitutional authority and much more.

What succeeded the King’s debacle is not even a regime in the strict sense; it is a regime-to-be. Comprised of eight political parties that espouse conflicting ideology and modus operandi, the new regime appears as an internally conflicting holding group rather than a coherent government. Paradoxically, the only issue that is still keeping the winning alliance intact is their shared hatred of the Crown that has been put in a kind of political coma by the interim constitution. It is almost as if the republican coalition now has more need of a phantom monarchy to keep them going than the royalists ever dreamt of. During its heyday, the Crown was often hailed as the unifying center of the Nepali nation. History will certainly pass its verdict on that claim, but it is ironic that it should already be the galvanizing force for the political parties as well. Indeed, where would the grand alliance now be without the benefit of a royal bogey? The desperate search for ‘ritual kingship’ or the ‘baby king’ by Nepal’s die-hard republicans and secularists is symptomatic of the befuddled ideology guiding the country’s political destiny.

Truly classless

Given the character of the new elites and the regional and international environment, it is highly unlikely that the new dispensation in Nepal will be able to undertake substantive economic reforms and initiatives that could positively impact the fortunes of ordinary Nepalis. Notwithstanding the occasional radical bluster, the new ruling circle will not dare change course from the current peripheral capitalist economy or disregard IMF and World Bank market prescriptions.

The problem with the status quo is that unless something creatively drastic is undertaken, the fundamentals of Nepali economy will remain the same for the foreseeable future: unsustainable subsistence cultivation, export of cheap labor, widening trade deficit, and massive unemployment amidst abject poverty. What the ordinary people need most in this country is growth and employment, but the new rulers at the helm are still without any credible ideas or commitment on this imperative. It must be considered a strange twist of fate that just when the communists finally emerged as the dominant force in Nepal, class as an analytic and political category has been replaced by ethnicity and identity as the major frames of intellectual, political, and developmental engagement. Although the initial payoffs might be good, it must be borne in mind that after a certain point, communalism and ethnochuvanism elsewhere have usually proven to be the scoundrel’s last refuge.

The Nepali paradoxes are indeed mind-boggling. Where else in the world can one see a revolution carried out in the name of the peasants, using peasant blood and Maoist ideology that suddenly turns around from New Delhi to say that it is actually a struggle to strengthen capitalistic production relations and bourgeois democracy? By any measure, the ruse deployed to pilfer the peasant to provide for the prosperous must be considered history’s greatest heist.

Thus, when the claims of scientific logic and reason are not much more consistent and apparent than the obscurity of political sorcery, the masses should perhaps be forgiven for giving credence to Trishul Baba’s doomsday prediction or for reading dire omens in the sweat beads rolling down Bhimeshwor’s temple in Dolakha.

Related Posts:

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

Reality Check for Nepal - Part-II
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/05/reality-check-for-nepal-part-ii.html

Reality Check for Nepal - Part-I
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/05/reality-check-for-nepal-part-i.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

Nepali Politics: Brahmin and Chhetri Everywhere

(Courtesy: Krishna Giri)

While for some this article might be yet-another-Bahun/Chhetri-bashing-crap and for others a voice that needs to be much more louder: When certain people willingly or unwillingly control too much share in a nation, it is very likely that that would bring long-term political instability and long run economic damages to the country. When 10% whites controlled the 90% of farm in Zimbabwe, we know what happened. Black market is exchanging 1 US dollar for up to 300,000 and economic pundits are predicting that the rate could well and truly reach up to a million by the end of this year. Less than 30% Brahmin and Chhetri enjoy more than 80% portfolios in: Bureaucracy, Scholarships, Business, Media, Army, Police, Customs, and Judiciaries etc.
By Krishna Giri in Australia

Few days back, a news item on nepalnews caught my eyes. It was a media release about writing the statute of the Nepalese American Journalist Association within six months and complete their legal registration process. President Girish Pokharel, vice president Sushil Neupane, general secretary Krishna Sharma, treasurer Gunraj Luitel and members Parl Regmi and Sharmila Upreti control this association. The list is not over yet. Manoj Acharya, Chandra Prasai, Hari Shiwakoti - and three advisors- Tara Baral, Krishna Kadel and Dr. Dharma Adhikari. Why I am telling these names? From the structure of this committee, I can see a topological view of Nepali politics and dominance of Brahmin and Chhetri in our society. (Even in the US, the Brahmin/Chhetri domination prevails!) Rules made and adopted by these people are Laws even today and they are not giving up yet.

Lets look at the most powerful interim ministers, who are responsible for making new Nepal, as described by them, where they exercise inclusive democracy- leaving behind no minority groups unheard: And the (Brahmin/Chhetri) list is:

• Giriaja Prasad Koirala – Prime Minister
• Ram Chandra Poudel - Peace and Reconstruction
• Krishna Bahadur Mahara – Information and Communication
• Pradeep Nepal – Education
• Ram Sharan Mahat – Finance
• Krishna Sitoula – Home
• Hisila Bhattarai (Yami)– Physical Planning
• Giriraj Mani Pokhrel– Health
• Ramesh Lekhak – Labour and Transport
• Gynendra Karki – Water Resource

The list is on and on. Why our society is so disable? Why it can’t move without the rules of Brahmin and Chhetri? GP Koirala, Puspa K Dahal, Sher B Deuba, MK Nepal, CP Mainali etc, signed the historic Eight Points agreement between SPA and Maoist, designed to form a New Nepal.

Take a look at the (Brahmin/Chhetris) standing committee of CPN-UML

• Madhav Kumar Nepal
• Amrit Kumar Bohara
• Bam Dev Gautam
• Bharat Mohan Adhikari
• Ishwar Pokhrel
• Jhala Nath Khanal
• K.P. Sharma Oli
• Keshav Badal
• Mod Nath Prashrit
• Mukunda Neupane
• Pradeep Nepal
• Sahana Pradhan
• Yuba Raj Gyawali

And have a look at the people whose analysis, thinking, and beliefs will decide our future. TheInterim Constitution Draft Committee (very 1st one):

• Laxman Prasad Aryal, coordinator
• Harihar Dahal, member
• Shambhu Thapa, member
• Sindhu Nath Pyakurel, member
• Mahadev Yadav, member
• Khim Lal Devkota, member

The most revolutionary Nepali political party, who is responsible for the death of more than 15000 lives, is CPN Maoist. They have promised to overthrow the feudalistic society of Nepal and deliver a free and fair society where labours get a fare share. Ideologically they have lost the ground but still they are trying hard to prove that they are core follower of Shining Path and Pol Pot style socialist revolution. Ultimately, they are in the crossroad of modern capitalism and traditional nationalistic extremism. They are in dilemma, whether to choose economic reform approach, social reconstruction approach, diplomatic approach, patriotic approach, OR just keep following the rules of intimidations and torture. Time is ruthless. Their political forecast to win the Nepali hearts by activating YCL failed and they running around red-faced. The recent crises in Middle East, bloodbath between Fatah and Hamas factions, who share the Palestine Government, have shattered them.

Apparently, Maoist style leadership is the carbon copy of Hamas in Palestine, who are in the government and still shut down the nation, kill people, involve in kidnap, murder, extortion, armed attack etc. Maoists and its alliance often shut down sections of the country. Recent row between PM and Maoist supremo has triggered the uncertainty about the motives of the Maoist and the sincerity of the SPAM unity as a whole. Personally, I don’t believe in such a democracy where a political party enjoys national flag and also engaged in forceful abduction, extortion, kidnapping and murder. The country is still experiencing loads of extra judicial killings, disappearances, internal displacement, continuing seizure of private properties, and constant fear of torture/intimidation/physical punishment. Our poor country is in constant pressure to call a date of CA elections but we, the Nepali citizen, are yet to receive manifestoes from the SPAM and other minor parties.

There are various public propagandas about the Maoist vision in the future of Nepal. People are getting the first smell of their capability and their commitments to competitive multiparty democracy and enterprise-based economy. And yet again, Bramhan and Chhetri control the leadership of this red flag party, one among hundred Nepali Communist Party. Here is the list (Brahmin/Chhetri):

• Puspa Kamal Dahal
• Kiran Vaidhya
• Baburam Bhattarai
• CP Gajurel
• Dinanath Sharma
• Krishna Br Mahara
• Hishila Bhattarai (Yami)
• Pamfa Bhusal
• Top Br Rayamajhi
• Janardan Sharma
• Lokendra Bista
• Lekh Raj Bhatta
• Naraya Dahal
• Bamdev Chhetri
• Purna Subedi
• Amrita Thapa
• Satya Pahadi
• Sarala Regmi
• Khim Devkota

The list may go forever. They talk about autonomous regions and supremacy to their rule on their own region by their own people. Who belongs to where? Are we going back to 15th century to find out who ruled certain regions and who deserves what? Is this is the call of 21st century? Are we heading for a united nation or for a divided nation than ever before? Today’s call is not for divisions but for harmony and consolidation. We must dream for a nation where people from every race, religion, sex, and ethnicity come to the arena and be proud and humble for being a Nepali.

Autonomous regions or federal model of governance is understandable. But why a Tamang can’t be a Chief of Tharuwan Region? Why a Gauchan can’t be a Chief of Kirat region? OR why a Brahmin can’t be a Chief of Khumbhuwan Region? OR why a Chaudhary can’t be a Chief of a Chure Bhaware? A charismatic Magar leader born in Birgunj should go to Rolpa to engage in Politics? Where does he belong? Are you apprehending the democratic rights of movement and settlement within the nation?

Time need answers not promises. We belong to the same country vesting the same themes of nationality. We are covered and secured by the same constitution, then why there is such a division in the leadership style and models. Indigenous communities or the Nepali people as a whole are taking none of theses decisions. A bunch of tyrants, who mostly belong to aristocratic and suppressive family, design, develop, decide and implement these policies. If we believe in democracy, every major decisions of the country should be decided by the referendum, where people’s voices are heard rather than regulated.

Nepali congress carries the longest history as a democratic party and this party has ruled more than 90% period of Democratic Nepal. Who controls this party? Lets have look: (Brahmin/Chhetri in the Central Working Committee):

• Girija P Koirala
• Sushil Koirala
• Sailaja Acharya
• Ram Chandra Poudel
• Govinda Raj Joshi
• Krishna Sitaula
• Ram Saran Mahat
• Chakra Bastola
• Khum Br Khadka
• Mahesh Acharya
• Gopal Pahadi
• Nara Hari Acharya
• Laxman Ghimire
• Dilendra Badu
• Shekahr Koirala

I can’t go any further. Simply there is no significance presence of other people. And they talk about new style of inclusive democracy. People need to be included in the first place. People are participating in these uprising for their rights, not for liberal grants from feudal leaders. Citizens’ rights can’t be dictated by these feudal mobs. It has to come by the will of people, but not by the will of tyrants. Today’s call is for equality, partiality, involvement and solidarity. These voices of people must be heard and all the time, as history has proven, and every time, these people’s voices can’t go as a credit to these autocrats, whose democracy is limited to their families and puppets. This time the democracy should be for people, not for leaders.

Second youth wing of Nepali congress, Tarun Dal is lead by Bal Krishna Khad and he is there forever. I don’t think he is going to quit unless he is promoted to some top rank in the party. And Brahmans and Chhetris once again dictate the student wing, which is the hope for future and of course future of our leaders new Nepal. Recently, Pradeep Poudel elected President of NSU and his rivals were Bikash Koirala and Badri Pandey. Note their last names.

I am not just complaining about these tyrants who control Nepal. They dictate every Nepali society. Take a look at the people who control the Non Resident Nepal, the famous global Nepali Diaspora (Brahmin/Chhetri) assembly.

• Upendra Mahato
• Sharada Thapa
• Indira Ban
• Ram Thapa
• Sagar Nepal
• Chiranjibi Dhakal
• Dipak Khadka
• Naresh Koirala
• Harihar Aryal
• Kumar Basnet and so forth

And who is in my backyard (NRN Australia)?

• Mana KC
• Ranju Thapa
• Goba Katuwal
• Shyam KC
• Krishna Hamal
• Pradeep Dhakal
• Durga Bastola
• Pramod Khatiwada
• Bina Poudel
• Ashok Dhakal and so onwards.

These lists are simply hard to follow and it can be utterly awful when you compare with what you see and what you hear. By no means, I am saying that all the leadership should be passed to other races. We need transparency and fairness. I uniformly oppose the indigenous leaders who term ‘Ruling Class’ to Brahmin and Chhetri to achieve cheap fame and popularity. That should not be the case. We need a strong, united, committed, and forward thinking NEPAL.

When certain people willingly or unwillingly control too much share in a nation, it is very likely that that would bring long-term political instability and long run economic damages to the country. When 10% whites controlled the 90% of farm in Zimbabwe, we know what happened. Black market is exchanging 1 US dollar for up to 300,000 and economic pundits are predicting that the rate could well and truly reach up to a million by the end of this year. Less than 30% Brahmin and Chhetri enjoy more than 80% portfolios in: Bureaucracy, Scholarships, Business, Media, Army, Police, Customs, and Judiciaries etc. Lets start to stop this communal outrageous from today to give a better future for our glorious nation. It’s a matter of urgency to give people a reasonable share in all areas of the country. Let the new generation enjoy democracy rather than hearing about it all their lives.

(Krishna Giri, a student of International Relations, MA in Sydney, is neither Brahmin/Chhetiri nor janajati. “I believe [Giris] think they are inclined towards Chetri but Brahmins accept them widely,” Krishna says. “Personally, I think they are Sanyashi and they deserve to be in Jungle ”).

Related Posts:

A Gurkha's Perspective on Bahunism
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/06/courtesy-anonymous-gurkha-listen-nepali.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

Bahunism Extended to Other Cultures and People - Analysis of Character and Physical Features as Templates
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/03/bahunism-extended-to-other-cultures-and.html

Bahunists and Bahunism - A mini-Dissertation on the Caretakers of Nepal's Feudal Tradition
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/03/bahunists-and-bahunism-mini.html