| Username |
Post |
| arnico |
Posted
on 29-Nov-01 10:54 PM
It is easy to look back and complain about things that we wish were different:
* The Maoists’ insincerity during peace talks.
* The government’s eagerness to believe them.
* The total failure of the government’s intelligence network.
* The lack of security and vulnerability of expensive communication installations.
* The lack of credibility, and the inability to take a credible moral stand by many leaders in the government…
It is easy to complain, to be angry about those things… but that won’t change where Nepal is today. Over the past week the government finally seems to have decided to react. But how it acts, and how it communicates can play a major role in determining whether things get a little worse and then better again, or whether things get much much much worse. I would like to raise three topics for discussion.
1) The government’s threat to give life sentence in prison to anyone found to be involved with the Maoists.
2) The lack (so far) of a public vision by the government of life after the crisis.
3) The possible effects of foreign involvement.
On topic 1:
By putting everyone involved with the Maoists into the same basket, and threatening everyone with the same punishment, the government is not distinguishing among the top leaders of the distinctly undemocratic Maoists, and the many village men and women who may have joined for one reason or another (for the only hope for a better future? Chance to break from traditional bonds? Chance to get revenge on a neighbor?) , but who may be ready and willing to defect.
What room does the government give to the people who may have joined the Maoists, but who already have decided, or who soon, after fighting with the army, may decide they want to leave the Maoists? What incentive, if any, do they have to defect, and what security will the government provide them? And if they have none, if they are worse off defecting, why would they? In other words, by being blind towards the diversity within its opposition, is the government forcing its opponent to remain stronger and larger than it would otherwise?
(What are the lessons from Afghanistan here? What would have happened if Taliban defectors felt less welcome by the Northern Alliance? )
On topic 2:
What is the government fighting for? What, beyond the maintenance of the status quo, currupt, system of governance and administration? The Maoists make it pretty clear what they are fighting for. They have outlined a vision of how they would like Nepal to be … yes it may have inconsistencies, and it may never be achieved even if they had all the power and resources that they want (and yes, we may disagree with them on a lot of economic and political principles)…. BUT they have a vision of a Nepal that IS attractive to a lot of young people who have seen little hope from the government. In fact, a lot of what they are at least claiming to be fighting for (as expressed in their 1996 forty point demand) SHOULD BE ON THE AGENDA OF EVERY GOVERNMENT. They say they want more equality, more justice, less exploitation, less discrimination, better health care, better roads, better rural education, more economic opportunities for the poor … that may not be all they are fighting for, but it is part of what they are claiming to be fighting for. Do we see the government fighting for that? Do we see the government fighting for a better rural society?
How will our rural society look if the government wins? Apart from tens of thousand of the youngest and most energetic youths sitting in jail eating tax money… how does the government intend to reconstruct rural Nepal? The end of fighting does not mean things will return to where they were. RURAL NEPAL IS CHANGED FOR EVER. Hundreds of thousands of people are domestic refugees. Many people (especially the richer rural people… those with the capacity to invest) have lost all their possessions. Thousands are orphans and thousands have lost their children. Thousands have nighmares from the violence that happened in their villages and towns. Psychological scars will run deep for years.
But there are also things that the Maoists have done that can help development in rural (and urban?) Nepal, if properly channeled. Thousands of the Maoist cadres, including a lot of women, have learned to step beyond the bonds of tradition, to question authority, to work together regardless of caste and ethnicity, and they have traveled around the country more than they ever would have otherwise; and they have COURAGE. Led by Prachanda and Baburam, they are doing a lot of damage. But sitting in jail, they will also represent a lot of lost hope. Where is the government’s plan to take these youths, provide them with educational and economic opportunities, and help them use their recently acquired skills for better ends, for those goals of the Maoists that are shared by other Nepali?
The polarization that is happening by branding all Maoist cadres as enemies makes it easier for the nepali army to shoot fellow Nepali dajubhai didibahini. But are there better ways forward?
On Topic 3)
There have been several comments on this board by people saying they would rather live under a Maoist government than have Indian troops fighting for the government. I do not know what it would be like to live under a Maoist government. The Nepali Maoists have never been in power before, and I know from Cambodian history from the 1970s (Khmer Rouge massacres) that there are forms of Maoism that I would NOT want to live under.
HOWEVER, I think one thing that the Maoists share with most other Nepalis including those in the government and most of the posters here, is that they would like to see a better Nepal. We may disagree about some features of what would make Nepal better, we may disagree about which path to take, and we may disagree about how to trade off personal gains with national gains … but I think there there is a concensus that we would like Nepal to be “better”.
While declaring that I am not xenophobic, and not paranoid (hi Ashu!), I would like to point out that a lot of foreign help, whether with troops or mediation, does not come for the betterment of Nepal, but for the benefit of the country that is providing the help. If we have skilled and honest leaders they may be able to get the right kind of foreign help that benefits both the providing country and Nepal. But if we don’t… we may just play into the hands of foreign interests in ways that make Nepal worse off according to the definitions of the Maoists, the government, and most of the diverse Nepali janta… letting foreign arms producers get the money that should go to our education and healthcare, sending the tourists destined for Nepal to Kashmir or Sichuan instead, and destroying our economy through possibly prolonged warfare.
Anyway, what do you think?
|
| arnico |
Posted
on 30-Nov-01 06:32 AM
>hope from the government. In fact, a lot of
>what they are at least claiming to be
>fighting for (as expressed in their 1996
>forty point demand) SHOULD BE ON THE AGENDA
>OF EVERY GOVERNMENT. They say they want
>more equality, more justice, less
>exploitation, less discrimination, better
>health care, better roads, better rural
>education, more economic opportunities for
>the poor … that may not be all they are
>fighting for, but it is part of what they
>are claiming to be fighting for
I wrote the above out of memory of the 1996 40-point demand in Nepali Times many months ago. I have not had the time to search through NT's archives to relocate the original text, but google turned up the following llink to a site that also has an unofficial translation:
http://www.yomari.com/p-review/2001/08/02082001/barbara.html
There are a lot more demands than I mentioned, but my point about the ones I mentioned remains the same.
|
| Sirisha |
Posted
on 02-Dec-01 12:11 AM
Whe doesn't the government first arrest the main people like Baburam and Prachanda so that this whole Maoism can be taken out right from the ground instead of killing the maoists people. Not only that, but the government can track down the main organizations that are supporting these activities and eradicate them first. The whole situation is so pathetic.
|
| anepalikt |
Posted
on 02-Dec-01 01:32 PM
Arnico:
You make some excellent points. I too would like to hear more about this from folks. I have to admit, I have not kept up with all the detailed happenings in Nepal, partly because I find is so terribly depressing!
Lack of vision, lack of leadership, grandstanding, lack of judgement, corruption, lack of accountabilty,urban focused, elitist leadership........ well my own litany of complaints against the current leadership can go on, but your point is really well taken. I really do want to know what will work, what is necessary to change the course of things in Nepal. As is right now, I can only imagine a black hole of civil unrest, squashed civil liberties, violence, and yes, foreign and local elitiest agendas...
In another thread, someone said they woudl rather live under Maoist rule than have India come in and help fight the Maoists. I agree with you that either is not without their own scarey aspects.... and yes, throwing the baby with the bathwater is not a good option. Criminalizing everyone who has anything to do with the Maoists and dismissing all that the Maoists are demanding is obviously stupid, not only because it will alienate a large number of Nepalis, especially folks in rural areas, but because, like you pointed out, they really do indeed (at least) talk about a vision for Nepal that has a very wide appeal... education, equality, opportuntiy...
But what is the alternative? The only real solution that will work for all Nepalis and Nepal is a solution that visionary Nepali leadership. The current leadership, the monarchy or the current government, I am afraid does not have my confidence in this task.
Now where DOES that leave us? Back to Mangal man.
|
| _BP |
Posted
on 02-Dec-01 01:51 PM
As somebody posted in my "Favourite Quotes" thread, this applies well to Nepali politics:
"For a while nothing happened. After a while, nothing continued to happen..."
Leaders:
"The difference between a boss and a leader: a boss says, 'Go!' - a leader says, 'Let's go!'"
-E. M. Kelly, Growing Disciples, 1995
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."
George Bernard Shaw.
"Democracy is being allowed to vote for the candidate you dislike least."
Robert Byrne.
|
| nabin |
Posted
on 02-Dec-01 02:06 PM
arnico,
>
> >more equality, more justice, less
> >exploitation, less discrimination, better
> >health care, better roads, better rural
> >education, more economic opportunities for
> >the poor … that may not be all they are
> >fighting for, but it is part of what they
> >are claiming to be fighting for
....
I support all of these and most of their (Maoists) demands but why are
they killing hawaldars and jawans? This is where I start to dislike them.
As they define themselves as Maobadi? How many do you really think are
truely Maobadis? Do the majority of these "badis" do even know who Mao was
and how and under what circumstances did Mao lead/act? I sometimes want to
ask, "What the hell did you just do?" to that Maobadi who fires at a poor
jawan, the only breadwinner in a family of 6 or 7and who after a great
deal of struggle and bribe landed on that jawan post, and smiles at the
proletariat victory.
I don't understand what are they trying to achieve by looting poor
peoples' money, throwing aways paperworks at offices, demanding money,
shelter and protection from general people with threats. If they are
fighting for people then there is no need to coerce them for support. I
guess it's Mechiavelli(sp?) who said "kill but don't plunder". People may
forget who killed their father but will never forget who looted them. If
a peoples' war terrorizes people then what kind of peoples' war is that?
>You wrote:
> It is easy to look back and complain about things that we wish were
> different :
>* The Maoists’ insincerity during peace talks.
>* The government’s eagerness to believe them.
>* The total failure of the government’s intelligence network.
>* The lack of security and vulnerability of expensive communication
>installations.
>* The lack of credibility, and the inability to take a credible moral
>stand by many leaders in the government…
You are right. I really wonder if the government has any intelligence. Why
wasn't the govt. watching where all these Maobadi leaders are roamimg
around (since they were roaming openly during negotiation period). Why was
government eager to beleive Maobadis? What they want is not possible
within the very fundamental structures of today's constituion. Doesn't
govt. know this?
If Prachanda agrees to peace then Badal (Ram Bahadur) will teach
Prachanda what his Maobad means. Prachanda knows this very well and so
should the govt.
>By putting everyone involved with the Maoists into the same basket....
I agree but as someone said, it's difficult to distinguish who are
Maobadis...they play carrom all day and with guns all night.
> >What is the government fighting for? What, beyond the maintenance of the
> status quo, currupt, system of governance and administration?
Exactly! The people in the government need to realize that they SUCK big
time. All this frustration in the name of Mao is nothing but the outcome
of the lousy acts of these so called desh ka thekedar politicians. All
three bodies (Judicial, Exec., and Legislature) of the sys. lack vision
and commitment for the development of the nation. Leaders are very self
centered. Even if they quash this Maobadi movement until these thekedars
of judicial, legislature and executive bodies get their acts together and
stop their nautanki another movement will rise.
Your topic three is really good. Here, I support what Biswo said. If
Maobadis come to power they won't last more than a decade but if Indian
army comes then who knows when they will leave, if ever. They are in
Kalapani...why our govt. can't make them leave? Who will make them leave
if they (indian army) come in our territory? Also I don't want some
indians from Tiruvananthapuram killing a Nepali guy in Rolpa.
Even if they leave they will leave with more damage than Maobadis can
inflict. At least, I assume, these so called Maobadis are patriotic Nepalis.
BTW, Lets not forget Sikkim....
|
| Just My Thoughts |
Posted
on 02-Dec-01 06:56 PM
I think the government should bring forward their agendas first to gain the confidence of people. As arnico has pointed, the government do not have any vision on what after the maoists are quelled, what after the peace is restored. As we all know, this is more a political problem than just the terrorism. So if we do not address the root cause of the problem, it will rise again some way or other.
As far as I think, first of all the anti-maoists force need to unite and build a national consensus. Maybe they can build a coalition government and set a time frame, say for next 5 or 10 years.( I don't think present government with bunch of opportunists are sensitive and capable as well, for solving the present crisis.) The united government then should bring a package for restoring law and order as well as for the social and economic reforms of the rural area. We don't need to have a maoist barta to start good things. National unity is the need of the hour as we have experienced not a single party or group is capable to solve the current problem.
Just my thoughts..I would like to know your veiws..
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 02-Dec-01 11:51 PM
Hi Arnicoji:
>The government’s threat to give life sentence in prison to anyone found to be
>involved with the Maoists.
I am wondering if the government can keep the coalition (with opposition parties)
together esp to support the emergency imposition if it starts talking about life
sentences.
The government rightnow needs to enact intermediary people (Even Padma Ratna
fits in this rule) to arrange for surrender of those wants to surrender. I don't
think people in Nepal become happy to hear about hundreds of casualties. The
wonder about Nepal is: if we start talking to some other people, it is very likely
that we may be distant relative of each other, or there will be at least a person
whom we know. I also remember some people who were just frustrated with their
life and joined Maoist movement. To borrow Boris Pasternak's words from Dr
Zhivago, happy men doesn't join revolution.(Because they don't want to destroy
their joy!) While it is logical to bring to justice those people who went to
kill police, and army and civilians, it makes sense to pardon or put to civilian trial
those unwitting Maoist cadres who went there just to fight, because they were
rebels without any cause. I would really prefer to hear the more arrest of
Maoists than more killing of those rebels.[I wish they would surrender and save
their life in the moment of face off with army!]
>The lack (so far) of a public vision by the government of life after the crisis.
The government of Nepali Congress has one fundamental problem: it is not run
by rules. It is very much influenced by Rana system where Hukumi Shashan used
to be the rule. There was no Loksewa Aayog, but Pajani system.If you analyze the
past Congressi rule, it is so clear that had there been no supreme court, NC prime
ministers would have made our civil servant system sclerotic, and the nation their
fiefdom.
If the army is really winning war in the pace being advertised (since we don't know
anything, and the government for some crazy reason wants media to confirm their
news with it before producing in media), then I think emergency should be lifted
as soon as possible. Civil rights are inalienable things, and return to normalcy
shouldn't be delayed. We have opposition parties who may rightnow want to
oppose the government's privatization moves, should they take permission
to oppose that? The government is planning to lay off some people from these
companies, now can't those workers even protest?
>The possible effects of foreign involvement.
Arnicoji, in no way can we support foreign intervention. As far as military hardware
is concerned, we can buy from wherever we want. It is not bad to buy Indian
arms, but we need to make sure WE are the one who fire them in Nepal! Foreign
help, as you know and you have also mentioned very well, can be very insidious
once it gets in.
|
| NK |
Posted
on 03-Dec-01 12:23 PM
Arnico,
You have said everything that is to be said. And Sirisha onward Bishwo too. Just an anecdote maybe you can file it under on the topic of vision or rather lack thereof.
I was in a little dinner party where, among others, the IGP (inspector general of police) was present. Of course people were taking about the situation in Nepal. Being the junior member amongst all those janne sunney, I kept my mouth shut but ears open. I was interested to know what he (IG) had to say. The Sad thing was he had nothing to say except complain about what the police don’t have, how their hands are tied, the lack fire power… For once I did not hear what he, as the supreme commander of the police force, is planning to do. The vision thing you know. What his strategies are, what direction he wants to take his jawan, for that matter Nepal, what he is going to do stop all that killling of his force. Nothing. I get this feeling whenever I see/meet these people. They want to reach this place, a pinnacle of ultimate power and prestige, and forget what they can do with this. The result? Look at the carnage.
[Can I tell you something what is funny? Not ha ha funny, but sad funny. For the Nepali Govt. to act/react, itt took a few dozens military personnel’s death. How many of police jawan had to die? Did anything happen? My theory? Generally, people who join police force are poor, but the military? They are well connected and better off. So naturally the death toll on military side shakes the Inner Circel deep into their bones. Is it fair to ask : What is Justice by the way? Is it something you look at and admire but unattainable?]
|
| Orion |
Posted
on 03-Dec-01 02:37 PM
Hi Arnico,
On #1, the govt.’s threat of life imprisonment, I do not know the details of the government proposal to put anyone involved with the Maoists in jail for life sounds like a rather silly thing to do. However, I wonder if this is just a threat from the government that is more sound than bite. I mean in the short term, with certain provisions of the constitution suspended, they maybe able to arrest anyone "involved" or even sympathizing with the Maoists but on the long run I don’t know how the government can keep them in jail very long, especially those who have not done anything on the lines of attacking the police and the Army etc. I am not a legal and constitutional expert, but as far as my understanding of the laws in Nepal go, you can be prosecuted for your acts and not your attitude. I don’t think you can keep a person in jail very long if all they did was say "Moabad jindabad" or gave rice and money to the Maoists. In terms of actual Maoists fighters captured, I am of the view that the government will be forced to find a way to rehabilitate these people in the next three to five years given the costs, as you mentioned, of feeding and housing these people and also given increased domestic and international pressure to heal the wounds of our "civil war", which I see happening if and when the Army operation gets over.
On #2, the lack of a public vision, I agree that reflects badly on the part of the government. Once can only hope that they come up with something pretty soon. I do think though that the government is bound to come up with something on the lines of a what's-next-for-Maoists plan, if not on their own, under pressure from Parliament and other quarters. If it doesn’t, then it will have to bear the consequences.( like an electoral defeat)
On #3, the issue of foreign involvement, I think the government has asked for an will probably get military help from India and maybe the US and others in terms of hardware, equipment, supplies etc but I think it is unlikely at this juncture that the government will ask for the intervention of the Indian Army in terms of ground troops. The only scenario I see of the Indian Army coming into Nepal is not if the government asks for it, but if India, for some reason, decides to play a Sri Lanka kind of game by presenting Nepal with a some kind of fait accompli scenario . Given everything that is going on in India and the world, I think it is unlikely that India will want to send its troops into hostile territory especially after the lessons of Sri Lanka, where the IPKF, nicknamed the Innocent People Killing force, had to be withdrawn after a few months of deployment. Plus, there is already so much instability in India that the Indian security forces have to deal with, I really don’t think it is reasonable to think that India will want to open up another front where its security forces have to face insurgents in a hostile and unknown territory.
Just my thoughts .... comments, disagreements, critisim welcome
|
| arnico |
Posted
on 04-Dec-01 12:45 PM
Hi all,
I have several thoughts in reply to individual postings, but unfortunately won't get a chance to write them until tomorrow or the day after...
but please keep posting your thoughts while we watch the situation develop.
Arnico.
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 04-Dec-01 02:12 PM
Arnico: The sad fact is that there does not seem to be "vision" involved in any Nepalese policy decisions. Everyone seems to make hey while the sun shines. Hence there is no long-term objectives on policies. Politicians who make long-term goals, anticipate and analyze objectively. Nepalese politicians are not so much concerned about the nation, as they are of themselves to be rationally plan for future.
|
| arnico |
Posted
on 05-Dec-01 08:55 PM
I will try to reply to the questions asked very soon. The news (that which filters out of Nepal) seems to move too fast to be able to keep up with thinking about it while also trying to maintain the semblance of normal life unaffected by distant news... I will write more on this topic soon.
Arnico.
|
