(Courtesy: Nacho Libre)
Whenever the question of the 12 Point Appeasement (agreement) arises, Maoist apologists quickly default to the following response: "Military victory was never an option so what else could have been done?" Although a reasonable explanation for when King Gyanendra was flaunting his divinity, alternative, more measured options (other than appeasement) are now available to deal with the Maoists. Having experienced 18 months of the Maoists flexing their "armed" muscles (and circumventing previously made commitments), Nepalis are ready for changed tactics. Whether Nepali Civil Society is prepared to heed this call is the million dollar question.
Unfortunately, even in full view of continued atrocities committed by the Maoists, an OHCHR report outlining systematic abuses by the YCL, numerous documented instances of Maoists' undermining others' right to free assembly, free speech, etc, Nepal's Civil Society has demonstrated a pattern of continuing to fuel Maoist aggression at the expense of lasting peace, stability and an achievable, functional democracy. No indication of a shift in strategy (to match Maoist maliciousness) has emerged. Nepali Civil Society continues to toe the Maoist line, unperturbed by even the most explicit confirmations that the Maoists do not intend to participate in the upcoming CA elections.
It is increasingly clear that the most vocal of Nepali Civil Society activists are those who are driven by hatred over compromise, manipulation over morals and hidden personal agendas over the sovereignty and integrity of the Nepali state. Examples include an activist who insists on fluorescent yellow clothing as a mark of distinction (himself the owner of hundreds of bigas of recently "confiscated" land in the Terai), a failed politician whose only chance at practicing politics again is through Maoist appointment, and a media mogul whose mission in life is to get even with a handful of retired Army officers and a spent king.
In a nutshell, this is the current state of the "heaviest hitters" of Nepal's self-acclaimed Civil Society. They are too proud to admit they were wrong and too vested in (and scared of ) their own fantastical peace process to dare criticize the fallacies of their Frankenstein invention. They are far too politically motivated (vengeful) to exercise any meaningful degree of moral rectitude and far too dependent on aid/grant monies to independently criticize the shortcomings of UNMIN's mandate.
As a result, in the place of the role of impartial observers (who should be equally critical of any and all deviations from human rights, rule of law and democratic standards) that Nepal's Civil Society should be playing, lies a hollow chasm.
Eight party unity (as evidenced by recent activities) appears to be the ONLY guiding principle behind Nepal's Civil Society movement. Never mind that the Maoists' are in material violation of nearly every covenant outlined in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (and the Armies and Arms Monitoring Agreement), all Nepali Civil Society appears capable of ensuring is that the Maoists' get what they want, irrespective of how they go about fulfilling their agendas.
This form of nonchalance was characteristic of the Kathmandu elite during the entire insurgency period and so it makes sense that a representative sample (of the same elite) would demonstrate today, the same apathy towards the Maoists' that the larger population demonstrated all along. A Civil Society movement that should represent the sentiments of the larger population of Nepali citizens (irrespective of political affiliations) has ended up representing only what it cares for - being proven right, being able to demonstrate that the Maoists can be mainstreamed and being able to exact revenge on Gyanendra for the king's arrogance. All this of course, with an internationally supplied "peace dividend" that accrues primarily to fresh Masters graduates (at UNMIN's rate of $300/day) and various NGOs/INGOs that include any combination of the terms "peace," "reconciliation," "equality" or "inclusion" in their project proposals.
Again, the driving impetus for Nepal's Civil Society is clearly to "teach the king a lesson" when it should be to "educate the Maoists on democracy." Punishment over reconciliation, and aggression over compromise continue to guide Civil Society action in Nepal. For example, the desire to locate individuals who went "missing" during Nepal's civil war is guided not by motivation to achieve justice, but rather, by a deep seated desire to exact retribution against the Army's top brass. There is no support for the Maoist Victims' Association despite the fact that these people too suffered unspeakable injustices at the hands of the Maoists for 12 long years. Civil Society leaders jump all over the issue of the "disappeared" but there is hardly any mention of those who suffer in our very midst.
Any speak of prosecuting known crimes (beheadings, assassinations, kidnappings, extortion) committed by Maoist cadre under direct orders from the Maoist leadership is considered taboo because it "jeopardizes the peace process." But is there a scale that measures relative barbarism? Whether disappeared by the armed forces or murdered by the Maoists, is the crime any more or less grave? Is the "truth" intended only to admonish the state's security forces leaving the politicians who commissioned the war untouched? And is "reconciliation" on Maoist terms the price Nepalis are expected to pay for peace? Is this what "mainstreaming the Maoists" boils down to?
The results (or lack thereof) on the ground speak for themselves. There is much talk about preserving fundamental rights - the right to assembly, speech, opinion, etc. But when it comes to ensuring these rights, the selective bias exercised by Nepal's Civil Society is appalling. A crime against humanity is regarded as such only when the perpetrators are non-Maoist.
It was fear-mongering when the King's ministers warned of a loss in Nepal's sovereignty (when calling for municipal elections). But 3 years afterwards, is playing on the fear of the unknown (if CA elections aren't held), suddenly acceptable? If the King's ministers were wrong to leverage fear to do what they did, Civil Society is equally out of line - regardless of what political agenda lies on the table.
Nepal's Civil Society had best get with the program and get with the program fast. The days of touting the April movement as a paragon of the Nepalese peoples' triumph over tyranny is long overplayed. The world has clearly seen exactly how Nepalis perform when faced with a credible challenge in their midst. Nepali Civil Society can either continue beating a "dead (royal) horse" to death or its constituents can start a process of deeper introspection to be followed by measured (but vocal) opposition to Maoist aggression. Beating down the king just because anyone can doesn't make heroes out of Civil Society.
Criticizing whoever, however, and whenever rights are violated, peace is threatened, democracy is brought under duress is where it's at. This is where Nepal's Civil Society and it’s the larger body of affiliated movements (UNMIN, the Carter Center, the International Crisis Group, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc.) need to be.
RELATED POSTS:
Ordinary Nepali Realities vs. Extraordinary Nepali Dreams
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/08/ordinary-nepali-realities-vs.html
Nirmal's Hubris - (Nirmal Shah a.k.a King Gyanendra)
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/08/nirmals-hubris-nirmal-shah-aka-king.html
Revisiting Recent Nepali History - A brief Collection of "Inconvenient Truths"
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/07/revisiting-recent-nepali-history-brief.html
10 comments:
Bless your heart- you have spoken the truth nothing but the truth. there is no need add further in defining the so-called- (un)civil society members and their nefarious activities.
DOA
The writer is on target. Who is monitoring what the Civil Society (political pawns) are saying and doing behind our backs? Why is Kanak Dixit scared of criticizing the Maoists the same way he criticizes the king? Why are Khagenra Sangroula and Krishna Pahadi content battling themselves on Kantipur rather than battling the issues?
These are all HYPOCRITES. Nothing more and should be taken to task.
If yo can't name names, don't write articles.
Who is CIVIL SOCIETY?
Wake me up when you start putting real names down .... until then, this article is pretty useless.
Totally right!! Let's hear the names. Who are these Civil Society leaders? Who are the three examples in this artcile?
Let's get the names.. or else what use is this article?
What kind of questions is these? Civil society in Nepal is the civil society. Do you need a definitions of what civil society is also? Go to www.wikipedia.com
Over janne - a trade mark of commentors who do not have anything useful to add.
"Dollars farming" nothing more than that...
This is a timely peice for a the following reasons:
- The process of unlimited appeasement that is described here is about to be played out again
- UNMIN and civil soicety are pressuring NC and Girija to accept the Maoist terms
- Due process is being undermined by the Maoists but it is ok because it's not the Royalists who are underming the democratic process
The Maoists have won this round too. People think they have failed I believe they have used and abused the peace process to the full extent and are now moving on to use and abuse civil society and UNMIN some more.
Who is this civil society ?
1. They are nothing but follower of the failure eight parties
2. Their motive is to earn money and fame with biasness.
3. They are just the civil society for the syndicate parties and for pahadia only.
4. They do not represent madhesi, Limbuwan, khumbuwan, Tamang, Tharuwan and even karnali pradesh.
5. Their logic of today is totally undemocratic, undermining peace process and bias toward true sufferers (like maoist victim, spam victims I.e.madhesi etc.
6. It shows that they are whole bunch of dollar thugs and cheating the international communities in the name of civil society.
Anonymous, if you need every little thing spelled out for you to be woken up, then here are the names of the "leaders" of this gang:
Khagendra Sangroula
Kanak Mani Dixit
Krishna Pahadi
Devendra Raj Pandey
Padma Ratna Tuladhar
Sushil Pyakurel
Subodh Pyakurel
... and the list goes on.
If you are still asleep and don't know who these jokers are, you will forever be asleep.
What is the reaction against this rule of civil society specially in the incident of Kapilvastu ?
Do they still support the incident and this rule ?
Khagendraji, do you write anything about this NIKKAMA govt. for the future security of the people ? Or you just keep quite about NIKAMMAPAN of this govt. and wait to be seen this country like Afghanistan like Pandey and Pahadi are doings for their fame and money....
Post a Comment