Will the Real Prachanda Stand Up?

(Courtesy: Dr. Thomas A. Marks)

Just what goes on in the mind of Pushpa Kamal Dahal? His Maoists have lost the reigns of power through their own refusal to foster reconciliation. Yet no sooner has his custom-made (Rs. 110,000) bed been moved out of the Baluwater official residence, than “Fierce One” claims that democratic process is “counterrevolution.”

For good measure, he throws in that the goal of the new leadership is to restore the monarchy, which would seem laughable were it not accompanied by the orders for the YCL storm troopers to take to the streets.

Is this method or madness? Is Robin Just a Hood?

Where to look for answzers? It seems we have but a single book to which we can turn.

In bringing out a biography of “the valiant one” – as per the author, Indian journalist Anirban Roy; “fierce one” as per the most common rendering in Nepal – Mandala Book Point has performed a service. As the only successful communist effort to seize power since the end of the Cold War, the Maoists and their leader require study.

Unfortunately, for anyone interested in something more than various personal details, “the revolutionary” will remain “unknown.” Roy’s book touches upon little of substance and thus leaves us with less than can be gained by reading the often accurate, insightful, and increasingly caustic assessments in the Nepali daily media.

If there is one subject which must be the essence of any book on an insurgent leader, it is the relationship between the leadership and the manpower of the movement. Not only is this critical for understanding the course of the CPN(M)’s people’s war, but also for understanding now the inability of Prachanda’s Maoist-led, pseudo-coalition government to produce little beyond chaos, declining livelihood, and intimidation.

Many have argued – certainly it seems to be the opinion of Roy and a fraction of the Indian foreign policy establishment – that Prachanda is “really” a larger than life version of Robin Hood who has sought only to address the myriad economic, social, and political grievances (as well as hopes and aspirations) of the marginalized Nepali masses. This “moral economy of the peasants” version simply does not consider the obvious: what if Robin is just a Hood?

For the central question of the nasty decade of Maoist insurgency in Nepal has been whether the dog wagged his tail or vice versa. How much that occurred – and it was a bloody decade between 1996 and 2006, with the dead augmented an order of magnitude by mutilations, disappearances, and the like – was planned or simply the result of being astute enough to exploit events as they were carried out autonomously or semi-autonomously by others?

What seems clear is that a fairly typical (in Nepali terms) party structure, the CPN(M), led by marginalized elites (the principal figures among whom, like Prachanda, were Brahmins), achieved traction through linkage with dissatisfied tribal formations, particularly Maggars (who appear historically to have provided a plurality of those recruited to the British Gurkhas). This was not unlike what occurred in the Hmong areas of the north during the unsuccessful effort of the Communist Party of Thailand (CPT) or in the northern Luzon homelands of the Igorots during the 1980s heyday of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP).

There, the leadership was Maoist, the manpower grievance guerrillas. Whether the CPT or CPP actually exercised command and control over the tribal formations remains unclear, as it does in the CPN(M) case.

How the Maoists Wages War

In Nepal, the tribal formations appear to have been the heart of the main forces, Maoist battalions, just as the so-called “Secret Army” of the US in Laos was built upon Hmong alienated by North Vietnamese and Pathet Lao abuse. The Maoist battalions were in essence copies of the Indian Gurkha establishment (no surprise given the prominence in Maoist training of ex-figures from that establishment, which presently numbers more than 40 battalions). They were mixed gender, had good discipline, and fought effectively using standard though innovative tactical doctrine.

These forces, however, were a distinct minority amidst the violence that swept across Nepal. They were linked to the numerous local wars that raged in Nepal’s localities – theoretically, in the 3,913 Village Development Committees (VDCs, counties in Western terminology). It was at this local level that the atrocities largely took place.

Efforts to place the onus of human rights abuses on government forces do not hold up well, since they essentially sidestep the massive level of assault and maiming, not to mention destruction of infrastructure, that was carried out by Maoist local forces. Even as this debate has continued, what has not been touched – certainly not in Roy’s volume – is the connection between such local agency and Maoist central structures.

How much was ordered versus simply exploited?

The CPN(M) leadership throughout has claimed absolute control over the organization – except when it comes to owning up to widespread depredation. To the contrary, the Maoists continue to fall back upon denying that which is undeniable. They simply do not acknowledge that their movement wreaked havoc upon the country.

Yet the only defence is to claim that the main forces were the movement, and the rest occurred as commission by loosely affiliated fellow-travellers. This, of course, means they did not actually carry out the insurgency.

This is far from an idle issue, since lawlessness continues under the official umbrella of the Young Communist League (YCL; reflagged but the same organization), storm troopers drawn from the lumpen ranks but officered by the same Maoist chain-of-command that ran the main forces. As a consequence, the demoralized police, unable to act due to continuous political intervention, have been displaced by armed gangs linked to the major political parties.

It matters very much, too, as illustrated by “Prachandagate.” It is not that UNMIN “miscounted.” It is that the inspectors did not know what to count.

The Maoists packed both local and main forces into the camps, plus thousands of brand new recruits. In any Maoist structure, main forces (the battalions) are the tip of the iceberg. Most “combatants” are local forces, largely unarmed with high-powered firearms.

It is similar to the structure of any state security forces. In Nepal, the bulk of the armed representatives of the government are not in the army but in other forces, such as the police.

Hence – as Prachanda himself said in his defence – most of those in the camps were indeed “combatants” of sorts but not the “real guerrillas” that the world was hoodwinked into thinking it was counting. Further, while it could count weapons turned in, it had no way of knowing what was not turned in – and some of the best and most powerful pieces did not appear in the UNMIN inventories.

It has already been noted by one and all what happened next. The camps were used to expand the actual main forces (with the Maoists allowed to retain a proportion of their weapons), while the chain-of-command stood up new local forces – the YCL.

What, then, do the Maoists have in mind for the future of Nepal? Prachanda speaks constantly of the need to displace parliamentary democracy in favor of a people’s republic (though, as with the actual name of the CPN(M), a new formulation has lately been advanced).

Key elements in the Maoist leadership urge an outright power grab. Prachanda and his faction appear to feel that such would provoke, at best, isolation (not least from dominant India), at worst, external intervention (again, India is a prime candidate). Therefore, they urge caution, noting that the same end can be achieved without provocative action.

The Maoists themselves are rent by factionalism, with some truly odious characters not only urging but openly leading violent acts even as Prachanda consuls…what? As noted accurately in Nepali media, “Fierce One” seems all but schizophrenic in his shifts between conciliatory rhetoric and threats of vengeance to be visited upon any who seek to thwart the grandiose schemes of him or his party.

Revolution in the Revolution

Any student of the Nepali insurgency would have asked that such issues as discussed here be placed at the heart of a biography of Prachanda. Regrettably, they are not even raised much less addressed.

From knowledge, though, comes the ability to act. Would be that there had been an understanding of the basics of Maoist military structure. Key issues which remain for exploration by the media and academia:

• First, a discussion of the strategic thought of the Maoists is needed, especially of the factionalism that led to the fierce debates that occurred within the leadership ranks during the struggle. These offer the Rosetta Stone to Prachanda’s present conduct (and that of his faction).
• Second, how was operational advance during “the war” related to the individual positions of the Maoist leadership, especially Prachanda (who, judging from Nepali cell phone intercepts, spent much of the decade not in the theatre of operations but India)?
• Third, what were the actual mechanics whereby this advance was achieved? How, for example, did the urban commandos function in the Kathmandu Valley? Who gave the orders to kill those who were murdered and left hanging on poles throughout the country?
• Fourth, given the way events have been developing as concerns New Delhi, what was the relationship of Prachanda and his leadership to India? What was the agreement both thought they had reached? After all, it not only did not arrest him (Nepali security forces did provide to the Indians his whereabouts) but ultimately intervened decisively in favor of the insurgents.
• Fifth, what was the role played by fellow-travellers (both domestic and international) in the Maoist effort? At no time did Prachanda or the Maoists exist as isolated actors. They interacted with numerous Nepali political parties and individuals (e.g., elements of the press and the human rights establishment), as well as numerous foreign actors, official (e.g., certain embassies) and unofficial (e.g., certain INGOs). What was the end-game being pursued by these forces and how did it influence the conflict? Was Prachanda central or marginal to these activities?
• Sixth, how do the party factions relate to the present chaos and unwillingness of the Maoist movement to engage in good-faith reconciliation? To what extent is Prachanda a prisoner of the local forces that swept him to power or a shrewd politician playing the ends against the middle?
  

End-Game

Certainly the author pegs him as the latter, though no disinterested observer would accept this position without a great deal of scepticism. Put bluntly, as stated above in slightly different terms: what does “the unknown revolutionary” really believe?

Regrettably, no answers to these and other questions are to be found in the book. What we do know from readily available sources is not encouraging.

Power is the end-game for Prachanda and the Maoists. All they do revolves around that one goal.

Power can be gained “peacefully” – by which the Maoists mean the system surrenders to them and their plans for societal dismemberment. Or it can be achieved violently – what the Maoists are preparing to do with their street thugs (they have announced it).

If Roy’s book provides no answers, there are thousands (literally) which do. Pick up any volume on the rise of Fascism between the great wars. There, a reader will find spelled out chapter and verse what is unfolding in Nepal. Only the name of the storm-troopers has changed to protect the guilty.

New Rules, Same Game

(Courtesy: Dr. Hari Bansha Dulal)

It did not take even three years for Nepali politicians, with their “business as usual,” under the table, tit-for-tat mentality, to get back to their infamous ways of mid-1990s. Once again, horse-trading of parliamentarians and backstabbing of fellow party men to grab and remain in power is back in vogue. Rules may have changed but the game remains the same.

The irony of Nepali politics is that the party which won the largest share of votes in the last election does not believe in multi-party democracy and the party – Nepali Congress (NC) – which calls itself the torchbearer of democracy and is the second-largest party in the parliament is the least democratic in its practices. By nominating Sujata Koirala, who is not even a member of the current parliament, to lead Nepali Congress (NC) in the new government, Girija Prasad Koirala (GPK) has put even the worst dictator to shame. As long as GPK is alive, it appears that the scourge of nepotism will never leave NC. Now, we all know what “democracy in peril” talk of GPK during the Maoist rule was all about, don’t we?

If we look around, it becomes pretty clear that dirty politics of yesteryears is here to stay with us as long as the likes of GPK are around. This is probably going to be the last chance to weaken the Maoists, who are hell bent on annihilating the multi-party democratic set-up, but looking at GPK’s actions it becomes clear that he is least interested in securing the liberty and freedom of people and more interested in establishing his controversial daughter with zero political acumen in politics. If democracy is all about the likes of Sujata becoming a minister, then people of Nepal will soon back the Maoists for whatever they stand for. For the poorest of poor, whatever the Maoists will have to offer will still be far better than what the likes of Sujata will offer anyways.

The new prime minister, who actually lost the CA elections to a junior Maoist politician, is here to solve the problem with Sujata as a minister and Kul Bahadur Khadka as the security advisor. Trying to consolidate democracy with the assistance of people like these is like banking on Osama Bin Laden to destroy Al Qaeda. Sujata should have faced disciplinary action and Khadka should have been court-martialed for his treacherous act. Rewarding them is the biggest sham in the country today in the name of democracy. With Sujata as a cabinet minister and Khadka as a possible national security adviser, do the Maoists need a mole in the government?

Madhav Kumar Nepal (MKN), with liabilities like Sujata on board and his flip-flopping past, does not come across as someone who can actually solve the problems that confronts the nation. Hiring the right people to do the job is the most important indicator of whether or not the job at hand will be successfully done. Even though it is NC’s prerogative to choose the members it likes to have in the cabinet, it was MKN’s responsibility to ensure that his cabinet members are competent, non-controversial and relatively clean so that people have faith on their ability to deliver in this troubling time. By caving in to GPK’s irresponsible and morally-repugnant act of nominating his daughter as a leader of the NC in the new cabinet, MKN has actually shown that he is ready to compromise his principles and stoop as low as possible to remain in power. If you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

MKN may try to please everyone from GPK to Pushpa Kamal Dahal (PKD) by nominating Sujata and Khadka to increase the longevity of his tenure but by walking in the middle-of-the road, he has tremendously increased the possibility of getting run over by traffic coming in from the opposite direction.

At this point in time, Nepali people are not asking for much. They would be happy if he could just provide them an opportunity to live in peace. Asking for employment, social safety nets and access to healthcare services, which is by and large the government’s responsibility, would be like expecting a mule to give birth to a calf for us to worship during the upcoming “Laxmi Pooja”. So, no point raising our expectations. If politicians’ words were to be taken seriously, we would already have been like Switzerland long time ago.

On contrary, the politics of social mobilization, which the political parties carried out recklessly has surpassed institutional capacity and has dangerously destabilized the country. Maintaining a certain degree of law and order alone will be a great challenge for MKN as violators of law and order have enough cards at their disposal to play, when busted. Ethnicity, caste and class are the few cards that will remain potent to justify innocence till the government ensures inclusion of the people that have been bypassed by the political elites for decades. Providing cabinet berths to a few people from ethnic and indigenous groups is not the answer. Make everyone equal.

In order to empower people, one does not have to be a rebel. Abraham Lincoln, who abolished slavery, was not a rebel. Was he? Actually people who have been a rebel have fared far worse when it comes to empowering people. Our very own PKD did everything to extract political support from ethnic minorities but when it came to empowering them, he followed in GPK’s footsteps and nominated a couple of people from selected ethnic groups to show that he was sympathetic towards minorities’ rights.

MKN has a chance of a lifetime. His pragmatic actions, which may not be popular at times – and does not have to be – can whitewash his “flip-flopping” past. But, at the same time, if he is unable to come out of the spell of the likes of GPK and PKD and deliver, he will prove that he is just another goofball always ready to compromise on principles and stoop low to remain in the corridors of power.

(This writing was originally published here. It has been reproduced on NepaliPerspectives with the Author's consent)

MAOIST INSURGENCY: RETURN OF THE NIGHTMARE

(Courtesy: Dr. Thomas A. Marks)

(Originally published in "India and Global Affairs [New Delhi], Apr-Jun 09," re-posted here with the Author's consent).

Dr. Thomas A. Marks is a political risk consultant based in Honolulu, Hawaii, who has authored a number of benchmark works on Maoist insurgency, to include his recent Maoist People’s War in Post-Vietnam Asia.

Maoist insurgency is back. People’s war, once thought to have ended with the Cold War, is alive and well in South Asia. Large parts of India are effectively “no-go” areas. Bangladeshi officers cite Maoism as a greater threat than violent radical Islamists. Sri Lanka, having twice decimated the Maoist JVP at considerable human cost, now has them in the ruling coalition, where their often-bizarre positions are a faithful replication of India’s own legal Maoist spectrum. And to the north, what was the world’s only official Hindu kingdom finds itself now ruled by a party which yet begins its meetings before pictures of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao (Nepalis all, cynics note).

Ironically, New Delhi can look to its own intervention for the Maoist victory in Nepal. It was South Bloc which gave heed to the legal left and, in return for the swing votes which allowed Congress to cling to power, effectively ceded control of Nepali policy to the Indian Marxists. The shift brought on by Marxist opposition to the nuclear pact with the US came too late to save Kathmandu, and the country is now a failed state, posing a far greater security threat than ever it did when it was convulsed by war.

Ironically, too, Maoist growth in the Subcontinent continues even as the last real threat elsewhere, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), has been decimated and driven into a survival posture. Marxist but not Maoist, FARC nevertheless used a potent version of people’s war as its revolutionary doctrine. Copied from a combination of FMLN (El Salvador) and Vietnamese manuals, it was only national mobilization under President Alvaro Uribe (2002-present) which reversed the tide.

Why this stunning reality in South Asia? Why now?

Brave New World

The answer to the first query is that South Asia has long had the perfect conditions for Maoist upheaval. To the second, that the age of globalism has exacerbated many of these conditions.

Indeed, it can be argued that the present global situation is “the perfect storm,” combining as it does elements of two past eras of carnage. The first was the profound, irrevocable upheaval of the Industrial Revolution, which gave Europe the so-called “Age of Revolution” and the first age of terrorism. The second was the economic, social, and political despair of the interim between the world wars, which produced the twin nightmares of Stalinism and Fascism and their stupefying cost to humanity.

That terrorism has returned to lash out against the Brave New World of globalism hardly needs mention. It only needs emphasis how sterile is the approach that seeks to gather individual characteristics of those who, say, blow themselves up and then generalizes to the whole. Quite the contrary, it is the context, married to organizational acumen and finesse, that taps individual particulars. Nowhere is this more evident than in the violent radical Islamist organizations, such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

It is the violent radical Islamists who are the modern manifestation of fascism (termed by some, Islamofascists), complete with an anti-Semitism that would make the early Hitler of Mein Kampf appear somehow inadequate in his virulence. It is the Maoists who are heirs to Stalinism. Indeed, South Asian communism is distinguished by its continued domination by the thought of one of history’s most loathsome figures, Stalin.

In “globalism,” what was often local is now all but invariably international. Eras of profound change produce winners and losers. Mao emerged from the death of the Chinese imperial system and the clash between two alternative views of its successor, the Republic of the Kuomintang (KMT) and the “People’s Republic” of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). By exploiting everything from economic-social-political dislocation to Japanese invasion, he was able to build a challenge capable in the end of seizing the world’s most populous country.

Inspired, self-proclaimed Maoist insurgencies emerged in the likes of Malaya, Thailand, the Philippines, Burma, Cambodia, India, Sri Lanka, Peru, and ultimately Nepal. Even communist but non-Maoist insurgencies recognized the efficacy of people’s war as strategy, and potent versions were seen in Vietnam, Laos, El Salvador, and Colombia. More often than not, linkages were established between the theaters of conflict, with China often directly involved in assisting its ideological partners.

For a time after the end of the Cold War, Maoism seemed a past nightmare. Globalism and the spectacular growth of challenges to the nation-state ensured that the heyday of people’s war was recreated in South Asia. Pronounced economic-social-political imperfections ensured that the 21st Century would see a new age of Maoist bloodshed, with ideologically inspired leaders mobilizing the alienated masses.

Nature of the Challenge

Maoism as a goal seeks to reorder society in a quest for social justice. There is no template as to how this reordering is to take place, except that it is to be Marxist-Leninist (communist). Theoretically a transitional dictatorship guiding socialism to achieve communal ownership of the means of production, in reality it has led only to would-be totalitarianism and attendant human carnage. Even China, where Mao Tse-tung invented the particular politico-military approach that is people’s war, has turned its back on “Maoist” ideology, which produced a tragedy conservatively estimated to have cost 80 million lives.

This is irrelevant to Maoists elsewhere. Arising in terribly flawed states such as Peru or Cambodia, Maoist insurgents seek a way out of the structural abyss by championing a triumph of the will.

Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso) saw the “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution” of 1967-76 as a model for its future Peru. China saw it as a self-inflicted disaster that cost the lives of millions. The Khmer Rouge saw in their own “Year Zero” approach the Cambodian version of Mao’s “Great Leap Forward,” which latest research convincingly demonstrates to have cost between 30 and 50 million lives. In Cambodia, between one-fifth and one-third of the population perished.

Whatever the lack of a realistic goal, the means to achieve the end is manpower, mobilizing the masses in order to overwhelm the foe. The way, linking means to goal, is the strategy of people’s war. The mobilized masses are organized into a new state, a “counter-state,” to challenge the existing state.

In this mobilization, “all politics is local.” Leaders, normally drawn from marginalized elites – divorced either objectively or subjectively (in the mind) – look at the imperfections of the state and advance Maoism as the solution. Specifics need not be spelled out, since utopia is sufficient inspiration for followers, who seek redress of immediate grievances (as well as reinforcement of hopes and aspirations).

Any people’s war, then, is in reality myriad local wars, with “Maoism” serving only as the driver for leadership and committed cadres. Indoctrination of the so-called “grievance guerrillas” gives the effort greater cohesion.

Role of Violence

People’s war is a strategy for armed politics. The mistake is to think it is merely “war,” by which we normally mean action between armed forces. To the contrary, people’s war is very much like any electoral campaign – except violence ensures “the cards favor.”

Significantly, rebels such as the Maoists claim they are merely doing what the state itself has been doing all along. They assert there never has been “non-violent politics.” Rather, echoing Lenin, they label democratic politics practiced by the “old-order” but a façade for oppression. This oppression is carried out using the violence of the state through its armed component, the security forces, as well as the “structural violence” of poverty and injustice.

Thus the Maoists see themselves as engaged in a struggle for liberation, of self-defense even. Such a struggle will proceed along different but orchestrated lines of effort. Use of violence is but one line of effort. Within that line of effort, there are varied forms of violence, from assassinations to main force attacks – the large actions that seek to battle units of the armed forces on even terms.

Each type of violence – terror, guerrilla warfare, main force warfare, war of position (i.e., liberated areas) – may be thought of as a campaign, comprised of numerous discrete acts separate in time and space yet connected in a unity of action designed to achieve a goal. We can speak, for instance, of the campaign of terror that the Maoists use to eliminate all who oppose them in local areas, whether individuals or police. Who can forget those famous photos of the mutilated individuals in Nepal, especially teachers, their limbs hacked, their bodies hanging from poles?

Yet such terror occurs for a reason: to clear the space for political action, to eliminate competitors. This is why legal political activists are normally particular targets. They compete to mobilize the same target audience as the Maoists. Such rivals must be driven out so that the Maoist cadres have uncontested access to the masses. This clears the way for insurgent political mobilization.

Of course, such methods are anathema, even as certain portions of the party platform are attractive. It is for this reason that the Maoists sponsor a multitude of front organizations, the wide variety, for instance, of ethnic and community rights organizations one sees from the Philippines to Nepal to India. On the surface, they are not Maoist, but in reality fronts are controlled by the Maoists. Student, labor, and human rights organizations are normally prominent in this respect.

Such control need not be direct. Fronts can present themselves as independent, even as they are being used to enhance Maoist strength. Lenin called those who unwittingly join such fronts, thinking they are acting on their own, “useful idiots.”

Even as this goes on inside the country, the Maoists work outside. States tend to focus upon the tangible links. Much more important is the information campaign of the insurgents, designed to present their movement as almost benign. As states make mistakes, such as seen in instances of indiscipline when military units are deployed, these are exploited to claim the state itself is the problem, terror as but a natural, defensive component of the solution.

For a Maoist movement, the goal is always power. They must have power, because their goal is to refashion society. They are not seeking reintegration. That would be to accept the structure that exists and to play by that structure’s rules.

Quite vocally, they reject the legitimacy of that structure and its rules. That is why they are adamant that there must be a remaking of society.

Have they worked out the details of what this new society will look like? Of course not. That is the beauty of being the political challenger. Today’s realities can be opposed with tomorrow’s promises.

This is what politicians always do, even those who run “on my record.” The danger of left-wing ideologues, such as the Maoists, is that their worldview dramatically constrains their view of possibilities.

They tend to think of fantasies, such as “self-reliance” and “independence,” as ends that can be achieved if only “will” is harnessed. It was just such fantasies, implemented through violence, that gave us the astonishing crimes of the past century – crimes, it must be noted, the Maoists deny occurred.

India’s Need for Enhanced Approach

India’s approach to the Maoists in South Asia, whether internal or elsewhere, has been consistently misguided, improperly inspired and organized, and wholly tactical.

Internally, there has been a failure to take the threat seriously. The conceptualization of the Maoists as having a military and a political wing quite misses the reality of an armed political party advancing on five lines of effort – political (mass mobilization), allies (creating fronts), violence (of various types, not all present but interlocking when such is the case), political warfare (using nonviolent actions, such as subversion, to make violence more effective), and international (which can be decisive).

The inability or unwillingness of the center to coordinate an inter-state response allows the unified Maoist challenge to play the seams between state forces. Such assistance as New Delhi has provided has been tactical. Calling an individual and small unit tactical center for police “counterinsurgency training” highlights the point. Counterinsurgency is a strategic category. There are no “counterinsurgency tactics,” only tactics applied appropriately in support of correct strategy and operational art.

Externally, India has erred in thinking the Maoists are but a version of the Northeast ethnic insurgents and thus can be “bought.” Nepal offers the best example to the contrary.

There, the Maoists first used the monarchy as their foil, as a surrogate for what they claimed was its role in the old-order. If the “feudal monarchy” is swept away, they endlessly repeated, all would be right with Nepal. In this, they certainly were assisted by the tragic circumstances which placed the then-incumbent, Gyanendra, on the throne. Similarly, they were assisted by his mistakes in maneuvering through the maze of Nepali politics.

A number of elements figured into their calculations. First, as the hegemonic power in an unstable subcontinent, India wanted restoration of order. This was necessary for precisely the reasons stability is desired in Sri Lanka. Disorder produces refugees, unleashes intra-Indian passions, transfers elements of the conflict to Indian soil, and sucks New Delhi into foreign policy nastiness. Second, having opted for order, India played a hand well known to its smaller neighbors: intervention. The only question was how to intervene.

Here, there are several schools of thought. My past work in Sri Lanka has led to my being less than charitable as to Indian motives. In the Sri Lankan case, New Delhi was into everything from supporting terrorism to running covert ops in a friendly, neighboring democracy. Only when the Frankenstein it helped to create, LTTE, turned on its former benefactor did logic and morality reassert themselves in New Delhi’s policy.

In this case, in Nepal, it is perhaps too early to speak in such terms. What we know at the moment is that is that the weak position of the coalition government in New Delhi, combined with its normal “Great Game” psychology and the eagerness of certain Indian personalities, especially on the left, to expand their own role and spheres of involvement, led to a policy shift that supported SPAM (the Seven Party Alliance and the Maoists).

It was disappointing and tragic that the SPA and the Palace could not have a meeting of minds. Parliamentary democracy should have been the ultimate bulwark against the Maoist challenge, but the very nature of Nepali parliamentary democracy, with its corruption and ineptitude, led to its marginalization. The increasingly bitter split between SPA and the king became all but inevitable in such circumstances, but personalities also played a central role, as they do in all that occurs in Nepal.

It seems equally clear that India, as it did previously in Sri Lanka, went into the present endeavor quite misinformed by its alleged experts, not to mention its intelligence organs, and that it was ignorant as to the actual nature of the Maoists – no matter the efforts of those same personalities just mentioned to claim how wise, thoughtful, and caring Prachanda and other members of the Maoists leadership were.

In once again misreading the situation in a neighboring state, India now seeks a “soft landing.” To get one, New Delhi’s strategy has been to facilitate in Nepal creation of a “West Bengal” or a “Kerala” – states where the tamed Indian left challenges and even rules (sometimes, in the case of the latter), where it continues with its nasty verbiage and bizarre worldview, but where it must respond to the realities of power and hence stay within the lanes on the national political highway.

What New Delhi has overlooked is that such realities occur in India only because of the capacity of the national state to force compliance. Subtract the Indian military, paramilitary, and police forces from the equation, and India would be anarchy. Not surprisingly, that is the very term being used by many to describe the situation in Nepal.
This has its own implications for India’s security and for its struggle against the growing strength of the Indian Maoists. What Nepal itself is facing is the “state within a state” as seen in Palestine with Hamas and Lebanon with Hezbollah. Whether events play themselves out as we are seeing even now in the Middle East depends quite upon what the Maoists are actually up to.

Hamas and Hezbollah have behaved as the Nepali Maoists seem determined to behave, to participate in “the system” only to use it for their own ends. Those “ends,” obviously, have now made life even worse for the population.

The Way Ahead

What Nepal as a state never understood was that it faced an armed political campaign. This means – a lesson for India -- that democracy, no matter how messy, accompanied by good governance and transparency, should be at the heart of any response to the Maoists, with the security forces providing the shield.

Nepali parliamentary democracy proved incapable of using mobilization of democratic capacity to defend itself. It did not do what the Thai, the Filipinos, the Peruvians, and the Sri Lankans (against the JVP, twice) did to defeat their Maoists. They brought reform to imperfect systems and made them better. They remain imperfect, but so are all systems. And they are not the vicious, man-eating systems as desired by the left-wing, of which the Maoists are the premier representatives.

It should be obvious that the claim that there is “no military solution” to insurgency is simply a canard. Armed capacity enables the campaign of reform, because armed capacity is what enables the challenge to the old-order.

In circumstances such as India (or Nepal earlier), security forces are not committed simply to defend the status quo. They must be committed to defend transformation. That transformation, though, must look rather more like what can be seen in India as it advances toward economic, social, and political modernity – and a lot less like Mao’s China.

Murari Raj Sharma - A Relic of the “Old Nepal”

(Courtesy: Kaila Baje)

In an interview entitled “Foreign Minister Yadav has Violated all Diplomatic Protocols,” EX-Nepali Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Murari Raj Sharma, makes an impassioned appeal to his readership by spewing all sorts of nonsensical logic on how he has been victimized. The following writing will categorically nullify each of Sharma’s allegations and will go further to demonstrate why Sharma’s false sense of entitlement, his bahunist hubris, and his familial ties to Girija Prasad Koirala, easily justify Foreign Minister Upendra Yadav’s actions.

First off all, this is the “New Nepal.” There is no space here for the type of shenanigans that sustained the feudal/nepotistic structures of the “Old Nepal.” In other words, Murari Raj Sharma’s blood relations to Girija Prasad Koirala no longer holds the type of political currency it once did. As a political appointee of the FORMER Prime Minister of Nepal, it is only befitting that Murari Raj Sharma, like his cohort of political appointees, also become a FORMER Ambassador.

As his first act as Ambassador, the FORMER appointee to the United States of America (Dr. Suresh Raj Chalise), is rumored to have replaced pictures of FORMER King Gyanendra with those of Girija Prasad Koirala. No, not in his private bedroom, or even the Ambassador’s residence, but in the Nepali Embassy in Washington DC. Chalise is on record, touring various think-tanks in the American capital, extolling the virtues of the Nepali Congress and how this party was responsible for ending Nepal’s civil war by “mainstreaming” the Maoists. As expected, Chalise did was he was sent to do - represent Nepal’s interests and in the process, uplift his political party’s international standing.

Even more could be expected of Murari Raj Sharma. This is why it made perfect sense for Nepal’s new government to rescind Sharma’s appointment because Sharma was scheduled to interact with high level British dignitaries. By doing so, Nepal’s Foreign Minister did quite the opposite of “disrespecting” British dignitaries. Instead, he made a calculated move to thwart a disinformation campaign by Murari Raj Sharma which was certain to have dwelled far less on Nepal’s national interests and much more on Sharma’s personal interests - propagating the falsehood of Nepal’s democracy as contingent on the auspices of Girija Prasad Koirala and his Nepali Congress.

Second, Murari Raj Sharma’s unfounded sense of entitlement is pasted all over his interview. Vetting process or not, Sharma was a political appointee of an era long past when the process of vetting was dominated by members of Sharma’s own political allegiance - the Nepali Congress. Sharma’s past claims of having “fought for democracy” in Nepal are preposterous distortions of the truth for his struggle centered squarely around securing his own future, then his Party’s and had little if anything to do with Nepal.

Further, one can hardly term the Sharma’s actions as those of a democrat when he is seen in open defiance of a democratically established Foreign Minister. What gives Sharma the right to question the verdict of a system that he supposedly helped create?

The other disturbing attribute of Sharma’s rant revolves around his rent-seeking behavior. For some pathetic reason, Sharma seems to think that the services he purportedly rendered in the name of restoring Nepal’s democracy, earned him the right to become an Ambassador. What chicanery! If Sharma’s logic were to hold true, there are thousands of Nepalis who deserve Ambassadorships before Sharma’s candidacy should even be considered as a back-up to a third-rate list.

In reality, Sharma’s sense of false entitlement is nothing more than a remnant of past feudal structures that once prevailed in Nepal. Aiding the process of Nepal’s transformation to a modern nation-state necessarily implies wiping the slate clean of such feudalist tendencies. Foreign Minister Upendra Yadav has done Nepali a favor by clearly signaling a departure in Nepal’s foreign affairs, from the rent-seeking characteristics of Murari Raj Sharma.

Also, Consider that Sharma used to be one of the closest confidants of Panchayati Prime Minister Marich Man Singh. After 1990, Sharma became a key figure in Nepal’s Customs Department, then a Foreign Secretary, Nepal’s Ambassador to the United Nations and finally, Nepal’s Ambassador to the United Kingdom. A product of hard work? Perhaps. A fortunate recipient of divine intervention? Could be. An offspring of the culture of sycophancy that continues to pervade the Nepali Congress’s internal “democratic” structure? Now we’re talking!

If Murari Raj Sharma had anything on his mind other than himself, if he had even a drop of diplomatic blood running through his veins, Sharma, like his cohorts, would have left his duty station in November of 2008. His excuse of personal embarrassment at having to cancel appointments with British dignitaries pales in comparison to the national embarrassment he has created for the Nepali nation-state.

Speaking of diplomatic norms and precedents, Murari Raj Sharma’s shameless public mud-slinging conveniently erases his own record of defying such norms. It was certainly not diplomatic of Sharma to continue abusing Nepali tax payers’ funds when he refused to vacate the Ambassador’s residence in New York - after he had been relieved of his duties as Nepali Ambassador to the UN. Double-dipping in the Nepali Government’s and the UN’s coffers was a brazen breach of conduct in 2003. Refusing to vacate the Nepali Embassy’s premises in London is just as egregious a crime, in 2008/2009.

If Sharma truly believes that the termination of his appointment has breached legal precedents, he, like all Nepali citizens, is welcome to challenge Upendra Yadav’s decision in a Nepali court. As a self-proclaimed democrat of democrats, Sharma of all people should demonstrate confidence in the rule of law; he should be equally prepared to face the consequences of his insubordination should he be found guilty of breaching the norms he accuses Foreign Minister Upendra Yadav of breaching.

Further, the allegations that Murari Raj Sharma has launched against B. P. Yadav (another democratically established leader in Nepali politics) are serious. Should Sharma have proof to back up his allegations, he is welcome to present his case before a Nepali court of law. Yet, such thinking appears alien to a disenfranchised sycophant who appears more concerned with creating controversy for the Nepali government (on behalf of his lord Koirala and Lady Sujata), than serving the interests of the Nepali people.

On a human level, the personal challenges Murari Sharma currently faces (his child’s education and his wife’s medical treatment), inspire sympathy. On a professional and democratic level, Sharma’s refusal to vacate the Nepali Embassy’s premises in London, and take leave to tend to his personal matters, are appalling! Is there anything democratic about Nepali tax payers subsidizing Sharma’s personal expenses?

There are reasons why the Nepali Congress is in demise and reasons why the Maoists, despite their stated objective of establishing a one-party communist republic, increasingly present the best of the worst alternatives for ordinary Nepalis. Characters like Murari Raj Sharma represent “glowing” examples of the increasing disenchantment that Nepali people feel, when it comes to the Nepali Congress. The Murari’s of our time are the epitome of why a democratic culture continues to evade Nepal. Emerging leaders in the Nepali Congress would do well to distance themselves from the likes of Murari Raj Sharma and the distasteful, double-standards his generation of politicians represent.

Foreign Minister Upendra Yadav had every right to terminate Murari Raj Sharma’s appointment. Moreover, given the ethnic dimensions to Sharma’s outburst (and the breach in protocol embodied by Sharma’s letter to a fellow bahun, Pushpa Kamal Dahal), Minister Yadav has even more reason to assert his democratically bestowed position by insisting that Sharma vacate the Nepal government’s property, immediately.

Political Problems Don’t Have Military Solutions

(Courtesy: Comrade Libre)

There are certain forces, internal and external to Nepal, that are engaged in goading the NA (Nepali Army) into controversy. For the good of the military institution, the well-being of our men and women in uniform, and for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Nepal, the NA must continue resisting all forms of political instigation. The Army must continue its journey down a politically independent path, with service to the Nepali nation-state (and her people), as the institution’s ultimate objective.

UNMIN Exposed - Why the controversy now?

First and foremost, blame for the controversy over the NA’s bid to fill vacant spots, lies squarely in the United Nation’s corner. The monitoring of arms and armies is the cornerstone of the UNMIN’s mandate in Nepal - a mandate that apparently, the UNMIN failed to execute on two prior occasions when the NA filled vacation positions, without fanfare or controversy.

Both previous recruitment drives were advertised, were identical in process to the current drive, and were held after the signing of the CPA (Comprehensive Peace Agreement). So either the UNMIN learned of all three recruiting events at the same time or it acted at the Maoists’ behest. Irrespective of what the actual rationale may have been, the facts remain that the UNMIN failed to act in a timely manner, failed to carry out its duties and at least in perception, failed the dual tests of impartiality and independence - again.

It is shameful enough that a civilian (Mr. Ram Hari Shrestha) was abducted and subsequently murdered inside a UN supervised, Maoist cantonment. In the face of the public scrutiny that followed, Ian Martin was quick to cite a lack of mandate to report (or even prevent) pre-meditated murder. That was bad enough. But for Ian Martin to throw his weight behind the Maoists’ in the current context is just unhelpful, disingenuous and a shameless display of selective enforcement of the CPA.

Toppling the Maoist Government - What does the average Nepali gain?

Second, the disgruntlement over the NA’s recruitment is only one of several on-going issues. It is neither paramount to the continuity of Nepal’s peace process nor particularly relevant to the constitution-making process. What it is, is an unnecessary distraction of a political variety that should be deferred for resolution at the political level. The last thing the NA should be doing at this juncture is permitting its institutional integrity to be compromised over political power plays.

If Girija Prasad Koirala’s Nepali Congress has political contentions with the Maoists’, it is GPK and the NC who should be addressing such concerns with Prachanda and the Defense Minister. The same goes for the UML, the RPP, the MJF or any other political party. But to use the institutional issue of NA recruitment as a springboard to forward political agendas (specifically, to cripple and embarrass the Maoist government) is dangerous, irresponsible and can escalate into further confrontation.

For issues of a political variety, the Cabinet and the Parliament are where civilized confrontations (also known as debates) should be had. If resolution cannot be achieved at that level, the NC, the UML and others are welcome to pursue street protests. In other words, the “democrats” in these parties ought to rely more on the tools that enable democratic practice - parliamentary politics and civil disobedience - and less on military adventurism to fulfill their respective political objectives.

Betrayal in Historical Perspective - The lessons the NA should never forget

Third and most important, the NA”s leadership should have the common sense and wherewithal to realize that it is the very same politicians who insist upon upholding the NA’s apolitical sanctity, who are also busy exploiting the NA’s predicament. The NC’s ultimate goal is to put GPK back in power and Madhav Kumar Nepal’s pipe dream of replacing Prachanda is distasteful humor. How does either scenario benefit the Nepali nation state?

How is it even possible to take a man like Girija Prasad Koirala seriously? After all, it was under Koirala’s watch that the armed Maoist insurrection took hold; it was GPK’s government under which operations Romeo and Sierra-II-Kilo were launched; it was GPK who resigned his premiership because the Army did not mobilize against the Maoists’; and during the height of the insurgency, it was under GPK’s leadership that the SPA (Seven Party Alliance) forged a political alliance with the Maoists. That very alliance undermined the same Army that today, Girija Koirala is attempting to use to satiate this lust for power.

In a nutshell, it is because Girija Prasad Koirala fell for the Maoists’ “promise” that they would make him Nepal’s first President that the NA answers to the former Chief of the Maoists’ military wing today. And now Girija Koirala is bent on encouraging the NA to defy the Ministry of Defense? How does any of this make sense?

Conclusion

The NA has performed superbly after the restoration of the dissolved parliament in April of 2006. Under its current leadership, the NA has regained must of its lost stature and has exercised restraint, professionalism and an unwavering dedication to the Nepali nation-state and her people. As a deterrent to Maoist adventurism, the NA is the single, standing bastion of hope. And this is precisely where the NA should remain - for now.

The NA should continue encouraging the “useful idiots” (who were instrumental in facilitating the Maoists’ to power) to actively assist in the process of seeking “political solutions” to the political challenges at hand. As for those critics who claim the NA is being too submissive, the NA should assure them that if appearing docile is what it takes to keep soldiers out of harm’s way, then so be it. Better submissive than dead and in all honesty, how seriously should those who have been on the battle field take criticisms from those who are experts at trading words, not bullet?

Under no circumstances should the NA go out on a limb to help any internal political party, individual, or external force, in the pursuit of their self-interests. It is the collective Nepali interest in which the NA should act and if this means allowing Ram Bahadur Thapa a face-saving exit, then so be it. The NA can easily diffuse the debate over recruitment by assuring all concerned parties that future force replenishment will not take place. (This, after the UNMIN takes responsibility for failing to execute its mandate and inform the NA in a timely manner.)

Given the delicate juncture at which Nepal’s peace process has arrived, the NA should remind those who are egging it on that there never was (and never will be) a “military solution” to a “political problem.” The NA should steer clear of becoming a back yard where Parties with no grass roots support or tenable objectives (other than coming into power themselves), air their “dirty laundry.”

Better Late than Never!

(Courtesy: el Guapo)

The last month and a half in Nepali politics has witnessed a silent revolution of sorts. No, it’s not the Maoists’ who are at the helm of this quiet revolution. Rather, it is the Nepali Congress that has finally begun playing the role of a credible opposition party by checking Maoist aggression on issues related to the Nepali Army, religion and land ownership.

On the Nepali Army

Through Koirala’s Machiavellian style of leadership, the Nepali Congress has begun to simultaneously chip away at each of the Maoists’ Achilles’ heels. First, the pivotal role that the Nepali Congress played on the issue of recruitment for the Nepali Army was commendable.

The NC’s rise to the defense of a national institution that has demonstrated its professionalism and commitment to democracy time and again, has placed the Nepali Congress is a completely different limelight. The outpouring of support on the Army’s position on recruitment sounded more like the type of rhetoric that would come from a national government than from an opposition party.

Although the sudden burst in support for the Nepali Army most certainly had its own brand of political motivation, the NC’s demand to maintain the political independence of the Nepali State’s tier-one security asset was well-timed and immaculately executed.

The message that the NC delivered was flawless - that the Nepali Army should not be dragged into political controversy, should be permitted to fill its vacant spots and that the pursuit of both of these tasks is in the national interest and not in contravention (in either letter or spirit) of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.

By adopting this line, the Nepali Congress demonstrated its capacity to learn from past mistakes, its ability to adapt to Nepal’s changed political context and more importantly, its ability to contain Maoist ambitions in a very logical and disarming manner.

By insisting that the Nepali Army be permitted to carry on with filling its vacant positions, the Nepali Congress also managed to weaken another pillar of unyielding Maoist support - Mr. Ian Martin, who at the time of this writing, is rumored to be in the process of being “diplomatically” replaced.

On Religion

The controversy over whether Indian or Nepali priests should conduct ritual prayers at the most significant Hindu temple in the world (Pashupatinath) was dumb luck for the Nepali Congress and truly a dumb calculation on the part of the Maoists’.

By forcibly intruding on a matter of religious significance, the Maoists’ literally shot themselves in the foot. A blatant violation of the tenet of maintaining separation between religion and the state occurred and the Nepali Congress was at the right place at the right time to capitalize on this Maoist blunder.

As the saying goes, one must make hay while the sun shines and this was exactly what the Nepali Congress did. As soon as the news of YCL (Maoist) cadre physically assaulting Hindu priests hit the airwaves, the Nepali Congress was at the forefront demanding a reversal of the Maoist government’s decree to discontinue the tradition of Indian priests performing religions rites at Pashupatinath.

The NC’s stance immediately curried Indian favor, especially from within the ranks of India’s powerful Hindu-aligned BJP party, and also from Nepal’s religious Right. The memory of Nepal’s top Hindu activist having been murdered by the Maoists’ emerged to the top of the rhetorical agenda and on a second issue in succession, the Maoists’ were forced to concede their original position.

Once again, most peculiarly, the Nepali Congress demonstrated the qualities of a ruling party while playing the role of an opposition force. If only some semblance of such high thinking had characterized some of their rhetoric when the NC was actually in power (at any point in the post-1990 period), it would be the NC and not the Maoists’ who would be riding at Nepal’s helm today.

On Property Rights

Although the issue of land reformation is a complicated one, the NC’s insistence that the Maoists’ return stolen property to their rightful owners, is brilliant. The logic forwarded (and rightly so) by the Nepali Congress is that the return of property is a priority that the Maoists’ agreed to on paper, as part of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and multiple successive agreements thereafter. The Maoists’ have failed to deliver.

So when the Maoists’ complain that the NC is not allowing the peace process to reach its logical conclusion by stone walling the Maoist combatant issue, the NC’s response is that while important, the Maoist combatant issue isn’t the only item on the peace agenda. To this, neither the Maoists’ nor Ian Martin, nor any foreign government sympathetic to the Maoist cause has a logical response and the NC knows this.

The manner in which the NC has framed this debate is that legal procedures and not forced acquisition should guide the process of land reform. Many of the landowners who have been disenfranchised by the Maoists, belong to the ranks of the Nepali Congress. But political activists have rights too and there is no constitutional exception when it comes to the State’s responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens. It is unfortunate for the Maoists that in this particular case, it is they who are the perpetrators of the crime and soon to be the prosecutors of the “criminals” as well.

Conclusion

The Maoists’ had initially gauged Girija Koirala’s lust for power aptly. By luring Koirala with the dream of becoming Nepal’s first President, the Maoists’ gained one concession after another from the SPA (Seven Party Alliance). They used Krishna Prasad Sitoula and Shekhar Koirala to forward the Maoist agenda and in doing so, managed to keep the international community at bay. The Maoists’ used the UNMIN (UN Mission in Nepal) to consolidate their credibility, opted for elections once they were certain to deliver a stunning victory and finally ascended the apex of Nepal’s power pyramid.

Now the dream is over and it is increasingly apparent that all of the Maoists’ tactical calculations have been on target with the exception of one. The Maoists’ appear to have grossly underestimated Koirala’s single, yet prescient talent - his tired and true subject matter expertise in bringing down governments and political opponents, with finesse and unassuming candor.

Girija Prasad Koirala may fail every test known to man in good governance; he may be clueless in the art of management; he is certainly a stranger to the idea of succession planning and intra-party democracy. But when it comes to undermining and humiliating his political opponents, Girija Koirala is a one man army; a global authority whose services would benefit any effort at toppling governments and breaking up coalitions, anywhere in the world.

It is under Girija Prasad Koirala’s leadership that the Nepali Congress is finally showing some mettle. And given all the totalitarian hints the Maoists keep dropping, the dismal state of lawlessness, and an economy of the verge of collapse, the time is coming once more for the Nepali people to choose between the lesser evil - Girija Koirala with his demonstrated deficiencies in constructive leadership or Pushpa Kamal Dahal with his demonstrated proficiencies in orchestrating cold-blooded mass murder.

Who’s the Idiot Now?

(Courtesy: Mr. Satyajeet Nepali)

(This section has been removed at the writer's request).

Response to Manjushree Thapa’s An End to Idiocy

Yes, Manjushree Thapa is right; the "idiocy" needs to stop. But the idiotic in Nepal are not just the political leaders. The bigger idiots are the so-called "intelligentsia", "civil society" and so forth whose holier than thou attitudes and complete refusal to engage in introspection give sustenance to even more idiocy. At least the majority of Nepal’s politicians lack the elite, Western education and exposure that comes with it; this is a bad but digestible excuse for Nepali politicians’ idiocy. But for people who have enjoyed the luxury of traveling the world and attending the best liberal education institutions the West has to offer, there is no excuse. People like Manjushree Thapa are even more idiotic than the politicians she conveniently blames – the same politicians that Thapa helped exonerate for over a decade of crimes against the Nepali people. Is it such a wonder that the "idiotic" culture of impunity persists in Nepal?

The real question is, how much intelligence does it take privileged elites like Ms. Thapa, to evaluate the 15 years after 1990 and the "narrowly self-serving" practices that were institutionalized during that time? Wasn't 15 years of malgovernance enough to show that these “democratic” leaders were committed only to “democratically” stuffing their pockets? Just take a look at where the children of such leaders have gone for their higher educations and compare the fee structures at these institutions’ with the leaders’ annual incomes. Idiotic, isn't it?

As for the Maoists, upon what basis did Ms. Thapa and her band of "idiots" misinterpret volume after volume of Maoist writ explaining exactly what the Maoists’ stand for, their brand of radical politics, and their plans for Nepal? So who are the bigger idiots? The politicians who gave birth to the Maoists’ and then subsequently brought the Maoists’ into the “mainstream” or the idiots who were so blinded by the short-term glory of “Storming the Bastille,” that they neglected to evaluate the fully burdened, long term cost of their actions? It is convenient for people like Ms. Thapa to shift positions as it suits her agenda of distancing herself from her feudal roots; but it is not as convenient for a nation of 27 million who have to bear the consequences of the follies of people like Ms. Thapa.

The fact is that Nepal’s intelligentsia did the utmost possible to bring these political parties and Maoists to power, convincing Nepalis that the SPA-M alliance would really make a difference. They were the ones to used their elite, stylish and influential pens to convince the international community that if the 240-year old history and the monarchy were to be jettisoned, Nepal would stand a chance of building a better and brighter future ("New Nepal" as they called it)!

Well, now Nepal is a Republic and according to many, on a fast-track to an illiberal leftist autocracy. And if Ms. Thapa’s escape from this reality is that “this is a process,” there is only one thing to be said in response: “Go tell the 24 million Nepali people who are without running water, electricity and access to basic health care that the “smart” thing to do was to launch a campaign against the Monarchy in return for Maoist domination of the political sphere.” The majority of Nepalis may not be as educated as Ms. Thapa, but even marginally educated know an idiot when they seen one. Who’s the idiot now?

Further, to be completely transparent, Ms. Thapa should also tell the Nepali people that the people her advocacy helped propel to power are “the same Maoists’ who during the years 2000/2001, destroyed nearly $500 million (yes, US Dollars) worth of infrastructure; bridges, roads, repeater stations that were built over the course of the past 30 years.” Tell the Nepali people that they “need to be patient” while people like Ms. Thapa use their entrenched, feudalism-based influence to peddle experiments with one process after another while Nepalis continue to suffer. How idiotic does the truth sound?

The Monarchy, like every other institution in Nepal, needed to be restructured, and reformed, not eliminated. In this regard, many of the politicians who Ms. Thapa regards as “idiots” were the ones trying their level best to rise above the populist idiocy that Ms. Thapa played a role in propagating. Politicians like Shailajha Acharya, K.P. Oli, Prakash Chandra Lohani, Surya Bahadur Thapa, and even Baburam Bhattaria were forced into idiocy by the rhetoric spun by people such as Ms. Thapa – rhetoric which was magnified and spun again by Ms. Thapa’s contacts at the International Crisis Group and various media outlets. How convenient for Ms. Thapa that in hindsight, she finds no issue with her own brand of advocacy but Nepal’s politicians are “idiots!”

After all the damage that has been done, the likes of Ms. Thapa have the gall to go around and tell Nepalis how "narrowly self-serving" our leaders are and how everything is so "idiotic!" Does Ms. Thapa think that the same people who “raped” Nepal for 15 years are likely to recognize the sacrifice that Nepalese have made to re-install them in power? What school of idiocy did Ms. Thapa attend to fool herself into believing that the current generation of Nepali politicians are going to change their ways because of Thapa’s “oh-I'm-fed-up-with-you” article???? Who's the real idiot here?

It's sad, but true. The so-called "intelligentsia" of Nepal have been nothing but "useful idiots" (to use Lenin's term) for the Maoists. And to use the Maoist supremo's own language, they have been "the backs that the Maoists’ climbed upon to smash the head.” In simple terms, the Maoists’ used and abused the human rights agenda, the peace agenda, the democratic agenda and a host of liberal, Western ideals to forward their march to political domination. “Intelligent” people like Ms. Manjushree Thapa, played the role of stepping stones for the Maoists’. When compared to people like Prachanda, Baburam, Ram Bahadur Thapa, and C. P. Gajurel, it is clearly Manjushree Thapa who appears to be the bigger idiot.

The Nepali state is in the tragic form she is today, in no small measure, due to the activism of the likes of Ms. Thapa. Wrinkling up her nose and blaming the political leaders is no excuse. People like Thapa should set a moral precedent by owning up to their own mistakes of the past; by pointing her finger at Nepali politicians, Ms. Thapa is playing the part of the pot, calling the kettle black.

One would have thought that when intelligent people like Manjushree Thapa supported the SPA-M alliance, they had done their due diligence. But apparently not so. Now they are coming around and telling us how pathetic our leaders are and how they’ve pretty much always known it. Then why the idiocy of leading the nation down a path that guaranteed even more idiocy? Neither the politicians that Manjushree despises nor the policemen (one of whom struck Manjushree on her head during a “peaceful” demonstration) are any different today, than they were before 2006. This is a hard fact that no one should idiotically dismiss. Especially Ms. Thapa.

Former King Gyanendra may have been an idiot for acting without a concrete plan but he was nonetheless, an idiot who could be controlled through various policy instruments. Good luck to Manjushree and others, as they try and control the Maoists’ and other politicians by alleging “idiocy” through publications like Kantipur. If Manjushree is “frankly scared” by the Maoists’ today, she is more than likely to be “terrified” by what is yet to come.

Why always blame the "political leaders" for the nation's woes? Shouldn't our "intellectual leaders" have been more realistic and discerning in their judgments about who and what to support and fight for? Instead of going off in their fanciful dreams of revolutionaries building a "New Nepal," shouldn't they have been more responsible? Did they not pause to weigh the likelihood of a better society being built by the same group of leaders who have failed time and again? Before going all-out and calling on the Nepalese people (and the international community) to back the SPA-M alliance, shouldn’t our “intellectual” leaders have given more thought to the costs and benefits of enthroning the same discredited leaders and and a bunch of cold blooded killers (the Maoists')?

Nepali intellectuals, like Ms. Thapa, can't hide behind the facade of incompetent "political leaders" anymore. Their holier-than-thou attitude vis-a-vis Nepal’s political leaders is stale and repulsive. Ordinary Nepalese and the international community backed the SPA-M alliance because our "intellectual leaders" supported them. Articles by Manjushree's ilk crying foul at insincere political leaders doesn't absolve the likes of Thapa from their incompetence, insincerity, and downright “dishonesty.”

Yes, the idiocy and irresponsibility that has brought Nepal where it is today must end but equally, the process must begin with people like Manjushree Thapa reflecting on their own actions more and on the actions of others, less. As the saying goes, Manjushree needs to learn to "walk the walk" as well as she has demonstrated her capacity to "talk the talk."

Himal Media Reaps the Maoist Whirlwind

(Courtesy: Comrade Libre)

It's hard to decide what's more shocking - Maoists' entering Himal Media's premises and physically assaulting that organization’s employees or the reactions of disbelief from various segments of Nepali polity - many of whom were instrumental in facilitating the Maoists' unchecked rise to power. As “outraged” as these “useful idiots” may be, it is unlikely that Himal Media, the (Western) international community, or any Nepali political Party, has either the resources (manpower, intellect, etc.) or the will, to effectively counter the Maoists.

When it comes to Himal Media in particular, the issue of "perception being reality" is everything. The perception amongst the vast Nepali majority is that Himal Media functions as an Indian mouthpiece and a tax haven for the International NGO (INGO) community. The Nepali Times (the English weekly produced by Himal Media) has an avid readership among the ex-patriot, diplomatic and non-resident Nepali communities. "Himal Khabarpatrika" and Himal Magazine cater to the South Asian intellectual elite. "Wave," another publication from Himal, caters to the elite, urban Nepali youth.

This sort of market segmentation is excellent for business. Good business strategy means more sales but in Nepal’s case, it means higher revenues within vertical demographies as opposed to sales across multiple horizontal segments. To put matters in perspective, the demography that reads Himal Media products is the single largest minority in Nepal – the urbane, sophisticated, metropolitan elite. By extension of this fact, the liberal ideals that Himal Media aspires to represent, are an anathema to most segments of Nepali polity; especially to the Maoists’ who are accustomed to killing scribes that are out of synch with the Prachanda Path’s worldview.

Also, Himal Media’s portrait is incomplete without due mention of its most polarizing and controversial co-owner, Mr. Kanak Mani Dixit. Although it was Kanak’s older brother, Kunda, who bore witness to yesterday’s Maoist aggression, it is Kanak Dixit who is on record for insinuating a Maoist defeat at the CA elections - “the political party that gets the largest number of votes” would have to “carry along all political forces including the Maoists in the running of the government….”

Kanak’s writing (at the time), was widely perceived as regurgitated rhetoric, based on flawed Indian intelligence. His words may have been overlooked by his dinner guests Pushpa Dahal, Baburam Bhattarai and their wives, but many staunch Maoists’ are known to have taken exception to Kanak’s partial stance. Kanak may have been the greatest of Maoist allies for dealing with the King but his partial brand of advocacy during the CA elections is certain to have diminished his standing with the Maoists, compromised his personal independence, and undermined the independence of the organization he leads - Himal Media.

Further, the intelligence upon which Kanak Dixit’s pre-CA position is purported to have been based, is the same intelligence (if one can call it that) which had the Nepali Congress resting on its laurels during the run up to elections. When the expected election outcome did not materialize, the NC’s emissary to the US, Dr. Suresh Raj Chalise, is reported to have spent time, hopping from one think tank to another, explaining what a great job the NC had done in mainstreaming the Maoists.

The rest is history. The Maoists delivered a sweeping victory at the Constituent Assembly elections and Dr. Chalise’s Ambassadorship to the US has been terminated by the Maoist-led government. So much for Kanak’s insinuation that the NC would come out on top and Dr. Chalise’s dreams of a mainstreamed Maoist Party. So much for the excuses that various Himal Media outlets made in support of creating space for the “less radical” Maoists.

As with every opportunity presented before them, the Maoists took what they were given, milked the situation for everything it was worth and have conveniently moved on. It was gross oversight on Himal Media’s part for hoping that Maoist goodwill may still be pending for services rendered (by Himal Media) during the King’s time. The truth is, when it comes to the Maoist worldview, Himal Media is no different that any other organization in Nepal. Himal may have a record for being the most outspoken, but it also has a reputation for being the most elitist and partial to Indian whims. Neither reputation bodes well for Himal Media or its off-shoot businesses (for example, “Rato Bangala”) given the populist tone that Nepal’s Maoist government has successfully set.

The aftermath of the attack on Himal Media will likely expose another less known dimension of Himal Media – its proximity to the INGO and Donor community nexus. For example, in “Come Back, Ian" (published in the Nepali Times), Kanak Dixit made a heart rendering appeal to then UN Secretary General, Kofi Anan, to re-assign Ian Martin to Nepal as the head of UNMIN. Kofi obliged and in doing so, saved Ian Martin from being held accountable to the disgrace of a job that the UN did in East Timor. Ian Martin owes his position in Nepal, to Kanak Dixit.

The Maoists’ are well aware of this relationship and have waited just long enough to test the bonds between Himal Media and the UN in general. Although UNMIN is not MANDATED to comment on episodes like these, the criticism from other UN bodies will undoubtedly be sharp. The intensity of the criticisms forwarded is certain to be matched only by the leniency of the current government’s response. But, the point here is that the louder and more biting the criticism from Nepal's international well-wishers, the easier the attack on Himal Media will be for the Maoists and ultra-nationalists to stomach.

As unpleasant and distasteful as the attack on Himal Media was, this is the type of “lesson” that Nepalis need to learn over and over again. Day by day, the Maoists’ are growing bolder and more calculated as the opposition becomes weaker and more disorganized. The lines between progressive and regressive elements are being redrawn and where the middle ground once stood, is an empty, barren wasteland.

No one wants renewed conflict. No one wants more Nepalis to be butchered for any political party to come to power. But the inevitable (and unspoken) reality is that there will come a time when dealing with the Maoists will necessarily imply the application of the only terms that the Maoists understand – force. Till that day rolls around, the only certainty is that there will be many more episodes like the one at Himal Media.

The Maoists’ will always find an excuse to rationalize what happened. Even if the Maoist leadership apologizes for the actions of its labor union, there is no guarantee that any Nepali journalist will ever again dare to publicly criticize the Maoists. With so many skeletons to hide, there is no certainty that deals which compromise freedom of speech, won’t be made in return for “protection.”

Avoiding this domino-style catastrophe is why it is absolutely imperative that the Himal Media experience be taken seriously and be opened up for public discourse. Such debate should include not just the documented hooliganism of the Maoist labor union but also any real grievances the Maoists may have against Himal Media. Nepal’s government should take a democratic approach to dealing with this issue, should feel the pulse of the Nepali majority and for a change, should rely less on internationally driven sensation and more on addressing the root causes behind incidents like the one at Himal Media.

“Rs 250 billion as royalty from 10,000 MW”

(Courtesy: Ratna Sansar Shrestha)

In the presence of Prime Minister Dahal last Friday, during the inauguration of 6^th AGM of CNI, Dr Shankar Sharma, former vice chair of National Planning Commission announced that “Nepal will earn Rs 250 billion as royalty of 10,000 MW even under existing law of Nepal”- (he said in Nepali “2 saya 50 arba rupaiya”). This is not correct at all. During the power summit of 2006 TN Thakur of PTC India did his best to mislead Nepali populace by announcing that Nepal can earn IC Rs 10,000 crore (NRs 160 billion) by exporting 10,000 MW electricity from plants built with Indian investment. I published an article refuting his statement in Kantipur on 13^th Kartik last year. Realizing that he wouldn’t be reading an article in the vernacular daily, I got another article published on the same vein in the Kathmandu Post on 25^th Paush last year. Then some half-wit went overboard and said Nepal will earn Rs 25,000 (250 billion) crore by exporting 10,000 MW in a program in Patna couple of months back. I earnestly hope that Dr Sharma is not inspired by these numbers.

Because, under the extant Electricity Act, 1992, capacity royalty is Rs 100 per kW and energy royalty is 2%, at the rate of which Nepal will earn a total royalty of Rs 4.9 billion only if the hydropower projects are able to achieve plant factor of 50% and sold at US 6 ¢. This number is lower by a magnitude compared to the one he has quoted. I take it that discerning readers are aware that NEA is able to achieve only 33% plant factor and in which case the royalty earning will go down to Rs 3.6 billion only.

Under the Electricity Bill the proposed capacity royalty is Rs 400 per kW and energy royalty is 7.5%, at which rate Nepal will earn total royalty of Rs 18.78 billion only at 50% plant factor. Even at the proposed higher rate for royalties Nepal’s earning from royalty will be very far from what he has quoted.

Even if Nepal was to levy 100% of the electricity sales revenue as royalty (ridiculous and impossible), Nepal will receive only Rs 197 billion – still not quite Rs 250 billion. The electricity will have to be sold at US 7.6 ¢ and cent percent of the sales proceed will have to be charged as royalty to achieve royalty revenue of the level he has mentioned. Nobody will disagree that this is a outrageous proposition and Nepal will never be able to levy royalty at this level. In other words the royalty rate will have to be Rs 8.65 per kWh (unit) in order for Nepal to earn as royalty Rs 250 billion. Under present market condition this is impossible feat.

Sometime back Professor Dr Ram Manohar Shrestha also came up with similar astounding numbers about potential royalty revenue for Nepal and I did point out his error (over estimation), which is published in my blog ( HYPERLINK "http://ratnasansar.blogspot.com/" \o "blocked::http://ratnasansar.blogspot.com/" http://ratnasansar.blogspot.com/), in order to deconstruct the myth that is being perpetuated.

Nepali Polity: A Waning Pseudo-Democracy with No Real Alternatives

(Courtesy: el Zorro)

Whether the Maoists’ have the capacity to last through Nepal’s constitution-making process is turning into a big question. With every passing day and every emerging episode of Maoist mischief, this government’s days in office appear limited. The only saving grace for the Maoists’ (unfortunately), is that their opposition is held in such contempt that even with all the high handedness in the world, the Maoists’ still remain the best of the worst.

The base argument to topple Nepal’s Maoist-led government is simple: Cutting off heads, assassinating surrendered combatants, murdering political opponents, then threatening and intimidating the opposition vote-bank into submission is not synonymous with a democratic rise to power.

For anyone who may still be confused, it was a sustained campaign of violence (for ten years running) that earned the Maoists’ the political currency they possess today – NOT the CA elections. Further, the maintenance of the Maoists’ current power-base requires that the perceived threat of violence be maintained at all times. So, “Prime Minister” Dahal’s rant about a reversion to arms (which he later claimed was grossly misinterpreted journalism) was much less a slip of his tongue than a reminder to the depleted Nepali psyche that violence is imminent - unless the Maoists’ have their way.

The constant fear of a return to violence is what the Maoists’ have always leveraged to keep their critics at bay. The idea that the Nepali people are being held hostage to peace on the Maoists’ terms may have been too conservative a view for Nepal’s liberals to stomach a year ago but thankfully, times have changed.

Given what the Maoists’ have demonstrated while in power, it would be criminal for anyone to continue insisting on their democratic intent (or to keep alluding to the Maoists’ internal struggle) as an excuse for why the Maoists’ deserve a chance. The initial insistence on goodwill towards the Maoists’ may have originated from curiosity of the unknown but any insistence that persists today, most certainly originates from a fear of the known. To put matters plainly, what Nepali people know, is that the Maoists’ will not hesitate to kill to make their point.

Owing to these painstakingly slow realizations, the days when Nepal’s self declared “civil society” apologists and human rights defenders would shield the Maoists’ against criticism, are coming to an end. The days when rubbing shoulders with the Maoists’ was considered a fashion statement for the ultra-liberal (and the wide-eyed Nepalis abroad), is also nearing its end. Pretty soon, the Maoists’ are not going to be a “cool association” and youngsters and grown-ups alike are going to have to make some tough choices.

The reality is that making excuses for the Maoists’ is turning into a full time job – a profession that is not without ethical consequences or moral hazards. For example, the Maoists’ kidnapped and murdered a civilian (Kishor Shrestha) from Kathmandu, held the individual in a UN monitored cantonment and then murdered the man. No action has yet been taken although the guilty party has been identified as a Maoist Commander. Any takers to defend the continuation of Maoist impunity? There used to be plenty when Gyanendra was still around.

As another example, under this Maoist government, a total of 349 criminal court cases from across Nepal were recently declared null and void. These cases the Maoists’ claim, were politically motivated and thus, have to be nullified because they implicate almost the entire Maoist leadership in some way, shape or form. Any signs of “brave,” democracy-loving Supreme Court advocates who would dare to check the Maoists’ infringement upon the Nepali Judiciary’s independence? No. Not a single advocate in the same spot where an "army" of advocates once stood to shine in the international media's spotlight and "defy" an autocratic Gyanendra!!

Well, Nepal has a bigger problem now - the Maoists plus all the middle ranks of the Royalists are in the same corner. But this situation apparently, is not as grave a threat to democracy as Gyanendra so there's no point in risking one's life for few seconds of air time on Nepal TV!! Also, there's an unspoken factor that every Maoist opponent must constantly consider: Gyanendra's henchmen may have gone around and censored news papers, limited freedom of speech and curbed freedom of assembly, but the Maoists' will hold nothing back. They will simply eliminate that which they perceive as a threat and no Supreme Court Advocate wants to make the Maiosts' black list. The net result is, it's the Maoists' way, all the way.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, there is a never-ending litany of examples of not-so-smart ideas that the academically bright (and the practically devoid) were manipulated into adopting. But the problem moving forward is far less that mistakes were made and much more that people who made them, are unwilling to publicly rectify their wrongs. (There are terms that describe persons of this temperament – unprincipled, immoral, shameless, cowards, etc.).

It is precisely because of a select few who prefer to reinterpret the past to fit their worldviews (rather than admitting their mistakes and changing course), that Nepalis are without the moral impetus necessary to facilitate lasting change and the emergence of real alternatives. The Nepali Congress under Girija Prasad Koirala, supported by his network of cronies at home and abroad, is not a real alternative to the current set up. The Maoist off-shoot Upendra Yadav, is after all, a Maoist at heart. He has likely killed with the “best” of them – not a real alternative either. The same goes for most if not all of the faces that have “graced” Nepali politics over the past two decades.

So the issue at hand is less that the Maoists’ murdered their way to power and more that those with the moral authority to stand up to the Maoists are either too afraid, or too proud (or both), to admit that they were duped. Until the truth behind how badly Nepal’s political and academic elites were used and abused by the Maoists’ enters the domain of public discourse, there will be no platform for real, lasting change.

To put matters plainly, until this process of introspection and self-realization (and hopefully remorse) has taken its course, Nepalis are better off living under the Maoists’ than reverting to life under Girija Koirala’s Nepali Congress. And this simple calculus, despite everything the Maoists’ are doing to subvert democracy in Nepal, is why the Maoists’ will outlast a “broader democratic alliance,” and any other shenanigan that a desperate, power-hungry and disorganized opposition, can dream up.

Practice What You Preach

(Courtesy: Dr. Hari Bansha Dulal)

Last month's terrorist attacks in Mumbai shocked everyone. Nearly two hundred innocent men and women lost their precious lives and many more were injured. In anger over Mumbai attacks, while the nation was grieving the loss, Indian media and politicians, as usual, tirelessly vilified and pointed the finger at Pakistan. Blaming the usual suspect, Pakistan, began even before evidences were gathered and the lone surviving terrorist was interrogated.

Although the notoriety of Pakistan's Intelligence Agency, ISI in providing aid and comfort to Islamofascists that want to inflict harm on India cannot be denied based on its past activities, India should also take responsibility for its own security lapses and failure to address issues that are fuelling the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the Indian subcontinent. Is it because of India's rigid posture on Kashmiri issues or is it due to India's inability to lift the status of millions of Muslims that are at the bottom of the pyramid, to whom, the prosperity of the last two decades has failed to bring about any real changes? What actually is it that is luring young men and women in Indian subcontinent towards radical Islam?

By attacking landmarks in the financial capital of India, Mumbai, jihadist juggernauts wanted to do two things: expose India's vulnerabilities and slow down India's economic progress. The recent terrorist attacks in Indian subcontinent also signal shift in venue of global terrorism. Lately, South Asia has become a focal point for terrorism directed against the western nations. By targeting westerners in Mumbai, Islamic radicals wanted to send a message about shift in venue for holy jihad. It clearly shows how the trends in terrorism continue to shift from the Middle East to South Asia. With Afghanistan slipping into chaos and Nepal on freefall, jihadists have more than needed space to operate in South Asia. If terrorism is to be wiped out from South Asia, along with Pakistan, India too, has substantial homework to do.

First and foremost, India should work on its definition of “terrorism.” For India, groups that are waging armed struggle for the liberation of Kashmir from Pakistani soil are terrorists, and it wants Pakistani government to go after them, but when it comes to India's turn to act, it simply looks the other way. While India blames Pakistan for providing aid and comfort to the anti-Indian elements, India's own record is not as clean as it wants others to believe. It is an open secret about where the Maoists ideologues, who raised arms against the state, and whom Indian government unilaterally branded as terrorists lived for the most part of the decade long insurgency. The Maoists movement that brought Nepal to its knees would not have been succeeded without India's generosity. India not only provided the Maoists a safe heaven to operate, but also forced democratic forces to bed with them, whose ugly repercussions are unfolding slowly.

India's soft corner for those that raise arms against Nepali state did not end with its generosity towards the Maoists. It continues to provide safe heaven to armed secessionist groups that want to disintegrate Nepal. How is Pakistan's support to Jihadists that want to free Kashmir different from India's turning blind eyes on groups that have raised arms to seek secession? Armed struggle in Nepal will not survive without Indian benevolence.

What India as a nation should understand is that, it can only progress the way it wants to, when South Asia as a regions is, stable and peaceful. It cannot and will not remain insulated from the pouring in of negative externalities if its neighbors fail. It should, thus, stop providing safe heaven to groups that raise arms against its neighbors. Only then, India will have moral authority to ask Pakistan to go after the groups that carry out anti-Indian activities in Pakistani soil.

If India continues to provide safe heaven to the armed groups that raise arms against Nepal, armed struggle in Nepal will never wane. Bunch of incompetent but ambitious individuals that lack patience and caliber to win the hearts and mind of Nepali people through peaceful democratic means will keep on waging wars in the name of fighting oppression. Looking at honeymoon period of the Maoist government, it becomes evident that rhetoric alone is not enough to bring changes. For change to come, the rulers should have a vision and competence. Is India ready to be held accountable, if the so called revolutionaries, to whom it provides safe heaven, fail to deliver, like the Maoists, and bring about positive changes?

The Maoists in Nepal had an excellent opportunity bring about changes. There was no need to create rogue institution like Young Communist League (YCL). They had already created a political space for themselves. The defeat of stalwarts of the United Marxist Leninist Party (UML) at the hands of the obscure Maoists figures clearly showed that the UML's grassroots operatives had mass-migrated to the Maoists Party. Instead of trying to capitalize their gains and focusing on providing services to the people, the Maoists remained glued to their red book, which states terror as a method social control.

With the honeymoon period over, the excitement generated by Maoists' revolution has dissipated. With waning of euphoria, Puspa Kamal Dahal finds himself under fire. His next step? If worst comes, step down and wreck havoc till the next government is overwhelmed. The Nepali politics is sure to get confrontational in days to come. The way things are unfolding, it appears that, we will once again witness a bloody conflict, whereby the very same people who declared the Maoists terrorists will be at the helm of affairs, and the Maoists at offensive. Who gains from this, if this is to really happen? Not Nepali people for sure!

India, when it comes to its own security, aggressively calls for wiping out groups that act against India's national security, but when it is India's turn to reciprocate, its record has been pretty dismal. If nothing, what India can and should learn from the failure of the Maoist government in Nepal is that, there are tons of incompetent and ambitious politicians in Nepal, who are ready to wage war against the state. How do you identify true revolutionaries that can change the face of Nation from phonies, who pose as revolutionaries and wage wars against the state to forward their political agendas? And, will the justification for armed struggle ever get over if a neighbor keeps on rewarding armed insurgencies targeted at its neighbor?

There will always be complaints about injustice caused by the state. No country has ever been fully able to satisfy its citizens. But that cannot simply be the reason for armed struggle. India should force various armed groups that are waging wars against its neighbor to shut down their shops if it really wants Pakistan to go after jihadists that are waging holy war against India.

India cannot win the war against terrorism on its own. If it really wants to win this war, it has to stop the blame game and cooperate with its neighbors.

Nepotism Continues in the New "Maoist" Nepal

(Courtesy: Anonymous Message to NepaliPerspectives - Facts verified through independent sources)

Despite the high-flying populist rhetoric and promise of a "New Nepal," the facts paint a very different portrait of the Nepal that currently exists. The Maoists appear to have wholeheartedly adopted their predecessors' practice of exercising nepotism, without repercussion, without accountability and with complete impunity.

Given the facts listed below, the Maoist Party appears increasingly like Girija Prasad Koirala's Nepali Congress and much less like the stalwarts of progressive politics the Maoists portray themselves to be. From the ashes of the Shah Dynasty, appears a "Dahal-Bhattarai Dynasty" in the making. In the Maoists' "New Nepal," the only qualification one needs to be in power it appears, is blood relations with a Maoist leader - if this isn't feudalism at its best, what is?

More to the point, is this ultimately what 14,000 Nepalis had to die for (and over a 100,000 families had to be displaced for)? Is this what the so-called Maoist revolution was all about - the rise to power for a handful of of power-hungry elite? It certainly appears that this this is the end of the much hyped Maoist revolution, or as many refer to it, as the Maoists' terror campaign to usurp State power.

The kin of Maoist strong man and his second in command who currently enjoy employment at the expense of Nepali and International tax payers are listed below:

Pushpa Kamal Dahal's (a.k.a Prachanda) Family Members in Positions of Power:

1. Samir Dahal (Under-Secretary of The PM's office), son of Prachanda's younger brother Narayan Dahal.
2. Ganga Dahal (Officer of the PM's office), Prachanda's younger daughter (who is also an Indian citizen).
3. Gangaram Dahal (un-appointed foreign relations officer), Prachanda's own brother
4. Renu Pathak (CA member), Prachanda's daughter
5. Arjun Pathak (Officer of CA), Prachanda's son-in-law
6. Prakash Dahal (Prime Minister's PA/accountant), Prachanda's son, salary equal to the Under-Secretary.
7. Narayan Dahal (CA member), Prachanda's nephew.
8. Thakur Bhatta (Prachanda's brother-in-law), Another son-in-law (contractor of Chitwan Cantonment)

Dr. Baburam Bhattarai's Relatives in Positions of Power:

1. Hisila Yami (Tourist Minister), Baburam's wife.
2. Taranaj Pandey (PM's adviser), Baburam's nephew.
3. Praya Yami (National Planning Commission), Hisila's older sister
4. Timila Yami (Chairperson of Drinking Water Project), Hisila's older sister
5. Chirik Shova (member of Kathmandu Drinking Water), Baburam's older sister
6. Baburam's younger brother (Tariff -fixing Committee), Head of Kathmandu Drinking water.