Endless Possibilities in the Republic of Nepal

(Courtesy: Bhaire)

For die-hard monarchists, the dawn of the Republic of Nepal is a death-knell of biblical proportions. But for people who are tired of being painted with the Royalist brush (that comes from their principled opposition to Maoist tyranny, blackmail and unmitigated violence), the birth of a Nepali republic offers limitless possibilities.

Catalogued below are some of the immediate benefits that Maoist opponents will have, in a Republic of Nepal.

Focused Frustration Where it Belongs

The Nepali population has remained hostage to peace on the Maoists’ terms and excess Royal baggage since April 2006. Whether King Gyanendra had benevolent intentions or not is largely a moot point at this juncture. However, closed-door admission from some of the King’s harshest critics, that Maoist rule is likely to be one hundred times worse than the option that King Gyanendra offered, speaks volumes about the current mindset of Nepal’s disillusioned liberal democrats.

No matter how representative and progressive the Maoist delegation to Nepal’s constituent assembly may be, no matter how hard the Maoists’ (and their allies) try to paint their violent rise to power as a necessary evil, the scars of Maoist-perpetrated atrocities remain deeply embedded in Nepali society. Nepalis may be forgiving people but to assume that those who have suffered grueling physical and mental abuse will forget the actions of their tormentors overnight, is wishful thinking. With the distraction of the Monarchy soon to be gone, collective frustration is more likely to find its true source – the Maoists.

End of the Maoist-Monarchy Nexus

Throughout the course of Nepal’s insurgency, the Maoists have remained the Monarchy’s prime beneficiaries. Maoist leaders are known to have been protected on direct orders from the now defunct office of the Principal Military Secretariat. Evidence of such protection is available not only from former Royal Military Aides (who are soon to join the Maoist ranks), but also from army helicopter pilots and mission commanders who received contradictory orders from the Royal Palace and the Army Headquarters, on numerous occasions.

Also to their benefit, the Maoists have successfully leveraged the falsehood of equating their opponents with the rank and file of hardcore Royalists. By propagating such fabrication, the Maoists succeeded in keeping national and international opposition at bay – why would anyone in the 21st century want to be perceived as protecting a system of monarchy over the Maoist option of democracy?

With the declaration of Nepal as a republic state, the Maoists’ will have gained the temporary illusion of a moral victory but will also suffer the consequences of their lost “ally” and universal “punching bag.”

Liberal Democrats Smell the Coffee

The Maoists have repeatedly informed their supporters and critics alike that their version of democracy is different from the Western version (whatever this may be). The Maoists are on record saying that their economic revolution will be a mixture of proletariat and bourgeoisie economics (one being the antithesis of the other). Despite the vocabulary the Maoists deliberately invent to keep their critics hoping, the rational interpretation of Maoist rhetoric couldn’t be further from liberal, multi-party democracy.

Unfortunately, for a minority, ultra-liberal, “peace at any cost” crowd, the song the Maoists’ have been singing has been music to their ears because King Gyanendra has been around as the common punching bag to hate on. For the Maoists’ the Monarchy has been a perfect focal point to keep the minds of a large, uninformed decision-makers, fixated upon; and the liberal, educated crowd, even while they preach reconciliation and peace, remain to this day, blinded by personal vendetta and revenge against a monarch who temporarily denied them mobile phone and internet services.

Long gone are the days when liberal democrats would court arrest only to pick up their satellite phones (from their supposed cells) to dial Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and tell the world about the “autocrat” Gyanendra. These fools know better than to try such games with the Maoists – they have recent examples to remind them of the potential repercussions from the YCL.

On May 28 2008, Nepal’s liberal democrats will celebrate the birth of a republic; a few months’ down the road, they are equally likely to be yearning for a second shot at the elections that King Gyanendra offered.

India’s Long Term Interest

A lot of people are worried about India’s excessive leaning towards the Maoists. The same people also express dissatisfaction at the Americans’ coddling of the Maoists. Not coincidentally, these are the same idiots who were all too happy to be Indian servants at one time and closed-door sycophant of the former American Ambassador James F. Moriarty.

But these people need to develop ulcers, unnecessarily. The Indian government will pursue its interests in Nepal, relentlessly and in lieu of a single power center that rose to the occasion when Moriarty was offering cover, the Americans are right to be pushing soft power tactics upon the Maoists.

The Indians and the Maoists share a common cause – both want King Gyanendra and Nepal’s Monarchy gone. But after this feat is accomplished, all bets are off. There is a reason why Indian Ambassador Rakesh Sood is fervently opposed to any constitutional amendments that could prolong the Monarchy’s lifeline. The Indians are in as much a hurry to sideline the Monarchy as they are to begin containing the Maoists’ power play.

There is not a moment in living memory when the Indians have placed all of their backing behind a single horse in Nepal and they are not about to start now; specially with a radical left-wing outfit, which by ideological doctrine, is incapable of serving long-term Indian interests. Once Nepal becomes a republic, the Maoists’ utility to Indian interests is as good as yesterday’s paper.

Conclusion

So what does all this mean? It means that with the elimination of the Monarchy, a one-party system in Nepal, is more likely than ever. The exact nature of such a system will become clearer over the coming weeks. Needless to say however, Nepal is likely to surprise the international community yet again, for what is expected, is most likely not going to be delivered.

For once, Prachanda’s communist sixth sense is serving him well. His Stalinist vocabulary is out of touch with the times, but Prachanda’s expectation of a “counter-revolution” is right on the money. Far too much has changed in Nepal, far too quickly and if history is any indication, radical changes are radically unstable.

The Monarchy as a logical counter-weight to the Maoists’ is a theory that has been tried and has failed. Rather than serving as a formidable challenge to the Maoists’, King Gyanendra’s disorganized campaign was perhaps the biggest power boost the Maoists’ could have wished for.

However, with the political liability of the Monarchy gone, the door to much needed, democratic (and if necessary, forceful) opposition to the Maoists, opens on Mary 28, 2008. With a convergence of national and international power centers, an unjustly humiliated military, disillusioned liberal democrats, and a civil society that is all too eager to please whoever can threaten them most subtly, Nepal is ripe ground for a real revolution.

All hail the Republic of Nepal!

Related Posts:

All the Right Agendas
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/04/all-right-agendas-nepali-national.html

Riding the Republican Bandwagon
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/04/riding-republican-bandwagon.html

All Attention on the Army
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-attention-on-army.html

Political violence: A Crime That Pays?

(Courtesy: Dr. Hari Bansha Dulal)

The Maoist comrades did it again. The only difference this time around is that the man they killed belonged to their own party. By killing Ramhari Shrestha in cold blood, and that too under Ian Martin’s nose, the Maoists have made it crystal clear that, they can kill people anywhere they like.

Given the secretive nature of modus operandi of the Maoist cadres involved and the Maoist party’s reluctance to hand over the perpetrators to the law enforcement agencies, the motive behind the killing might never be fully revealed. However, from media reports it is quite clear that there was a financial motive behind the killing of Shrestha. If so, what are our revolutionaries up to? Interested in jumping to a petit-bourgeois class while proletariats that voted for them en masse are waiting for their masters to alter Nepali society, by overthrowing feudal structures?

While the Maoists’ “cold-blooded killing machine” periodically exterminates educators, journalists, and businessmen, the perpetrators of the crimes never get apprehended and punished. It has become a kind of policy of the CPN (Maoist) to seek forgiveness for the crimes committed by its ill-trained and irrational cadres and get away with it. Equally astonishing is the helplessness exhibited by the state.

Be it the murder of educator Mukti Nath Adhikari, journalists duo Dikendra Thapa and Jitendra Sah, or physical assault on noted physician Dr Gyanendra Giri, has any of the Maoist cadre involved in the crime been apprehended and punished? Living in a land, where the murderers of educators and journalists walk free must be, utterly unsatisfying and psychologically taxing.

Why are the Maoists still intimidating and killing people? Will they ever stop? The people are struggling to find answers to these questions. And, the answers you get now from the top-rung Maoist politicians may not match experiences that you might encounter in the future.

If you ask the Maoists about their revolution, the chances of telling us that the revolution will get over only after the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat is almost hundred percent. So, in the context of perpetual revolution, will the means adopted so far be abandoned? In a country like ours, where the end justifies the means, is it even necessary to abandon the radical violence and murderous path that the Maoists have been walking so far?

Mao, the great hero and icon of the Maoist ideologues in Nepal, shortly after taking control of Mainland China in 1949, ordered the killing of millions of his political enemies, including Christians. Tens of thousands were killed during the ‘Cultural Revolution’ and approximately fourteen to twenty million died from starvation during the “Great Leap Forward.”

Likewise, Josef Stalin is believed to have killed approximately thirteen million people in various purges.

Parade Magazine, in its “The world’s 10 worst dictators” list compiled in 2005, has Kim Jong Il as the worst dictator alive. While Kim, who has developed an extreme personality cult, ranked first, Chinese president Hu Jintao and former Cuban president Fiedel Castro ranked third and ninth worst dictators. The communist dictators by no means are the crusader of personal and political freedom.

Although there is no universal consensus, it is believed that more than one million people have been killed after the junior Kim took over North Korea in 1994. There are no exact numbers, but conservative estimates suggest that an estimated one hundred and fifty thousand North Koreans are performing forced labor in prison camps created to punish alleged political dissidents.

In China, the communist party still controls all media. Thousands of “Internet security agents” are employed by the state to monitor internet use. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese are serving “re-education” sentences in labor camps across China. The recipients of such “re-education” through labor sentence, according to Human Rights Watch, have no right to a hearing, no right to counselling, and no right to any kind of judicial determination of their case. The number of executions carried out in China every year is more than all other nations combined.

Fiedel Castro executed and imprisoned thousands of Christians in his early years. Even though he allowed gospel crusades to be televised on the national television network after the worldwide collapse of communism between 1989 and 1991, the political dissidents and Christians jailed prior to 1991 are yet to receive amnesty.

If we look at one-party communist states that are revered by the Nepali Maoists, radical violence and extermination of the political opponents is the most common and successful method of political and social control. It is a method adopted by the communist dictators to preempt dissident activities that could pose a threat to the survival of their regime. By asking the Maoists to renounce radical violence and killings, Nepali people are asking the Maoists to toss away the most trusted method of political and social control. When would the Maoists give up the most trusted and tested method of political and social control? Politically, it does not make any sense.

In the last week’s BBC Nepali Sewa’s “Sajha Sawal,” Gagan Thapa argued about the ethical and psychological issues associated with the housing of YCL cadres in camps. From an ethical point of view, his arguments were strong and valid. However, what upcoming charismatic leaders like Thapa should understand is that, the YCL is created with a political purpose to weaken the political opponents and administer social control. And, as long as that motive is served, the Maoists would never dismantle the YCL.

CPN (Maoist) leader Ram Bahadur Thapa while addressing an interaction program at Reporter’s club on May 24, without mincing words made is ample clear that his party was bent on expanding the YCL as they want to win all 240 seats in the next election. Instead of arguing on psychological issues associated with the housing of youth in camps, it is time to develop a strategy that would make the existence of the YCL politically unprofitable for the Maoists. Only then, they would be forced to downsize or dissolve the YCL altogether. Till then it shall stay put. The youth leaders like Gagan Thapa should gear his energy towards oiling the youth machine for counter mobilization. Counter mobilization is the best bet and the only game in town.

The Maoists should be allowed to form the government but only after amending the existing constitution. It is true that, given the horse-trading culture of legislatures we have, replacing the two-thirds majority required for forming or changing a government with a simple majority will lead to the frequent change of the government. But it is only through the replacement of the two-thirds majority required for forming or changing a government with a simple majority, the democratic forces in Nepal can stop the Maoists from seizing the state’s instrument of force and coercion and their immediate use to destroy or control all independent sources of power, such as the social and religious institutions, the professions, private businesses, schools and of course, the family.

It may not be ethically correct to ask for it now, especially not when you are a loser. But when you have ideologues like Ram Bahadur Thapa who want to strengthen the YCL to win all 240 seats in the upcoming elections, you got to do what you got to do to survive politically and save the nation from becoming a one-party communist state.

Related Posts:

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

All the Right Agendas
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/04/all-right-agendas-nepali-national.html

UNMIN Chief Confronts Nepal Media Once Again!
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/03/unmin-cheif-confronts-nepal-media-once.html

Kanak Mani Dixit The Nuanced
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/04/kanak-mani-dixit-nuanced.html

Late Awakening

(Courtesy: Dr. Hari Bansha Dulal)

The Maoists are slowly closing in on the democratic forces in Nepal. They have started to mount pressure on Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala to resign and have made it crystal clear that the Young Communist League (YCL), which in their view is, an equivalent of youth wings of the NC and the UML is not going to be disbanded anytime soon. Instead of facing dissolution, the YCL is rather getting active. It has decided to launch a month-long nationwide campaign.

By asking Prime Minister Koirala to submit his resignation to the speaker of parliament and facilitate a peaceful handover of power in public, Dr Baburam Bhattarai has delivered the masterstroke! The Maoists are all set to disown the very person, who helped them reach where they are now. Is this a sign of an end of utility of "useful idiots" for the Maoists?

After tirelessly honeymooning for more than two years, the politicians within the NC and the UML have finally started realizing working with the Maoists is difficult. The likes of Ram Chandra Poudel have started to talk what people like me have been telling for the past two and a half years. We wrote countless articles trying to explain the dangers associated with the continued appeasement and political cohabitation. But so long as the prospects of remaining in the power were bright, power hungry people like Poudel never bothered to listen to sane voices that would have given a reason for a logical pause.

The lust for power and the risk of being branded "reactionaries" undoubtedly subdued otherwise a logical caution. Now, when Poudel sees power slipping out of his grip, he is all of a sudden perturbed by the Maoists' dictatorial bent. What an awakening! If the democrats around the world started grasping the threat posed by the radicals this late, within no time, the majority of the democratic state will be bogged down by radical communists and insane Islamofacists.

Can someone actually ask ideologically bankrupt and unprincipled democrats like Poudel, who see the dictatorial bent of the Maoists only now? When did the Maoists actually abandon the idea of establishing a one-party communist state, if they ever did? The Maoists, at no point throughout the peace process or the entire period of insurgency, have expressed anything but a full-fledged commitment to the Maoists' strategic end-goal: the establishment of a one-party communist republic. Any misrepresentation of the Maoists' strategic intent has come from outside the party -- mainly from the left-leaning civil society pundits and the likes of Ram Chandra Poudel.

So for Ram Chandra Poudel to realize the dictatorial bent of the Maoists, at this point in time, after they have threatened to forcefully kick Prime Minister Koirala out of office is a crude awakening.

The so-called democrats that are squirming now wrote their political obituaries the very day they ventured out on a political cohabitation with the Maoists. Instead of squirming now, when it is too late to do anything about the Maoists' motives, it is time to put up a brave face and prepare oneself to become proud prisoners of the past mistakes. It's impossible to break the golden rule of cause and effect; no matter what, you reap what you sow.

In Nepal, for those who never had a choice between bread and freedom, it was quite obvious to side with the Maoists. But for those, who had both bread and freedom, the inability on part of important few like Poudel to see the imminent danger that unholy alliance with the Maoists posed is going to cost dearly.

Both internal and external actors are to be blamed for the current state of affairs. There was a political stagnation when King Gyanendra embarked on his idiotic venture of absolute monarchy. While this man, who became king by default (design component cannot be discredited altogether) was desperate to walk along the path that his shrewd father walked finely nearly half a century ago, two things were happening concurrently. First, the NC and the UML were trying hard to remain indefinitely in the power without facing the electorate. Second, the Maoists that were getting routinely eliminated by the Bhairavnath battalion in the Kathmandu valley were looking for ways to safely root themselves in the valley for the urban centered revolution.

It was King Gyanendra's foolishness that forced democratic forces to go defensive. Instead of working with the democratic forces, which would have made the fight against radical communism much easier, King Gyanendra preferred to ride pompous egoist—Tusli Giri.

For India, this was the best opportunity to get rid of monarchy, whose diehard nationalist course unlike that of King Jigme's in Bhutan always collided with India's security and economic interests in Nepal. As far as the Maoists were concerned, it was once in a lifetime opportunity to utilize rank and files of the NC and the UML that King Gyanendra was trying to obliterate as "useful idiots" in order to leapfrog to a higher level of their revolution pyramid.

In other words, King Gyanendra's idiotic move basically provided an opportunity to everyone that had been waiting for the window of opportunity to open to push through their own little agendas. While all the parties involved tried to outsmart each other, only the Maoists had both the strategy and the end goal handy.

What next? The Maoists have won the elections—fair and square and hence deserve a chance to govern. King Gyanendra should exit and the political parties of yesteryears should do what losers do in politics --- come up with vision and goals that resonate with constituents. The people are mentally prepared to get rid of monarchy and give the Maoists a chance to govern. So be it.

The easiest way for the NC and UML politicians that put bounty on the heads of the Maoist ideologues and deployed military to fight insurgency would be to instigate Nepal Army to commit coup d'etat. But this is not going to benefit the poor Nepali citizens who have been longing for peace for more than a decade. Nor are they ready for another decade long bloodshed. By voting overwhelming for the Maoists, the people have made it clear that they are ready to bow in front of the butcher and get pardoned rather than side with the losers and get hacked.

As keen observers, we all know that the Maoists have neither scored suicide goals in the past, nor will they score in the future. We also know that given the desire of Puspa Kamal Dahal to rule for decades, the days ahead are not going to be easy for the democrats. But we have no choice but to fight it out democratically. It might take years to dislodge the radicals out of power but the good thing about it is that, during the course of democratic struggle, true and principled democrats will get a chance to come to the forefront.

Related Posts:

Nepali Congress Lost in Democratic Translation
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/05/nepali-congress-lost-in-democratic.html

Convince Us It’s Bullets to Ballots
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/04/courtesy-roop-joshi-as-of-this-writing.html

The Nepali Congress should Focus on the Party's Reinvention, not on Koirala's Legacy
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/05/nepali-congress-should-focus-on-partys.html

Mayday, Mayday?

(Courtesy: Armugam Ananta)

The political pandits have indicated that the ‘civilized’ threat - to return to the jungle - was largely instrumental in the election results going Maoist’s way. It is well known that people were subjected to threats of extremely sinister nature should the outcome from each locale run counter to Maoist’s fatwa. Wide scale booth capturing and use of extreme coercive threats has perhaps been over looked by all concerned as the ‘necessary evil’ for the ‘peaceful’ conduction of the election!

Both NC and UML were beaten in their own game. Given their assumed vote bank and past records the two biggies had believed that the Maoists would creep in towards the bottom at best. Locally renowned analysts fared no better either. It is said that the Nepal Army was the only one which had correctly predicted the out come. Ironically the most astonished were the Maoists themselves who had not believed that the threats would work to this level.

Fearing a poor outcome at best and humiliation at worst, Maoist saw advantage in going to the extreme by creating a situation that led to second election postponement. Hoping that it would fare better under the proportional representation system it coerced in making the changes through the constitution amendment. They were against the PR system earlier only exposes the level of indecisiveness and immaturity among the top Maoists. But as the results started coming in it became obvious that the Maoists had ‘laddus’ in both the hands, as the saying goes in Nepali.

Fighting this election would have been quite difficult matter altogether had it been held fairly. And the Maoists knew that very well. Maoists failed miserably to seize the opportunity provided by the election to inculcate the power of persuasion (minus the guns and threats, of course) to its foot soldiers. Its leaders, on their part, have always talked soft and denied all excesses committed by its ex soldiers in the YCL attire. That was, and it still is, the ground reality. It is a reason enough to call this election, though peaceful, neither free nor fair.

Wrong footed by the unexpected results our neighbour to the South has already started damage control exercise trying to appease the Maoists. Historically, they always maintained a two ‘tongued’ approach on dealings with Nepal. They were talking sweet to Maoist duo on one phone, while at the same time, using another phone blockading exports of essential raw materials like clinker, cement and steel etc.

The South block and the Bihar government were quick to set up a seminar with most Nepali parties and the agenda was naturally Water for ‘mutual benefit’. We know how ‘beneficial’ these have been to Nepal. Besides the unequal treaty of 1950 there are many contentious issues that are still open. Maoists can prove their anti royalist credentials by righting the wrong, supposedly at the hands of King Mahendra on the Kalapani. The logical question is would the Maoist be any better then its predecessors?

In the home front comrades were extremely busy trying to appease the businessmen and industrialists as if repeated extortions, wildcat strikes, unruly labour union and instances of vandalism had never been a problem during the last few years. Making a ‘verbal’ U turn the Maoist duo now want massive jobs creation in new factories to be set up by the aggrieved parties!

The fundamental problem with the Maoists is that there is a complete reversal in all aspects of what they say and what they ultimately end doing. Repeated refusal to return the land and other properties Maoist seized during the conflict is one example. A very convenient reason given is that the owners have not put up an ‘application’ first! Owners, on the other hand, claim that they would be better off if strung to a tree and shot like Ram Chandra Adhikari, the headmaster, of Lamjung, than be humiliated thus. For the general public this is the common face of a Maoist at its best!

There is no denying that Nepal’s Labour act is seriously loaded against those who are primarily responsible for creating jobs. No entrepreneurs or a factory owner will move even a ‘millimetre’, forget inches, unless they get to see the fundamental changes made in the act that allows them the right to hire and fire as necessary. The present act is so regressive that any labour having worked for 240 days gets automatic right to claim a permanent status irrespective of the order status. On productivity and skills, a Nepali labour falls far behind others in the neighbourhood. In other words, despite being cheaper, a Nepali labour becomes expensive when the two are taken into consideration. So where is the advantage in creating jobs?

In a country’s politics a non performing party gets booted out while another party gets the mandate to govern the country. Getting elected once is not a mandate to run the country for ever and the Maoists should understand this first.

Running an industry is no different where one has to be intensively competitive in producing high quality products. For an industry productivity and discipline are of paramount importance. Our industries lack this competitive edge as workers take it just as a 'jagir' for life.

Labour are generally eager in demanding benefits while shy away from being competitive. It is a pity that politicians remember to talk about job creation only while making high sounding inaugural speeches. Our inflexible labour act is just concerned in protecting the ‘jagir’ of those already employed - it is least bothered about the level of unemployment in the country.

The situation does not look too bright with Dr. Baburam failing to spell out clear cut policies especially towards ‘hiring and firing’ that the industries desperately need. Jump starting an idle engine may just be one time solution. But if the Maoists insist on jump starting every time then there is no alternative for the industries than to give out a “Mayday” call as with a ship in distress.

Related Postings:

Riding the Republican Bandwagon
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/04/riding-republican-bandwagon.html

They Shoot Journalists Don't They?
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/11/they-shoot-journalists-dont-they-nepali.html

Earth to John Norris and Kanak Dixit
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/10/earth-to-john-norris-and-kanak-dixit.html

The Pain of Losing a Nation
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/09/pain-of-losing-nation.html

Security Sector Reform: Taking a Regional Approach and Promoting Cooperative Security Arrangement

(Courtesy: Chiran J. Thapa)

If a regional cooperative security arrangement were to come into fruition in South Asia, it could potentially be coined as South Asian Security Initiative (SASI). Although no such arrangement is in the offing, it is about time the member states of SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) began exploring the possibilities and opportunities that lie in such an arrangement. And the Security Sector Reform (SSR) project in Nepal could possibly provide the platform for regional cooperation on security agendas.

The concept of "collective security" has evolved since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. But, it was only after the two menacing World wars of the 20th century that the concept gained wider appeal. As sovereignty and territorial integrity became inviolable and sacrosanct, the idea of a consensual coalition between states and to come to each other's defense when these ideals came under attack, naturally became a welcome safeguard. And the concept was realized, in part, through the formation of the United Nations.

This global collective security arrangement, however, has not been reassuring for many states. Despite being under the UN umbrella, states have still sought to develop further reassuring mechanisms to ensure their security. This is mainly because the pursuit of power, hegemony and national interests have repeatedly trumped over the collective security principle of "all for one and one for all." But, it is also because states have discovered that cooperative regional approaches were more reliable, pragmatic and feasible in enhancing their security.

As states have increasingly coalesced to form cooperative regional coalitions, there have been other parallel developments. With the end of the cold-war, the global political order changed and so did the paradigm of security. Globalisation has led to a surge in interdependency. As conventional military threats that once dominated the security realm began to recede, other threats like global warming, terrorism, health endemics, which are more asymmetrical, complex and trans-national in nature, have come to the forefront. Therefore, as the threats become more trans-national in nature, the capacity of individual states to unilaterally mitigate these threats is diminishing.

In addition, the horizon of the "security" has broadened significantly as it has begun to encompass other social, economic and even psychological aspects. As the threat of inter-state war slowly diminishes, the norm of security too began to shift from the traditional state centric military connotation to embrace ideas of "human security" and "human rights."

This has blurred the concept of collective security and made a "cooperative security" arrangement more appropriate. Cooperative security signifies the cooperation between states to deal with threats and challenges that are non-state and less-military in nature.

Regional groupings have increasingly realized this transformative aspect of security and responded befittingly. NATO is trying to expand its horizon by including more members and has begun focusing on more than just the military discourse. The ASEAN member states have recently agreed to establish the ASEAN Security Community (ASC). Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) was founded in 1996 with the main purpose of working cooperatively on security agendas. Even the African Union (AU) has decided to form its security council to cooperate on security agendas.

SSR in a nutshell:

Security Sector Reform (SSR) is a fairly new, ambiguous and still evolving concept. Till date, there is still no universally accepted definition of SSR. Clearly, the concept is lacking a comprehensive and coherent framework. There is no distinctive operational guideline nor are there any endorsed normative principles of SSR.

Despite the lack of a coherent framework for SSR, however, there is tacit agreement amongst theorists and practitioners on some basic fundamentals. Essentially, there is convergence on five tenets.

-------------

Core security actors
Armed forces; police; gendarmeries; paramilitary forces; presidential guards, intelligence and security services (both military and civilian); coast guards; border guards; customs authorities; reserve or local security units (civil defense forces, national guards, militias)

Security management and oversight bodies
The Executive; national security advisory bodies; legislature and legislative select committees; ministries of defense, internal affairs, foreign affairs; customary and traditional authorities; financial management bodies (finance ministries, budget offices, financial audit and planning units); and civil society organizations (civil review boards and public complaints commissions)

Justice and law enforcement institutions
Judiciary; justice ministries; prisons; criminal investigation and prosecution services; human rights commissions and ombudsmen; customary and traditional justice systems

Non-statutory security forces
Liberation armies; guerrilla armies; private body-guard units; private security companies; political party militias

----------

First, the SSR as a concept is mainly envisaged for fragile and post-conflict societies. Second, the security sector is effectively categorized into four categories: a) core security actors, b) Security management and oversight bodies, c) justice and law enforcement institutions and d) Non-statutory security forces. Third, the process entails capacity building, developing oversight mechanisms, and raising the accountability standards of all the entities that are even in the faintest way involved with the security aspect. Fourth, the overarching objective of the process is to consolidate peace, prosperity and democracy by ensuring that the various security institutions perform their statutory functions effectively and efficiently. Fifth, SSR should always be a national initiative but will require a synergy between national actors and international donors.

SSR can range from a limited to a limitless concept. From a maximalist viewpoint, the agenda almost overlaps the state-building formula. In a post conflict context, state-building mainly refers to the process undertaken to revitalize the society (fragile, failing or failed) by erecting robust political, social and economic orders. Since the cardinal function of any state is to provide security to its citizens, none of these processes can be rendered attainable without security. Also, the four SSR categories illustrate how the state-building process entails the aspects that are encapsulated in SSR agenda. A minimalist approach, however, could confine the parameters to reform of the core security actors or the non-statutory security forces.

Another aspect of SSR that is worthy of mentioning is DDR (disarmament, demobilization and reintegration). There is quite a bit of confusion between DDR and SSR. Some treat DDR and SSR as two completely separate disciplines while some take the completion of DDR as a precondition for initiating the SSR agenda.

A simple analysis, however, will reveal that DDR falls within the ambit of SSR. DDR is a post-conflict process required to consolidate peace and improve the security environment. Arguably, any measure taken to improve the security of the state automatically falls within the SSR realm. Also, DDR directly involves the Core security actors and Non- statutory security forces that are outlined in the SSR agenda.

Why the regional approach?

Every single state in South Asia is riddled with some sort of strife, violence or conflict. Five out of eight states in the region fall in the top 25 list of failed states. A frosty relationship between India and Pakistan still persists and makes the threat of a nuclear war all too real. India and Pakistan are both plagued by numerous extremist and separatist groups. The Economist has ranked Pakistan as the most dangerous state in the world. Afghanistan has been one of the most fragile and deadly states for decades. The festering civil war of Sri-Lanka is certainly one of the bitterest and longest. Nepal has just endured a decade long brutal insurgency. Bangladesh is home to numerous militant groups and the country has a long history of civil-military tension. Although Bhutan and Maldives have remained out of the spotlight, both countries have considerable political and social friction.

Ironically, however, this fragile region has taken the lead in shouldering the task of global peace operations. Today Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Nepal are amongst the top five manpower contributors to UN led peace operations. If Sri-Lanka were to be added to this list, 37.6% of the total manpower for UN peace operations is currently fielded by the South Asian region.

The imperative of a regional cooperative security arrangement is manifested primarily by the above mentioned facts. As there remains a senseless chasm between the regional need and regional capability, the exigency to engage in a regional cooperative security arrangement is thus self explanatory.

SSR project in Nepal could appropriately serve to bridge that gap. The regional approach would be a win-win situation for all. The SSR project would effectively utilize the regional potential and contribute towards enhancing the regional security and stability. Of course, Nepal will gain considerably from this endeavor as it would provide a more sustainable guarantee and ensure compliance from national actors. As for the assisting member states, it would be a great learning experience. This would help them develop expertise in the SSR discourse, which could in turn be employed in their respective national contexts as well as in international theatres.

Another factor calling for a regional engagement is actually the proper lack of UN's institutional capacity. Till date, the member states of the UN have not reached a consensus on the concept of SSR. Although the report of the Secretary General on "the role of the United Nations in supporting security sector reform" was released in January 2008 to encourage and facilitate the consensus building process, there are still no agreed upon principles, standards, policies or guidelines on SSR. Furthermore, according to a report released by "Security Council Report," - a non-profit entity, there is actually an acute shortage of SSR capacity and expertise in and outside the UN.

SSR in Nepal is a marvelous opportunity for South Asian states to come together for a common purpose and mark a new beginning of greater regional cooperation. Such an engagement will provide a great learning opportunity which could actually be used in their respective national contexts and to build UN's institutional capacity as well. Also, since states make up the international political system, insecurity of one state has translational implication and effects. Hence, a pragmatic approach to creating a more secure globe is by improving the security of individual states. For all its novelty value, such an engagement would not only breed a spirit of regional solidarity, but it would ultimately bring the globe one step closer towards peace.

Related Posts:

Special Session and After: Thinking Past the Nepali 'Post-conflict'
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/11/special-session-and-after-thinking-past.html

The Utility of a Professional Nepalese Army
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/07/utility-of-professional-nepalese-army.html

The Bewilderness

(Courtesy: Dr. Hari Bansha Dulal)

With the successful conclusion of CA polls, all eyes are on India and the United States now. The extent to which India and the US will recalibrate their policy vis-à-vis the Maoist victory in Nepal will determine whether or not the Maoist government will have a smooth sailing.

Puspa Kamal Dahal's assertion that the Maoists are in for a long haul might prove true unless international players like India and the US tighten the screw on the Maoists and provide support to the democratic forces, which at this point in time appears highly unlikely. For India, a nation that has a substantial security and economic interests in Nepal, it simply does not make any sense to overrun a party, which has both: A private militia and people's mandate to govern. And, why should India stick to the old guards if the new kids on the block are willing to render similar services? As far as the United States is concerned, it has already outsourced its Nepal policy to India. Due to the lack of any major interest in Nepal, the US is expected to continue toeing India's policy towards Nepal.

Those in the NC and the UML who think India will not abandon the horse that served their interests faithfully for almost two decades should rethink why India should stick with a horse that lost badly in a high stake derby. They should reconcile with the fact that India loves to bet on a wining horse. If we look around, it becomes evident that, for India, its security and economic interest is far more important than democratic rights of citizens of foreign nations. Indian government's cordial relations with Myanmar's repressive junta and Banngladesh's military rule speak volume about how India hoodwinks international community when it comes to its stand on democracy.

When India can roll-out the red carpet for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, it can definitely do so to keep Puspa Kamal Dahal at its arm's length. It is just a matter of time. The very minute India extract promises from the Maoist comrades on issues related to India's security, democrats in Nepal will be on their own. With time and change in political stature, international actors' betting preferences do change.

For the NC and the UML to beat the Maoists, they have to completely overhaul their current strategy of trying to appear more progressive than the Maoists. Nobody is going to buy that. If the NC and the UML really want to succeed, let the Maoists do what they do best, and you do what you do best — resonate with the people that are at the center of the political spectrum. It is virtually impossible to defeat a party whose very basis of existence is grounded on proletarian agendas by trying to appear more progressive than them. One of the reasons why the NC and the UML had to face humiliating defeat might have to do with this unwarranted political shift. When you, as a centrist political force completely abandon what you traditionally stood for, loyal supporters that are attached to the party on the basis of ideology have no inclination or incentive to remain wedded to the party.

Surprisingly, even after the humiliating defeat, the NC and the UML have not abandoned the Maoist-style of doing business. In a rat race of proving itself more inclusive, visionless and petty-minded politicians at the NC's helm of affairs have chosen to sacrifice people like Radheshyam Adhikari, Harihar Birahi, and Manmohan Bhattarai that make up the NC's intellectual backbone. Instead of nominating these individuals that could have made a significant contribution in drafting a liberal constitution, bewildered NC's leadership decided to nominate semi-illiterates en masse. Does this act of wholesale nomination of semi-illiterates for a responsible job of drafting a constitution, which requires a great deal of technical expertise, really serve the purpose? If the answer is no, then how justified it is to pay bench-warmers as constitution makers? Where is the fiscal responsibility?

Establishing a herd of semi-illiterates to warm benches rather than nominating experts like Radheshyam Adhikari, who have been practicing law for decades, is neither fiscally responsible thing to do, nor a good strategy to counter the Maoists' desire to mould the constitution to their liking. When will the air headed idiots within the NC realize the gravity of the situation?

In a way, the recent CA election results might prove to be blessings for those who really want to practice principle-based politics within the NC and the UML. As it will take considerable time and effort to dislodge the Maoists from the power and defeat them in the upcoming parliamentary and local elections, the fat cats within the NC and the UML that have made a fortune by remaining in power for the last two decades might not have the required patience and the desire to stay put. However, there is no guarantee. If they still decide to hang around, the dedicated cadres that really want to see their party come back to power should revolt. Now is the time for some purification.

Shashank Koirala of the NC and Shankar Pokharel of the UML have the potential to bring back the lost glory. They are neither populist nor tainted. They can actually unite the party and put up a good fight against the Maoists. In order to defeat the Maoists, you got to prove that you are different. So far, by trying to hijack their political agendas, the NC and the UML have been blurring the difference between their party and the Maoists. In the absence of visible difference, people will continue to support the Maoists.

After forming the government in the next couple of weeks, the Maoists will do their best to negate the exiting threats. The threat of takeover by the army will be negated by merging the PLA with the national army and promoting the likes of Kul Bahadur Khadka within the Nepal Army. So the only way left to bring down the Maoist government to its knees, if needed, is through revolution in the tarai. At this point in time, only Madhesi regional parties such as the MPRF and TMDP have the power to unleash enough violence to choke the power structures in Kathmandu. It is, thus, crucial for the NC and the UML to remain in good terms with these regional parties.

At this point in time, the NC and theUML neither have an agenda for counter mobilization nor have the required strength to fight back. So the days ahead are not going to be easy for them. But the game is not over yet. There is one more chance and that is the upcoming elections. In order for the NC and the UML to win the upcoming elections, they need to restructure their party and come up with a sound counter-mobilization strategy. Try to do it right this time around.

Related Posts:

Convince Us It’s Bullets to Ballots
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/04/courtesy-roop-joshi-as-of-this-writing.html

Riding the Republican Bandwagon
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/04/riding-republican-bandwagon.html

The Nepali Congress should Focus on the Party's Reinvention, not on Koirala's Legacy

(Courtesy: el Gordo)

As the saying goes, "hope is not a method" and where Nepal's future is concerned, the option of relying exclusively on those who themselves rely on hope, is not a very good option. In a "new Nepal", moderates from all political walks of life need to remain actively engaged - most of all, the "moderate" Maoists.

The Theory of "Moderates" and "Hardliners"

It is the precise theory that NC (Nepali Congress) supporters forwarded after the signing the 12 Point Agreement - that of moderates and hardliners in the Maoist ranks - that today, has to be leveraged by the hopeful and the pragmatic alike. Sadly enough, the proponents of the "moderate Maoist" theory were sufficiently intelligent to construct an arbitrary "center" but not smart enough to recognize the implications of their revised construct on their own party's identity.

Essentially, when radical leftists like Baburam Bhattarai were painted as "moderates," the net effect is that men like Sushil Koirala became rightwing "fascists." Combine changed perceptions such as these with a polity that has historically exhibited strong leftist undercurrents, and the CA election results come into much better focus.

On the topic of perceptions (and the newly nominated "ultra rightwing NC" aside), there are certain considerations that may assist in the institutionalization of multiparty democracy, help resuscitate the old democratic guards, and also help promote the "moderates" within Nepal's Maoist party. If enacted in tandem, these considerations may accelerate the realization of a "new Nepal."

Consideration-1: Relinquish leadership to the Maoists

First among these considerations is that the NC needs to get off its high horse and immediately cede leadership of the interim government to the Maoists. A refusal to do so may aggravate the situation and lead to a revival of unpleasant "memories."

Examples of such foul "memories" include: An NC-led government's issuance of Interpol Red Corner notices; an NC-led government's declaration of Nepali Maoists as terrorists; and Girija Prasad Koirala's resignation under the pretext that the Army refused to follow his orders and fight the Maoists (in Holleri, 2001).

The situation may become even more complicated should the Maoist "hardcore" evoke memories of operations "Romeo" and "Siera-II-Kilo" - both executed under the NC's leadership. Should facts such as these come to light, Maoist "moderates" may not be able to rein in the YCL or even worse, keep the Maoist combatants at bay. The situation may be further exacerbated by Maoist "hardliners" educating their followers on the NC's new position in Nepali politics as the universal lightning rod - a position previously occupied by the far Right (namely, King Gyanendra), with utmost grace and fanfare.

So, in order to avoid these memories from destabilizing the peace process, Girija Prasad Koirala should step aside and the "help" the "moderates" in the Maoist party lead the next government.

Consideration-2: Play a constructive role but stay out of the government

A second consideration is found in the following clarification: "Power sharing" and "consensus" in the context of daily governance and administration is one thing. The same terms applied to the constitution-making process is something entirely different. It is imperative that the NC expend all of its resources on the constitution making process and equally imperative that the NC not join an interim government, whose primary mandate is to write Nepal's constitution anyway!

For the NC as a party, re-making Girija Prasad Koirala's image and guaranteeing his personal legacy should not be a priority. If Koirala is allowed to fully satiate his lust for power, the NC will be stuck with a senile old leader, indefinitely. Koirala's legacy as the man who incited the armed Maoist insurgency may eventually be obscured if he remains in power. However, his legacy as the man who laid the foundation for the NC's destruction will live till eternity.

As a responsible partner in Nepal's peace process, the NC is obligated to help the Maoists run the interim government. The NC should offer unconditional technical and subject mater expertise on the basis of case-by-case consultations. Conversely, as a responsible party at the head of Nepal's government, the Maoists are also obligated to consult with all parties on decisions such as the integration of Maoist combatants, UMIN's reduced role, and basically, on all issues other than those that are debated by the constituent assembly itself.

Neither of the collaborative conditions described above, requires the NC to continue as part of the interim government. This is not to suggest that the NC should threaten the peace process with its non-existent combatants, or a with "peaceful revolt." What is being suggested is that the NC should change with the times and reinvent itself if the party is to remain relevant. Over the immediate future, the NC should fully enjoy the luxuries of being in opposition while participating in the constitution making process, re-imaging the party's image, and preparing for parliamentary elections.

Consideration-3: Get your own house in order before you pass judgment on others

A third consideration is perhaps, the simplest: Many NC leaders (especially the younger generation) are loathe to admit it, but the tyranny and undemocratic patronage they are subjected to, leads not down a path to Narayanhiti Palace, but to Biratnagar, Maharajgung and currently, to the Prime Minister's quarters. If the Nepali Congress is to survive as a going political entity, it must remove Girija Prasad Koirala and cleanse the party of his coterie.

Conclusion

The lessons that Nepal's experience with forced voting (under highly insecure conditions) highlights, are noteworthy. Nepal offers a textbook case study of the reality that principled beliefs are "luxuries" to a population that is preoccupied with the most fundamental of challenges - food, running water, electricity, basic education, etc. Under such conditions, freedom of speech, of movement, of assembly, are "nice to haves" enjoyed by a super elite minority who themselves, find economic sustenance by providing international NGOs and non-profits that much coveted, "feel good" sensation.

If the institutionalization of these "luxuries" is what the super elite minority fought King Gyanendra for, then they had best continue championing their causes because the job is incomplete. Cutting an ambitious monarch down to size at the dawn of 21st century is hardly a feat that deserves endless backslapping. Keeping a country like Nepal focused on the attainment of a liberal democratic polity however, is where the life long challenge lies.

If a truly conviction-driven, apolitical minority desires a fighting chance for liberal democracy in Nepal, then a complete overhaul of the Nepali Congress is a first in a long list of steps to come.

Related Posts:

Election Post-Mortem
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/04/election-post-mortem.html

Respect Electoral Mandate

(Courtesy: Dr. Hari Bansha Dulal)

With the conclusion of CA elections, yesterday's major political parties and new entrants such as MJF and TMLP are busy interpreting the people's verdict to align with their respective worldviews. Predictably, the next round of politicking will involve sharing the "power pie" through some form of "constitutional adventurism." The constitution will once again be amended to suit what will be sold as an "'X' point" deal.

It is quite surprising to see the traditional democratic forces unable to resist Maoist maneuvers because of the incumbents' lust for power. Apparently, the lust is still alive even after humiliating defeat and the Maoists are positioned to accrue additional mileage by relying on their original formula-extending of olive branches. No matter how morally repugnant and unprincipled the act of sharing power with a party that both the UML and NC rank and file claim, "stole" the elections, the idea of holding onto power (no matter the cost) seems to have taken center stage. Short term power mongering over long term survival is almost certain to yield the consolidation of state power, with the Maoists at the helm.

It is quite surprising (although not completely unexpected) to see the politicians of the NC and UML engaged in talks around power sharing even before they have taken complete stock of what the Maoist win means for their own party structures. The NC and UML should have spent time, thoroughly debating the root causes behind its humiliation at the Maoists' hands'. Certainly, the easy way out of this debate would be to point a finger at honorary Maoist, Krishna Prasad Sitaula (no surprises if the Maoists appoint Mr. Sitaula as a Minister without a portfolio in their cabinet), but this is not where the buck should really stop.

Despite politically aligned pundits and constitutional experts who are working around the clock to spin the Maoist victory (and gain bargaining power for the NC and UML), ordinary citizens who believe in democratic process are not fooled. To them, the poll results speak a single truth: The Maoists have won the elections fair and square and there is no reason whatsoever, why they should not be allowed to lead the next government.

Since the Maoists are carrying out this process democratically, there are no objections to be made. Clearly, in Nepal's case, power to the Maoists has arrived "under the shadow of a gun" with much help and fanfare from their political adversaries for whom the lust for power overrides all other considerations. To be perfectly clear, what we are seeing in Nepal now is not any benevolent act of greater good or consensus building for the sake of multiparty democracy. It is power politics, plain and simple.

Those acquainted with historical facts and interpretations of the methods and tools used by radicals to attain (and cling to) power, know exactly what Nepal has acquired through CA elections. However, they also recognize that subverting the people's mandate (irrespective of how unfairly this mandate was allegedly acquired) only benefits another set of power hungry politicians within the NC and the UML that are hell bent on remaining in the corridor of power even after the humiliating defeat.

The question that remains to be answered is whether the Maoists' ascendancy to power will ultimately benefit the consolidation of democracy in Nepal? Given the scale of the Maoists' victory, they are sure to exhibit ideological rigidity and there is very little the parties like the NC, UML, and the international community can do about it. The incentives for ideological rigidity are largely influenced by the leanings of the electorate, and in our case, voters have made their preference clear.

No matter how bitter the outcome is, we got to accept it. It is imperative that everyone respect the verdict of the CA elections and reward the winner. This is the very essence of democracy - people get to choose who they want their leaders to be. Any leadership structure that fails to place the Maoists at the apex, will be a complete perversion of the norms and processes of democracy and simply put, unacceptable.

In today's Nepal, where the deal based politics is the mantra for political survival, the critical democratic challenge is not only to keep winners from abusing their power, but also to keep losers wedded to the rules of the game. And so far, we have no systematic knowledge of the conditions under which this is likely to happen. The political elites in Nepal lack the required willingness to abide by the rules of the democratic game and accept its outcomes when the outcome is not in their favor. Democracy in Nepal chokes every now and then because of the lack of this consent that forms the foundation of political legitimacy.

Legitimate opposition to Nepal's Maoists has always been forwarded as some combination of the following premises: Principled disagreement with the Maoists' violent and gratuitous methods and/or a firm belief that those who rise to power by subverting democracy, are incapable of functioning within a democracy's paradigmatic construct.

As for the first premise, there is nothing left to say - especially when the people on whose behalf the principled stand was taken, have overwhelmingly voted for the perpetrators of their suffering. As for the second premise, only time will tell whether Nepal's Maoists are truly "Maoists" or power-hungry social democrats who happened to borrow Mao's military strategy as means to an end.

The verdict of the CA elections may be used to as an opportunity to improve consensus building amongst all parties and as a period for deep reflection and introspection amongst the major losers. This is a must if multiparty democracy is to survive over the long run.

While the period of opposition based on Maoist methods has come to a spectacular end, a new era which requires working relationships with supposedly "moderate" Maoists by staying outside the government has just begun. Respect the electoral mandate!

Related Posts:

Act Responsibly!
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/04/act-responsibly.html

Riding the Republican Bandwagon
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/04/riding-republican-bandwagon.html

Nepali Congress Lost in Democratic Translation

(Courtesy: Comrade Libre)

The general state of disarray within the NC (Nepali Congress) is for lack of a better term, "pathetic." The group touted by its leadership as the only party "capable of drafting a democratic constitution" appears incapable of even acknowledging the most basic of democratic tenets - that, of "majority rule." Why else would the NC dream of continuing its leadership role in a Maoist dominated government?

"Pride comes before the fall," so the saying goes and the exponential growth in the NC's hubris after the April 2006 movement was prophetic of what was eventually to come. Observers close to the NC had noted sharp increases in often condescending and pedantic diatribes that resulted whenever party members were challenged on issues of dysfunctional intra-party dynamics. So blinded was the Nepali Congress by the shadow of its own inflated image that its demise became evident to all but the NC itself.

The NC - Democrats or Sycophants?

To the outside observer, the sycophantic worship that Girija Prasad Koirala and his family elicited within the NC rank and file was no different from the regal divinity that King Gyanendra enjoyed amongst his inner-most circle. For a monarch to enjoy unquestioned subservience from willing subjects is one thing - the idea of the Koirala clan enjoying similar status in Nepal's (allegedly) most democratic party, is something quite different.

So the folly continued, unchallenged. The idea that questioning the NC's credentials was somehow democratic sacrilege, was aggressively forwarded. Allusions to Girija Prasad Koirala as the power-hungry, one-man sideshow he has always been, became blasphemy. The icing on this cake of charades came with Koirala's inner coterie recommending his candidacy for the Nobel Prize. "A Nepali Nobel candidate will be a symbol of national pride," so the laughable logic went.

Thankfully, the anathema that "Girija Prasad Koirala" and the "Nobel Prize" in a single sentence represents, nipped this ridiculous proposal in its bud. After all, how ludicrous is the suggestion that a man responsible for inciting an armed revolution (a man who resigned his Prime Ministership on the grounds that the Army refused to fight the Maoists), should today, be credited with the Nobel Prize for ending an insurrection that he was directly involved in instigating?

For those who remain unconvinced, consider the following: If Girija deserves the Nobel Prize for democratizing the Maoists, Gyanendra deserves the Nobel Prize (even more) for engineering the conditions that enabled Girija to reinvent himself and subsequently, "mainstream" the Maoists. Girija may be in the process of "unselfishly" sacrificing the Nepali Congress to build his own legacy but King Gyanendra already has sacrificed all his followers, his personal legacy, and a 240 year old dynasty to prove a point - what this point is, only history will tell. So who deserves the Nobel Prize more?

Is the NC's History so Easily Rewritten?

Girija Koirala may be Jimmy Carter's "hero" but for people acquainted with Nepal's recent past, Koirala is also the architect of operations "Romeo" and "Sierra Kilo-II." He is a man who is credited with breaking up the Nepali Congress. A sell-out and a model of institutionalized corruption, Girija is a man whose unrelenting greed and lust for power, the Maoists understood, and masterfully leveraged as part of their bid for political supremacy.

If it is one thing that Nepal's Maoists deserve unconditional credit for, it's the tact with which they have continually exposed charlatans for what they are - unprincipled, convictionless frauds, ready to sink down to any level to disguise their personal prejudices behind democratic facades. To the Maoists, men like Gyanendra and Giriaja (and a whole list of others that fit similar characteristics) have never been anything more than "useful idiots"; expendable assets that will eventually outlive their usefulness to the Maoists'.

Many credible arguments had been posited that the true obstacle to a logical right-wing reaction to balance Maoist aggression, was none other than King Gyanendra himself. The basic theme of these arguments maintained that had King Gyanendra left Nepal prior to the CA elections, the Nepali Congress would have gained the unquestioned loyalty of the Nepali Army's rank and file; the kind of support that would have gone a long way to ensuring "free and fair" elections.

But Gyanendra didn't leave and Girija was too busy fondling his legacy to consider the long-term risks to multiparty democracy, should the Maoists' attain power through elections. As a consequence, with every passing day, the likelihood of Nepal Army Generals making peace with the Maoists is growing and every royalist who joins the Maoists, is bolstering the sea of nationalist sentiment that the Maoist party represents. And as long as Gyanendra refuses to leave Nepal and continues hammering on the point that he does not wish to be "used by the Indian government against his own country," he will remain in relatively good shape.

There's a New Game in Town and the NC is in Last Place

For the benefit of the bewildered and disoriented NC sycophants, there's a new game in town - it's called "who has the most nationalist credentials?" Unfortunately, in this game, the NC is starting with a major handicap - perhaps even several. The most recent handicap comes from Indian National Security Advisor, MK Narayanan's disclosure on national Indian television that the Indian government's favorite in Nepal, is none other than the Nepali Congress!

In this game of nationalist fervor, the Royalists will soon be one with the Maoists; Gyanendra will remain "King" Gyanendra to any Nepali who wishes to exercise his right to carry on the Royal tradition; and the Maoists will continue singing sermons to India with lyrics that extol the virtues of moderate Maoists (who are working overtime to keep the radical nationalists at bay). Hydropower deals will be cut without opposition and the peace dividend will keep the hungry fed and the homeless sheltered.

Fringe parties and the UML are irrelevant at this point. The MJF counts the most after the Maoists. But where does this leave the Nepali Congress? Well, it depends on how quickly the NC's sycophants come to terms with the realization that the dawn of the 21st century was the verdict on any attempted form of absolute monarchy and that Nepal's CA elections, more than anything else, was a verdict on the NC's incompetence, over-rated pride, and baseless sense of self-righteousness.

Conclusion

The sooner the emerging ranks of the NC overthrow Girija Prasad Koirala and his entourage of self-serving kleptocrats, the better the party's chance of survival are. The sooner the NC decides to abandon its current policies (all of which are designed to buttress one man's legacy), the better the chances that this party will one day re-emerge as a credible contender in Nepali politics.

But until the NC is able to rationalize the implication of the people's verdict without mentioning the monarchy in the same sentence, this party will forever remain, lost in democratic translation.
Related Posts:

The Fallacies of Two Men - Girija & Gyanendra
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/10/fallacies-of-two-men-girija-gyanendra.html

Nepali Congress under Koirala: The Great Betrayal
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/10/nepali-congress-under-koirala-great.html

The Problem with Nepali Political Civil Society - The Leftist, the Cowards, and the Compromised
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/10/problem-with-nepali-political-civil.html