Participatory constitution-building for a new Nepal

Hopelessness and hope
We live in a globalised world where we all know what sorts of luxuries for life are available in some places. Ignorance is bliss they say, and in that sense our ignorance has been killed by the information of this age. We are thus well informed that there are cleaner streets in some places on earth. There are places that have supermarkets which never run out of sugar, gas stations that have never run out of fuel and never in the last decades has there been a power cut. What more? There are places with health insurance so that if you get sick you don't have to bother about having to sell your cow or your buffalo, education is free such that you don't have to sell your kidneys for a few thousands and hope that the operation goes smoothly and does not leave you with a deadly bleeding or a deadly infection; there is even unemployment benefit such that if you have no job you can still afford not just house, clothing and a couple of meals a day but also a few cans of beer. Now why should it surprise us that most of us apply for the DV card?- in the mean time openly. There is another part to the story though and that is that however many of us get "lucky" and get a DV card, or are successful in establishing the right channel to land in greener pastures, or whatever,...there will always be those of us who will be where we are, namely in the land of scarcity and insecurity and instability. So whereas I do not discourage us from dreaming of moving to better habitats, I would like to kindly remind us all that we should perhaps think about starting to dream of creating a better habitat.

In this place of adversities, we stand at difficult times with leaders who have constantly failed to fulfil our aspirations. And we are hopeless that anything will get better. Is there any hope left for us?

There is.

Where though?

The new constitution is a hope
Well for a start, we are in the process of building our constitution. In face of the big changes that have happened in the country (at least in paper we have seen some changes, like the crown is out of the government papers) it is justified that there is the talk of a new constitution. Not that our previous constitution was no good at all but yes, there were problems that gave rise to situations that were such legal deadlocks that the Supreme Court
1. failed to come to consensual decisions
2. even failed to act consistently in different instances.
The cases of a couple of prime ministers suddenly being in the minority in the parliament stand testimony to that.
There are many things beyond that. The most important being the lack of human rights in our country. Human rights have been bulldozered upon by hooliganism of all shapes and sizes, including in the name of political parties, security wings, tribes, etc. etc. Let us not vividly think on too many of these dreadful instances. It suffices here to say we know it, we have seen it and we are certain we don't want to see such atrocities upon human life. For life has a dignity, doesn't it?

Now there is an understanding as to what the basic human rights are. There is an international understanding. So we can perhaps take them for granted for the purpose of this article. Then if we agree that those rights are human rights, and we agree that those rights are not always secured by the Nepali state, it is fair to say that the Nepali state is a failed state. The first reason to have a state and a political system, a bureaucratic apparatus to run the state is to allow and enable peaceful co-existence of subjects of the state. Else we could all do with an unwritten "might is right" sort of co-existence. In which case we would need no government, no citizenship cards, no elections…which is, I suppose, not what we want.

Being the most supreme law of the country, the constitution has the right to rule upon us all but also the responsibility to ensure that the state lives. So the constitution essentially defines the state and the way it functions. And what a great joy it is to know that we stand at this moment in time, despite all the adversities in our country, where we can actually define the state. Define the country of Nepal. The demand on us now is to design a constitution that we all believe is best equipped to overcome the problems of this suffering population.

We need more participation
I hope I am not alone in wondering why we, the common people of the country do not get to have a say in issues as huge as whether the country needs a federal structure. It seems as though it is absolutely clear that the only way forward for Nepal is to adopt a federal structure. To say the least I am not sure. But again there seems to be no discussion anymore as to whether federalism is what we want. Just like we were not asked whether we want to abolish the monarchy. Now I am no believer in monarchy. No offences meant to him but I find it ironic enough to be in the same position as Mr. Kamal Thapa, a strong advocate of monarchy.

But my worry is that our political system has been reducing masses of individuals to a few leaders.

Now that might have sounded politically naive. There is obviously no arguing that not all of us can be involved in every decision in the country that potentially affects us. And thus we need representatives. These representatives are the ones that we call leaders. Representative politics is by its very nature reductive. Whereas a hundred people in an area could have several different ways of thinking about a given issue, the representative will have to favour one of them (or his might be completely different from all others prevailing in the community he is supposed to represent), leading to a possible lack of representation of several of the voices and opinions and running the risk of misrepresentation. Not only that, but such misrepresentation might at times be counterproductive to the people who the representative is actually supposed to represent. After all, the person representing is an individual limited by his individuality, that is to say his ambitions, greed, etc., all normal human attributes. And at times personal interest of the representative might lie somewhere very far away (which might even be in the wrong direction) from the interest of the population that he is supposed to represent.

The likelihood of misrepresentation and the risk of personal interest of the representative interfering with the judgement of the representative are inevitably larger in dimension in a society like ours where
1. life is seriously deprived of basic rights
2. insecurity prevails thereby making each one of us selfish and greedy…such that we try to accumulate wealth and power that might rescue us in case we are in trouble in the coming times. Obviously such individualistic and (because of the nature of our society) family-centred thinking is there in the politicians too.
In such a situation I believe that it is important to reduce the powers of the representative and diffuse it. And the first step towards that is to try and ensure that key issues are decided upon with increasing participation from the public at large. And the first place to start that is during constitution building.

Demanding more participation
Popular participation could be introduced in different forms. One obviously is to ask people individually on big issues. At this juncture I still hold that it would have been a wise decision to involve the public in the issue of removing monarchy, of making Nepal a secular state and on the idea of federal structure governing the country. The immense weight of these issues is there for all to see in that the name (I mean the full name) of the country has changed due to these decisions. And who made those decisions? The representatives in the parliament. And how did they do it? Through power negotiations. And what type of people are these? I need to sigh. These are the same old faces from whom we have seen more of criticism of the others than anything else. The same people who give the impression that their power contracts are signed in Delhi…oh Lord, bless us. But that’s what we have. There is no point constantly criticizing leaders using abusive words (there are some news sites where I get to see such comments). That won't take us anywhere. More importantly while we are content using bad names against them they are, driven by their individual limitations, doing things that will affect us and our children and our grandchildren, in ways that we might not like. So let us realize that we all need to realize the responsibility upon our shoulders. We need to write the constitution together, although our representatives seem not to be keen on asking us on key issues.

We could for example pressurize our representatives to hold constitution building discussions openly. Constitution building sessions of the parliament could be aired openly. We should get to see those discussions. We should get to see what they are signing upon.

Next thing is for us to make it mandatory for those representatives to attend a defined number of public programs where they can be asked about their stand and they can be suggested by the larger public.

And then at the population level, we could start holding discussions on constitutional issues, perhaps on a ward-basis and there should be a channel to forward suggestions coming out of such discussions to the representatives.

The press could also possibly shoulder some responsibility and start having forums where people could discuss on key issues. Conclusions arising out of such forums could then be voiced in editorials etc.

Is there enough time?
Little has been done until now other than trying to gather majority to rule the country. In essence this was all supposed to be constitution building time. So in fact there is perhaps not enough time for participatory discussions on all issues. But if we work on things with a plan we could still make it in time. After all there are issues that we all agree upon, like human rights issues. And big issues that need discussion ask questions. A random list of such questions could look like this: How should the executive power of the country be distributed? What check and balance mechanisms could be introduced to make sure corruption becomes less? How to strengthen the judiciary? Should the military be used in within-country conflicts? Who can call it an emergency state? Should an NRN be allowed dual nationality?

How about assigning dates to such discussions such that we actually start building up the constitution piece by piece?

Lessons to learn from the Chabahil killing of Pedestrians

There is news of a route bus killing three pedestrians in Chabahil, Kathmandu. When life is terminated prematurely it is always a tragedy, for protection and promotion of life is after all the ultimate purpose. When something like this happens, there has to be serious reflections on the matter on several parts. And LESSONS HAVE TO BE LEARNT.

The recipe for accidents
The population of Kathmandu has been increasing for several reasons. The demand for transportation has risen and so the number of vehicles on the roads are ever on the rise.
With increased burden our roads are often not in good shape, therefore forcing drivers to drive in curves. Imagine the result of unexpected potholes leading to wild sways by drivers in busy roads like Putali Sadak.
The introduction of traffic lights are a welcome move, but it is not uncommon to see drivers speeding up at a red traffic light if no traffic policeman is around.
The traffic policeman/woman in Kathmandu is a figure of pity suffering amidst the high noise and air pollution. Therefore he/she cannot be expected to function efficiently.
There is an ever increasing number of people running about in Kathmandu, all of them in a rush and running wildly over railings and even through sections of the motorable road at times. The footpaths are not enough for the people.
Route buses are under pressure to pick up the odd traveller who might be waiting at tentatively defined stops or even between them.
Young people easily think that they will escape the attention of the tired traffic cop once again driving without a licence or driving under the influence of drugs/alcohol. It is something to big up about among their friends. Moreover their parents seem to be alright with such activities.
And then we have our VIPs creating traffic chaos whenever they move about. With all parties in the parliament showing signs of fracture induced by things like greed, fear, "instruction from the south", "instruction from the north" etc. the cabinet is always likely to be big, therby adding to the number of VIPs who obstruct traffic. Not to forget there are also VIPs who expect not only to be saluted by the traffic cops but also to be road-cleared.

Some basic things that should change
Well what I just wrote above is clear to all. We all know that. But for a system to function we need to make clear laws to avoid them. here are a few suggestions that should not be difficult to follow, if the administration were to be interested.

1. Ensure that noone uses the road without a driving licence.
Well there is a mechanism in place to check this. But obviously more needs to be done. That would mean not just a fine but also stricter measures like disqualifying someone found driving without a licence for say up to five years for a licence application. A repeat offense should be dealt with the above plus imprisonment.

2. Introduce a separate licence class for driving public transport vehicles and taxis.
Driving on public roads should be associated with a big responsibility. Driving with passengers behind you has to do with even more responsibility. Therefore driving public transport vehicles and taxis should be allowed only under possession of a "Public Driver" licence. The conditions for applying for one such licence should be different and should involve a minimum age higher than the regular licence-qualifying age and also a minimum number of years of possession of the ordinary licence.

3.Strictly prohibit people on the road except on defined areas.
We need to learn that the road is for vehicles and that there is no way that we simply jump over the barriers and walk on the roads because that is convenient to us. We have learnt the wrong thing and so for corrective action we need a very strict law. people walking on the road other than on defined areas should be punished with hefty fines.

4. Driving under influence
There is a mechanism in place to punish this. But it seems there are too many loopholes to the law such that offenders can easily escape, even when their recklessness kills someone. We have recently witnessed such an incident. That is simply INEXCUSABLE. Driving in a city like Kathmandu amidst the above described chaos requires a lot of attention and a minimal compromise due to drugs or alcohol is inevitably an invite to disaster. Therefore driving under influence should be punished with utmost strictness. At least cancellation of licence for a few years and a hefty fine. In the case of an accident involving a driver under influence there should be a driving ban of at least ten years to a lifetime ban and an imprisonment as well.

5. Road tax to private vehicle owners
Private vehicle owners should be made to pay significant amounts of money, not just namesake sums. Oftentimes private vehicles run with a driver and one passenger, which is something our cities cannot afford, at least not at the moment. Therefore in addition to a yearly tax they pay private vehicles should be taxed on a daily basis at suitable sections of the roads.

6. Define stops more precisely
Route bus stops should be defined precisely and these should be strictly followed. Non compliance should be fined with ridding of the public driver licence for a few days for example and a fine to the operating company.

7. Define maximum number of people on board
It is not possible right now to implement only-seated-passenger policy. But it should be possible to define the maximum number of passengers that should be allowed to travel in any given vehicle. That should be indicated on the exterior of any route vehicle and non-compliance should again be seriously punished.

8. Reduce working hours of traffic policemen and increase their salary.
Stricter implementation of laws like the ones described above would most certainly help generate revenue that should be used to decrease the workload of traffic policemen and to increase their pay.

...And then if there if money left in the coffer there is always so much to do like mark lanes on roads, install more traffic lights and signs etc.

Lives have been lost and will be lost if we fail to bring about a change in our ways of looking at the road and road traffic incidents. Let us promise to be honest to ourselves. We are on the path of building a new Nepal, eh? So why fear changes that might help us get better and our roads get safer.

On rule of law

I just read that Rishi Dhamala has been released after the government withdrew the case against him. What follows is what came into my mind as afterthought. Before I start this piece talking about the rule of the law I want to declare that I do not have a degree in law. And still I am venturing to write this up because I believe the rule of law is something that affects everyone and therefore everyone should have the right to express his or her opinion on it.

State of the state
Right now our state is in a real chaotic state. Nepal is in fact an endangered nation as of now and if you call Nepal a failed state, I believe the only ones who would not agree are those who are in state power right now. Not unexpectedly!
Why is it like this? Well obviously there are problems at more than one level. the lethargy of the power hungry people ruling the country is clear to see in the lack of enthusiasm in the website of the National Planning Commission, where the last update seems to be the news that a new blah blah blah has been appointed the vice-chairman. And that's some months now. Anyway enthusiasm is either in the streets or in the dias where the political players of the country can talk non-stop about how bad the other politician is, and how wrong the other political parties are in hampering the peace process. Shameful is the word that comes to mind but the sense feels not strong enough. The direction of shameful but way beyond, perhaps towards the end of the scale.

Anyway, because policy makers are the way they are and politicians are not different, hope has transformed itself into the swastika stamp we are allowed to put by the side of a name or an election symbol. And there too they literally buy our votes thus buying our hopes and playing with them, hurting them, at times killing them, making out of us frustrated, desperate humans who have nothing to lose and so would do naything for anything- including killing someone for a couple of thousand rupees etc...It hurts!

And that is the state of the state in terms of civic sense that has emerged as the predominant mentality.

Is there a starting point?
Bettering the state of the state to allow hope to flourish and live, and rights to bloom, enthusiasm to colour life to the brilliance it is worth is still a dream. And then one could ask is there a way we could walk towards the dream? That demands disentangling the complexity of the state of the state and trying to resolve into pieces that could be dealt with. And the one thing that we should perhaps start with is the establishment of the rule of law. Easier said than done, but it is simple, well if we were to be honest and true to ourselves.

The rule of law
In an ideal world where humans rise up to super consciousness, we would perhaps all achieve the higher state and perhaps the ultimate truth is the same such that all of us in the higher state would believe in the same truths. As a corollary, we would thus believe in the same principles to be the governing principles and would therefore possibly not need the laws to be written. But in a world of limited resources and competition everywhere, life becomes a game, a war. And then we need laws and a referee. It sounds simple and it really is simple. Looking at the way Western Europe has tranformed itself from a war-torn, valueless, brutal society to one of the ebst social systems in the world in a span of around fifty years since the second world war time speaks volumes for what can be achieved. We just need to stick to the basic and the basic is that we let the law rule. We need to accept this because in a world struggling to secure the basic needs of life, individual values may differ, which is fine, but to an extent where clashes emerge between inviduals, and groups of individuals. And for survival curiously seems to be the goal for even the most desperate of souls (with exceptions that are almost negligible), desperate heads fail to see reason and logic and naturally give in to the temptations of crime. And thus crimes happen and then to cover them more crimes, and guilt and crime...the cycle never stops.

Where do we stop the cycle and how? There are two things here. The first is that we stop the cycle in the present, wherever it is. We just stop the cycle of crime, guilt, anger, desperation. And to stop it we use two things- one written the other not. The unwritten one is forgiveness on the part of all of us. We will not keep grudges and we shall try to forget the bitterness of the past and try to keep ourselves focussed for the now. For we live in the now. Getting stuck in the past makes us stale and we start stinking of death...

The written one is going to be the law. We will use the rule of law to restrain ourselves, whatever our past.

Getting there
Tough ask it is. For how can I forget what that Maoist did to my grandfather? Or how can I forgive that guy who almost killed me? Well we can try. For if we want to get out of it we have to start at some point. Else we will be living our lives for revenge. Pity it would be.

The rule of the law demands simply that we write the law down and follow it. That's it. Writing the law is no big deal really. For there are plenty of examples of laws that work. And we could just take one of them, start working with that one and change it in due course of course so that our law lives in the now. Once we have the law written we need to follow it. And that is where we have to work very hard too.

Consistency is key
If we want to establish a rule of the law, consistency is key. And that has to start at the government level. Governments may change but the way the rule of law is interpreted should not. We should not be calling someone a culprit and then the next day he buys us a lollypop and we start calling him a saint. We should stop doing this. Once we call someone a culprit a channel should start where the accused comes into the hands of the law and the law shall decide in courts of the law as to whether the accusation was justified. This has to start. And we the people should tell our governments that they should do this. They must.

Now Rishi Dhamala was accused of possessing arms and was held. The government took back the charges and has released him. This is a case of the government stepping into the territory of the judiciary. Once the government charges someone the case should be dealt with in the court. And even if the government wants to withdraw the charges that should be done in the court of justice. Imagine the cost of arresting someone. The cost of maintaining a cell.

How mercilessly they play with our money, these politicians, and how shamelessly we turn our faces away and keep mum if it was a political party we voted for. This is what has to change. We need ourselves to be objective. Else we can all apply for DV visas or the like and leave our country to rot.

raktim.nepali@gmail.com

Who said federalism?

The erasure of monarchy in Nepal was quite a surprise for a number of reasons.

For one it was the lineage of someone who had united petty kingdoms of largely feudalistic nature into a national identity. Not to forget Prithvi Narayan Shah is even now still talked of and we Nepalis like to talk of his statement of Nepal being a yam between two boulders.

Secondly, monarchy was at the top of the nation for most of the last near three hundred years, and in the least had a firm base in the bureaucracy and a strong influence in the military institution of the country. Moreover the king had the status of the Hindu lord Vishnu not only in formal announcements but also in the mentality of the majority of the rural masses.

Thirdly the Nepali monarchy being the only Hindu king (thus making Nepal the only Hindu kingdom in the world) Nepal was and still is at the centre of attention of radical and non-radical Hindu organisations worldwide who believe in strengthening religious identity in a world dominated more and more by silent growths of religious polarisation. For an emerging superpower India, still largely dominated at the political leadership by people calling themselves Hindus and declaring muslim Pakistan, Afghanistan etc. as the cause of the all worldly problems, the existence of a Hindu monarchy under it's shades was a symbolic representation of power in South Asia.

...and still monarchy was erased from Nepal.

Fair enough. The issue of deleting monarchy was brought in and pushed by the Maoists who in their own words succeeded in bringing the then establishment on its knees and even won popular elections. So if one adds these up, one could say that the monarchy was released with the voice of the majority of the population. That said, a much fairer approach would have been to ask the people individually and let them decide. Frankly asking them- "Should we keep the king or kick him out of the system?" and collecting the opinions of people rather than letting the constituent assembly that appears more and more like a herd of untrustworthy, ambiguously-speaking, power-hungry people decide for the people.

Anyway, it is conceivable that many people (at least among those who were lucky enough to make their voices heard) were not happy with the king and his ways. Especially the latest king. The news of his son driving wildly in congested streets and killing someone, the mysteries behind the palace massacre and the failure of the king to make a believable statement to the incidents, past history of his being involved in the Namita-Sumita case, and other cases of smuggling etc...all these had added up to a bitter feeling of the people towards the institution of monarchy itself. With the Maoists wanting to see something palpable as a result of their decade long war, and with the corrupt political faces and structures also riding on the anti-monarchy waves of time, erasure of monarchy became inevitable. All problems in Nepal till then were declared to be because of the monarchy and monarchy was erased. We all celebrated with enthusiasm and were made to believe that now the monarchy is gone everything will automatically get better.

Whether things have gotten better or not is a different issue and not the topic of this discussion. But as if removal of monarchy and therewith its social and political influences were not a big deal to gett o terms with, the same old politicians (most of whose records of corruption are not difficult to find) and the governance-inexperienced Maoist leadership which for a positive did in fact lead people in desperation, but on the negative side was very ineffective (ten years and over ten thousand dead, the country full of weapons, the chaos afterwards- an absolute political failure unless they declare their aim was to bring about this state of anarchy) brought about the idea of a federal structure in Nepal without asking the people, without even talking to them, without holding enough discussions. This is a fatal blow to democracy.

Here is why.

No I am not saying federalism would be a fatal blow to democracy in our country. But the way it has been brought out as an issue is. If we go back to the basics, democracy simply means giving major issues to the people to decide. And nowhere do I feel that we have been asked if we want federalism. Rather the political centres in cooperation with their "intellectual circles" came up with the idea and each one of them has actually in their mind frame split the country into federal units. Oh what fantasy is this? Now let's be honest. We all know what these intellectuals have contributed to our failed nation, don't we?

Not only did they not ask people about the issue but are now making people fight against each other in support of this or the other way of dividing the country. And guess what? We have been thrown dust in the face and we have in fact started advocating for this or the other party's model of dividing the country depending on which political party we sympathise or which one would give my son or your uncle a job. Now this is a terribly undemocratic practice. And I would like to urge all of us to please seriously think about the issue. We need to learn to stand up above individual and family interests in order to preserve democracy in the country. If I decide to follow Mr. Parmananda Jha's anti-supreme court activity because he is from the Madhes, and you decide to continue protesting in the streets saying the president needs to be removed, I don't suppose we will be going much longer as a nation. What do we think?

Let us discuss issues. Let us talk about issues based on our understanding and not based on what political parties that we "have been supporting since generations" say. Let us be objective and ask our leaders to be objective.

And for now, for all the seriousness behind the issue, let us ask ourselves- who said federalism? Should the people not be explained what federalism is, and asked whether they want it?

raktim.nepali@gmail.com

Thinking of Children

Everyday the sun rises. Some children in my country wake up and go to school
1. some go to private boarding school and their parents get the money back from their employers
2. some go to a government school where hopefully teachers are there to tell them something

Those who don't:

1. have to take care of their younger siblings while their parents go to work hoping someday to be able to send their children to school OR
2. are lying in their death bed waiting for an Armyman or a Maoist health worker, or just anyone with some knowledge of health before this dehydrated, undernourished body is left by the soul OR
3. hope mother will cook some food so they can put something in their tummy before they go to work with their parents, sometimes in fields that are a couple of hours of barefooted walk though raw mountains, sometimes at the bend on a busy uphill street where buses and trucks generously let loose of their exhausts making the stones they have beaten appear black OR
4. are alone at home, knowing not what to do, wiating for a couple of their friends to come to them ,hopefully one of them with a ball made of old socks or a dandi-biyo set. Lord life is no fun sitting alone at home having nothing to do OR
5. are trying to put some of the few sukas and mohars into their pocket with the remaining left hand (how many of these would I need to buy a rasbari?), lest their master comes and picks up all the money and leaves them with the empty plate to beg for the midday meal and threaten to cut the tongue off too if the complaining continued OR
6. are falling asleep waiting at some of the public steps near Hanumandhoka, flies savouring on the cuts and bruises that they have collected through their day's work in the city OR
7. are busy selling ground nuts at a bus stop or newspapers inside a bus OR
8. are working at a huge construction site waiting for the next karahi of sand and cement, or bending the rods or filtering the sand, hoping some day they will be able to build a house for themselves OR
9. are playing horses with a similarly aged son in the master household (have to be serious, a bad horse gets a beating- of course) while the masters are at work and their son doesn't go to school because of an morning-only stomachache OR
10. are walking from the back of a tyampoo to the front, crying, telling the driver that the two men running there in that direction, just beat him up and looted all the money that had been collected as fares OR
11. are exploring their body (what's that hole you got and what's this stick i got?) in a dark corner in a carpet factory they work and live in that has been running almost idle OR
12. are wondering at the shiny, slippery walls with colorful flowers as they take a shower with fine foam (not eye-burning dallo sabun this time) in a hotel room where a very kind lady lives of whom friends said she gave a shower, then massaged you with oil, you massaged her too, fed you with good food and even gave you some money at the end of it. And yes, she even took pictures of yours alone and together with her OR
13. are sitting with seniors rolling gaanja on a leaf and learning the skills of becoming a fighter for the new Nepal OR
14. are searching for plastic inside rotten overspilled waste containers, plastic to sell and make some money with OR
15....

...and I stand here in front of my warderobe wondering what dress I should be wearing today. As I think of chidlren I can't help being proud of my sense of social responsibility (In fact I have given a village boy work, he lives with us and we send him to school too. We have even given him a separate space. He has his own room under the stairs and unlike most other miserly, nasty people, we have even put a glass window on the outer wall so he can have some daylight). He is not good at cooking, he is not good at washing clothes clean, he is very bad at cleaning the toilet (leaves stains) and the bathroom (slips and falls once in a while- last time we even paid the costs of the fracture of his arm he caused by falling), he is not good at brushing our shoes, he is not good at ironing our clothes (my wife sometimes has to redo some of hers herself), and still we are keeping him because we want to contribute something to help children in need in our country. He doesn't seem to acknowledge our sense of social responsibility but we are giving him a chance. Hopefully he will learn and not waste this golden opportunity he has been given by our generosity.

Are you a proud person with a sense of social responsibility like mine? Is our minister of child welfare a proud person, like me, helping children in need?
Let's hope not...

raktim.nepali@gmail.com

Problemananda Jha and search for a solution

I am honestly tired of asking myself why on earth this man called Parmananda Jha is behaving the way he is. Well it is none of my concern why someone is this way or that way but this guy's stubbornness is creating ground for confrontations in my country where too many people have nothing to do and so many are looking for something to do, why not it be causing destructions, for in the rule of a namesake government life is not promoted and thus starts searching for its identity in ways that can often become destructive for life itself in the long run. Thus jobless youths tired of asking themselves what they are good for, what they are worth and what they at all can, often go all out for potentially harmful confrontations. Amidst such a background it is at least irresponsible what Mr. Jha is doing.

It is an issue but...
...again, it is indeed an issue whether regional languages should be listed under official languages of a country. That said it is a very complicated issue. If we call all the regional languages of Nepal official languages, then we run into the next question of whether we give all languages a status equal to the Nepali language. That will include things like whether we should start having official documents in all the languages, for else one document that originates from the Terai might be in a language that is not understandable to a hilly area (or vice versa), thereby limiting the movement of people for reasons of employment and otherwise. Such practice will potentially cause regional identity to be promoted, and this will lead to our country being a collection of smaller population groups that fail to mix up with each other. Given the strong interest of giant neighbours in our country, social groupism would be very fertile ground and if such things happen further I would not negate possibilities of parts of our country being found under the maps of another country in the textbooks of the future.

Now one might ask why not have different languages within the same country and mix up with each other. After all India survives as a nation although regionalism is immensely strong there, why should it not be good for Nepal? As long as regions survive as more or less stable economic subunits of a nation, the problem usually does not manifest and social integrity maintains itself but as the economy sways (and it does in the free market economy model) latent social conflicts manifest themselves and such things can become mighty ugly. We have heard of the Maharashtrians chasing away poor Biharis who had moved to Mumbai for jobs!

Then in face of the talks of a federal structure, I believe it is important that we drop language demands at least for now. I believe so because raising the issue of language at the same time of the issue of how to divide the country into states might confuse us and we might end up with language-based states. The problem with this is that because regional languages have a strong geographical component, dividing the country based on language will be equivalent to dividing based on geography. We might then have the Terai constituted of a few states, some valleys might become states, and the hills will be the rest. Now the hilly areas of Nepal are seriously underdeveloped. Not that they do not have potential but ours being a poor country with a corrupt administration, we have virtually no infrastructure for the people in the hills, agricultural activity in the hills is limited in terms of possibilities and production, and because of lack of essential infrastructure like means of transport, electricity etc. 1. hardly any jobs are placed in the hills 2. noone likes to go and work there. Therefore having states that are constituted of hills alone will potentially produce big differences between states in terms of economy and social aspects dependent on it. One might argue that in a federal system the central government will be there to take care and minimize such differences between states. We don't believe, do we, that political leaders of the current mindset and it's products will be able to rise up above their own regional issues and think at a national level? I mean look at the responses of political parties and individual leaders to the Jha issue. People have spoken against the court's decisions and even doing so they simply escape just like that...

Let's give it all together a serious thought, eh?

As if there are no more imminent issues in the war-torn country with failed governnance and an ever growing anarchist mentality, we are really giving too much attention to the Jha issue.

And then still it is an issue. Jha is still the vice-president and we need to figure out how to get away with this problem. No point going about as he and his supporters have been doing. A political solution is needed that is legally sound too. Now that is the tricky part. The Supreme Court has spoken and Jha seems not to listen. Can we ask the Supreme Court to reverse its decision? Theoretically the Parliament could discuss the issue and come up with an amendment of the constitution. In that way the tension would be diffused. But then that is not how we want our constitution to be, malleable to demands of a stubborn VP or unreasonable groups, is it? Even if we think of the amendment as a potential way out it is not likely that there would be consensus required for a change in the constitution. Therefore the court's decision cannot change and Jha will have to retake his oath if he wants to stay VP. Else resign on moral grounds and work from outside for gathering support on his issues.

Jha has however been saying that he won't take the oath again. And there is some political backing that he has got. It is nonsense what they are doing and I can think of no good motif to what's going on, but it is the way it is and if the VP does as he is saying, namely not resign and not retake the oath, we run into a weird crisis. In that case the VP would be a criminal of the law but then with the backing he has and the potential of conflicts we need to find a solution. To me there is one way out of this by which all parties can escape without losing dignity and that is for the VP and political parties to sit together with the government and for the government to promise to start discussions for making regional languages official in the next constitution, and that in such a situation Jha retakes the oath in Nepali and we move towards problems like the diarrhoes, landmines, illiteracy, high crime rates etc.

If Jha did not resign and did not take the oath, a confrontation might take place. Of course such real confrontation would also produce a result. But it's ugly isn't it? And then why should some heads that were in fact not a part of the problem in the first place get hurt. More importantly such confrontantions leave traces for the future propagating further confrontational sentiments.

Hope
Let's hope Mr. Jha is not an agent operating for foreign interests. Let's hope he understands the seriousness of the issue and that he retakes the oath in Nepali and helps avoid a confrontation whose preparations he has been fuelling. Let's hope he realises he has been on the wrong side of nationality with his stubbornness at such a crucial time. And no I don't expect him to state it in open that he made a mistake. It is enough if he realized silently for himself and changed him for the better. After all we want to respect our VP and have him beyond regional issues.

raktim.nepali@gmail.com

Shame on us all!

It has been a while since I posted on this blog. Some things have happened, but they have not been very novel and have been shameful. Let's go for a quick review.

Many of the poorest of Nepalis who have shamefully been failed by the state died and are dying of a disease caused by the lack of basic sanitation. It just makes my hairs stand and hurts deep within to know that I have been busy surfing the internet while a mother carries a sick baby to an unmanned health centre hours away and arrives with a little corpse. Shame on me!

Our health minister deserves special mention for his trip to Germany for a conference on federalism amidst such scenes in the far west. Shame on you, Mr. Minister! And then he tried to escape saying that the cabinet was not supportive. Pleasse give your mouth some time off and think in silence- do you really think it is alright the way you have been as a health minister?

Several of our ministers have been traveling to Delhi sometimes amidst rumours that weapons are being bought and at other times that some trade treaties will be signed. The common people have no clue what's going on. Ministers speak dubious statements as to whether weapons are being imported. The press writes different things. And no one really knows what's going on, do they? In any case, we do deserve statements from those who like to call themselves the ruling leaders. And for failing us- Shame Mr. Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal. Shame on you! You are failing the people all the time, and search refuge in lame excuses. Shame, shame, shame!

Mr. Parmananda Jha has blatantly rejected the decision of the supreme court that he should take the oath of office in Nepali. And the Madhes-based parties have been supporting him in this. Even younger generation people are doing the same. Shame on you all. Please ask yourself- how can we talk of establishing the rule of law with the same mouth that shouts condemnation against court decisions? The court has decided based on the constitution. And negating court decisions is seriously dangerous. Do we not have enough of anarchy and lawlessness already? Why, Mr. Jha, you being a justice yourself, are you willing to play with the sentiments of the people? Why? Shame on you. I am truly ashamed of you. Please take your time to digest the fact that you have stepped over the same law, protecting which you made your living! Shame on you!

And madhesi parties and students- it is indeed a genuine matter that regional languages should be accepted as official languages. I read somewhere the other day that the Jha issue should not be blown out of proportion because he has signed the oath in Nepali anyway. Perhaps the law should come up with something like that- that as long as the Nepali statement is signed, the spoken oath can take place in any language. Well in any case, it is a case of having to change the law. And the court is not there for that. Who should know this better than Mr. Jha and he has failed to express this to the Madhesi people. The court is there to keep the law, to change it is the job of the lawmakers, the parliamentarians. So why go about condemning the court rather than holding discussions with political entities as to resolving such issues in the next constitution. So shame on you all who condemned the court. Shame, shame, shame.

The Maoists have said they want to go for the next uprising. Lets see what they want to do. But they have clearly been overtaken by the desire for power. That is there to see. It has been more than a few months since they started declaring the current government is seeing it's last days. Why are you so obsessed about the age of the current government? True that mistakes were made. True that whether MK Nepal is a worthy leader is questionable. But it is also true that the current government has a majority. Why not accept it for the sake of accepting legality of the current political system? So shame on you!

And then there is something that is absolutely unacceptable. When Prachanda talks about making a national government, he claims this and that coalition partner is not happy with the current government. Then he adds- I will talk with Girija Babu etc. about it all. Now this is a very filthy practice. He is literally reducing the Maoists to himself and the Congress to Girija Prasad Koirala. This is dangerous! Not all of us who voted for the Congress voted for Girija Babu or those of us who voted for the Maoists voted for Prachanda. We vote out of belief for a party and so it would be only fair if parties held consultations and not individuals. Individual consultations let our political parties be split and ruled by intent players like Mahamahim Sood. The MJF split is still fresh, isn't it? So shame on all parties for allowing one or two of their so-called leaders to essentially dictate them. Shame on Girija for the way he promotes Sujata. And shame on Sujata. Well I think I should take back the last shame statement. I read an interview of Sujata and realized that it was an interview where there was no view at all. So perhaps it is not fair to expect her to be shameful.

As long as such shameful things happen in our country, we can forget creating a new prosperous Nepal. And if we are happy with forgetting our dreams of a prosperous Nepal, shame on us. Let us at least try being accountable and making others accountable- starting with our leaders.

As much as I have been suspicious of the ex-King in the past and as much as I hate him for the time of his rule, I have to admit here that I am surprised that he has been very gentlemanly. He doesn't go about making nonsense statements, is consistent with what he says, and has even expressed willingness to pay taxes. So there we go, something positive. Now of course there might be hidden motifs under what he does, but then in a country as dirty as ours, in a politics as filthy as ours and in a society increasingly anarchistic, we need to start with cleaning the surface and then only can we dig into hidden motifs. And at this point, I would love to have an one-to-one session with ex-King Gyanendra. Sometimes I wonder if he seriously means good, although his feudalistic ways are not acceptable to me!

Going for a serious session with myself and my shames, wish that our leaders did the same!

raktim.nepali@gmail.com

Grave mistakes around MK Nepal’s premiership and hopes for the future

...so finally our country Nepal has a government. Unfortunately the political events leading to the formation of the current government were intransparent in the least. Right now with an anarchist air blowing through most of the country, having a government no matter in whatever way that has been formed, is an important issue. It is at least as important that our national politics silently realizes what was wrong and makes sure that such things do not be come a culture.
Let us try to analyze what was not very right about the formation of the current government.
The background
Quite frankly the Maoists party had lost grounds to rule. And they at least bowed out gracefully saying that the president’s intervention on the army chief issue (see previous blogs) had created two ruling power centres which should not be in a democracy. Ironically enough, it's the party that was underground for years and was raging an armed war against the state ( of which most politicians of other parties had been a part of in one way or the other for one period or the other) that produced the first example of the willingness to quit power but keep declared values. There has been doubt as to whether the Maoist party of Nepal is actually committed to multiparty democracy but nevertheless their participation in the election means that they were ready to go with multiparty democracy for now and their decision to quit the government has certainly served the sake of democracy.
The Maoists went very strategically- as the president’s controversial moves were challenged in court they decided to disrupt parliamentary proceedings until the president took back his moves. When this did not look like happening they brought in a motion against the president to discuss the issue in the parliament. And finally they gave in after the parliament allowed the then prime minister Prachanda to talk about his issues. Once again the Maoist party’s way of going through with their issue is politically very professional and mature and other parties of the country should not hesitate to learn from them.
Multiple non democratic partices
Now in a transition period where the peace process is very critical and the country has just become a republic in paper finally coming out of the grasps of the monarchy that had actively ruled after brief pauses and therefore still has the state structure well under control, strangely Madhav Kumar Nepal of the UML who had lost the direct election from two constituencies was chosen as the lead candidate for the prime ministers post. Now that is no less than a mockery on the spirit of the republican democracy that bases itself on the constituent assembly election. A consensus had built among most of the parties including the two most experienced parties of the country, the Nepali Congress and the UML. Why would someone who lost popular elections be preferred to lead the nation? All answers escape the thinking of this scribe. And the justification for this, also coming out of the ever power-hungry Girija Koirala's mouth was that Madhav Nepal being the consensus candidate having a majority in the parliament, it was irrelevant whether he had lost popular elections. Now this is a serious thing here. Hypothetically any ex-Panche party or any party that sympathises the king could always make the king a MP and if our ex-Majesty King Gyanendra managed to enter the parliament, I suppose none of us would be willing to bet he could not become prime minister if he wished to. Once in power anything can happen. That’s a very extreme example there but its not impossible. Therefore if the current system of direct and proportional representation of political parties is to stay, there should perhaps be a clause in the constitution saying that the prime minister and the president (and perhaps the ministers too) should have won direct elections. At least they cannot have lost elections.
There have been speculations in the press as to why it had to be Madhav Nepal. Let us not go into guesses. Let us rather go into the way Madhav Nepal was made prime minister. Something shameful happened then too. The parliament actually handed Madhav Nepal a majority outside the parliament. If such practices are to be allowed, why have a parliament building? And a parliament secretariat? And all the staff there? If parliamentarism is to be instutionalised, we need to have opinions and oppositions. That is precisely why we need a parliament. During the process of electing Madhav Nepal from outside the parliament, there was political hooliganism. The Maoists, after being reduced to a minority were not heard at all. That is unfortunate too because all they asked was for the issue of the president’s move to be discussed in the parliament. Now this is an issue that has drawn contradicting responses from various circles. It is therefore a genuine issue to discuss about. Can the head of state president reverse the decision of an executive cabinet? True that there are aspects in it like the cabinet decision wasn’t unanimous etc. But still, it was a decision on cabinet’s paper. Does the president have a right to do what he did? This genuine issue could have been discussed in the parliament and if the non-Maoists in the parliament wanted to support the president they could have and they could either have decided by voting in the parliament or let constitutional experts and the court decide. But in the name of political consensus most of the non-Maoist parties just didn’t let discussions take place in the parliament. This is another big blunder that should not be repeated in the past. There should be room for opposition voices to be heard. And where else to start that if not in the parliament?
Now another blunder is about to happen. The parties in consensus have requested the government to take back the previous governments concerns over the president. How can such things happen? It is simply ridiculous that more mature political parties are trying to go through such ways. It may be justified in the name of consensus but it is against the spirit of democracy. Why is there such a fear about talking about the president’s potential breach of power in the parliament and in court? Why should the president not be held accountable to the people, and therefore the people’s parliament?
A potential confrontation
With politically immature events having taken place and the largest party in the parliament been forced to go for dubious reasons, there is a tension in the air once again. The Maoists are clearly not happy, as no other political party would have been to be in their position right now. With parliamentary parties trying to circumvent the Maoists, it is very likely that the Maoists won’t be willing to accept the current situation. If the so called consensus-parties fail to recognize the Maoists as the largest party in the democratic parliament and give them the respect they deserve, we might well be looking towards a confrontation in the making.
Hope
Let us hope all the parties realize their mistakes and let us hope we all make sure we have learnt from them. Let us hope we all learn to forgive, accept and respect each other, including opposing values and ideals. Let us hope that Nepal prospers. In the name of the poor and the dying let us hope we are all ensured basic needs of life and a safer future for our children.

Solving the Katawal-related crisis

Drama around Katawal's sacking
So then the Maoists decided, as they had tirelessly expressed to the press, the public and political parties alike in what they called "efforts of forging a consensus", to sack Rookumangad Katawal. In a few days of high drama, Katawal denied accepting the letter of his sacking, the president Dr. Yadav reinstated Katawal and the Maoists resigned from the government. Then out came the video showing Prachanda convincing his cadres of how the party command had shown its cleverness during the verification of the then Maoist army and that they would not lose the elections, for they would not let an election happen that they would not win. As if that had not made enough news for a week, Prachanda's "We all know we were seven to eight thousand" while addressing his cadres has caused political parties to continue saying that the Maoists are liars and thugs and that the verification process should be redone taking into account the Maoist chief's statement. At the same time political parleys have intensified and an understanding seems to have been built between the UML and the Congress to create an environment allowing the creation of the next government. The Maoists themselves have been stubbornly demanding that the president correct what they call his mistake (referring to reinstating Katawal) before the formation of the next government can start. Also after a few days of what appear to be unsuccessful attempts to eke support out of the infuriated UML and the always-furious Congress, the Maoists have bluntly labelled other political parties as pawns of the South Bloc and Maoist media is rife with news of an agent of the Indian intelligence RAW present and operating in Nepalese capital. With so much going on, we the poor people of the country are left to try to find the themes in these diverse events such as to be able to find a way of lighting up hope for our beloved country. This piece will be an attempt to ignite that hope amidst the frustration of dishonest and inefficient governance and political culture of the country under which all of us have been suffering.

A real crisis
First things first- we need a government. Whoever shapes it in whatever way, we need one. Now let us see what is going on in that direction. After Prachanda resigned, president Yadav gave the political parties a few days to come up with a proposal on forming a government. Frankly it was too short. Unfortunately for the political parties they had been having too much to do (like commenting on the Prachanda video, meeting Sood etc) and thus it was not enough time to forge an understanding for a majority. Well the president has reacted rightly saying the parties should elect a prime minister from the parliament by majority. But that is coming out to be tough as well, for the Maoists have been disrupting the house.
Disrupting the house is not an act of bravery as such but with a reasonable demand it might be justified. The Maoists are stuck to their demand that the president should take back his move of reinstating Katawal. Now that is obviously a difficult issue which has the possibility of inviting unexpected results (including possibilities of hard and soft coups) if it really happened. So where did things go wrong?
Under a ceremonial presidential system, the sacking of an army chief would have to follow a few constitutional norms. The cabinet would decide to sack the guy and the president would seal the sacking, then it would be declared. The ideal news would possibly read "The president has, under the recommendation of the cabinet, released XY from his duty and responsibility as the army chief of the country". If the president did not like the idea then he would have the possibility of sending back the recommendation to sack or asking time for consultation on the issue. In the Katawal issue things went wrong one after the other. The Maoists declared unilaterally that Katawal has been sacked. That was beyond the norms. True that they had spoken out with the intent very often but that was not enough. They should have forwarded the proposal of sacking Katawal to the president for the presidential seal and their failing that is an indication that although they might be the party best represented in the parliament, they have yet to learn political norms and should try to think of moving together with the other political parties and not just singlehandedly. Such moves will only feed to the other's impressions of the Maoists being a party with a dictatorial mentality.
So the first breach of norm was from the Maoists but then unfortunately the gentlemanly and popular president Yadav happened to practice something that is not clearly written in the constitution as being a right of his. With the president's unconstitutional (probably driven by emotion) move Maoists got what they wanted. Moreover the issue of the constitutionality of the president's move has reached the Supreme Court and there have been divided opinions from different political and civic society leaders. In such a situation it is difficult to expect that the Maoists will let parliamentary activities resume normally. And if that happens the government formation process will suffer.
So in that sense it might appear that the constitutional problem was the president's reinstating Katawal and that if the president reversed that things would be okay. The president has categorically denied doing something like that unless the Supreme Court says his move was invalid. Now frankly our politics has a weird element in it, namely of not accepting decisions of the court if they are unfavourable. The Maoists are no exception to this culture and so it is likely they will protest the court's decision if the president's move is validated. What happens thereafter to the peace process and to parliamentary proceedings is something to be seen then. Say the court said the president made a mistake. That would mean the reinstatement of Katawal will be void, the Maoists would be okay in the short term but what about the fact that their decision was not one that the cabinet was unanimous. This will most probably feed the spirits of the other political parties and problems in the street and the parliament and most importantly in Nepali households will continue.
Thus the Katawal issue as such has invited a real chaos with legal and other dimensions all of which appear to be very complicated to solve.

Dasha from das directions
As the old saying goes, dasha attacks you from das directions. And it seems to have once again.
In addition to the constitutional crisis, the lack of trust among political entities is at a critical low. The Maoists are angry with other political parties for a whole lot of things starting with not agreeing with Katawal's sacking, not opposing the president's move and so on. And the other political parties are angry that they were not listened to on the Katawal issue and more recently very dangerously on the issue of what Prachanda apparently presented as shrewdness to his cadres. All of a sudden demands of reverification are becoming intense and these might as well gain crucial voice from the international community. Such a scenario might put the previous understandings on which the current transitional republican constitution rests on risk. The results of that might be grave.
International interest has been rising (or consistent in cases where it has always been at a maximum) in recent days making the political field very difficult to understand and follow.

How could we get out of this chaos?
It’s a very uneasy situation from where exit seems difficult. But an exit from here, a stable government is what we all need for a start. After all we all want to live with dignity and walk without fear in our streets. And a stable government that establishes a rule of law is the first step towards that. In this wish, we Nepalese people already have a defined goal. And that’s where we can put hope on. We know what we want and we need to figure out how we can get it and how our politicians can facilitate the process.

The Maoists should stop causing trouble in the parliament
The Maoists should realize that, whatever the reason(s), they essentially failed to gain the confidence of the other political parties. Whose policies were at fault is something that we people should be left to decide and that we shall do in the next elections. Since they have failed to garner consensus in crucial issues and have invited constant criticisms (for example for promulgating ordnances extra-parliamentary) they should realize this with the humility that was there in the prime minister's resignation speech.

The President should admit his mistake
One of the problems of the current situation is the president. And unfortunately this man was at a serious fault if one talks with reference to the constitution. The president should realize it was a mistake that he made and possibly resign on moral grounds. His admission of a mistake and resignation should pave the path to withdraw the case against him at the court and the court would be saved from showing what will either way be read as a bias in its decision.

Katawal should go, the next cabinet should decide on the next army chief
If the president admitted his mistake and the Maoists stopped disrupting the parliament, the path for forming a new government would open but the issue that caused all the havoc is still there. What about Katawal? Because Katawal has not been people friendly while he worked with the king, and has not been government-friendly after the king was gone, Katawal has no right to remain as the army chief. And technically if the president admitted his mistake, Katawal has been sacked already anyway. In either case, Katawal should go and the best he could do is to resign to facilitate the resumption of normal constitutional practices whih have been disturbed.
Once Katawal is out the army chief post will be vacant. That should be left to the next government to fill.
The Prachanda video has to be forgotten
Frankly it is ridiculous that Prachanda talked to his cadres in the tone that has come out. It was a very patronising speech low in intellectual contents. What that however also tells us is that the Maoists fighters' base is not an intellectually strengthened army. The continuing (mis)deeds of the YCL also stands proof to this. This brings us to a very important question- if it was not an intellectually matured political ideology, why did so many people support the Maoists (taking the results of the election as a truth- sorry if you disagree). Moreover why were people ready to fight with the national army with just slippers on and with primitive type weapons? And the answer is that the places where the Maoists started building their party base lacked in essential requirements of life and had been living in hardship for generations. Literally speaking people who joined the Maoist army were young lads who saw no real possibilities in their life. And we have to accept that this is not terrorist mentality but rather the fury borne out of desperation. Therefore it is very important to stop calling the Maoist army terrorist. If we see that they are not terrorists but people looking for a better life it will be easier to see why so many people are in the Maoists cantonments (taking for granted that they were not all real fighters). Let us imagine for ourselves the pathetic situation where we find it better to be in the cantonment, labelled as a Maoist fighter, for if the leaders gave us what they promised we would soon be employed in the army! (And as we all know being an army man is a matter of social and economic privilege in rural Nepal.) Seeing things in this vein might help us understand the people in the cantonments and not flatly label them as goons or thugs or terrorists. Let us not forget that most of them are certainly not there by wish.
Then let us imagine Prachanda was right when he said there were just seven to eight thousand fighters. Asking for a reverification means not only a huge logistic and economic problem but also amounts to not recognizing one's own signatures. The verification was done through the UNMIN with the representation of all major political parties. If the Maoists could still escape with lies, then sadly but honestly we should all accept we have been fooled by a genius liar. And frankly we have moved further from there. Let us try to make things better from here on.
Candidly speaking I was not at all surprised by the video. It was an internal thing of the party and I am overwhelmed by the amount of things that comes out of political parties and its leaders publicly. I would be lying to myself if I believed that fair games are being played inside. Of course that is no excuse for dirty games but I believe that we should go from outside to inside- for us at this difficult situation in time, it would already be a great deal if politicians stuck to what they said in public a few days back.
Then again it was a party internal thing of a party that has been consistently talking of a communist republic. Of a party that has recently come to the surface after over a decade of underground politics and war against the state structure. Therefore it is perhaps folly to expect them to change their ideologies overnight. To the people it is a matter of ease that they have come to surface politics at least and participated in an election that was overseen by national and international observers.

We need a government soon
If every one of us accepted our weaknesses it would become easier to find a common way out of the crisis because after all we know best what culprits we are and we do know what we all want- namely a functioning democracy. So if the Maoists, the president, other political parties and the army are truly keen to see the current crisis diffused we can move forward from here and the focus must be on forming the next government as soon as possible. Dangerous differences are appearing between and within the major political parties and with the presence of several foreign players whose primary interests are in no way to help us pahades and madhesis live a decent life, we should all be ready to give in, be forgiving and forgetting towards ourselves and form a government which can then start working for the people by shortening the transition period, solving the issue of rehabilitation and/or integration of the Maoist army and very importantly establishing law and order and erasing anarchy.
Krishna used to be with Sudama in stories. So let us hope the Gods are with us, the poor.

raktim.nepali@gmail.com

The Katawal issue and a potential grand design

For a republic in transition full of problems it is surprising that so much time has been spent on the issue of the fate of an army chief who has no people-friendly records. The Maoists’ sacking Mr. Katawal has been misinterpreted but the Maoists deserve praise for producing the first significant instance in the history of multiparty system in our country where a political party in the government has presented itself boldly to say that they want to keep their political values which to them stand above being in the government. The situation in the country has however become very volatile and there is a presumably a lot of manipulative activity going on in the political playground. It’s us, the people, who will potentially suffer. So let us hope the Katawal issue is put to rest, lessons are learnt and we all move on- we have bigger problems facing us!

 

It was in principle right to send Katawal off

Much opinion has come from different quarters so let us try to look at the situation objectively. The Maoists-led government, whatever its weaknesses, was an official government formed through an election and there is a way to go about with the government. Recognizing this is fundamental to creating lasting peace with the rule of a law that speaks for the people. Therefore whoever might be sitting on the chairs, it is important that the government as such is respected and that all national institutions listen to the government. The army chief did not do that. He had been recruiting army men while the government wanted this not to happen, he did not accept the decision of the government to not prolong the eight retiring army men and he clearly was playing very much on grounds that have been created by the differences among our political parties. So he was going beyond his rights.

Let us all not forget in saying that it is right to kick Katawal out we are not accusing him without reasons. For if we wanted to then we could start thinking of the things he did against the people when he was the army chief during the king’s rule. But if we discount Mr. Katawal for all his misdeeds then (may we kindly remind him to count these misdeeds himself) saying his bosses made him do that (may we also remind him here that he had all the right to resign on moral grounds if he shared no interest with the then government), we should also hold him responsible for his recent activities questioning popular supremacy by not following governmental orders. So we can agree that Mr. Katawal does not deserve to be the army chief of a country that is preparing itself for the process of writing a historical constitution with the blood of people, many of whom were actually killed under commands of Mr. Katawal, and then we should agree that it was right to send him off.

 

What now?

Several political and non-political consultations and possibly power bargains are undergoing right now. Things will probably get clearer once these consultations come up with the first round of results including what the president thinks of the current situation and whether he actually sticks to his ceremonial role and seals the sacking. Let us hope a clearer picture will hopefully have emerged by the time this article is out.

 

What if Katawal dares to stage a coup?

Katawal has denied accepting the sacking letter (in fact another count of refusal of government authority) and is presumably involved in serious discussions, primarily with army men. There has been speculation that he might try to stage a military coup? Even if that is true it this will not happen just yet for he will most certainly wait for more official words to his sacking. If need arises he might try a military coup as a last-ditch effort to have more power in old age. If a successful coup does happen the political parties would have to come together again (which they will, as they have done in the past against the king) and fight against the regime. But given the international backing that has collected behind Katawal, it would be a matter of shame for his international supporters if he attempted a hardcore military coup. The likelihood of a coup as a part of a grand design (see below) with president Yadav going beyond his constitutinal rights in which Katawal could stay on is however not negligible.

 

Could the Maoists try to grab state power?

If it emerges that the Maoists have to go, one could argue that depending upon the emerging new equations the Maoists might try to capture the state. However this is probably the least likely consequence of the current situation. Staging a state capture would need either a strong penetrance within the state structure or a massive military base. Frankly how long have the Maoists been in power and how much of the bureaucracy could they have actually possessed as of now? Not much, eh? On the military side too the Maoists’ capability has been exposed since they came back to surface politics and we all know the military base they have would not allow them to capture the state right now even if they wished to.

Then there is the issue of international opposition against any attempt by any communist power in the world today to come to power, forget about communist parties capturing the state illegally. In a strategically sensitive country like Nepal which is and will always be an important ground for players interested in world dominance, given Nepal lies between two potential future superpowers India and China, countries with capitalist interests will not fail to act if the Maoists tried to capture the state illegally. Let us not forget that the US still labels the Maoists as a terrorist organisation. Given that Maoists have done no harm whatsoever to the US and given that the Maoists have actually been voted by the people, the failure of the US to remove the terrorist tag from the Maoists is a clear sign of their enmity towards the Maoists (and this is for the sole reason that the Maoists are communists). Not that the  US was overly sympathetic towards us poor Nepalese folks- we all do have a feel for how they treat us, don’t we, especially those lucky ones of us who have experienced the treat of a visa interview at their embassy.

Therefore there is no real reason to believe that the Maoists would possibly try to capture the state power by force. If they did dare this folly that would be them playing with their future existence and we, the freedom-loving people would have a new enemy in them- sooner or later they would fall.

 

Challenges next

Given that the UML has quit the government, it will be very very difficult for the Maoists to stay on power and a UML-Congress coalition with with/without support from other political parties might be on the cards. A Congress-UML government would possibly involve the Oli camp of the UML given that the UML would possibly run a risk of a split if power-hungries in the Oli camp do not get a share in the next UML-involving government. A Congress-UML government cannot be expected do any better than the current government in terms of solving the ethnicity and regionalism-driven (often) armed struggles. Rather the country might face a more serious problem. The Maoists will obviously find it very difficult to swallow it that they were removed from power for a reason that they (as many other Nepali people) find wrong. This might easily be understood by the Maoists as another reason why some problems can only be approached except through an armed struggle and they might be tempted back to guerilla warfare. Hopefully they realize the wish of the Nepalese people and wait to prove themselves in the next elections.

One of the serious problems of the post-election political scene has been the absolute unacceptance of the Maoists and their election victory by the Oli camp of the UML as well as the Congress. This might be a dangerous thing if the next government is to be a Congress-UML government. At this point as a commonplace citizen let us hope the Congress and the OliUML recognize the Maoists as a political entity in the current multiparty parliamentary system and respect them for their election achievements. Acceptance by contemporary parliamentary parties is a key to helping the Maoists (which is a popular political force, whether one likes it or not) learn parliamentary life after such a long underground phase. 

So let us hope that the next government, whoever forms it does not spit fire after fire upon the Maoists and that it recognizes the Maoist PLA and that it takes the PLA integration/rehabilitation issue seriously. In the absence of such seriousness the constitution drafting process will come under real risk and the status quo of anarchy-style, criminal and corrupt system might stay for longer in the country.

 

One more player

Except for our leaders, an ambitious political player from the neighbouring country is gaining invaluable practise on our political playground. He is the honorable Indian Ambassador Shri Rakesh Sood. His personal motifs are clear- he should be having big ambitions back home and a term in Nepal where he can manipulate and use the politics here for interests of his bosses should secure him a ludicrous future. However he should soon realize that his intervention is clearly crossing diplomatic norms.

To the leaders of our country we should like to ask some questions in connection to Sood. Mr. Koirala, Mr. Prachanda, Mr. Khanal, who is this Sood to you? Why do you allow this agent of an administration that plays “Big Brother” to us to interfere in our internal affairs? Are you his puppets? - Dear Leaders, take off your daura-suruwal or suit and show us your true colours.

Are you guys scared of this Sood that he might cause trouble to us, the Nepali people? If so, that is your illusion Mr. Koirala, Mr. Khanal, Mr. Dahal. We have been suffering enough and it can get not much worse, believe us. Lead us in the fight against invasive, interfering diplomacy. Unite for once for us, Mr. Leaders and show us that you are worth the brave Nepali population. How about finding political consensus in filing a complaint against the intrusion of such agents? Let’s ask to be left alone with our internal conflicts and problems and lets solve them ourselves- we need to learn, dear leaders. Anyway why should we believe that an administration under which  fellow poor humans in Bihar or in the slums of Mumbai (or elsewhere, actually everywhere) are suffering can give us the right advice to help our nation into prosperity? A serious word of caution to Sood with national consensus would help other ambitious players from countries remember that we are a souvereign people.

 

A potential granddesign and a silent player?

The difference in opinion among the major political parties in the country regarding the fate of Katawal are not unexpected if we consider that in the short history of multiparty democracy the hunger of power has always dominated political opinions. The immense interest that the South Bloc has exhibited in the Army chief issue is however very intriguing and one cannot help thinking of a possible grand design.

It is easy to see the interest of India in remove the Maoists from the government. If the Maoists come up with popular programs and succeed that would be against Indian political as well as economic interests. First a communist government in Nepal would be the least manipulatable for them. Then it would pose the risk of the re-emergence of communist movements in India. A not very India-friendly Nepalese soil could serve fertile ground for anti-Indian interests of the Pakistanis, Chinese etc. And finally in the greater international community a communist state in the subcontinent would be a matter of shame for Indian democracy.

There might be further gaming going on though. At the expense of not sounding paranoid let us try to explore this. Religious fanaticism and religious politics is very present in India. For the Hindu scene in India (both the radical and the non-radical part), it was a big blow that Nepal was no longer a Hindu state. There are undoubtedly several interest groups in India, including politically mighty ones who would like to see the revival of Nepal as a Hindu state. Now His ex-Majesty Gyanendra has recently been often reported to have been in India holding “personal and social” meetings with central level politicians. If India helped for the revival of Hindu monarchy in Nepal, His Majesty and his sons and grandsons would be eternally grateful towards India and secret pacts might even be signed that will secure India eternal support by the Nepalese government and also unlimited access to use the Nepalese soil for whatever activities. A revival of monarchy in the form of a baby king has actually been claimed to have been agreed in part by Mr. Koirala, if he got to be the prime minister again. It has become increasingly propagandaed in the last months that removing the monarchy was an idea of the Maoists and that the failure of the Maoists in reinstating law and order in the country is a sign that they are a useless bunch. The activities of the Maoists have not helped thereby not only making people apathetic towards the removal of the popularly elected Maoists from power but also making many of them actually not care if the king would be revived. The people living in the peripheral rural Nepal have hardly felt any betterment in their life situation and would not care about a king anyway. As such negative sentiments against the king has been systematically reduced and many interest groups are working actively towards reviving the monarchy such that even the rather neutral sounding ones of yesterday can be heard saying “what difference is this to the king’s rule? This is even worse. At least there was more order in the country, even without popular law”. Would His ex-Majesty come out from his silence and clarify his position please?

If the monarchy were to be revived with whatever pretexts that would be the real step backwards from here on and not only the Maoists but also the younger generations of the other major political parties of the country would feel sad for we all have learnt how much blood, sweat and suffering it takes to remove a stubborn monarch, compared to removing an elected  government.

 

A word to us all

Grand designs might be going on and it might be the coordination of such a task that is keeping Sood moving so much between Nepali political centres and his bosses. It is extremely important for all major political parties to realize that it was unfortunate for them to fall apart on the Army chief issue and to act as quickly as possible to form the next government and proceed towards addressing the major issues of the transition period- namely keeping the transition period short, establishing law and order, solving the issue of army integration, writing a strong people-oriented constitution and holding the next election in time to start afresh towards prosperity for the brave and enduring people of the country. Hopefully Pashupatinath helps us all in these testing times.

raktim.nepali@gmail.com