| Sajha.com Archives | |
| Username | Post |
| Bhunte | Posted
on 22-Jun-03 12:46 AM
hey folks, did anyone of you attend Kanak's talk program in Boston and DC recently? Just interested to know what messages he delivered, and what were the views of the audiences there... ek kan do kan maidan samma message lai I LOVE YOU virus jastai failaun na sathi ho...kina chup! |
| Kale_ko_Chartikala | Posted
on 23-Jun-03 03:27 PM
Bhunte: If you have missed Kanak M Dixit's program at Chhalphal, visit The Nepal Digest's new issue. Under Chhalphal Discusstion Series in TND there is completer interview of KMD in wav and mp3 format. Go to TND at http://theNepalDigest.org and click on Chhalphal section. Or Direct link is http://thenepaldigest.org/Year14VolVIIssue1/news_item.asp?NewsID=106 |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 23-Jun-03 04:06 PM
I heard him in DC. Dixit made a couple of points, some of which are: 1. Donate generously to his spinal injury hospital, because it will help a lot of poor Nepali villagers, especially women who for some reason keep climbing all manners of trees and then falling off. 2. The increased motorcycle traffic in Nepal is a cause of concern, it causes many accidents. 3. Parties good, king bad. So the king better hand over power to Madhab Nepal and Girija combine, or else it will be quick exit soon. 4. We have to nurture the Maoists, we don't want them to be divided and fragmented. 5. Contrary to all the nay sayers who say nothing positive happened during the past 12 years, many good things happned in the country during this period. So give credit to the parties. for example, building 8000 KM of roads in the country. I forgot the rest rest, people can add or comment on my poor reporting skills. |
| Nepe | Posted
on 23-Jun-03 04:25 PM
I've got an audio record (not digital) of Kanak's speech in the Woodrow Wilson International Center in DC (17 June 02) from a friend. I will try to post the transcript here soon. |
| ashu | Posted
on 23-Jun-03 08:54 PM
>>>4. We have to nurture the Maoists, we don't want them to be divided and fragmented. <<<< When will members of the Nepali Left wake up and realize that Maoists are just plain evil? Just because most of their demands echo the thoughts of most sensible Nepalis (I mean, who is not for anti-corruption in Nepal?), that does NOT justify the Maoists' violent actions. In the latest issue of Himal Khabar Patrika, Khagendra Sangraula laments the recent destruction of a few NGO buildings by Maoists in Pratappur, Kailali zilla. The NGO is Grinso, a left-leaning NGO, and as it happens, I know the Grinso people quite well through my previous work with the kamaiyas. But when will moderate communists like Khgendra Dai will realize that their ultra-left friends, the Maoists stand for total destruction of anything that stands on their way and their ideology? [Just a few months ago, Kamal Mani Dixit, father of Kanak Mani, published a similar article in the same magazine, lamenting the destruction of a building by the Maoists in East Nepal.] I, for one, am sick of the way the Maoists paraded young school children to chant slogans for them in the recent Kathmandu-wide julus. I am also sick of the way the Maoists leaders are treated as though they were John Lennon and Mick Jagger by the cowardly Nepali media that is more like a lapdog than a watchdog. oohi ashu ktm,nepal |
| Nepe | Posted
on 24-Jun-03 05:43 AM
I am sorry I computer has gone bersek. I do not know yet if I can salvage Kanak's speech from it. Will let you know when I know it. |
| Poonte | Posted
on 24-Jun-03 08:03 AM
The pain and suffering of the victims (and their relatives/friends) of Maoist violence must indeed be immense. It is also understandable that many of them would be seeking vengeance in order to get even with the Maoists or their leadership. I am sure the same can be said about the feelings of the victims of brutality committed by state forces. The atrocities were committed by many on both sides. I am also convinced that the level and frequency of atrocities committed by the Maoists may very well be far greater than those committed by the state forces. However, we must realize that whether we like it or not the Maoists have proven themselves to be a force to be reckoned with--they are not a handful of hooligans going on a rampage of killings and lootings that once we capture and destroy them, everything will be fine. They are evil, there means are evil, but they do carry a broad support for their cause--they have become an evil that is not easy to wipe out, and we must deal with them carefully. The disagreements among many seems to be not on who the Maoists are, but on how to deal with them. Confront them, we must. However, if we confront them with open hostility, we face a danger of making it all the more impossible to free ourselves from the cycle of violence that we have been tragically embroiled in for the past seven years. If we put all the blames of atrocities squarely on the Maoists and try to corner them, we will only make them more rebellious and less likely to accept peace. Even if just for the sake of peace, or the possibility there of, we must rise above the emotionalities and deal with the situation pragmatically. Therefore, to me subtlety with careful balance sounds like a better approach than a blatant attack against the "evil" which, afterall, had legitimate reasons for coming into being, even though they may have chosen the wrong methods of growing up. It's like swallowing a bitter, bitter pill in order to cure an illness. |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 24-Jun-03 08:22 AM
Hats off to you Ashuji, for calling a spade a spade! I agree with you that Nepali intellectuals and journalists too much of a cowardly bunch and opportunists (not all of course), but by and large. What is this thing going on in Kathmandu where the likes of Baburam and Badal are being received by pancha kanyas and ful malas? Come on, these guys' hands are dripping with the blood of innocent villagers!! If anything they should face Nuremburg type of trial! Presisely because they are an evil power, the journalists in Kathmandu pander to them in the hope that when these murdereres rule the roost in Singha durbar, these journalists and hangers on will get cushy deals now and then...it is the old Nepali custom of Shakti ko puja, albeit in a new guise! |
| Nirvana | Posted
on 24-Jun-03 02:51 PM
How was the program in Boston? How many people attended? Any update guys??? |
| Bhunte | Posted
on 24-Jun-03 06:21 PM
Shuvachintak wrote: ...............I agree with you that Nepali intellectuals and journalists too much of a cowardly bunch and opportunists (not all of course), but by and large. ............ I also feel same by reading the excerpts of kanak's talk as posted by some of the sajhites here. It may not be only Kanak's idea, but Jaournalists in Nepal may be derailing from what they are professionally supposed to do. They are supposed to voice honestly for what is going in the country. Are they being intimidated by any force en mass? ...hell no...Save Mother Nepal! |
| ashu | Posted
on 24-Jun-03 06:39 PM
Poonte, Some people in Nepal think like you do. They say, "Well, I don't like the Maoists' violence, but what the Maoists are saying is true and good for Nepal." To that I say: Bullshit. It's like believing the promise of a wolf when it says that it's going to be a vegetarian because vegetarianism is good for the animal kingdom, but will kill other (defenceless) animals if they too don't become vegetarians. I mean, let's get real here. Going by their killing sprees and destruction of properties and flip-flopping on issues, it's clear -- to me, anyway -- that the Maoists have absolutely no interest in making a better Nepal. And that they are merely using platitudes and truisms (stuff that nobody will disagree with) just to get past people's suspicions of them and get people's attention. What's more, the kind of "good" demands (such as no tolerance for corruption, etc) made by the Maoists have long been made by non-Maoist Nepali people too, WITHOUT, mind you, going to the jungles and killing other people . . . So far, the Maoists have showed no remorse, issued no apology to anyone, or even tried to explain why their violence was/is justified in the first place. They talk about bettering the lives of Nepali janata, but continue to show shocking disregard for the souls of the same janata who got killed during their stupid war. By fooling us that they are/were trying to do "good" through their war, the Maoists want to transform Nepal into a Stalinist state -- with no room for individual rights and liberties. Poonte said: "they do carry a broad support for their cause". If so, then, please explain: When they supposedly enjoy this "broad support for their cause", then why the hell were they reduced to forcing school principals to send school children, of all people, to the recent Maoist julus in Kathmandu to carry Maoist flags and chant Maoist slogans? Some broad support they carry, wouldn't you say? Poonte, look, I am NOT advocating open hostility here. What I am saying is that enough is enough, and that it's time NOT to continue to avert our eyes from the Maoist evils by making excuses after excuses for them. We have been doing that long enough. It's time now to collectively stare directly into the eye of the evil, and make it blink -- even if that means facing the Maoists' wrath in the short run. How many of us can do that? My larger point is that: Unless the so-called card-carrying members of the civil society in Nepal can do that by even putting themselves in harm's way, their usual donor-funded mouthing of pro-peace platitudes from the sidelines will get us nowhere. Until then, we will continue to read the kind of vacuous chest-beating (over Maoist-destroyed buildings and not even people) served up by the likes of respected Khagendra Sangraula and venerable Kamal Mani Dixit. oohi ashu ktm,nepal |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 24-Jun-03 07:49 PM
Dear Ashuji, I could not agree with you more, very well said. I just don't understand when reasonable people come out to offer the Maoist thugs a moral carte blanche on a silver platter! And you made a very salient point when you said that the so called civil society folks and media or intellectuals cry their hearts out over the destroyed bridges and telephones but have absolutely nothing to say about the simple villagers the Maoists slaughtered iin the thousands? Come on, for god's sake, where is your humanity? Or can you have 'civil society' without humanity? I think it is one thing to say the Maoists are a powerful violent group (like Mafia or Khemer Rogue), but it is quite another to say they are a force for some benevolence. And to suggest that they have 'broad popular support' is just false. People are following them because they fear them, to avoid their retribution. The day they put down their guns, Nepalis will know how popular they really are. Because without showing the fear of their guns, the Maoists will be unable to do anything...people will not give them a roti or a vote. Actually some people already think that once the guns are handed over the Maoists leaders might be the victims of vigilante revenge...it would be the same coin, no? |
| Poonte | Posted
on 25-Jun-03 09:54 AM
Suva Chintak jyu, Yes, I am sure there are many people who seem to support the Maoists because they fear them. Like any movement, Maoists of Nepal too have support on many different levels, fear being one of them. However, neither you, nor I, can claim that any one of those levels is more assertive than the others in the Nepali crisis--substantial research to gauge the accuracy of how high or low each of those levels of support is is not only extremely difficult, but also has not been attempted yet. Hence, I think it is rather unnecesary that we indulge in a debate about the causes of support for the Maoists. For me, it suffices enough to know that either out of fear, or out of any other reason, the Maoists have been able to garner enough support to sustain their movement thus far. The mere fact that they have been able to create fear among the mass is also significant, which renders them (sadly, may I add) a power that we cannot ignore. Ashu, I find the elongated debate on who the Maoists are--evil that must be stopped--somewhat unnecessary here because I do not disagree with you on who they are. They are evil, they are monsters, and they must be stopped. Agreed. Period. The two of us seem to have dueling ideas NOT on the issue of who the Maoists are, but rather on how we go about dealing with them. I suspect that your approach of direct confrontation with the Maoists in this initial phase of raproachment is unhelpful on two levels: you demand apologies and/or punishment far too early in the process of reconciliation; and you make those demands solely on the Maoists. I am sure there are many people on either camp who have had bitter experiences with the other. I know there must be many who seek justice by punishing the Maoists, just as there must be many who seek vengeance against the state. There must be many who sympathize with either side of the conflict, just as there must be many who resent the other side. However, I think it is also safe to assume that many on both sides, and the Nepali public in general, simply have had enough of violence (not only Maoist violence), and wish a permanent closure to this quagmire. The only most desired alternative in the majority's mind at this time is the process of reconcialitaion and peace building. So, first of all, demanding apologies and/or punishment at an early stage of peace process creates the danger of undermining the entire process itself, thus the peril of returning to more violence becomes more real. Yes, we must deal with those issues [of responsibility] too if we are to have a lasting peace, and the complex and intricate details of that phase of the process can be discussed/sorted out later when the time comes. If we confront the enemy with accusations and demands in the initial, and the most important, phase of the process--confidence building--then we will never even get to the point of talking about responsibilties, let alone find solutions to the crisis. Now, when the confidence has been built, and the time has come to discuss the matters of real complexities such as human rights violations, gender issues, etc., it becomes imperative that we keep our focus on being balanced. Afterall, gross human rights violations were the tools not only of the Maoist movement, but the security forces are also known to have committed brutal crimes against the public duing the conflict. If we focus so much on the crimes committed by one side that we either ignore or hide similar crimes committed by the other side, the process is, needless to say, doomed to fail. In an understandable state of anger and rage, it is all too easy to throw accusations and demand punishment, but if we do it in a haste without serious considerations to the consequences, we might as well give up what little hope we may have of achieving peace. Believe me, I too feel the same way as you do when I think of all the inhumane acts that BOTH sides of the conflict have been part of. Nonetheless, the appropriate, and the honorable, thing to do at the moment is to swallow that bitter pill of accepting the reality and look forward to curing an illness that we simply cannot live with. |
| ashu | Posted
on 25-Jun-03 05:14 PM
Poonte, You are still sitting on the fence, without spelling out how exactly we are "to swallow that bitter pill of accepting the reality and look[ing] forward to curing an illness that we simply cannot live with." You have written much, but what exactly is your point? Even when you blow the trumpet of ambiguous peace, you've detailed no "road map" as to how we can achieve what you are saying. This is the kind of kura-kani-- vague, morally high-sounding, earnest in its tone but ultimately vacuous -- that we need less of in Nepal. And so, allow me to use your frame of mind, your own kind of arguments and spell out exactly what I would, without fear, DEMAND from the Maoists in the name of building peace in Nepal. a) The Maoists should ensure that all extortion efforts and so-called donations are stopped immediately. b) They should demonstrate the seriousness of their new publicly-expressed commitment to multi-party democracy and free markets. They should also educate their cadres about these issues. c) They should articulate clearly how they envision a national roundtable conference and constituent assembly would work in practice and in what the outcomes of such arrangements would be. d) They should prepare themselves for INEVITABLE compromises that a peace negotiation must entail. [Drawn among others from: International Crisis Group Asia Report, "Nepal: Obstacles to Peace"; 17 June 2003] Finally, I am talking about the Maoists here NOT because I am being one-sided, or favoring the security forces but because on issues like this, we achieve clarity of thought when we focus on one issue in depth FIRST and then later branch out to include other variables. Believe me, there are lots of issues I have to share with you about the security forces too. OK, gotta go, and play squash now. oohi ashu ktm,nepal |
| Poonte | Posted
on 26-Jun-03 07:55 AM
My point(s) was there all along, Ashu. It's rather unfortunate that you should miss it (them). If I must reiterate them, here they are again (perhaps numbering them would make it much easier to comprehend): Point #1: Albeit much to the dismay of many, including myself, Maoists of Nepal have proven themselves to be a force to be reckoned with. I personally always believed that letting them achieve a stature that they have achieved by force sets a wrong precedence. Nevertheless, the reality on the grounds is that they do matter in Nepali political/social scenario, thus we cannot simply shun them as a bunch of hooligans and demand their demise. Now it is simply too late to discuss whether they should be given that stature because they already have it. Point #2: Ironically, the only way to defeat the Maoists' violent methods now is to enter into a peace process with the Maoists as partners, thus take eventual steps towards peace. Hopefully, by the end of the process, once all the parties involved have gained enough confidence in the others, they would agree to disarm. Disarmament by the rebels is not possible at an early stage when they have not yet gained enough confidence in the other side. Hence, if presented prematurely, such a demand would be misplaced and it either halts, or slows down the process. Point #3: Hurling hostile words, or the tone there of, towards one party or the other at the confidence-building phase of the process is very unhelpful--it can derail the process at an early stage, and we may never see the end of the process become a reality. Point #4: Demanding apologies from, and/or punishment to, one party or the other, once again, at an early stage of the process can be damaging to the entire process itself. The issue of responsibilty can/should be addressed in a later phase of the process. Point #5: The people at the decision-making level specifically, and the public in general (specially the ones who would know better--the educated mass), should fully recognize the afore-mentioned points, and rise above the level of angry accusations and counter accusations, which is the "swallowing of the bitter pill" part in order to rid ourselves from the cycle of violence that everybody wishes ended ("cure of an illness"). I am indeed happy to know that you do have few things to say about the atrocities committed by the state too. You see, when one cannot read your mind, and one can only read what you had written, which was obviously focused on only one party to the conflict, then one can only assume that you are biased. Therefore, I believe it only helps to discuss issues with the lens of covering all the parties involved side by side. Yes, separating and discussng the issues one at a time is definitely helpful in indepth analysis of those issues. I could not agree with you more here. However, separating the issues should not mean separating the parties too--we can discuss an individual issue in depth by presenting the thoughts/ideas of ALL sides at the same time. This would avert confusion that the person making the presentation is biased. You have mentioned the ICG (International Crisis Group) report, and quoted their recommendations to the Maoists. I just would like the readers to know that the ICG report has also made strong recommendations to the Royal institution/royalist groups, the political parties, and the international community alike. For detail: http://www.crisisweb.org |
| Poonte | Posted
on 26-Jun-03 08:31 AM
Lekhyo, lekhyo, lekhyo...tesko baau ko khappar jasto computer aafai shut down hunchha! Hang in there, Ashu! Next part is coming soon! :) |
| Poonte | Posted
on 26-Jun-03 09:30 AM
Ashu, again! :) Now that you have introduced a whole new ball game of discussing the detail of the possible "road map" to peace (mind you, this was not a subject of our discussion earlier, so accusing me of failing to indulge into this matter was rather unfair), I shall venture into it a bit. The possible road map of reconciliation/peace building process can be categorized in the following broad phases: **what follows is MY version of the process. Since I am not an expert on conflicts as of yet, it might be incomprehesive, and even inaccurate at times. 1. Ceasefire 2. Cessation of hostilities 3. Pre-negotiation 4. Confidence-building 5. Discussion of "softer" issues 6. Discussion pf "harder" issues 7. Aggreements 8. Peace treaty I have neither the time, nor I believe Sajha has the space, for the full detail of intricacies involved in each of the above phases, which includes many sub-phases too. However, if you are still interested in it, I shall make it a point to give you a copy of my thesis when it is completed sometime next year, hopefully. ;) In the mean time, allow me to make few points that I think are brief but important. 1. Many people fail to see a subtle difference between ceasefire and cessation of hostilities. To me, CEASEFIRE is when the warring parties stop shooting at each other with real bullets; and CESSATION OF HOSILITIES is when they stop shooting at eachother with angry words and other "softer" ammunitions. 2. The phases mentioned above do not have a clear-cut boundary from each other. These phases may overlap one another at various times, and some issues may also be a part of multiple phases. 3. Just as an example, the first and second recommendations that ICG has made to the Maoist (that you have listed above), I believe, fits into the confidence-building phase of the process. On the state's part, for instance, publicly recognizing the Maoists as real partners in the process, aggreeing to stop arbitrary arrests, releasing some of the prisoners, etc., can be part of the confidence-building measures. The third recommendation can perhaps be best fitted into, depending on how one comprehends the seriousness of constitutional issues, the discussion of either the "softer" or "harder" issues. The final recommendation, which ironically was the last one in the list, should come in the pre-negotiation phase of conflict resolution--ALL the parties involved must recognize the inevitabilty of some compromises immediately after the ceasefire and cessation of hostilities are accomplished. 5. Issue of responsibilites, of which you seem to be so hard pressed against the Maoists, should also be discussed in either the "softer" or "harder" issues, depending on how one comprehends the difficulty of resolving the issue. Once again, if I may, introducing this part in the early stages of of process, especially in the confidence-building is seriously damaging to the process--pouring accusations/counter accusations is obviously detrimental to building confidence. 6. Finally, once again, we must remember that the process is not as easy as it might appear on papers. They will need to run back and forth at times, face the danger of breaching (by either party) of some already-agreed-upon issues in the previous phase, or even find themselves stuck at one phase over one issue. There are plenty more examples of obstacles to peace. Neither is this process mathematics--nothing in the process is as clear-cut as adding or subtracting numbers. Vagueness is the norm--one just needs to learn to play subtly with that vagueness and try to make sense out of it. If what I have written above is still "vague, morally high-sounding, earnest in its tone but ultimately vacuous," I am sure you'll be kind enough for overlook my ineptitude, for I am merely a student still, and have yet to learn a lot more and become a professional. Nevertheless, I beg to differ with some quarters who think we need less of such vagueness in Nepal: no matter how vague, stupid or vacuous an idea may be, ideas are still ideas--the more the merrier. I would not go as far to shun an idea, even if it is from an ignoramus. |
| Poonte | Posted
on 26-Jun-03 10:10 AM
Jhandai...THE most important point (vis-a-vis the origination of this debate) ta jhandai birsyaa... I would not go as far as accusing some of the liberals of cajoling the Maoists--I think they are just being realistic and recognizing the fact that what the Maoists say/do has come to affect the society significantly, and if we do not deal with them properly with a delicate balance right now, we will face a catastrophe of some sort in the future. That is, if we let them divide, we may have to deal with not only one evil, but many evils that will come into being, making it all the more difficult to achieve peace. |
| boke | Posted
on 26-Jun-03 04:39 PM
Ahem, Poonte-ji: Jaos, jaos, lau jaos!! Tyo Amrikan Bishwavidyalaya ma batuleko vidya ko taakat le maatribhumi ko jhai-jhagada ko melo-meso garna paryo. Suneko thiye, Syangja Kaaski tira bata mananiya pad ko chunaab ma uuthnuhuncha re chaadainai. Ghosana matra garnuhosh, ma mero mat hajurlai nai takkrakkai takryaune chu. |
| Nepe | Posted
on 28-Jun-03 05:31 PM
Here is the speech by Kanak ji I was talking about. It is way way too long. You are warned. http://www.sajha.com/sajha/html/OpenThread.cfm?forum=2&ThreadID=11305 |
| ashu | Posted
on 29-Jun-03 02:09 AM
Poonte, Sorry for not getting back here earlier. Was busy, eating dahi-chiura and masu to celebrate the rainy days of Asar 14 and 15 :-) Anyway, on another thread started by Nepe, we have Kanak saying something like we have made political mistakes in Nepal because we do not know/understand political science . . . as though understanding political science would lead to politics with fewer mistakes!! Here, you seem to be saying something similar: that we in Nepal are in conflict because we don't know the finer points of conflict resolution, and, once we follow these finer points of conflict resolution, la-di-da, we'll achieve peace. In other words, you are saying: Let's follow this academic script of how conflicts are really resolved. Let's start with ceasefire, and work our way through "cessation of hostilities", "pre-negotiation" and all that, all the way to a "peace treaty". To that I say: Fine. But my questions are this: What if the reality DIVERGES, as it so often does, from the academic script? What if the Maoists have no intention whatsoever to support peace? What if the Maoists say one thing and continue to do another? What if we -- the public -- simply cannot trust them? And frankly, to ask (especially to a student of international relations like yourself) an assumption-challenging question: what moral imperative do we, the unarmed citizens, really have to negotiate with the armed Maoists? And so, are we better off wringing our hands and "remember[ing] that the process is not as easy as it might appear on papers" and let it be that? Or do we, the unarmed citizens of Nepal, start to take a stand against against Maoist atrocities first, then move further to speak up against the state's atrocities while continue to defend the rights of INVIDUAL unarmed Nepali citizens caught in the conflict? My concern is that so eager, so hurried and so desperate we appear to have this so-called peace treaty with the Maoists that we are willing to NOT even talk humanely, let alone at all, about the rights of those Nepalis did the unnecessary dying. oohi ashu ktm,nepal |
| Biswo | Posted
on 30-Jun-03 07:20 AM
Interesting conversation here. I visited quite a few districts, supposedly previous strongholds of NC/UML in the eastern Nepal in past few weeks. The truth is just horrible. The extremists have taken the whole nation hostage. I saw the tax collecting reds, talked to them, and I saw kids carrying guns. I am sure the nation is preparing for another round of war. And , hello,here is one conundrum. Why didn't I see any single Nepali household having the picture of current royal family, or even the king? May be because I didn't go to the household of rich royalists in KTM. I am eagerly waiting for my trekking to the west in this 'off-season'. Let's see what is there for me to know:-) Oh, and Ashu is right: Maoists are not moderates. Moderate lefts are not Maoists. They are just plain evil. |
| allare | Posted
on 30-Jun-03 08:55 AM
Do not have time to read all long threads but managed to read few latest thread. Just got one question in mind while reading that Maoist are evil. Now i think, i have to take this word "evil" as comparable. Maoist are evil, fine, but with whom are you people comparing Maoist? If you see the current situation in Nepal, you wont find and leader or party who are not evil. Who brought this problem of Maoist ? NC, UML.. so whom to blame first? are not NC, UML are more evil than Maoist? From where this maoist came? If you guys just talk in surface level then ofcourse Maoist are evil who have/are killed/killing lots of innocent people. Otherwise, if you go to depth and analyse the problem then Maosist are far better than NC, UML... Just would like to say that, I am not advocating maoist here saying that they are good and did great job, but just want to request also that do not just blame them, know them in depth and their issue. Then you might see different picture. |
| RBaral | Posted
on 30-Jun-03 09:10 AM
Biswo: I would like to hear more about your visits in the districts of Nepal. I have been hearing stories, but would be very interesting to hear your first hand experiences. One little note, on the usage of the word "evil", I would like to mention. Be it one or many, killing is killing. Each of the political parties has once in their history trodden this path. NC attacked the king (Okhaldhungs?), and Communists sacked people to death (Jhapa). Why the label *evil* to moists alone? Namaste, Rishi |
| Poonte | Posted
on 30-Jun-03 10:53 AM
Biswo-ji... "Oh, and Ashu is right: Maoists are not moderates. Moderate lefts are not Maoists. They are just plain evil." Are you labeling the moderate lefts as evil too? Hmmmmm.... Yes, if we keep up with a hardline confrontational attitude towards the Maoists, and decline to enter into a peace process with them, the next round of war may be inevitable afterall! :( allare-ji & RBaral-ji... Agreed. One of the key points of my argument(s) is that we need to be more balanced. Ashu, I think the knowledge of broad and basic framework of how social sciences work can certainly be of tremendous help, while the lack there of would be obviously detrimental to the political/social process. I wish not be seen as undermining your brilliant cognitive capacity here, but even though both mathematics and social sciences entail a process of one kind or the other, the obvious difference between them is that mathematics require rigidity while the complexity of social sciences warrants deep flexibility. On that note... >>>What if the reality DIVERGES, as it so often does, from the academic script? What if the Maoists have no intention whatsoever to support peace? What if the Maoists say one thing and continue to do another? What if we -- the public -- simply cannot trust them? Following the academic script with rigidity is not only foolish, but will definitely lead to failure of the process. I agree with you that there will certainly be numerous diversions/deviations that will require maximum flexibility on the part of the negotiators and facilitators. While keeping the broad framework of how the process should proceed in the back of their minds, the people involved should also be prepared to encounter and professionally deal with those diversions/deviations. How? It's like learning o ride a bicycle--experts can perhaps tell you some basics, but until you ride the bike yourself and eventually start to gain the sense of balance yourself, you will never know how to ride a bicycle. No one can actually tell you how to gain that sense of balance. Skill to professionally juggle with the deviations in the peace process is also something that I expect the experts on conflict would have mastered. The issue of trust: Yes, I agree that it is simply naive to expect the parties to trust one another while the process is still at a nascent state. At this point, trusting the other side should not be based on just the mutual trust itself, but on the awareness of the set of consequences that each side would face if either of them violate one code or the other. In other words, in the beginning of the process, it is not necessary that one side have faith on the other, rather they would trust the undesirable consequences to the party that commits the violation(s). Effective monitoring system, which should include a balanced third party (facilitators) and real (not empty) threats of severe consequences, should be carefully drafted and put into cation. The role of the international community (particularly the UN) can be very useful here. Once the process moves forward, and the parties start to gain more confidence in the other side in due time, trusting the other side may become a natural thing, hence decreasing the utility of, but not completely abolishing, the monitoring system. Talking about the role of the international community, I had the privilege of briefly discussing the matter with John Norris, person who basically drafted the ICG report on the crisis in Nepal, and a lengthy chat with Deepak Thapa dai after their presentations on a program in NY recently. From the conversations with them, and the subsequent reading of the ICG report on Nepal, I gathered that the international community has effectively been shut out of the peace process for two primary reasons: 1. India's reluctance to let the international community get involved in Nepal (they fear that allowing foreign involvement in Nepal would open the doors for similar actions being taken in Kashmir), and 2. Nepal's own issue of nationalism (that-we-Nepalis-are-capable-of-solving-our-own-problem and that we-do-no- need-foreign-help kinds of attitudes). In view of the facts that Nepal seriously lacks experts on conflicts who are of Nepali nationality, and that the peace process seriously lacks professionalism that is required to make the process successful, I think it is rather unfortunate that the foreign experts are banned from facilitating the peace process. I think te role of foreign facilitators is not only helpful, but badly needed in Nepali situation. For further take on ts issue, once again the readers can check out the ICG website: www.crisisweb.org. >>>what moral imperative do we, the unarmed citizens, really have to negotiate with the armed Maoists? Negotiating with the Maoists need not necessarily be a moral imperative--the pragmatism should be the reason why we should negotiate with them. The alternative to not negotiating is, I believe, truly undesirable in everyone's mind: return to more violence, bloodshed, and the never-ending cycle of terrifying consequences. Come to think of it, preventing further violence by entering into a peace process with the Maoists is also a morally appropriate thing to do. lu ta...kaam ma jaane bela bho... |
| Nepe | Posted
on 30-Jun-03 03:34 PM
I was hoping to find some quite time to organize and write down my thoughts. But haven't been so lucky yet. So just a quick and random remarks for now. 1. The Maoists emerged because of the national denial about who actually held the sovereign power of Nepal. 2. Contrary to the claims made by the experts like Kanak Mani, Deepak Thapa and so on, the issues of social and economic justices are not the root cause of the emergence of the Maoists. Such issues are actually the hitch-hikers. The Maoists gave them a free ride. 3. The Maoists are heavily armed. Their weapons are not the guns looted from the Royal Army and the Police. Their weapons are the cause abandoned by the political parties. 4. The only permanent solution to the Maoists problem is to get out of the national denial about the sovereignty of Nepal. As a matter of fact, it is rapidly happening right now in the country. 5. The sooner the political parties and the intelligentsia still in denial start soul-searching and become a part of the imminent revolution in the country, the better. Those who fail to do so will be a history in few years time. 6. Unless, the liberal democratic force become a significant partner of the revolution, we are in a dangerous uncertainty about the course of our history. |
| GurL_Interrupted | Posted
on 30-Jun-03 07:31 PM
I agree w/ Allare. Have u given a thought for the cause of "maoism" in Nepal in the first place? I donot think any of us will understand the real hardcore truth sitting on our computer...pouring out our frustrations, calling and generalizing the maoists as eviL! Go live among those oppressed people in the most remote areas of faaar west or if u have guts - in the jungle before calling someone eviL! Be and live like one of them...not just visit! before labeling someone as eviL. There is a difference in reading the news or hearing from someone 'bout the issues happening; AND being a part of the issue itself (first hand expeirence)! Maoists = Iraq / Afghanistan The state & it's supporters = U.S.A / U.K. (esp. Bush administration) Amnesty international = United nation! (France.....!) How does that generalization make u feeL? Super!, I suppose! |
| ashu | Posted
on 30-Jun-03 08:20 PM
>>>are not NC, UML are more evil than Maoist? The answer: No. Not at all. However much we dislike/hate/loathe NC, UML and other political parties because of all their ineptitude and sins, the fact remains that they have to, sooner or later, go to the janata and ask for votes. Who knows, the janata may very well throw these jokers out in the next -- when it happens -- round of general elections. This way, at least, the janata, even in the abstract sense, retain a large degree of choice as to what to do with these political party ka jokers. [Example: A few years ago, Khum Bdr. Khadka, an elected MP, was a powerful political figure; today, he's just a pathetic man.] Sure, the mere process of elections and other attendants of democracy such as free press and all that do NOT mean that every thing is nice and great when it comes to political parties. The point here is that sooner or later, these parties, no matter how khattam and jhoor they may be, have to be accountable to the people. In constrast, the Maoists face NO such accountability to the people. At all. They are an ARBITRARY force unto themselves. Recently, when asked why they were still collecting donations and pressuring villagers to give them money and food, Krishna Mahara cast his Maoist comrades as a latter-day army of Robin Hood by saying, "Oh, we only collect money from those who we know are smugglers and otherwise corrupt people." I mean, give me a break!! Sure, we are all against smugglers and other wise corrupt people. But we don't take law, even natural laws, into our own hands and decide for others. However khattam our legal system is, we look for ways to help build that system so that those who are PROVEN TO BE guilty are punished through, what is called, "the due process of law". And, yes, punished, if not now, then eventually . . . thereby making our nation all the more democratic. But what gives the Maoist that EXTRA right, that EXTRA responsibility, that EXTRA power (all of which are accountable to no one) to: a) decide among themselves who the smugglers and otherwise corrupt people in villages are. b) then take measures that the Maoists see fit against them. I mean, are Maoists god? In my book, the Maoists are evil because they have failed these two tests REPEATEDLY: a) The test of liberty (they force even school children to attend their rallies, and decide who they can loot and kill and come up with stupid justifications) b) The test of democracy (Make no mistake: they are all for consolidating all powers for themselves at any cost, and they are simply biding the time by appearing to be playing the peace game for now. The sooner we wise up and stop making excuses for the Maoists, the better it will be for democracy). oohi ashu ktm,nepal |
| Bhunte | Posted
on 30-Jun-03 09:06 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>However much we dislike/hate/loathe NC, UML and other political parties because of all their ineptitude and sins, the fact remains that they have to, sooner or later, go to the janata and ask for votes. Who knows, the janata may very well throw these jokers out in the next -- when it happens -- round of general elections. <<<<<<<<<<<<< WELL, the central committee nominates the same jokers again and again on behalf of the party for the next election. Since the party nominates only one candidate (except if someone revolt--swatantra oommedwar from the same party) for an electorial seat, the janatas have no choice but to reelect the same joker with a very good faith on the party which he believes. For example, Mr. Khadka will definitely get a nomination for a seat in Dang#..., Mr.Gautam will definitely get a nomination for Bardiya#..., Mr.Joshi will definitely get a nomination for Tanahu#..., and the list goes on for the same old 'tattoos'. So, there is some structural defect in the party's constitution about the way it nominates a candidate to a district constituency. |
| allare | Posted
on 01-Jul-03 04:39 AM
>>>are not NC, UML are more evil than Maoist? >>>>>The answer: No. >>>>>Not at all. As you said who knows janta will throw out..some person.. blah blah.. In same stream, I will say that who knows that same janta will throw out this NC and UML and accept Maoist. If you do call them evil and do not accept them then it does not means that other will do same. Atleast for me, there are plenty of reasons to accept Maoist as good Party/leader for Nepal compare to UML and NC. But real picture will come out when they get in power and people start evaluating them based on their work while being on power. I just do not understand, why you are keeping deaf ear and blind eyes about the reason of upcoming this Maoist. For last 12 years, who was in govt? Did not the fraction of todays Maoist went to then debua govt and filed their demand as concerned nepali? did any govt care those issues? Forget about there demand.. whether it was reasonable or not, but did anyone care at all first to examine that? If you are talking about donation that Maoist are taking now, have you ever thought that how NC and UML are running financially? do these NC and UML have any money plant to run NC and UML? Just the way of collecting money (as donation) is different. While being in power, did not they collect money for election in different name and ways? Do not you see the root of corruption is these NC and UML? give me a break..... Who says that Maoist are god? If you are not saying NC and UML evil, does that mean that you take NC and UML as god? take a break.. For your clarification, I do not support all the movement of Maoist like forcing shcool children to participate in rally, strike.. but again.. who started this tradition??? Who started the tradition of band, strike, todfod?? damm.. when people start to analyse without being biased.. anyway, there is always hope. |
| RBaral | Posted
on 01-Jul-03 05:24 AM
>>>are not NC, UML are more evil than Maoist? UML and NC, most likely, are more evil that Maoists. Because, UML and NC, had walked the same door of killing once in their history, and now have also proven that THEY are not FIT to run a democratic government. NC and UML have repeatedly proven that they are FAILURE. They are totally undemocratic. A couple of proofs: 1. When summoned by court in Dhamija kanda, a couple of years ago, Girija Prasad Koirala chose to take his julus to the court. A leader of a democratic party trying to influence a *Court* with a bunch of clowns and narabaji?? Is this act democratic. 2. When Supreme court refused to endorse UML's act of demolishing parliament (by Man Mohan Adhikari), UML went to the street with slogans against the Supreme Court's decision. These two, among several, are simply proofs that UML and NC are not democratic. Come on Ashu, think twice about making judgment about NC and UML. They are just a bunch of people hounding upon little-left wealth in our country. Not only undemocratic, they are the enemies of our country. To paraphrase you verbatim: ****In my book, the Maoists are evil because they have failed these two tests REPEATEDLY: a) The test of liberty (they force even school children to attend their rallies, and decide who they can loot and kill and come up with stupid justifications) b) The test of democracy (Make no mistake: they are all for consolidating all powers for themselves at any cost, and they are simply biding the time by appearing to be playing the peace game for now. The sooner we wise up and stop making excuses for the Maoists, the better it will be for democracy). **** My response to your a) Who started this game of cat and mouse? Who looted the Rastra Bank Plane and forcelanded to India? Who closed the schools and colleges in 2036 and 2046? Who sacked people in Jhapa simply they were their enemies? My response to your b) This simple does not deserve a response. This is your Opinion, not a fact. Hopefully, upon giving a second thought, you will admit it. Yes, maoist cause has resulted in atrocities and deaths. Unfortunately, killing people has been a tool to pave a way to the power. But, Moists are YET to be tested as to how they will run the government, provided that they will once assume. Without them assuming power, I simply can't predict if they will be a failure (as UML and NC have already proven). Regards and Namaste. Rishi |
| Poonte | Posted
on 01-Jul-03 08:14 AM
Shuru bho...cycle of accusations/counter accusations...think again, fellas--take this board as an example--is it leading us to anywhere near any solution? Look, we all know EVERYBODY has erred in their own respect at one time or the other--they all have been part of some evil act or the other. However, to try to justify one's evil by introducing the others' evil is plain nonsense to me. TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT! Nothing, I mean NOTHING, justifies the terror and atrocities committed by anyone...NOT EVEN THE TERROR OF THE OTHER SIDE. The prudent thing to do now is simply cool off, sit down, have a glass of cheeeeso lassi...and try to find amicable ways to deal with those accusations (on ALL sides) with a cool head. That is, if anyone's interested in bringing an end to the cycle of violence that has beseiged our country. If not, then you may continue with the accusations/counter accusations...and God save our country! shaanti...shaanti...shaanti!!! |
| Poonte | Posted
on 01-Jul-03 08:39 AM
Ashu, If the state was so weak that it could not provide proper law and order and security to its citizens, then the power vacuum created by the state would obviously be filled with people taking the law into their own hands. Yes, it would be wonderful if all the criminals could be have been brought to justice with due process of law, but the process itself was either non-existent or pathetically weak in Nepal's case. Hence, the Maoists seized the opportunity to fill that power vacuum. Yet, are the actions of the Maoists as if they are GOD justified? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Nonetheless, I think we should go about solving that problem by making the state stronger and installing a sense of GENUINELY FAIR law and order provided by the state to the people. As long as the state fails to provide a better alternative, I don't think simple demands that maoists stop doing what they are doing will make them stop acting like GOD. On the issue of accountabilty vis-a-vis the politcal parties, I absolutely agree with you! Ironically though, is it because the political parties/government is accountable to the people that the bigger onus of taking that extra step to solve the crisis is with the government, rather than the Maoists. |
| Poonte | Posted
on 01-Jul-03 10:41 AM
GI baini and allare-jyu, Yes, I have been to the villages in Nepal, and I have lived for substantial periods of time with those oppressed people, sharing some of their misery. As a matter of fact, my own gaaon is six hour's hike from the nearest bus stop; needless to say, my relatives there live without electricity, proper running water, or any other modern amenities. Everytime I visit them, I cry not only from the thick smoke coming out of daura ko chulo in a windowless single-room hut, but I shed tears of extreme anger at the state/government for doing literally nothing to lift them from the abject poverty that they have been living in for their entire lives. Believe me, I have seen and felt the immense destitution of those people first hand many times. Trust me too that I fully understand some people's devout anger at the state, which stems out of deep frustration of having been forced to live with unrealizable dreams all their lives. Now, has the violence of Maoists brought any relief to my relatives and their likes in the remote areas of Nepal? I would be stupid to kid myself if I said yes! In the seven years or so of the start of the Moist movement in Nepal, the poor and the oppressed are still poor and oppressed. What's worse, on top of similar or worse abject poverty that they had to endure all their lives, now they have to live with fear. We have not seen, and they have not felt any real progress in their lives in the past seven years. The bottom line is, Maoists are evil for adopting violent methods to achieve their goals (even when given the benefit of the doubt that their goals are to genuinely help the people), and the state is also evil for not only indulging in atrocities while "combating terror," but also for failing to provide necessary means of development to it's citizens in the rural areas in the first place. Neither of them, however, justifies the other. Therefore, I say we stop squabling over who is more right or wrong on this matter. Both parties need to come to the table and peacefully negotiate peace. Maoists must give up violence, and the state in return must provide real opportunities, facilities and justice not only to the people in the rural areas, but equally to the people EVERYWHERE within the boundaries of Nepal. We cannot achieve this if we limit ourselves to throwing accusations/counter accusations. |