| Sajha.com Archives | |
| Username | Post |
| Paschim | Posted
on 25-Oct-02 06:20 AM
Orion -- was meaning to respond to your query in that other thread earlier. Today, I just couldn't open it for some reason. Hence apologies for starting a new thread just to respond to you (but I had to lest you branded me rude for not replying). Since I wrote very similar to what appears below to Biswo yesterday on email, thought I'd reproduce some of that: I still think there remain a few "good" reasons why the institution of constitutional monarchy should exist, despite most of our utter disappointment with King G. And principles take precedence over momentary setbacks. Realistically, monarchy can't be overthrown anytime soon, esp. with the army behind him. I think Kanak Dixit noted after visiting Rolpa in August that Maoists have an exaggerated sense of their strength and grossly underestimate the State's ability to muster resources if it's REALLY a situation of war-ki-par, for they view the world inaccurately through what he aptly called the "narrow prism of success in Rolpa". If the threat to the monarchy and the state indeed becomes dangerously real, it is likely that everything will stop in the country, the army size will quadruple in 8 months to 200,000, and we enter a full-blown civil war with 10,000 Maoist guerillas. The common, unarmed people won't join this mess, and this rash "attempt" to overthrow will just be calamitous because I don't think the Maoists will EVER secure a decisive, conclusive "victory" against the modern state, but they CAN continue becoming a nuisance for many more years if some of their demands are not negotiated politically. I'd thus suggest a young democrat's agenda to be as follows: try and redress this royal blunder -- plug constitutional loopholes for such through the next parliament; and start that long process of detaching the army from the palace as discussed before (their alliance is what is artificially bolstering the monarch's strength, when he should actually be deriving his support from popular legitimacy -- which incidentally is low after events of last June). Considering overthrowing the institution a generation later, iff (if and only if) irritation persists, after some of these reforms, could be a cleaner possibility. Until then, I think, we just have to seek ways to restrain the king, warn him -- and be vocally critical and embarrass him when he errs (like over events of a few weeks ago by saying in our own little ways that younger citizens like us may NOT be with him). I have no qualms though about foreseeing a possibility of a republican Nepal within our lifetime, with the country then at a much different, stronger stage of growth -- and most crucially, with a much healthier sense of national self. We'll see. Have a good weekend! |
| orion | Posted
on 25-Oct-02 07:09 PM
Good to hear from you, Pashcim. I don't really disagree with most of what you said . If we were having this conversation in person I get the sense we would be agreeing on a lot of things since our minds seem to converge on a lot of issues. In spite of being a republican, I realize there is still a lot of ground work that needs to happen before democratic republican state can be established. But I am of the opinion that we need to move towards a republican model and whether we do this sooner or later is a question that will be decided by how Nepali politics plays out in the next few months and years. I think we agree up to this point. I personally see the decline of the Monarchy already happening so I have little doubt in my mind about the viability of Monarchy in Nepal - here we seem to have slightly different ideas - and I respect these differences since they seem to arise mainly from our interpretation of the current events and our expectations of future political developments. Let me shift gears and make a quick comment about the King and the Army. As you have stated, support for the King especially among the top brass remains solid. The nature of the support is so strong and deep that references to the King are always suffixed by "sarkar" - it is never Gyanendra like many of us like to refer him. All this leads me to wonder, how the King’s stranglehold over the Mary can be broken as long as the institution of Monarchy exists. When I look at the psychology and mentality of those in top and middle ranks in the Army, I see a deep rooted respect for the King that, to me, has its origins in a mentality of subservience and subordination. Perhaps an unconscious sense of inferiority too. The Monarchy thrives on this. Psychologists have said that celebrity worship often has its roots in the sub or unconscious parts of our minds that tries to find in a celebrity all the things we personally lack. Our gross national psyche is infested with a sense of lacking so I am not surprised that the King is seen as such. The point I make, is that unless the samsadbadis can make a compelling case that the mentality in the Army will change as a result of constitutional reform in a parliamentary system, I think it is really a waste of time to try and democratize the Army as the long as the shadow of Monarchy lurches in the background. I think you are right in predicting what the agenda of the democrats will be. I don’t think that is what it should be, but I have heard many democrats in Nepal, especially in the Kathmandu power circles voicing similar ideas and I get the sense that is where the democratic movement is headed towards. Personally, I think the Congress should abandon the idea of a constitutional monarchy as a pillar of the Nepali nation state, and instead see the Monarchy as having a role in the short term but leave it to the political circumstances to decide the long term role and viability of the Monarchy in Nepal. The Congress has never been a king-loving party and I think it is time for the party to listen to its inner voice and abandon what I see as a bogus and electorally driven respect for the Monarchy. The party should make support for the Monarchy conditional on the King agreeing to be abide by the letter and spirit of the constitution. By saying it is for the Monarchy, no matter what the circumstances, the party is not playing its cards well. I think Gyanendra is taking advantage of the Congress’s purported love for the Monarchy because he knows the Congress will never abandon the Monarchy no matter how much he pushes them around. Alas, the NC leadership , will not do anything to upset the electoral apple cart which is why I think as long as Monarchy exists, it will continue to play politics with the democratically elected parties. I think the UML has done a far better job than the NC by leaving the question open of whether or not Nepal needs a Monarchy long term. But being a reasonable person, I admit that mine is a minority voice. However, like you, I believe in my principles and am thoroughly convinced that the Monarchy poses more problems than it solves. Based on my observation of Nepali politics, I have seen the Monarchy decline over the last few decades and I really don’t see how this decline can be stopped. I think the logical conclusion this decline will be the ultimate culmination of the institution and the country will have very little choice but to have an elected head of state. Have a great weekend and do share your thoughts. |
| Logical Sense | Posted
on 25-Oct-02 07:34 PM
I almost agreed on what Paschim put forth until I read Orion. And now I am not so sure about the role of the monarchy. I agree that in the long term we are better off with strong elected government. Really figure head monarchy is fine provided he has no power (constitutional ammendendments is inevitable). But, will he easily leave the grip which seems so much in the reach to him? But, in the present context though do you see any 'external' force acting? What do you think India, China, and US is influencing the politics in Nepal? Girija and other leaders started their present dessent as soon as Deuba had historical White House meeting and a historical visits by Collin Powell, and promise of around 40 million dollars (Paisa Dekhe Pachi Mahadev Ko Tin Netra Khulcha Re) . The king made sweeping and long visits to India and China. King started acting up after these visits (makes me think Aad Na Pai Kukur Bhuktaina) Also, for US, India and China it is much better to deal with one King rather than have headache of dealing with bolder democratically elected government (Talk of Democracy is to their advantage. In reality? Think of their support to Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan) Anyway, my only fear in all these including Maosist insurgency is the loosing party is - Garib Nepali Janta. Not LS, not Paschim, not Orion, not Girija, not Deuba but Bhoka Nanga Garib Nepali Daju Bhai Didi Bahini Haru - Hare!!!!! - iti |
| paramendra | Posted
on 25-Oct-02 07:52 PM
I disagree. The monarchy has to go, and now, if the civil war is to come to an end. |
| protean | Posted
on 25-Oct-02 09:47 PM
The main message behind all these evetns is some dedicated work towards reforms. As the the dramas that have unfolded in the past weeks have revealed, Nepal's policital , executive,and legistative (and other related) structures are lacking in standards-- and have failed to perform, and grossly lacking in discipline. Serious reform is required, which has to be done in earnest from here on. Given the constant confusion and power grabbing ploys of the parties at play, the country progress has been further derailed. Amidst, all this is the Maoist Insurgency, which actually started with social inequities, oppresssion, and need for change, and which took a violent turn when it became a revolution through guns. To further add to the consternation in this balance of power, now we've King G. ,who decided to assume executive power (seeing that the constitution had the proviso of not being able to annul the King's decision). Now, that the power seems to be with the King and his army, the parties have only one hope. To get public support. But, given their dismal (at best) and horrific (at worst) performance of the past 12 years, the citizens ,are not just going to be fooled again--not in the short run. The king thinks that he can use this opportunity, when citizens are frustrated with both the political parties (of the Post 1990 era) and the rebels --who don't seem to have an agenda, but don't have anything to lose--, to really assume control. I think it is just illusionary , and he and his make shift govt. has to make some strategic moves ,to get the situation sorted out. We know that his brother had been oblivious to the need of the hour, but there is more at stake if the present monarch follows that route and tries to adpot a rule of army and of the Pre 1990 days. Best thing to do ,given the state of the country, seems to be for the King to work with the democratic parties, and try to create a peaceful and stable environment in the country. As Moists are Nepalis too, they should be included in all party dialogue in the drafting of a modified constitution. Given the Maobadi disposition and tenacity and the crimes they've committed, they can't be just sidelined and ignored. They'll find ways to be a nusiance and create more havoc. The monarch should be under the rules stipulated in the constitution and any abuse of it, should translate in him being tried, like any other citizen, and possibly punished. He should definitely be under the tax code. The matter of the institution of Monarchy, should be decided by voters, in due time. Trying to do so now, might add more confusion. One thing King G. should realize is that the lower rank of the Army ,will only go so far. As Orion expressed, the servile attitude that has been built within them , doesn't allow that much space for building of democratic values --at least in the short run. In the long term interest of the country, both the King and the democratic parties need to team up and work at solving the crisis. In additon, another reform that has to be worked at is real decentralization --where the people at greassroots level are empowered. As far as foreign support goes, such counrties would be happy in dealing with a democratic and legitimate governement to the same degree as dealing with a dictator. US is a strange case of a country that preaches democracy ,but also supports dictators as large. In the case of Nepal, I think ,at this point in time, a balanced approach and proper strategy by the King G.(why so??) to work at this imbroglio, and serious reform within our system is called for. |
| protean | Posted
on 25-Oct-02 09:48 PM
Attached is a nice related piece I saw in the Nepali Times. ____________________________________________________________ http://www.nepalnews.com.np/ntimes/issue116/editorial.htm Common sense in uncommon times What will it take for the elected national leaders of our six parliamentary parties to finally grasp that they had their chance, they had 12 years to show they could do it, and they goofed. Not once, but repeatedly. They failed the people who voted for them, they failed the nation, and they failed their own grassroots cadre who were laying the foundations of democracy across the country. In contrast, the village leaders from these parties were mostly honest and accountable. They are the ones who are presently being brutally slaughtered by the hundreds for their political beliefs. Their bosses here in Kathmandu lost track long ago of what it is was they were supposed to be fighting for. And after more than a decade of abuse, they still need to invoke “democracy” so that they can get back to plundering the country. Or is this hollow bravado just to try to save their own skins while the CIAA cracks down? Right through Dasain and this week, they have been splitting hairs about the constitutionality of King Gyanendra’s action. So inert are they to the people’s sentiments that it still hasn’t sunk in that most Nepalis have given up on them. UML leader Madhav Kumar Nepal gave a speech in Dharan on Tuesday in which he said the Nepali people had lived through the Rana regime and the Panchayat, and they would reject a sham democracy. Umm, was he speaking of the last twelve years? And when we hear top leaders of both factions of the Nepali Congress talk of “defending democracy” there is a collective urge to throw up. Here is a country that is teetering on the edge, and all they can think of is to try and position themselves to be the incumbent when next elections are held. Here we are, about to be run over by a militant group intent on overthrowing parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy, and we can’t unite against that common threat. Is that because they can now blame someone else for their shortcomings, and use the king as a lightning rod to deflect criticism away from their own failures? Leave this pointless debate on Article 128 to the lawyers, gentlemen, just use your political common sense. To be sure, the king’s gambit is a risky one. If he had expected the prime minister to resign when he told him to, and the political parties to fall in line, then he miscalculated. And right there is a timely reminder for his advisers: this is not 1960, nor is it 1980. Don’t even think about it. The constitutional monarchy as a symbol of our nationhood must remain above the fray. Only then can it bring errant parties into line like it is doing now. A rift between these two forces will only benefit those who don’t believe in either. The monarch needs the mechanism of political parties to go to the people, he must not try to do it alone. Some of the King Gyanendra’s appointees to the interim cabinet may lack a certain oomph, but he definitely did not miscalculate the national mood. The mood is for peace, stability and development. And that can only come about through a dramatic move towards radical reform in the social, economic and cultural spheres. The current crisis is a result of the inability of the political parties and the Panchayat before that to deliver these reforms. Once we recognise this failure and neglect, we act to correct them so that the system can muster the capacity to heal itself. |
| protean | Posted
on 25-Oct-02 10:03 PM
I need to add something to what I wrote earlier: This follows from : One thing King G shoudl realize is.... ______________ One thing King G. should realize is that the lower rank of the Army can be pushed and will only go so far. You can't beat your horse to death. Seeing a siutation that is going to last for some time ( and also being aware that they're fighting their own people--Nepalis--, they might just back out in the long run. Even if that doens't happend, as Orion expressed, the servile attitude that has been built within them , doesn't allow that much space for building of democratic values --at least in the short run. So, the democratization of the army won't happen in the short run either. As violence begets more violence, the solution for the King and democratic forces is to unite (if both are serious) and have a dialogue for reform. |
| ashu | Posted
on 25-Oct-02 11:37 PM
Taking part well-written Nepal-related political discussions on sajha at times feel like taking part in discussions - on the deck of The Titanic -- related to the engineering of ship-building. Interesting and gyan-bardak, to be sure. But is it really useful in any sense? I don't know. There is "how the world SHOULD be" kind f thinking. And there is, "how the world really is" knd of thinking I, for one, tend to favor "how the world really is" kind of thnking before venturing forth with my opinions. With that perspective, let me try to provide a different angle to some of the interesting and gyan-bardhak issues discussed here. Paschim wrote: I still think there remain a few "good" reasons why the institution of constitutional monarchy should exist, despite most of our utter disappointment with King G. ********* Paschim, Who's the "we" here, showing "our utter disappointment with King G"? If you are talking about the Nepali janata -- in whose name all these discussions take place -- then they appear, for their own various reasons, behind King G. This is the reality in Nepal. Sme may say that if people support King G, then they must be stupid. If that's the sentiment, then, how does that kind of sentiment extend respect to the wants of the very people in whose name democacry is suposed to be there? Keep in mind that in that Nepali Times poll, most Nepalis thought that the monrchy posed the least threat to democracy. What does one to make of that? *************** Paschim wrote: I think Kanak Dixit noted after visiting Rolpa in August that Maoists have an exaggerated sense of their strength and grossly underestimate the State's ability to muster resources if it's REALLY a situation of war-ki-par, for they view the world inaccurately through what he aptly called the "narrow prism of success in Rolpa". Paschim, Six year of fighting. Thousands of Nepalis dead. Hundreds of thousands living and working in fear in villages and towns. More Nepalis feeling from Nepal. Fundamental rights suspended or severely curtailed. Budgets from education to health-care diverted to defense . . . you do the math. Given that, WHEN, in the name of Nepali janata, that critical point is going to come when the situation REALLY gets to be "war-ki-par"? The state was not serious before. The state does not seem serious now. What guarantee is there that the state will be serious later? Until we are all dead or have fled the country? ***************** Paschim wrote: I don't think the Maoists will EVER secure a decisive, conclusive "victory" against the modern state, but they CAN continue becoming a nuisance for many more years if some of their demands are not negotiated politically. Paschim, Well, that's some "nuisance" we Nepalis in Nepal have had to deal with at such HUGE expenses. The Maoists, if anything, are NOT a nuisance. They have posed and continue to pose a REAL, measurable and serious threat to everyone else here. We in Nepal need to take them very, very seriously. Taking them lightly before has in part led to the kind of political state we in Nepal find ourselves in now. Taking them further as a mere nuisance to be negotiated away will do no one any good. Obviously, we in Nepal need DIFFERENT and BETTER strategies to deal with the Maoists as they exist in real time in real places doing real harm across Nepal. Exactly what those strategies are, I am not sure. ************* Pachim wrote: I'd thus suggest a young democrat's agenda to be as follows: try and redress this royal blunder Paschim, Some of us in Nepal - without calling ourselves young democrats as such -- actually tried to do that in real time. We signed petitions. We took risks. We put ourselves on the line. Some of us actually submitted a writ to the Supreme Court, where it was thown out. Refer to "Don't question the King" thread. What do you make of this . . . a faithful, real-time, by-the-book following of your prescription to "try and redress this royal blunder"? Should we now go run a julus and start doing an aam sabha and the rest? ************** Paschim wrote: -- plug constitutional loopholes for such through the next parliament; ** Well, FIRST, let there be a parliament. ******* Paschim wrote: and start that long process of detaching the army from the palace as discussed before (their alliance is what is artificially bolstering the monarch's strength, when he should actually be deriving his support from popular legitimacy -- which incidentally is low after events of last June). Yes, but HOW exactly do you do that, do you "start that long process of detaching the army from the palace"? Sure you can prescribe another ten-step guidelines to that effect, but what if -- as in that Supeme Court's thowing out that petition -- things don't work out the way in real time in real Nepal the way the theories say they SHOULD and WOULD and COULD? What then? What's your back-up strategy? ****************** "Until then, I think, we just have to seek ways to restrain the king, warn him -- and be vocally critical and embarrass him when he errs (like over events of a few weeks ago by saying in our own little ways that younger citizens like us may NOT be with him)." ******** Again, how do you "restrain the king"? How do you "warn him" . . . without bringing, well, trouble onto yourself and your family? Unless you are asking people to be "saheed" or telling them to verbally snipe at the king from a safe distance, from afar, then, I am NOT sure how useful/effective or even interesting your ideas are to any so-called young democrat in Nepal. ********* Paschim wrote: I have no qualms though about foreseeing a possibility of a republican Nepal within our lifetime, with the country then at a much different, stronger stage of growth -- and most crucially, with a much healthier sense of national self. We'll see. Well, to that I say, we can always eloquently rapshodize about the future that NONE of have seen, with the possible exception of Trikal Maharaj :-) Just providing a different persective. That's all. oohi ashu ktm,nepal |
| bajai | Posted
on 26-Oct-02 01:30 AM
through agreements and disagrements to all of the postings above, i'd like to reiterate one fact that we cannot afford to overlook: the IRA and the prostestants of Ireland. Many innocent, patriotic people too got absorbed in the turmoil that has uprooted faith and harmony even amongst neighbors, a turmoil that has been continuing for decades with no end in sight. why? the only reason being, people did not realise the impact of the rebellion until it came knocking at their own doors. then, with 'one of their own' beloved in the casualty list, they vowed revenge..they killed 'one' from the other side just to find solace. of course, in the pursuit of vengeance, they didn't realise that 'that other one' too, was another innocent civilian..and when 'that other one' got hit, his family too, rose up to seek revenge..and so, it continued.. And then, everyone was at each other's throat..all they could see was, he's not one of us.. Then, FEAR started to reign in all aspects of life affecting all walks of life.. i dread when i say this, but i foresee the exact kind of mire sucking nepal into oblivion sometime soon... |
| Paschim | Posted
on 26-Oct-02 06:34 AM
Orion, LS, PKB, Protean, and Bajai, many thanks for your remarks. Diverse views different to one's own, expressed articulately in civil terms are always helpful. Ashu, I also appreciate your providing a specifically different perspective to my thoughts. Time and interest permitting, I'm sure all of us will continue these dialogues. While no one has ready-made solutions, each citizen's views informed by one's own imperfect sources, will hopefully contribute modestly to the ongoing process of collective learning on issues of national importance. |
| Paschim | Posted
on 26-Oct-02 10:24 AM
Speaking of dialogues on "issues of national importance" earlier, I forgot to wish everyone a "Happy Condom Day" today (26 October). This is the 7th year that Nepal is marking a national Condom Day. Like peace and development, the importance of condoms cannot be overemphasized for the nation's health and prosperity, as so eloquently presented today by Ms. Sushila Subedi in the country's largest circulating newspaper, Kantipur. The piece is titled, "Condom Day, it's importance, and women's participation". I found it informative. I hope you will too: http://www.kantipuronline.com/kantipur_html/kantipur_news4.htm#2 Good night all (and yes, do kindly promote its use if you are in a position to do so). |
| Kumar Prasad Upadhyay | Posted
on 26-Oct-02 12:01 PM
As an ocassional visitor of Sajhapur, I found the last posting on this thread by Ashu--dissecting Paschim's thoughts--very amusing. Amusing because despite coming from someone who has spent most, or major, part of his adult life in the States--either studying or working--it seems to be dismissing Paschim's thoughts on the state of affairs in Nepal generally, and the role of the army and the monarchy in particular, as unrealistic and uninformed because it comes from someone who is not presently based--physically--in Nepal. He does not say so in as many words, but that is exactly the message I got. [I don't intend to go into the relative merits of Paschim's arguments and analysis, but suffice for the time being to say that I disagree with much of that, and am closer in the thinking on this issue with Ashu. Paschim's arguments in the post-assumption (of executive powers) by King G have generally been filled with lofty--and unrealistic--idealism regaring the virtues of democracy and how the action of the King was wrong etc, which I don't think captures the sentiment of the Nepali population generally, but I don't think his location is the reason behind that.] Back to the point. Ashu probably does not realise that by questioning the credentials of Paschim to feel the pulse of Kathmandu--and the rest of the Kingdom--because Paschim is not based in Kathmandu at this point of time, he is questioning the authenticity of much of what he had to say about the state of affairs of Nepal during all those years that he lived in Boston and yet came up with highly opinionated thoughts about Nepal, not only on this web site but also through his various writings in local newspapers in Nepal. So did most participants of Sajhapur, who, as far as my little knowledge goes, were mostly based outside of Nepal, until very recently. Now, Ashu will probably pounce at this posting by saying that despite his being stationed in the West, he was very much in touch with the ground realities in Nepal through his many involvements with issues in Nepal, but wouldn't ditto be true with Paschim? Perhaps even more in case of Paschim, because he, as far as my information goes, spent a few years working full time as a development professional in Nepal before heading to the US. I am not aware if Ashu had had a similar stint in Nepal during or before the years when he was throwing opinions from Boston. To make a specific point general, what I am trying to say is this: one may or may not be based in Kathmandu, or may have been based away from Nepal for way too long, but in this age of internet and Sajhapur :), keeping in touch with the developments in Nepal is not really a big problem, as long as you are interested in it. The question is not of distance but of interest, and noone's thought should be dismissed because "you don't know it because you are not here" and "I know everything because I am here." Astu! |
| Kumari Mahadevi Parajuli | Posted
on 26-Oct-02 12:31 PM
Isn't this so typical of Ashu? He is so prdictable. I think Paschim did the right thing by brushing off and thanking Ashu in one line. Ashu is trying to snare Paschim by throwing all those words disguiesed as "a constructive argument" and "just providing a differnt perspective." He used to snare every other posters with this logic and they used to be lost in his volumes and volumes of words. Paschim is too shrewd to fall into Ass-hu's trap! Well done! As a matter of fact Kumar Prasad Upadhyaya could be Paschim too! hahahaha! I could be Raja Babu Shrestha and Assu can come back as Baniya!!! :-0 |
| orion | Posted
on 27-Oct-02 02:47 PM
If the system did not deliver in the last 12 years I think it is largely because the authority given by the constitution to the executive branch was not matched by proportionate accountability. That we had less than honest leaders to run the country did not help - what made it worse was that the constitution did not demand the kind of accountability of elected representatives that must come in a democracy. Especially in a country like ours where democracy was largely the consequence of people rejecting an unaccountable and dictatorial system of three decades. One can only hope, that whatever form, shape or system the next government in Nepal takes, accountability will be built into it. I do not see any purpose behind all the political bickering , the civil war, the royal actions etc if the next system of governance allows for the same kind of unaccountable exercise of power. As of today, nothing has changed significantly of the question of accountability - on the contrary the executive in the country is probably less accountable today that before the events of the last few weeks. |