Is this Politics or Raping of the Country?

(Courtesy: Kalyan Dev Bhattarai)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READING THE CODE: Maoist Plans for the Revolution

(Courtesy: Dr. Thomas A. Marks)

A political risk consultant in Honolulu, Hawaii, Dr. Marks recently authored the entry, “Maoism in South and Southeast Asia,” in the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World (1750-Present); Peter M. Stearns, ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, March 2008).

**************

Since their loss of the government in May of this year, the Maoists have threatened almost daily to launch another round of street violence if their demands are not met. They now have made good on those threats, building upon their continued use of terrorism beneath the surface to launch an open round of struggle designed to bring down the government. Put in the words of Prachanda (as per Republica): “The Maoist CC meeting decided to hit the streets for the sake of ‘civilian supremacy’ a Maoist-led national unity government, national independence, a new constitution, and the peace process.”

That statement says it all. One might wonder: What if the present political line-up continues to vote, as it has, for another, non-Maoist party to lead the government? Or to carry on as if Nepal indeed is independent, is involved in a peace process, and is writing a constitution, with only the Maoists determined to keep all of those things from being realities? “We don’t want to go back to the jungle as the regressive forces have wished,” answers Prachanda gravely.

The problem is that “back to the jungle” has never been the plan. Just what the Maoists are up to has been stated time and again, most recently by Central Committee member (and Mrs. Bhattarai), Hisila Yami, in a op-ed published by Kantipur located at the following URL: http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=208193.

Maoist Game Plan

The article contains the Maoist "game plan," spelled out very clearly. Maoists speak openly but in a language which utilizes "code." All one must do is decode, and the course of action appears. In fact, the same terminology can be found by perusing the pronouncements of any of the Maoist movements which have left their bloody fingerprints on the post-World War II pages of history.

Particularly interesting, though, is the striking similarity between the Nepali Maoist formulations and those of their Philippine counterparts. Though one might suspect plagiarism, the reality is simply that the ultimate sources are the same if one is using Maoist texts. They draw upon an eclectic group for inspiration but overwhelmingly Lenin and Stalin.

What unfolds in Ms. Yami’s discussion is the contents of the recent Maoist leadership debate on how to proceed. It's an old debate when it comes to Maoist insurgency: Do you mine beneath the opposition's castle, ultimately bringing it down with a charge from below? Or do you charge the gates, because you know the enemy within is weak and of limited will to resist?

Ms. Yami -- speaking for her husband's (and presumably Prachanda’s) faction -- recognizes that attempting to seize power now through overt mechanisms (“back to the jungle”) will certainly result in disaster -- and probably Indian invasion. Consequently, what she advocates is the classic "tunnel under them" or united front approach. The "new democratic republic" she mentions is the normal Maoist vehicle for doing this.

"A new democratic republic" sounds innocuous, but it is "Maoist" for a united front government. This is a government of like-minded forces brought together to oppose particular issues but later discarded when it is time to "move on." Such an approach was called "salami tactics" (from slicing the salami) in the 1960s and was used by the Soviets in Eastern Europe and, of course, the Maoists everywhere.

The tactic is simple: you get “useful idiots” to throw in with you to support tactical issues, such as "civilian supremacy." Who would be opposed to that? But the point is to use the issue to neutralize a particular foe, to achieve a particular end. The army, for instance, as has been demonstrated, remains the last real obstacle to the Maoists’ being able to do whatever they want. Neither the police nor the Armed Police will oppose them. They will simply fall in line, particularly because their leadership will be replaced with people who favor the Maoists. Thus, the need of the moment is to use the lofty goal to rally a coalition capable of neutralizing the army.

Once the particular issue at hand has been achieved, however, a new "crisis" issue will emerge. Then, the Maoists will seek to isolate the new foe – with the “issue” often explicitly invented to place that foe in its precarious position. The “Maoist discussion before this discussion” – on which foe was primary – centered around just this issue. At the time, Nepali Congress (NC) was seen as the key obstacle (in cahoots with the army, to be sure), because the UML was playing the “useful idiot” role.

Turns the worm, the UML has thrown sand in the gears, siding with both NC and the nefarious “still RNA at heart” (as the Maoists see it, especially in their not-so-secret conclaves).

What must be done, then, is to form the new coalition – their “Maoist-led national unity government” – to isolate and eliminate NC, UML, and NA. Gradually, by splitting, splitting, and splitting ("slicing the salami"), they will eliminate their rivals until the only people left are Maoists. Nobel Prize-winning author, the late Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, lays this out exactly in his famous work, Lenin in Zurich (1975).

A Republic is Not a Republic

A "people's federal democratic republic" (see Ms. Yami’s text) is but an interim step to the "new democratic republic" and the eventual "people's republic." Ms. Yami has spelled it out clearly: the need at present is to mobilize "anti-feudal" and "anti-imperialist" forces (feudal forces are those who favor parliamentary democracy and the market; imperialists are, in pride of evil place, the Americans and their friends, especially the dastardly Indians). How to mobilize these forces? By giving them the Maoist version of "federalism," a passing out of linguistic, ethnic, and economic goodies which exist in theory but will prove disastrous in fact. Long before realization is reached, the Maoists will have moved on and consolidated complete power.

Ironically, since the technique always works when faced with the sort of handicapped thinking one encounters in a particular slice of Nepal's chattering classes, what Ms. Yami is so angry about is the hard-core Maoists within her own party, those who want to "go for it." This is the group that challenges Prachanda and wants to use concerted street violence and assassination to sweep away the opposition.

A version of this is in play. The killing and the threats are daily reported in Nepali media. The unsavory actions of the Maoists at the Balaju Industrial Area are ample testimony to the manner in which violence has been woven into the warp and woof of every action undertaken by the “CPN(M)” (whatever its new name, it remains the same crew). So, too, do numbers of Nepali politicians bear witness to the actions of left wing fascism as they flee the country to escape the kukris, beatings, and kidnappings of the YCL storm troopers (yes, they’ve reflagged – name changes are meaningless).

And such sub-rosa violence is working. Yet, for the hard-core, none of this has given the Party power. The army remains intact and will fight; and India -- and even the most feckless and fickle of the foreign presence – seem willing to support the present government. Ultimately, though, it's an Indian show, and the Bhattarai faction is well aware that an IPKF would end the Maoists. They are not LTTE.

Faced with such a situation, Ms. Yami is surely correct that the proper course is to walk softly and carry a big kukri. Unfortunately, to keep the factions aligned, Prachanda has agreed to go to the well one more time, to once again threaten and bluster in the expectation that capitulation will result.

The Future

How well Prachanda has calculated will determine the future of Nepal. By now, a sizable portion of the public is wise to the Maoist strategy. It is unlikely he could field the same lineup as he so often threatens for a Janaandolan III. Nevertheless, he has mobilized the lumpens and the clueless in sufficient numbers to make a go of it.

By “discuss civilian supremacy,” Prachanda is not advancing the plain English meaning of the phrase. What he and the Maoists mean is this: if the government will once again give in, declare that only the prime minister can hire and fire, all will be well.

And it will be – for the Maoists. They will provoke the next round of crisis, put together the united front necessary to resume government leadership, then use that position to eliminate their few remaining foes. Dictatorship, when it comes, will be implemented in the name of “rule of law.”

Lenin in State and Revolution (p.73) put it bluntly: “…[T]heir resistance must be broken by force; it is clear that where there is suppression there is also violence, there is no liberty, no democracy.”

Thesis, antithesis and synthesis (By Hisila Yami)

Defining a Soft Coup

(Courtesy: Bidushi Dhungel and Siddhartha Thapa)

The peace process in Nepal is approaching a deadlock and the contentious issue is the disagreement between political parties and the former rebels, the Maoist party regarding the tussle over the control of state institutions. The mainstream political parties have endured a constitutional democratic culture where state institutions remain independent of political pressure through checks and balances and the separation of power. However, the Maoists a party have expressed time and again its commitment to establish a people’s republic; a system which contravenes the very structure of a liberal democracy. The state institution that has repeatedly become a topic of debate at a local and political level is the national army- the Nepal Army.

The Nepal army has a long history; it is one of the oldest institutions in South Asia, whereas the PLA has a very infant one. The distinction is as such; the PLA was created by a single radical movement in the span of less than two decades. Their origin can be traced to one single objective which is to fight against and defy the Nepali nation state for the simple purpose of propelling the Maoist ideology. On the other hand, since its inception, the Nepal army has been the lifeline of Nepal’s sovereignty from Prithvi Narayan Shah to Bhimsen Thapa through to Jung Bahadur and into the Shah Dynasty. Until the mid twentieth century, the army played a crucial role in the day to day activities of the state. This was true across continents. What is also true is the fact that the Nepalese army has always been loyal to the political authority of the time. For example, with the political demise of Bhimsen Thapa and Amar Singh Thapa, there was speculation that there would be large scale discontent. However, the army sustained its composure and supported the government of the time. Similarly, as the Rana rule came to an end, the army subsequently took allegiance with the reigning monarch. The Economist, in a publication soon after the April revolution of 2006 described how the army had played a crucial role in convincing the king to hand back power to the political parties. Thus, history has now repeated itself and today we see the army closely aligned with the democratic forces and the government of the day.

There is rife speculation that the Nepal army is staunchly anti- loktantra. If so, such apprehensions need to be justified. Since the signing of the comprehensive peace agreement, the army has not once defied the rules that define the peace process. On the contrary, there have been consistent incidents where one or more PLA members have been solely responsible for the death of political adversaries, journalists and the common people who have simply dared to contest Maoist beliefs. The Maoists today have described the process of integration of the two armies as the core issue on which the future of the peace process hangs. But one must understand the difference between the Nepal army and the former rebels. For example, let’s examine the training received by PLA and the national army. While the national army has multiple functions- maintaining territorial integrity, alongside defending the sovereignty of the country, the PLA has a unilinear function- to revolt against the state and to organise the state within the paradigms of a communist paradise. This immediately begs one to ask how an armed group designed to revolt against the state can be loyal to that very state.

The integration of ideologically indoctrinated guerrilla fighters into the national army is bound to trigger political instability. In the long run, these indoctrinated and dogmatic guerrilla fighters will pollute and influence the thoughts of the common soldier of the Nepali army. The implications of such a move would be profound. The National army would no longer be apolitical and the democratic system of checks and balances will erode as one party will hold power over the vast national army. In essence, the integration of these radicalised fighters would serve the purpose of a soft coup staged by the leaders of these very fighters.

What we often overlook is that victory is still to be seen. The Maoists have gotten thus far through a process of negotiations and power sharing agreements. Had they won a military victory, it would be their right to do as they please. However, as their victory has not been a military one, the 12 Point Agreement and subsequent agreements have bound them within the constraints of a democratic polity. Credit must be given to the Maoists for their decision to engage with other political parties and the common people so far. But the intention of the Maoist party has created a realm of doubt through the utterances of their party leaders who have consistently harped on the idea of eliminating their adversaries in order to achieve their long term goal of establishing a people’s republic. Today, rather than the consolidation of democratic ideals and values, the Maoist party seems to be engrossed in the process of exploiting the weaknesses of other political parties and vital state institutions. This can be manifested by their eventual demand of integrating their fighters into the national army as the political parties began to lose their edge.

The conclusion of the constituent assembly elections and the catapulting of the Maoist party into forefront of national politics as the largest political party have dramatically altered the political equation of the country. In fact, the election victory has bolstered the enthusiasm of the Maoist party to push for complete consolidation of power. However, the Nepalese army (the only other organised armed force that can challenge them) remains the only prominent hurdle to their destination of a people’s republic. The political parties have long been out manoeuvred and as a result, the Maoists have understood that the political parties are no match for them. Therefore, the neutralisation of the Nepal army is a strategic necessity for the Maoists to attain total power.

The episode that triggered the divergence between the Nepal army and the Maoists has been much scrutinised. At the heart of this conflict lies the debate regarding the actions of the army chief, the president and that of the Maoist party. First, the army chief’s bold move to defy the prime minister’s demand for his resignation prevented the collapse of the very structure of the Nepal army. Second, in an abnormal situation as was then the president’s apt intervention saved the country from serious political breakdown and crisis. Third, the army chief resignation row coupled with the release of the Prachanda video has completely exposed the Maoists. The consequences of this were so great that they had to leave government and have had to lie low as a result.

The future discourse of Nepali politics remains extremely fragile. This is because while the present government has enough members to form a government it doesn’t possess the numbers required to draft and implement a new constitution. It is this number game that has become the new mantra of the Maoist party to overwhelm the state. The Maoists now are engaging in talks with the two other major political parties (NC and UML) for the integration of their fighters into the national army. In such informal talks, the Maoists have been reported to be appeasing both the UML and the NC into fanciful power-sharing agreements like that of the past. Concurrently, the Maoists are also making it clear that without them the constitution will not be drafted on time as planned. Their demand: the integration of ideological fighters into the national army. You decide.

Deliver or Quit

(Courtesy: Dr. Hari Bansha Dulal)

It’s been more than a year since the election of Constitution Assembly (CA). On April 10, 2010, the stipulated term of the CA, which is mandated to draft a new constitution and decide the issue of federalism expires. In the last fourteen months, CA members, who draw a salary of fifty thousand Rupees, have been seen engaged in everything from infamous land grabbing and brawl within CA secretariat campus to availing services of masseuse but draft constitution and decide on the federal structure. If we a do a back-of-the-envelope calculations, six hundred one CA members have so far drawn forty two crores in salary alone. The political parties seem to appear interested in everything else but drafting a constitution and agreeing on a functionally viable federal structure. A federal structure that is fiscally sufficient to govern itself, safeguard the rights and interests within its jurisdiction, and most importantly, maintain unity in diversity.

Having a constitution also means complying with the stipulated rules. After all who wants to play by the rules in “New Nepal” except for the poor, who are bound to? At least not the major political parties. If media is to be believed, in the past six months, only 12 days were free of any kind of strikes or bandhs. The strikes or bandhs that accounted for the 166 days of lost productivity in the past six months were not called by the disgruntled silence majority, which in reality should have been the case. The largest party in the CA leads the pack in enforcing strikes. Organizations affiliated with UCPN-M, whose mother party claims to be the only force capable of bringing sociopolitical and economic transformation in the country was responsible for enforcing 39 bandhs and strikes in the month of may and June alone. It enforced 69 bandhs and strikes in the past six months. Others, who claim to be the alternative to the Maoist bullying are not very far behind. The UML and the NC organized 17 and 15 bandhs during the past six months. So if we combine the strikes and bandhs called by the major three parties, they are responsible for 101 days of lost productivity in the last six months. What does that say, if anything, about the seriousness on the part of the political parties that are responsible for solving common men’s problem and moving the nation forward?

There is a rapid decay in the sense of public service among the politicians. Sadly, the political parties are using democratic process and institutions to legitimize their undemocratic and antisocial activities aimed at achieving their ultimate goal, the maximization of rents. Lack of viable alternatives has left Nepal people used to the moral bankruptcy of the political class. You can contest elections on ethnic agendas, become a foreign minister for nine months and get away without uttering a word on the need for ethnic empowerment for nine months. The globe-trotting foreign minister is again back in action posing himself as ethnic messiah. Political insincerity of few politicians is diluting the purity of the demand for ethnic rights.

Nobody, at least not the politicians, want to have a serious constructive debate on the form of federal structure that is viable and just. The major political parties, whose leadership comprises of mostly pahadi Brahmins and Chettris do not want to raise the issue, because they clearly see their clout diminishing if ethnic federalism is realized. But they do not want to say that, at least not in public. So what they do is- give it a nationalist color. They phrase it quite nicely. Ethnic mindset is antithetical to the notion of national integrity and nationalist pride. Sounds great. Doesn’t it? But the ethnic minorities that are pushing for ethnic federalism do know where these politicians’ Mecca is located at.

Progress should be the ultimate criteria for designing a federal structure. The federal structure should be founded in administrative prudence and developmental prospects rather than petty issues of politics like ethnicity, caste, and language. It is important ensure that the poor, who are not only ethnic minorities benefit from the new structure or else the demand for the separate state is not going to go away like in India. It is important ensure that the poor, who are not only ethnic minorities benefit from the new structure or else the demand for the separate state is not going to go away like in India. The demand for separate states did not die down with the creation of Uttaranchal, Jharkhand, and Chhattisgarh, which were carved out from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Madhya Pradesh. Currently, the demand for creation of 10 new states is lying before the Indian government. India, which was governed and governed quite effectively by British under 4 Administrative Blocks-Bombay, Madras, Calcutta and Delhi-now has 30 states. If the demand for 10 more states is met, it will have 40 states. The country which was divided along the linguistic lines has encouraged fight for language, water, and border. It did not stop there. Politicians further divided the nation along minorities, hindus, scheduled caste (SC), scheduled tribe (ST), and other backward castes (OBCs). The demand for separate state based on ethnicity to promote vote-bank politics has vitiated sociopolitical environment. In Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, the demand for Harit Pradesh and Mithilanchal is being raised. The mental portioning of India engineered by V.P. Singh is getting deeper.

Nepal should learn from Indian experience. A sincere effort towards drafting constitution and debate on federal structure should start immediately. Running away from the problem is not the solution. It will require a sincere dialogue and consensus building. Political elites of yesteryears do not want to cave in to the demands of regional parties as it will shrink their political base and bargaining potential. The regional parties do not want to compromise on anything less than “one madhesh, one pradhesh” because the very minute a regional party will agree to anything less than “one madhesh, one pradhesh” demand, other regional players will cry foul and call it a "sellout." But this game of waiting the other party to drop the ball cannot go for ever, can it?

Constitution drafting and design of the federal structure is put in back burner because of political insincerity. Remaining insincere towards people’s need and the nation’s progress while drawing a pay check at best can be called as a morally repugnant act. Either CA members should stop draining the state’s coffer or get back to the business.

(This piece was originally published on My Republica and is re-produced here with the Author's consent).

Failure of Mr. Makuna

(Courtesy: Kalyan Dev Bhattarai)

When I took active part in the 1990 revolution I was proud for my activities then and till now. Today I feel stupid enough to have taken part in such dirty game of power and feel sorry for respecting this power lusted corrupt so called leaders. What our politicians have been doing since last 60-70 years is known to all Nepalese people and need sno further elaboration.

The political activities since 1990 Andolan clearly showed who ever may come in the power they are same their objective is same –looting the nation, nepotism, betraying the people and selling the nation By fooling the people the so-called leaders (in my language camouflaged dacoits –leaving few exception) the main objectives of our so-called leaders is to create the enmity between and among the Nepalese people in the name of language, cast, religion, location, sex, etc and loot the nation in this or that pretext like the medical treatment, Savasad allowance "Kuti Niram " Tax free Pajero, and many many such pretexts.

What is the contribution of the Sushil Koirala for the nation to get the 2 corore worth of medical allowance for his few US visit in the name of medical treatment, from the taxpayer's money of poor Nepalese people other than he is brother of then P M G. Koirala? If this is not looting of the country's treasury, what is this? At present watching the present day politics Nepalese people feel shame, disgusted, Cheated, betrayed, deceived, and raped openly in daylight in the name of so called democracy by so called politicians who are fighting like cats and dogs for the post of lucrative ministry. Now even the small of the smallest party having one seat in assemble also demanding the position equivalent to state minister for their leader. According to the published news all the ex PM of the country have looted the costly vehicle from the project and transferred in red plate If this is not looting of the country's property what you call it? In my opinion all these ex PM should be hang to death. If this is politics what is day light robbery and looting of the country? I wonder how long the corrupt politicians think people will tolerate these camouflaged dacoits and continue to loot the nation. But there is a limit for every thing and to day people are so frustrated with these so called leaders that any time the people will start chasing the present day leaders and lunch them

Mr. Makuna is the new PM of Nepal with the blessing of south Block and support of Girja Koirala to make his pampered daughter as foreign minister and is unable to complete his ministry after 31 days of his appointment and is total failure to fulfill commitment made to the people immediately (next day) after swearing. The kidnapping for ransom is rampant, and has become a regular feature and as long as the present day nexus between the politicians and kidnappers continue there will be no improvement in the security condition of the country. What a mockery of democracy to form such ministry where the people reject more than majority.

At present there is no security, no law and order and the anarchism is visible in every corner of the country. In my opinion the fate of this country and future of nation would be much better if the ministry is selected from the street dogs because the bunch of dogs as Ministers and PM at least will be patriotic and they will not allow the Indians to encroach our land In Susta, Dang, Kalapani etc) and rape our sisters and loot the hard working farmers will not demand bribery make no false commitment and will not loot the country's treasury and be highly satisfied with the food and limited facilities provided them as ministers and the bureaucracy will not be disturbed to run the country smoothly .

In the name of democracy Nepal is getting a PM who is rejected by the people not only from one place but two places in the last election and analyst say it is unconstitutional because it is clearly mentioned that those who are not elected can not be PM of the country. If that is true the present PM is not only undemocratic but unconstitutional also. This is all happening in the so-called New Nepal and if this is the trailer of the New Nepal, what will be the real scenario of the country in coming days, any people can easily guess and start shaking with fear and uncertainties.

The fighting of last 4 weeks for the lucrative ministry by different party leaders was not only shame full but no better than the fight between the bunch of street for a piece of buffalo bones which gave me the idea of suggesting to make the ministry from the street dogs for the benefit of nation as well as people.

The last election of constitutional assembly was nothing but a mockery of the election because the system was so designed by the camouflaged dacoits that only the party representatives would be landing in the constitutional assembly. As far as my knowledge goes the people's representatives are those who are elected by the majority of the people and should get at least 50 % of the votes. If we agree to all accepted definition of peoples representative, then we can say fairly that present constitutional assembly shows not a single people's representatives (leaving few like Dr Babu Ram Bhattarai) but all party representatives who are assembly member not because they are better qualified, abele and competent or are people's choice but based on their ability of boot polishing, and greasing of their leader. If such peoples are the members of present constitutional assembly, you can not expect better than what is happening to day and forces you to worry on the future of the country, and the fate of the citizen.

It is a well-known fact that in the present constitutional assembly there are hardly any members who are people's representative in true sense, with few expectation all the present day, members of constitutional assembly are party representatives.

In multi-party system the country is run by politicians and their representative and I have no problem on that issue but how on earth, the same group who runs the country also can write the main rules to run the country (constitution). Such system is against the simple and basic logic of Constitutionalism, as the politicians will always look after their personal and partisan interest only and can never write the constitution, which is people oriented. In this context I do not see any possibility of writing the peoples constitution by the present party members of the constitutional assembly within the scheduled time. Yes they will write the constitution which will be neither the people oriented nor will cover the people's interest, aspirations, wishes and nation's requirements but will be just a document prepared to loot the nation openly in different context as before. In a small country like Nepal the politicians agreed to put the 601 members in the constitutional assembly and in my opinion this is nothing but a day light robbery of the nation's treasury by the politician (camouflaged dacoits). To expect people's constitution by such bunch of thugs is nothing but intellectual bankruptcy.

I do not know what the definition of Democracy is for the country's political parties, but the way the present President over rode the assembly elected P.M 's decision of sacking the army chief and overruled the government decision and gave order to the sacked army chief to continue is nothing but the raping of the democracy and buttering the army chief to safe guard his chair. According to the statement published by the president's office, what ever he did was on the request of 18 political parties and petition of the army chief: after this, no further discussion was required on this issue. The act of reemploying the sacked army chief by present president is unconstitutional, undemocratic, in my opinion and the president should be impeached for this unconstitutional act, if there is any tint of democratic norm in the present day members of constitutional assembly, which I doubt very much.

The present day political scenario is created, groomed, and mechanized by the Indian politicians and it is clear to every body that the effort of Mr. Sitaram Yechuri to complete the 12 point resolution between the Maoist and SPA, and to bring the Maoist in the power in spite of Indian Congress disagreement. However during the mentioned period the Sitaram Yechuri was playing important role in the stability of Indian government and Indian Congress did not interfere in the activities of Yechuri and at present when the Indian election gave such a result where Yechuri was no more important to Indian Congress to stay in power, it started its machination to dethrone the Maoist from Power and instigated the army and its puppet like NC and UML to go against the Maoist decision of sacking the army chief, which they had agreed before the result of the Indian election was out. This is what I called the political raping

The other very important fact to remember is that the party like NC and UML were dead against the constitutional assembly election and the republican state, but they were forced to accept both of these demands of the Maoist due to the pressure of the Nepalese people, and the leadership of both the parties (NC and UML) are yet to accept the realities and still consider the Army chief as superior to them and is the de facto king's representative and can not be expected to go against the army chief until the South Block instructs them to do so. In this context, it is to remember here that as it took couple of years for the NC and UML to follow the people's wish of republican state and constitutional assembly election, similarly it will take some time for the NC and UML to accept the wishes of the people of establishing the peoples supremacy over the army, however they have to pay heavy political price for that. Further neither NC nor UML leaders have explained to the people why they differed with the Maoist demand of the republican state and constitutionally assembly then , which they accepted after getting the thrashing from the Indian leaders and in this context I see the NC and UML leaders are fully responsible for the unnecessary death of more than 10 000 innocent Nepalese people during the period of peoples war and these leaders should be put to trial for the genocide

I remember very well when I publicly expressed my opinion (I was the first Nepali to express this opinion publicly) that the king should be removed by referendum, the present day leaders who claim them as the republican supporters were writing against me and threatening in phone and charging me as a supporter of Maoist. This is the political bankruptcy of the present day parties in Nepal. The NC and UML who opposed the constitutional assembly election neither have said a single word why and how they changed their opinion today, nor have explained the political reason for this 180 degree turn. This shows clearly that the Nepalese politics is no better than the prostitution. For the sake of power, the present day leaders are ready to do any thing, say any thing tie them with any force, change their opinion 10 times a day and this is the only country where the politics do not require any logic, ideology, dedication, education, belief, responsibility and can loot the nation freely with out any fear of legal action.

Madhab Nepal, who bowed down to king with coin, and supported and participated in the king's autocratic ruling saying the regression is half refined and lost from two places in the last election is new PM of the country. In my opinion 11th Jestha 2066 when he, took oath of PM from the present President who overruled unconstitutionally the decision of assembly elected PM is the darkest day in the history of the democratic Nepal. In my opinion all democracy loving citizen will remember this day as a very sad dark and politically shameful day and as a Nepalese citizen who participated actively during the last two revolutions all will feel shame for having followed such a crook people as leader.

From the activities of last few weeks one can say without any hesitations now that these corrupt leaders cannot write the new constitution, as they are in politics only to loot the nation and to expect constitution from such crooks will only be a intellectual bankruptcy

Due to all such political stupidity, wrong power hungry decisions, un ethical machinations, and undemocratic activities, whether we like or not, wish or not, the political activities of the so-called leaders of the country is taking the country to that point where the Nepalese people will have no choice but be forced to start another revolution where the tire will be not burn in the every corner of the country but the so-called leaders will be burnt alive. I can only wish for the "wisdom to prevail "in the present day power hungry corrupt so-called leaders (camouflaged dacoit) and that impending revolution could be averted in time without any further blood shed. Lets hope for the best and wish the common sense would come to the so-called leaders.

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.

An Open Letter to the United States of America

(Courtesy: Birat Simha)

To:
Mr. Robert O’Blake
US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia

Your visit to Nepal on 12-13 June, today and tomorrow, is appropriate, timely and welcome. The papers say that you will be discussing a broad range of issues with top officials of the new government in Nepal during your visit to Kathmandu. I further understand that this is your first visit here in your present official capacity. As the representative of the United States and its new dynamic president, Barack Obama, we Nepalis expect much from your visit.

This country is going through a unique process. Some call it the birth pangs of democracy. Others are not so generous. Democracy, as envisaged by the drafters of your constitution, has not even showed its face in this euphemistically termed “New Nepal”. A communist rebellion was appeased by weak political parties with external support from a close neighbour. The country was declared secular, federal and a republic without putting these major issues to the people by the democratic process universally called “referendum”. The election of April 2008 was termed fair by the likes of Mr. Jimmy Carter who did this country no service by his callous statements. The past nine months of the Maoists-led coalition government has not improved this country by even an iota. The increased revenues are cited as an achievement. But these revenues were not able to be utilized for development. They remain useless in government bank accounts or perhaps in the deep pockets of some politicians.

Now we have a Prime Minister who lost the election in two constituencies. Our Foreign Minister is also similarly qualified. The Nepali Congress party, considered the harbinger of democracy in this country, is not democratic within itself. The CPN-UPL, to which party the new PM belongs to, does not even have enough internal unity to choose its ministers for the new cabinet. The Madhesi Janadadhikar Forum, with its quixotic demand for “One Madesh, One Pradesh” is splintered down the middle. These are the three largest parties in the Constituent Assemble, after the Maoists – all with internal in-fighting resulting in political impotence.

The Maoists, as every red-blooded American is aware of, are hell-bent on creating a “People’s Republic”. Their current flirtation with multi-party democracy is merely a tactical step towards their ultimate goal of state capture. No hope of democracy from their side.

So, Mr. O’Brien, representing the most powerful democracy in the world today, what are you going to do to help foster democracy in Nepal? We are fully aware of your country’s interest in Nepal as a potentially soft under-belly of China. But Nepal’s foreign policy vis-à-vis the Tibet issue is very different from the United State’s or India’s. It has to be because we must live with our two giant neighbours. During the past two years, Tibet’s office in Nepal has been closed down. Tibetan protesters at the Chinese Embassy here have been arrested, some rather viciously. Nepal does not have the luxury of American indulgence in Tibetan rights. Your actors, such as Richard Gere, may come here and highlight the issue of “freedom for Tibet”. But for us, China is a powerful neighbour who has also helped us much in development and with whom, I might add, we have no border encroachment problems. If the US wants Nepal to support the Tibet freedom movement, the geo-political equations here have to change drastically. Mind you, as a country which was never colonized, it would also be difficult for us to accept any overt forms of external intervention.

Mr. O’Brien, our new government has stated that the conclusion of the peace process and the timely drafting of the new Constitution are its priorities. And they should be. But how do we conclude the peace process when 19,000 rebel fighters are still camped in various parts of the country at the government’s expense, when it is an open secret that they have access to far more fire power than the few old guns locked up under UNMIN supervision, when the Maoists’ youth wing, the YCL, create havoc at will, when Maoist members of the CA openly declare that they can take over Kathmandu in a mere 12 hours. How is peace possible in this scenario? As for the Constitution, alas we here do not have any Jeffersons, Adams or Franklins which your country was fortunate to have in the 1760’s. We simply have a motley crew of power-hungry politicians. So let not America be surprised if the constitution making process is delayed or even aborted.

Democracy has rights and obligations. Few politicians in Nepal think about the latter. Leadership is a sin qua non. Alas again, we do not have anyone with the leadership stature of a George Washington. Of course, we also do not have anyone with the moral stature of a Abe Lincoln. Enough of what we do not have. We do have, I believe, a vibrant youth population who are seeing their dreams of a happy future fade away. A lot of them are educated and aware. Even the political parties have a “few” of them, except the fossilized leadership in these parties ignores the aspirations and potential of youth. You, Mr. O’Brien, have a President well under 50 years in age. The venerable icon of Nepali democracy (and I do revel in sarcasm at times) is nearing 90!

Let me not ramble on, Mr. O’Brien. We need support from America in the construction of a strong and vibrant democracy in this country. We know you have the ability to help us with this – and without outsourcing it regionally. We expect a lot from the fresh leadership in your country. And we too think, “Yes, we can!”

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)

All This is Fleeting: Sri Lanka and the Maoists

(Courtesy: Dr. Thomas A. Marks)

When a victorious general was granted a “Triumph” in ancient Rome – a parade through the streets – the sources claim a man rode behind him in his chariot with the specific job of whispering, “All this is fleeting.”

So it must seem with Prachanda and his Maoists.

Indeed, “Fierce One” seemed so spooked by ongoing events in Sri Lanka that he scored an own-goal by bringing up the subject in the recent Kathmandu rally. There will be no such end for the Maoists, he railed, lest any be tempted to think that his band of not-so-merry men would go the way of the declawed Tigers.

Poor Prachanda – the photos of LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) supremo Prabhakaran's body are widely available on the net. Thus it seems he had been reminded that "all are mortal," which is the other phrase the man in the chariot is supposed to have been directed to say.

Antiquity aside, it is useful to draw some lessons for Nepal from the Sri Lankan case. I have spent considerable time in both and cover them in separate chapters of my recent book. In one sense, they are very different, in another much the same.

Dynamics of Sri Lankan Conflict

Democracies struggle in South Asia, where the holding of elections conceals a great deal that is profoundly undemocratic. In particular, parliamentary mechanisms often lead to lack of safeguards for minority positions and marginalization of entire communities.

In Sri Lanka, such a dynamic took the post-independence form of marginalization of the Tamil minority (17%) by the very large Sinhalese majority (80%). Though both communities in reality had further divisions, especially the Tamils (notably, between Sri Lanka and Indian Tamils), it was the need to define the identity of Sri Lanka as a state that set the two nations against each other.

Significantly, both before and during the Tamil upheaval, Sri Lanka faced Maoist upheavals. Both were led by the Janata Vimukthi Peramuna, JVP (People’s Liberation Front), 1971 and 1987-90, and had more of a class character (i.e., poor versus “them”). Even such a general description does not do justice to the complexity of Sri Lankan society that saw the same effort to harness local divisions, whatever they were, by the JVP.

In particular, in a characteristic shared with Nepal’s Maoist insurgency, the first JVP bid for power was driven by upheaval within the young. An agriculturally-based economy; limited alternative sectors unable to provide employment for a rapidly expanding population; an age-pyramid dominated by youth; an educational system teaching the wrong things (and generally in the wrong languages for the jobs available); strong caste influences that further narrowed opportunities; and a democracy which was neither transparent nor efficient; all served to make “liberation” or “revolution” an attractive prospect. The result was death and destruction.

Crushed, the JVP plotted its comeback, which was provided by Indian intervention. “Peacekeeping” to New Delhi, “invasion” to most Sri Lankans, the social explosion that shook the island led to a level of upheaval that would be familiar to Nepalese. With the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) locked in its own battle against the Tamil insurgents in the North and East, the Sri Lankans were able to focus on the Southern, terror-driven violence and finish it. The entire JVP leadership was eliminated, and the survivors joined legal politics – where their bizarre positions today make India’s Marxists appear almost rational.

Significantly, by the time the chastised Indians departed (after a thousand-plus dead and twice that wounded), LTTE had become a full-spectrum insurgency, complete with armor and artillery. Ultimately, it would field everything from aircraft to underwater demolitions teams to suicide squads in three dimensions (land, air, and sea). Large battles included an entire brigade camp (1,200-men) wiped out on the government side.

A post-9/11 ceasefire left LTTE as the de facto rulers of the Tamil-dominated Northern and Eastern Provinces. Yet LTTE leader Prabhakaran was simply unable to leave well enough alone. Just as the Nepali Maoists had their assassination and bombing command in the Kathmandu Valley during the 1996-2006 war), so LTTE had its equivalent. And just as the Maoist-directed YCL is encouraged to continue its depredations, so LTTE executed a campaign of terror in government-controlled areas. The main target was moderate Tamils, hundreds (literally) of whom were assassinated.

Enabling the LTTE effort were the same external actors one finds so dominant in Nepal – even some of the same countries – any number of which have now been told, in so many ways (some directly), that they are no longer welcome in Colombo.

How Did the Sri Lankans Win?

Colombo’s position on foreign intervention in its affairs highlights the key element which led to successful resolution of the present stage of conflict: a mobilization of national will. In this, one could argue that Sri Lanka engaged in a state version of the successful Nepali Maoist mass mobilization in the latter’s surge to power. Taking the analogy a step further, it could be argued that the “lost” decades for Colombo were occasioned by adopting a “Nepali government approach” – unfocused, under-resourced, and lacking mobilization and will.

Early on, 1983-87, the Sri Lankan approach was completely military, even as the 1987-90 counter-JVP effort utilized all elements of national power (with, to be sure, a very “big boy rules” mentality guiding the whole). Thereafter, a gradual but steady shift occurred in which Colombo, while understanding the root causes of the struggle, realized it would have to adopt a philosophy of total mobilization for the ultimate clash.

Why had it not done this previously? States invariably seek to fight limited wars until forced by circumstances to do otherwise. For insurgents, wars are always total. Similarly, internal wars have phases. What is an appropriate course of action at one point in time, say, 1983-87, is not necessarily the path to take in, say, 2006-2009.

In 2006, faced with an LTTE which had wiped out all rival insurgent groups (there were once at least three dozen) – as well as all moderate Tamil politicians it could liquidate – Colombo saw no recourse but renewed violence. The increasingly shrill efforts of external actors to push “peace” foundered on the reality that LTTE was already at war. It had used the latest “ceasefire” in exactly the manner it had done in the past, as a weapon to refit, regroup, and reposition its forces.

In this, LTTE was no different than the Nepali Maoists, who used ceasefires for similar purposes. As I have pointed out in recent articles, the only surprising element in “Prachandagate” is how many seem to have forgotten the earlier evidence of the same behavior. This can not surprise: The Maoists share with LTTE a worldview that sees “struggle” as the normal condition of mankind. Violence and nonviolence are but sides of the same coin. “Heads I win, tails you lose.”

To their credit, the Sri Lankan leadership saw through this strategy and turned the coin on its edge. Indeed, the superb effort at the top, of planning and motivation, was in many respects a family affair, with President Mahinda Rajapaksa relying upon his brothers – Gotabaya, Secretary of Defense, and Basil, special advisor. The three responded with their own “coin,” skillfully constructing a multifaceted effort.

The cutting edge was military, led by the increased professionalism of a very large, battle-hardened military led on the ground by General Sarath Fonseka. But it was built upon political and popular mobilization, combined with astute cultivation of foreign support beyond Sri Lanka’s normal, pro-Western allies.

For the Sri Lankans recognized that, when all was said and done, their Western supporters, whether states or INGOs, would see to their own designs and leave Colombo in the lurch. When this indeed turned out to be the case, Sri Lanka had constructed a position, built upon a network of alternative sources of arms and supplies (notably from China and Pakistan), which allowed it to finish the business.

The elimination of the LTTE counter-state was carried out systematically, despite an active, increasingly shrill campaign that sought outright invasion of the country – under the guise, to be sure, of “humanitarian intervention” a la the former Yugoslavia, with, apparently, a “Tamil Kosovo” to follow.

That the same approach was used by external actors to neutralize the Nepali state in the 1996-2006 period needs no highlighting. That the result looks rather more like the Balkans and rather less like a nation-state also needs no highlighting.

For the neo-colonialists, the very fact that Nepal experienced upheaval meant its old-order lacked legitimacy. Hence, went their logic, it had no right to defend itself.

Sri Lanka provides the same evidence of imperfection, as Sri Lankan politicians, pundits, and intellectuals are quick to point out. Still, they note further, they are Sri Lankan imperfections and will now have a Sri Lankan solution. Nepal remains yet a neo-colony, and there is no leadership in sight of the quality one sees in Colombo.

Road Ahead

Nevertheless, a great deal of effort is now being put into discussing what could go wrong in Sri Lanka. It seems something of a parlor game for the Western media, with the more liberal outlets outraged (the only word for it) that any small Asian country would have the gall to ignore the commands of the “usual suspects,” so used to issuing orders backed by threats of aid cut-offs and “war crimes trials.”

As Colombo continues to steer its own course, the threats have again begun to escalate. They are fruitless. Sri Lanka has committed to reconciliation, but it is unwilling to have the terms of its internal arrangements dictated to it.

What will matter, then, is sincerity. Whether the state can deliver upon its promises to its marginalized minority will become clear soon enough.

This is the state of play in Nepal, as well, with little sincerity in evidence on the part of the prime culprits in the current mess, the Maoists. Indeed, recent Maoist pronouncements do not bode well for timely or acceptable resolution.

Once again, having created a disaster, the Maoists have resorted to threats as their “solution.” They have stated that they will allow the processes of governance and constitution-writing to go forward – but only if they are given what they have demanded all along – the right to run roughshod over NA, as the last stumbling block in their ability to stage a slow-motion coup.

That threatening violence, if one does not get his way, is but violence camouflaged does not enter into Maoist calculations (or those of their external backers). Yet, in the shadow of Sri Lanka, with its carnage enroute to peace, the Maoists have been offered a chance to establish their bonafides.

They can either commit to peaceful politics, or they can choose to continue their sub-rosa violence (much of which is not particularly “sub”). They had eight months to place their cards on the table and proved themselves utterly incompetent at all save 3M: menace, mugging, and murder.

If the Maoists are sincere, it is time to disband the goon squads and engage in politics as per the plain definition of the word, the process whereby society decides and implements who gets what – rights, resources, privileges, and obligations. Politics pursued by “other means” is, as per Clausewitz, no longer politics but war.

History and geography have left Nepal a very imperfect state in search of a nation. As Sri Lanka has been given a second chance, so is this the case for Nepal. It has been given an opportunity to become a nation-state.

In this, the Maoists have a voice, but they must respect that of others. As for the Nepalese chattering classes, on the verge of trying their hand at the ultimate balancing act, coalition politics, they can draw another lesson from the ancients: Carpe Diem – seize the day.