Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Is this Politics or Raping of the Country?

(Courtesy: Kalyan Dev Bhattarai)

General People supported the 1990 movement not because they trusted any of the so- called leaders of the political parries existing during the period but were tired of the King's brutalism, the nepotism and hypocrisy, due to which the people came to street which looked like the support to the then leaders.

The people participated in the said movement and many sacrificed their life and many had shed their blood with the hope that the so-called leaders, after the punishment from the King in the name of panchyati system, might have understood the basic fundamentals of democracy and the ethics of the democracy and will do their best for the people and country by following the democratic norms and principle of democracy.

However, it was a false assumption of the people who supported them hoping for the best and expected the required changes in the existing political culture with rapid economic development of the country. But the politicians of the country not only betrayed the people but also proved that the street dogs would have been better than the present day ministers to rule the country. By ten years, after 1990, of their looting of the country's treasury in the mane of ruling, every body knew that the so-called leaders of the different political parties were camouflaged dacoits, whose only one objective was to loot the country and fool the people. This was proved beyond any doubt during their ruling of the period 1991 to 2006. The activities of the political leaders during this period also proved that Nepal is the only country where the politicians with few exception are interested for their individual and partisan interests only and their main works being; to loot the country in various pretexts, deceive their cadres, fool the citizen and speak lies and talk nonsense most of the time and never do any things good for the nation and people. This, I consider nothing but the raping of the country.

In the mean time, due to none democratic behavior and almost autocratic ruling of Nepali Congress (NC), which is fully responsible for the present bogus condition of the nation, the Maoist, who had even participated in the then election, started the insurgency and the 10 years of their insurgency period was the violent era in the history of the country. This violent era still needs a valid and non-biased evaluation to conclude whether such revolution was required or not.

Due to the rampant corruption in the country, useless and senseless politicians who were always busy in fighting with each other for power and never gave any importance to the country's requirements and development, the people of the country totally rejected them and started to hate them. For the monarchy this was golden opportunity, so the king took that opportunity and took power for the second time. This self-rule was supported by a large section of the people, not because they liked the king ruling but because they were tired of the corruption and constant power struggle fight of the then existing political parties.

The political parties started the demonstration against the kings rule and the so-called demonstration turned out to be laughing matter, as there was no support from the people and the leaders looked like clowns in a drama on a stage as they made their demonstration sitting in the Ratna park from 10 am to 5 pm like the office going bureaucrats. Once the leaders noticed they have no public support and having no other alternative than to bowed down to Maoist and accept the election of the Constitution assembly and a republic, which were the two main political demands of the Maoist. The demands which were opposed by the same politicians until they were kicked out of power by the then king Gyanendra and which were also completely rejected by the people. For their survival they had no choice than to accept the political demands of the Maoist and follow and support the struggle of Maoist and so they signed the peace accord in the India's capital, New Delhi.

In this context, any intellectual should ask the so-called leaders why they opposed the basic and appropriate demands of Maoist for 10 long years and forced the Maoist to take arms and country was put in to such a big trouble. In my opinion, the then leaders who ruled the country from 1991 and opposed the Maoist demands must explain to the people of Nepal, why they opposed the Maoist demands and accepted it only after being kick out by the king. In my opinion they are responsible for the killings of more than 16,000 innocent people during the Maoist insurgency. A powerful legal enquiry should take place and if they are found guilty, necessary legal actions should be taken against the jokers, who call themselves so-called political leaders.

The king’s action, as well as the people’s rejection left no other alternatives to the political parties but to support the Maoist. So, in the name of joint struggle, they had virtually followed the Maoist and sold all their ideology and political principles and made 190 degree turn in their political ideology, just for the power. In this whole universe we will not find any political organization, which will take such a sharp change in their ideology just for power and still not explain to the people why they changed their ideology in such a way. This only proves that these political parties are without any political ideology and will do any thing to be in power, so that they could loot the country' treasury and consider the people as their puppets. In my opinion, such volte- face behavior is nothing but raping the country politically.

After this, it was natural that due to Maoist participation, the then king was forced to accept the demands of the Maoist and forced to handover all the power to the political parties. After this what happened in the country was nothing but the acts of the Jokers fooling the people and looting the country and the fight for the power and stupidities. This was not only mockery of democracy but also total absence of the basic norms of the democracy in the political parties.
The Constitutional assembly election was undertaken by spending billions of rupees, which were just to fool the people and to be in power again and loot the nation, the political parties totally ignored the people's requirements and gave importance to the partisan's interests only and started to show all types of shameful activities in the name ruling the country but actually to fulfill their patrician and individual interests only.

Political parties and few of their puppets in the name of the Constitutional assembly (CA) election conducted such an election that cannot be considered the CA from any point of view. As far as my understanding goes, the CA is to write the Constitution for the country by its people for the people. But the political leaders were so selfish and power hungry, that they organized the CA in such a way that there are hardly few people's representative in the present so-called CA Assembly. More than half of its members are just the party representatives who were just selected by its leaders not based in their capacity, ability, and dedication to democracy or ideological commitment or qualification but on their loyalty to its main leaders. Other members are elected not on the basis of majority support from the people but based in outdated and completely unsuitable method of election known as first-past-the-post, due to which, baring few people like Babu Ram Bhattarai none have support of the majority of the people. I do not understand how such fellows who are rejected by the majority of the voters and are supported by hardly 20% voters only can represent the concerned constituency and can claim as the people's representatives in the CA. This is nothing but the intellectual bankruptcy. Could anyone explain how these party representatives can be called the people’s representative?

Finally, the election result showed the Maoists having the plurality of seats in the CA, but the then ruling NC took a long time to handover the power to the winner of the election they have held. This shows the total lack of democratic norms and when they were forced to hand over the power to Maoist, all types of machination was started and all parties, except the Maoist, insisted the first president of the country to be selected against the democratic norms, Constitution and ethics of democracy creating a power struggle between the elected PM and selected President (selected because he was co-opted by the party members only) without involvement of people of the country.

The act of the selected president in countermanding the order of the Maoist PM was not only undemocratic but also against the basic norms and principle of the democracy and a challenge to the people’s power. So this requires impeachment of the president, if we want to maintain democratic culture and preserve our hard earned democracy This autocratic act of the president undertaken on the written request of all political parties, against the Maoist clearly suggest that all political parties of our country are corrupt and do every things possible to garb power and are in politics just to loot the country’s treasury and that they even do not know what democracy is and who are the real people’s representatives. In this context, it must be consider a very wise, sincere and democratic step of Prachanda by resigning from the post of PM.

After this, what is happening in the country is neither ethical nor should have allowed to happen but simply because the CA was formed in a wrong way, this all was inevitable, as we cannot except to grow orange by planting the seed of the potato.

By allowing the same groups who rule the country also to write the Constitution, we are facilitating bad governance. If we except to get the good and ethical things in the country then it is our mistake in doing so, not the mistakes of the rulers as they are in politics just to loot the country. Imagine what will happen when you allow the group of thieves to make a law for the punishment to the thieves. What sort of laws can one expect to be made in such a situation? Similarly, what can we expect of the Constitution made by the corrupt members in the CA.

For months the CA is not functioning but the party representatives are getting their allowances and perks whether any work is done or not, if the CA was undertaken to elect people’s representatives rather than to select the party representatives, all the present troubles would have never come. It is intellectual bankruptcy to expect the present day politicians will write people’s Constitution for the people and to develop the country. Rather the Constitution if even written by present so-called members of CA will be for the political parties by the party representatives for looting the country's treasury and to fool the citizen of the Nepal. Do you not think it is just like raping the country to conduct the CA election in such a way where only the party members can be selected or elected and not a single representative of the people is elected? The political parties not only fooled the people saying the CA is for the people by the people and from the people but also by political machination did their best to be in power. Can any of the present day leaders logically explain that there is no difference between the party representative and people's representative? The two types of representatives carry lot of different responsibility and convey entirely different notion? I will not be surprised if the present so-called members of CA make such a Constitution which say that all party representatives are also people representative and should get the allowances and other perks and similarly whether they loose or win, get 2 % vote or more than 50% vote can be consider as confide member of assembly and should get all the allowances and perks of the assembly, all ex-PMs should get a house with all facilities made from the country's treasury (as was done for K P Bhattarai), all parties should get money from the treasury for running the parties and huge amount as an election fund and no corruption charges can be made against all politicians and they can loot few trucks of money from the Rastra Bank every year, and will get free ride to any kind of government owned transportation and can rape any women of the country etc. In my opinion, the Constitution if made by the present party representatives will be no better than that.

Neither do I consider any such fellow who has not received more than 50% of the votes, as people's representative nor do I consider it will be democratic to accept the present day election procedures. If we want to save our hard earned democracy there must be clear distinction between the people representatives and party representatives and in my personal opinion, to accept any party representatives as people representatives without getting more than 50% of vote is nothing but intellectual bankruptcy and from democratic point of view, such is raping the country.

I feel a sense of shame to name the present PM, the fellow who had been rejected by the people from not only one constituency but from two constituencies to have been co-opted by the party leaders and made a members of CA on the basis of bargaining. And how stupid this is for the intellectual groups of the country to accept him as PM of the country. From the point of view of democracy, to select such person, as PM of the country just for the party interest is nothing but day light raping of the country. If you can drag any body in the CA and can select such person who has lost election in two constituencies, just by bargaining among the political parties, what the hell you can expect from such crooks to be done in the interest of the country? So why waste billions of Rs from country’s treasury in the name of election when the election has no meaning and even the looser can be PM of the country. Is not all such activities daylight raping of the country? Who will save my lovely country from the hands of such crooks and how this will be done and when this will happen other than by the people themselves.

Looking Past the Moment of Truth

Dear Nepali Perspectives, I had written what is below in response to an article that came out on Republica.  I may have written someth...