| Username |
Post |
| Arnico |
Posted
on 11-Nov-02 10:04 PM
As a citizen of Nepal, and therefore an owner of the sovereignty of the country, I an writing to voice my views about the current security situation in the country, and the possible upcoming peace negotiations between the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), and the government in Kathmandu.
The past seven years have imposed upon us, the people of Nepal, unprecedented suffering: by directly ruining thousands of lives, families and livelihoods, by damaging income sources, investments, and infrastructure that affect millions more, by diverting the national development budget into defense spendings, and by creating deep psychological scars, ruining the sense of security, trust and optimism.
Ironically we, the people of Nepal, have suffered these costs because of a war between two forces that each claims to be fighting to provide and protect for us a better Nepal. Yet for most of us the war has made Nepal a worse place. The peace negotiations provide opportunities to truly make a better Nepal, to address previously neglected problems, and to move far beyond a return to any status quo. I thus call upon both sides in the negotiations to make sure that the suffering has not been in vain.
I call upon the two sides now to, first, explicitly acknowledge and agree upon specific common goals of greater national wellbeing and development, second, to compromise generously on points of disagreement, and third, to listen to the long neglected needs, wishes and priorities of the Nepali people. From the peace negotiations and its follow ups, I seek to find the following:
• Peace.
• Security.
• Citizen control over the country’s governance, its resources, and its
future; transparent and accountable governance.
• The creation of opportunities for and the emphasis upon social and
economic development.
I assume that my fellow citizens agree with these priorities, and I hope you will join me in calling upon the negotiating teams to deliver quickly and efficiently.
To facilitate the negotiations and their ability to deliver the wishes of the people of Nepal, I would like to suggest some demands from individual participants that I believe will speed up the process of establishing lasting peace.
From the government, currently led by Prime Minister Lokendra Bahadur Chand, I demand:
• Humble acknowledgement of its questionable legitimacy and thus of the
extra care needed in making sure it speaks for the people.
• A willingness to immediately begin a cease-fire, and a willingness to begin
negotiations before all arms are laid down.
• An end to labeling the CPN(Maoist) as terrorists (regardless of their
tactics) so as to show enough verbal respect for the war opponents to
allow face-to-face discussions.
• A willingness to discuss ALL demands brought forth by the CPN (Maoist),
but with the acknowledgement that some of the demands can only
legitimately be considered through a national referendum.
• An invitation to the CPN(Maoist) to join mainstream politics.
• A willingness to pardon lower level cadres of the CPN(Maoist) and an
effort to provide skills training to facilitates their integration into the
national economy.
From the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) I demand:
• An immediate cease-fire and an end to all violence, intimidations and
extortions.
• A willingness to allow monitoring of its arms and troop positions, and a
willingness to eventually lay down all arms.
• A willingness to agree that its demands for major constitutional
amendment and for the abolishment of the monarchy are issues to be
decided by people of Nepal, the owners of the sovereignty of the
country, and not by any government alone; Thus, a willingness to
consider that these demands be decided through free and fair national
referendums, a few years after the return of peace.
• A willingness to compromise on its demands so as to to facilitate the
reestablishment of peace.
• An apology to the people of Nepal for the suffering that it is responsible
for.
From King Gyanendra I demand:
• That he show respect for the constitution and his role within the
constitution, and that he publicly announce that he will never again
exceed the authority granted to him by the constitution.
• That he stay out of politics as long as he remains king.
• That he help facilitate the negotiation process by generously expressing a
willingness to consider stepping down from the throne and ending the
Shah dynasty, and a willingness to do so in the event that the people of
Nepal decide so through a free and fair referendum.
In the end, let me repeat that it is the responsibility of both sides of the negotiation table to listen to the wishes of the Nepali people and to ensure the quick return of peace, security and good governance, and the establishment conditions fostering social and economic development. Let us make sure the suffering of the past seven years has not been in vain.
|
| paramendra |
Posted
on 11-Nov-02 10:08 PM
"...A willingness to discuss ALL demands brought forth by the CPN (Maoist), but with the acknowledgement that some of the demands can only legitimately be considered through a national referendum. ..."
This is key.
A wonderful article.
|
| Arnico |
Posted
on 11-Nov-02 10:13 PM
Thanks paramendra.
|
| paramendra |
Posted
on 11-Nov-02 10:13 PM
"A willingness to agree that its demands for major constitutional amendment and for the abolishment of the monarchy are issues to be decided by people of Nepal, the owners of the sovereignty of the country, and not by any government alone; Thus, a willingness to consider that these demands be decided through free and fair national referendums, a few years after the return of peace."
"That he help facilitate the negotiation process by generously expressing a willingness to consider stepping down from the throne and ending the Shah dynasty, and a willingness to do so in the event that the people of Nepal decide so through a free and fair referendum."
Key points. But, somehow, I just don't see this happening. King G will do everything in his capacity to hold on. And the Maoists will not settle for anything less than a constituent assembly, a republic.
So it is sad. The end is nowhere in sight.
The only ray of light:
(1) Chand resigns. Article 128 is invoked. Executive powers back to the PMO. A UML Prime Minister. An all-party government, including the Deuba Congress.
(2) That interim government negotiates with the Maoists and, at the risk of angering King G, declares Nepal a republic.
But then I don't see this happening either. Chand is not about to resign.
It is a Greek tragedy unfolding.
|
| Arnico |
Posted
on 11-Nov-02 10:25 PM
Paramendra, the greek tragedy unfolds only if we (the people) sit back and do nothing!
All three claim to be acting in the best interest of the people and the nation. That is good. Now we need to make it clear, loudly, what really is in our best interest.
----
Actually, ironically, acknowledgement of and referral to the best interest of the people and nation was strangely absent from the vocabulary of several recent elected governments... I still think that instead of throwing BRB out when he came knocking with his 40 point demand in 1996, Deuba should have immediately taken into his own agenda at least three quarters of those points... issues of equity, social justice, and rural development that should be at the tops of any people-oriented government!
|
| Junkie |
Posted
on 11-Nov-02 10:35 PM
Arnico jee:
Good Thots ...... I agree: " ..... willingness to immediately begin a cease-fire, and a willingness to begin negotiations ..... " would be Sweed! Tara ...... then there's tara
"Peace is a very complicated concept. When the lion gobbles up the lamb and wipes his lips, then there's peace. Well, I ain't for that peace at all." - Abbie Hoffman
|
| paramendra |
Posted
on 11-Nov-02 10:44 PM
"...that instead of throwing BRB out when he came knocking with his 40 point demand in 1996, Deuba should have immediately taken into his own agenda at least three quarters of those points..."
I laud your effort. And I think something has to be done. Mine was not a call for passivity.
It is just that we might place our hopes in the wrong quarters, and that is a recipe for frustration, not peace.
Your example. Deuba is on record defending the likes of Khum Bahadur Khadka and Chiranjiwi Wagle and Gupta. That is today! What chances he might have gone after corruption back then!
(1) King G will not nudge.
(2) Chand will not nudge.
(3) BRB will not nudge.
Then where exactly will peace come from? That is what I meant.
|
| M.P. |
Posted
on 11-Nov-02 10:56 PM
A Great article [note the uppercase "G"!], Arnico.
For peace to fluorish sacrifice is necessary. I agree that the King needs to make the greatest sacrifice at the moment: a consent on "stepping down" from the head of the state if majority of Nepalis think this is necessary. Once the King takes initiative, makes this commitment and throws the ball on the Maoist's court, it will be a litmus test for the Maoist's sincerely in their claims. We will see if they are truely concerned about Nepal and its citizens. If the maoist war is not just a holy-ko-bataas fueled by inflated egos and desire for power, the Maoists WILL agree to middle-terms. If they so much believe abolishing Monarchy is the panacea for the crisis and if are confident about what they say--that Nepali people want a republic--they should show some patience and wait until the referendum. If, after the King makes the commitment, the maoists do not come for talk, do not agree on lachakdaar proposal, or try to manipulate the referendum through threats, abductions and murders later on, their title should be handed back. This will be the greatest loss for the nation. And they should be crushed--through whatever it takes!
I am, for one, in favor of a republic but would not mind seeing Gyanendra's cunning face through out my life if majority of the Nepalis reveal, through national referedum, that he should lead the country as a King.
Paramendra,
You have dreams. I have dreams. We all have dreams. Expecting UML to launch a protest against the monarchy is just one of those dreams. In fact, I would not get surprised if UML issues a whip to all its followers to vote for "constitutional monarchy" if a referendum takes place. This is no longer 2046-saal-ko-UML. There are not any Madan Bhandari's left [Bhandari once said: "Rajaale raajnity nai garne bhaye sripech fukaalera ma sanga chunaab ladna aaun] to alarm the members of "Marxism and Leninism"; only "MaKuNe-sm and Bamdev-sm" exists, and, as you know, Kirti-Nidhi-Bista-status is much more lucrative, easier to reach and comforting than commanding a battalion in the jungles of Rolpa.
|
| najar |
Posted
on 11-Nov-02 11:01 PM
I agree. Very "chitta bujhne" article, Arnicoji. You indeed would be a great to asset to our country should you some day decide to join Nepali politics or even civil service for that matter. I hope you do :)
|
| chipledhunga |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 12:23 AM
Arnico, excellent thoughts! Najar, what if we nominate him as our next PM? Pheri arko thread suru garla ek jana lay, like it happened in Paramendra's case :)
|
| Arnico |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 08:23 AM
Chipledhunga, I would politely decline, as I lack the necessary qualifications...
Najarji, I don't know whether I could contribute more from within politic / civil service, or from a neutral/non-partisan perch in academia (in Nepal)...
M.P., I like your analysis in the first long paragraph.
Paramendra: I agree that all three will not nudge... as long as they see not nudging to be in their best interest. All three claim to speak in the best interest of the country and its people... this is where it is important to hear a loud voice from the people, the OWNERS of the country's sovereignty about what is really in our best interest...
|
| najar |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 08:48 AM
Chipledhunga, i second your thoughts to nominate Arnicoji for the next PM of Nepal but sounds like he humbly refutes the idea.
Arnicoji, I am sure you will contribute well whichever trajectory you choose to remain, as you have in the past i gather.
|
| Deep |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 09:17 AM
"... And the Maoists will not settle for anything less than a constituent assembly, a republic....."
They (Maoists) will settle for constitutional monarchy. They need some time. The leadership can't just ask its comrades to return the guns and go back to "nangra khiyauna". If the leadership ever makers this blunder, the leadership will be replaced. BRP, Prachanda and others know this quite well.
See a headline in Kantipuronline (today): http://www.kantipuronline.com/kol_news.html#HR%20activists%20say%20Maoists%20ready%20for%20dialogue
Why are they trying to talk with a so-called "abaidhanik" government? Maoists can't end their movement for nothing. Many of their demands are valid and the government should start honoring those without any delay.
I agree with Arnico. If the government wants dialogue with Maoists, it has to stop calling Maoists "aatankakari". How can the government negotiate peace with terrorists who carry a lucrative bounty on them?
How many of us are willing (voluntarily) to forgo our Greencards or US citizenships if people ask for it? Most of our folks are back home (in NEPAL for MOST of us) and they want us to be with them but we are clinging to our GC and citizenship. We don't want to go back even if we are illegal here. We love to say, "King Gyanendra, renounce your Kingship". Why would he? Would you?
Let's be realistic. If we want king to go away we have to MAKE him go away. Just demanding won't do any good. "kaag karaudai chha pina suktai chha". We couldn't even make these blood sucking corrupt so called leaders who are within (technically) all existing laws and rules go away and we want to venture out in taking monarchy down.
|
| Arnico |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 07:08 PM
[cont]
Concerning people’s democracy
10 A new Constitution should be drafted by representatives elected for the establishment of a people’s democratic system.
11 All special privileges of the king and the royal family should be abolished.
12 The army, the police and the bureaucracy should be completely under people’s control.
13 All repressive acts, including the Security Act, should be repealed.
14 Everyone arrested extra-judicially for political reasons or revenge in Rukum, Rolpa, Jajarkot, Gorkha, Kavre, Sindhupalchowk, Sindhuli, Dhanusa, Ramechhap, and so on, should be immediately released. All false cases should be immediately withdrawn.
15 The operation of armed police, repression and State-sponsored terror should be immediately stopped.
16 The whereabouts of citizens who disappeared in police custody at different times, namely Dilip Chaudhary, Bhuwan Thapa Magar, Prabhakar Subedi and others, should be investigated and those responsible brought to justice. The families of victims should be duly compensated.
17 All those killed during the People’s Movement should be declared martyrs. The families of the martyrs and those injured and deformed should be duly compensated, and the murderers brought to justice.
18 Nepal should be declared a secular nation.
19 Patriarchal exploitation and discrimination against women should be stopped. Daughters should be allowed access to paternal property.
20 All racial exploitation and suppression should be stopped. Where ethnic communities are in the majority, they should be allowed to form their own autonomous governments.
21 Discrimination against downtrodden and backward people should be stopped. The system of untouchability should be eliminated.
22 All languages and dialects should be given equal opportunities to prosper. The right to education in the mother tongue up to higher levels should be guaranteed.
23 The right to expression and freedom of press and publication should be guaranteed. The government mass media should be completely autonomous.
24 Academic and professional freedom of scholars, writers, artists and cultural workers should be guaranteed.
25 Regional discrimination between the hills and the tarai should be eliminated. Backward areas should be given regional autonomy. Rural and urban areas should be treated at par.
26 Local bodies should be empowered and appropriately equipped.
Concerning livelihood
27 Land should be belong to “tenants”. Land under the control of the feudal system should be confiscated and distributed to the landless and the homeless.
28 The property of middlemen and comprador capitalists should be confiscated and nationalised. Capital lying unproductive should be invested to promote industrialisation.
29 Employment should be guaranteed for all. Until such time as employment can be arranged, an unemployment allowance should be provided.
30 A minimum wage for workers in industries, agriculture and so on should be fixed and strictly implemented.
31 The homeless should be rehabilitated. No one should be relocated until alternative infrastructure is guaranteed.
32 Poor farmers should be exempt from loan repayments. Loans taken by small farmers from the Agricultural Development Bank should be written off. Appropriate provisions should be made to provide loans for small farmers.
33 Fertiliser and seed should be easily available and at a cheap rate. Farmers should be provided with appropriate prices and markets for their produce.
34 People in flood- and drought-affected areas should be provided with appropriate relief materials.
35 Free and scientific health services and education should be available to all. The commercialisation of education should be stopped.
36 Inflation should be checked. Wages should be increased proportionate to inflation. Essential goods should be cheaply and easily available to everyone.
37 Drinking water, roads and electricity should be provided to all villagers.
38 Domestic and cottage industries should be protected and promoted.
39 Corruption, smuggling, black marketing, bribery, and the practices of middlemen and so on should be eliminated.
40 Orphans, the disabled, the elderly and children should be duly honoured and protected.
|
| Arnico |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 07:08 PM
Deep, absolutely... the Maoists can't, won't and shouldn't be made to give up completely without an attempt, a plan by the government to work towards honoring those demands that are clearly in the nation's best interest anyways (but that need time and appropriate budget allocations).
To foster discussion, I am copying and pasting the list of their initial 40 point demand.
______________
This is from NEPALI TIMES, 16 FEBRUARY, 2001
http://www.nepalnews.com.np/ntimes/feb16-2001/nation.htm
Maoist demands
The Maoist insurgency entered its sixth year this week. A few weeks before the ‘People’s War’ began on 13 February 1996, the Baburam Bhattarai-led United People’s Front (sometimes called the political wing of the CPN-Maoist) submitted a list of 40 demands to the government. In the absence of any further demands by the Maoists these 40 are still considered to represent the core of what they seek. This charter of demands is often referred to in conversation and in writing, including mention by both the US Ambassador to Nepal Ralph Frank and human rights activist Padma Ratna Tuladhar in Nepali Times #29). We publish below a translation:
Concerning nationality
1 All discriminatory treaties, including the 1950 Nepal-India Treaty, should be abrogated.
2 The so-called Integrated Mahakali Treaty concluded on 29 January 1996 should be repealed immediately, as it is designed to conceal the disastrous Tanakpur Treaty and allows Indian imperialist monopoly over Nepal’s water resources.
3 The open border between Nepal and India should be regulated, controlled and systematised. All vehicles with Indian licence plates should be banned from Nepal.
4 The Gurkha/Gorkha Recruitment Centres should be closed. Nepali citizens should be provided dignified employment in the country.
5 Nepali workers should be given priority in different sectors. A “work permit” system should be strictly implemented if foreign workers are required in the country.
6 The domination of foreign capital in Nepali industries, business and finance should be stopped.
7 An appropriate customs policy should be devised and implemented so that economic development helps the nation become self-reliant.
8 The invasion of imperialist and colonial culture should be banned. Vulgar Hindi films, videos and magazines should be Immediately outlawed.
9 The invasion of colonial and imperial elements in the name of NGOs and INGOs should be stopped.
[cont]
|
| ruck |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 07:23 PM
Thanks Arnico !!
Some very very good and valid DEMANDS...
Some of the demands I agree with...
11 All special privileges of the king and the royal family should be abolished.
12 The army, the police and the bureaucracy should be completely under people’s control.
21 Discrimination against downtrodden and backward people should be stopped. The system of untouchability should be eliminated.
22 All languages and dialects should be given equal opportunities to prosper. The right to education in the mother tongue up to higher levels should be guaranteed.
23 The right to expression and freedom of press and publication should be guaranteed. The government mass media should be completely autonomous.
24 Academic and professional freedom of scholars, writers, artists and cultural workers should be guaranteed.
25 Regional discrimination between the hills and the tarai should be eliminated. Backward areas should be given regional autonomy. Rural and urban areas should be treated at par.
26 Local bodies should be empowered and appropriately equipped.
29 Employment should be guaranteed for all. Until such time as employment can be arranged, an unemployment allowance should be provided.
30 A minimum wage for workers in industries, agriculture and so on should be fixed and strictly implemented.
31 The homeless should be rehabilitated. No one should be relocated until alternative infrastructure is guaranteed.
32 Poor farmers should be exempt from loan repayments. Loans taken by small farmers from the Agricultural Development Bank should be written off. Appropriate provisions should be made to provide loans for small farmers.
33 Fertiliser and seed should be easily available and at a cheap rate. Farmers should be provided with appropriate prices and markets for their produce.
34 People in flood- and drought-affected areas should be provided with appropriate relief materials.
35 Free and scientific health services and education should be available to all. The commercialisation of education should be stopped.
36 Inflation should be checked. Wages should be increased proportionate to inflation. Essential goods should be cheaply and easily available to everyone.
37 Drinking water, roads and electricity should be provided to all villagers.
38 Domestic and cottage industries should be protected and promoted.
39 Corruption, smuggling, black marketing, bribery, and the practices of middlemen and so on should be eliminated.
40 Orphans, the disabled, the elderly and children should be duly honoured and protected.
|
| Arnico |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 07:29 PM
At a first glance, I don't see anything wrong with the following points being part of the national agenda of ANY social development oriented government (although, of course achievement of some would require years of investment, or in some cases international re-negotiations):
1,2,7,12,13,14,16,19,21,22,23,24,25,26,29,30,31,33,34,36,37,38,39,40.
In addition, there are elements in many more points that I would agree with, but might object to parts... or that might need rephrasing in order to be more widely acceptable:
for example, yes, everyone should have access to dignified employment within Nepal, although I don't see any hurry in closing Gurkha recruitment centers. and so on.
I could go on giving my opinion about each additional point that I omitted from my list... but the main thing I wanted to emphasize here is the COMMON GROUND that exists, and that should FIRST be acknowledged and agreed upon before discussions of the more controversial points are begun.
Meanwhile, if anyone has links to a site where the points are listed in Nepali, as well as to more recent statements by the Maoists (especially of that past year), that would be greatly appreciated. I have read some of them, but have not kept track of where to find them again. Thanks.
----
Meanwhile, Deep: your second last, (and perhaps also the last) paragraph were NOT aimed at everyone here. Many of us who frequent sajha.com are Nepali citizens abroad on student visas who intend to return to Nepal after studies, in some cases after gaining some more experience and savings first. Restoration of peace and security in Nepal is essential for allowing our dreams and ambitions to come true.
|
| Arnico |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 07:39 PM
Hi Ruck. You seem to have posted while I was still writing.
I left out point 35 because I disagree with the phrasing. Easily affordable health care should be available to everyone. Agree with that. However, that does not necessarily mean it must be completely free. Free services tend not to get sufficient respect, tend to be abused, and tend to be hard to sustain at a required quality.
Also, yes, the practice of making huge profits ripping off parents while pretending to provide quality education is not good. But at the same time, I strongly disagree with the more recent Maoist attacks on ANY privately provided education. Large education institutions *should* be non-profits yes ...but I see nothing wrong with them being private (and that does not mean for-profit ones should be outlawed, as long as the motive is transparent!). I think often the private sector is faster and more able to cater to society's needs and demands, and often also able to provide higher quality than what tax payer money can do.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 07:42 PM
Arnico,
Enjoyed reading your points.
Your ideas provide a sturdy platform to go beyond these oft-repeated "yesto hoono.parcha; testo hoono.parcha" type of arguments.
Still, the fundamental question remains: Who is going to bell the cat, so to speak, and how?
Therein lie our challenges.
The political parties seem muddled as to how to proceed ahead.
The so-called civil society is split along political lines and more.
In Nepal, the time has come when just knowing or articulating the solutions is NOT enough. We now have to find "agents" (individuals and organizations) to push for
those solutiions steadfastly.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| oys_chill |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 07:55 PM
Finally ashu ji hits the nail on the head.................mungro le dhyang dhyang...dhyang!!!!!
|
| NK |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 08:17 PM
Greatly informative article and a thread. Thank you Arnico. Tonight, it was worth :)the effort to click on GBNC.
|
| Thakkar Sharma |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 08:20 PM
How many of you think these politicians no matter whether they are Maoist, or Congress or UML or .....are really worried about the country and people like us? I would say these so called politicians are doing politics for politics only not for the development of country and people. We have seen this in these 12 years of freedom....
|
| wy |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 08:20 PM
Thought it might be interest: A 40-point analysis in Nepali Times by Dr. Bohara:
http://www.nepalnews.com.np/ntimes/issue107/opinion.htm
|
| wy |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 08:28 PM
Nepali Times (Aug 16-22)
An end to the means
by Dr. Alok Bohara
“If you act like there is no possibility of change, you guarantee that there will be no change.” - Noam Chomsky
Recent news about a possible dialogue with Maoists is a welcome sign. But the government’s repeated, single-minded response, asking the Maoists to lay down arms first, is an example of the gullibility of the establishment.
Without compromising on law and order, the political leadership must be prepared to be pro-active and offer a set of far-reaching devolutionary reform measures to break this impasse—decentralised regional governments and electoral reform replacing the Westminster system of election in favour of (mixed) proportional representation.
There are two schools of thought. One argument is that the extreme segment of society, unable to find a forum to form any viable coalition to engage in any policy debate to make a difference, has resorted to undemocratic norms and practices. An alternate explanation that the current extremism is totally ideologically driven and offers no room for compromise seems equally valid as well.
Let’s take a look at the original 40-point demands of the Maoists and classify them:
Socio-economic goals:
• Economic issue and safety net: setting minimum wage (30), providing unemployment compensation (29), free health care and education (35), subsidies for farmers (33), guaranteed work (29), guaranteed low inflation (36), effective disaster relief mechanism (34), protection for cottage industry (38), protection of the domestic trucking industry by restricting Indian trucks (3);
• Infrastructure: building roads, water and electricity facilities in rural areas (37);
• Ethnic and social issues: ethnic languages and their status and bilingualism in (middle) schools (22), property rights for daughters (19), land reforms (27), solving problems pertaining to homelessness, orphans, and the elderly (31, 40), debt relief for farmers (32), corruption control (39), ending caste discrimination (20, 21);
• Human rights and press: controlling police brutality (15), press autonomy (23), intellectual freedom (24), repealing the Security Act (13), freedom for political detainees (14,16), civil oversight of police activity (12);
• Social conformity and cultural policing, less personal liberty: restriction on personal freedom to enjoy certain kinds of music and movies (8), restriction on personal choice to get private education, restriction on development of civil society like NGOs (9);
Ideological and institutional goals:
• Nationalist issues: removing unfair clauses in the 1950 Treaty (1), nullification of the Tanakpur Treaty (2), closing Gorkha recruitment camps (4), requiring work permits for non-Nepalis (5);
• Constitutional demands: declaring Nepal a secular state (18), removing monarchical privileges (11), constituent assembly for a new constitution (10), bringing the army under the civilian authority (12).
Policy tools:
• Macro economic policy: pegging of workers’ salary to inflation (and guaranteed inflationary adjustment) (36), increased custom duties;
• Closed economy and protectionism: restriction on flow of foreign capital (6), higher import tariffs and restriction on imports (7), (goal: protection for cottage industry);
• Documentation of foreign workers: requiring work permit for non-Nepalis (5);
• Devolution of central authority: autonomy to mobilise resources and decentralisation, local autonomy (26);
• Impose occupational discrimination: confiscation of the property of commission agents and brokers, targeted nationalisation of certain sectors (28).
Without legitimising the path of violence espoused by the insurgents, many of these demands may actually come under the purview of our parties, groups, and ethnic and political minorities with varying degrees of support and opposition. Many of these issues can easily be framed within the context of policy debates.
Every democracy has these policy polarisations. We may desire certain common goals and welfare, but the tools to achieve them may be different across different political parties. Forcing others to adopt a set of policy tools is ridiculous and autocratic. Some tools are theoretically sound (eg, regional level decentralised government, see demand number 26), and yet others are highly counter-productive (eg, macro-economic policy, anti-trade policy, and the nationalisation of the brokerage sector).
More importantly, why did the Maoists take the path of violence? Or do they have some other agenda that we are not seeing in the 40-point demands? If they do, then why would they want to come to the negotiation table now? In any case, many of the policy-related items on the 40-point list have been the focus of public policy debates in western democracies.
Socio-economic goals cannot be demanded, but proper policy tools can take us to those goals. Many of the goals in the 40-point demand are similar to those enjoyed, for instance, by Americans (eg, minimum wage, free school education, welfare support for minorities and the poor, homeless shelters, low inflation, disaster management, farm subsidies, community oversight of police activities, anti-discrimination laws). The Maoists just have a different way of trying to attain those goals.
With some exceptions, many of these same issues are common to citizens around the world. But political forces and civil society have solved these problems through debate and participation, using the ideals of democracy, compromise and respecting each other’s views. The question is about priority and compromises: no one group or ideology should have complete domination over the entire population. Attempts to socially engineer societies in China, Cambodia and the Soviet Union all failed miserably. That is why it is important to understand what is the real motive behind violence.
Can a form of mixed proportional representation in elections and the elected regional governments, embracing a score of ethnic and political minorities into public policy debates, offer a way out?
|
| Dilasha |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 09:14 PM
Howdy howdy Arnico!
where on earth did ya go!
miss u miss u so much so!
that of course you do know!
heh heh, "just rhyming re kya ajha last ma" :)
Valid points Arnico! I hope this time both sides are sensible enough to understand our sentiments and hear our voices and act sensibly so that
no tears shall be further shed,
nor shall we bleed to death
for we are extremely exhausted
and almost out of breath
let justice prevail
let there be light
oh leaders of nepal
save us from this plight!
|
| DHUMBASSE (DUMBASS) |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 09:24 PM
no tears shall be further shed,
nor shall we bleed to death
for we are extremely exhausted
and almost out of breath
let justice prevail
let there be light
oh leaders of nepal
save us from this plight!
hummmmm!! Dilasha !! that is really something !! I can't sit back and not applaud you on that little piece..
only thing..my version would not have 'nepalese leaders'...but Shambhooooo...for I have seen great many leaders in the past 12 years...who did not do sh*t for the country and the people , but for themselves and their families.. re kya ajha lastma
|
| Thakkar Sharma |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 09:41 PM
I like that DHUMBASS. Why should we curse ourself by calling these "Guu Khane leaders" for plight.
|
| SMR |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 09:53 PM
Wy,
Many of the demands categorized in the article could have been negotiated with the Maoists, if the team had done some homework. Many demands, as Bohara points out, are enjoyed by the people right here in the US. But, why would they go on such a deadly rampage? Do they have actually any other agenda? That is, establishment of a one-party communist system and that these were just a diversion!
|
| paramendra |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 10:55 PM
The Maoist "demands" are Baburam Bhattarai's wet dreams. I mean, I would like to lead a delegation to the Prime Minister's Office and demand that the per capita income be raised from $1200 to $12,000! Many of the listed items are lofty goals, but they can't be "demands." And some of the items are herersy:
"1 All discriminatory treaties, including the 1950 Nepal-India Treaty, should be abrogated. "
You don't abrogate treaties, you renegotiate them. Same applies to the "Integrated Mahakali Treaty."
"3 The open border between Nepal and India should be regulated, controlled and systematised. All vehicles with Indian licence plates should be banned from Nepal."
Is he kidding me? The guy who has to hide in Bihar wants Bihar to hide from Nepal!
"4 The Gurkha/Gorkha Recruitment Centres should be closed. Nepali citizens should be provided dignified employment in the country."
Yeah, and the Nepali students should not be allowed to go to the U.S. for career opportunities.
"5 Nepali workers should be given priority in different sectors. A “work permit” system should be strictly implemented if foreign workers are required in the country."
And India should do the same for the Nepalis working in India.
"6 The domination of foreign capital in Nepali industries, business and finance should be stopped."
The problem is not enough capital, foreign or domestic, not too much capital and investments.
"7 An appropriate customs policy should be devised and implemented so that economic development helps the nation become self-reliant."
In this era of globalization and interdependence, if you want self-reliance, you should start with your own armed insurgency. Stop going to India for arms and ammunitions, stop "exporting" your "ghaite" recruits to Indian hospitals.
"8 The invasion of imperialist and colonial culture should be banned. Vulgar Hindi films, videos and magazines should be Immediately outlawed."
Yeah, and why don't you also tell me which Narayn Gopal song I should listen to or not, why don't YOU decide the bestseller lists! You might also want to tell me when I may listen to music or not, what time of the day or night.
"9 The invasion of colonial and imperial elements in the name of NGOs and INGOs should be stopped."
I did not realize the CIA was that active in Nepal. Must be the location: Nepal must have emerged to be of strategic importance in their attempts to sabotage the CCP Congress!
"19 Patriarchal exploitation and discrimination against women should be stopped. Daughters should be allowed access to paternal property."
The second part done. But done through parliamentary action, not with guns! As for the former, get specific, and get to work! How easy it would be to end sexism if we just had to change the mindset of the Prime Minister!
"20 All racial exploitation and suppression should be stopped."
Only close the border down.
"21 Discrimination against downtrodden and backward people should be stopped. The system of untouchability should be eliminated."
Yeah, and the PMO can do that chho-mantar.
"The right to education in the mother tongue up to higher levels should be guaranteed."
When they don't even get to teach higher level science in Nepali ......... This guy is demanding this!
"23 The right to expression and freedom of press and publication should be guaranteed. The government mass media should be completely autonomous."
Since that does not happen in communist dictatorships, would you like to drop the goal of such a "dictatorship of the proletariat?"
"25 Regional discrimination between the hills and the tarai should be eliminated."
Wonderful. Just don't close the borders.
"37 Drinking water, roads and electricity should be provided to all villagers."
Drop the gun, baby, and get to work!
|
| gbncorg< |
Posted
on 13-Nov-02 11:50 AM
Maoists and their illegitimate “Demand”
All the so called “Demand” by Maoists is illegitimate Because:
1.They never endorsed the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 2047 (1990).
2.They never accepted the Kingdom.
3.CPN (Maoist) is not just a pressure group which can present their “Demand” to the elected government in a politics.
4.They had to bring these issues to the people of Nepal and let them decide about their legitimacy, but they never tried to do so.
5.Those all the issues that they have concern are their sake of presence in the politics in Nepal.
6.Those all the issues that they have concern are the key elements to manipulate a layman and a laywoman and push them into so called “People’s War”.
7.CPN (Maoist) is not itself a legitimate political party according to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 2047 (1990) article 113.
8.Any elected government does not have any obligation to look their demands as they never want to be in a mainstream of political system.
9.Democratic ideology grants to rule majority over minority in politics with a mandate of voters or supporter in which they never want to be ruled.
10.Most of those so called “Demand” does not relates to politics, but relates to social, cultural and moral values, which are ironically non-politics issues.
|
| gbncorg |
Posted
on 13-Nov-02 11:50 AM
Maoists and their illegitimate “Demand”
All the so called “Demand” by Maoists is illegitimate Because:
1.They never endorsed the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 2047 (1990).
2.They never accepted the Kingdom.
3.CPN (Maoist) is not just a pressure group which can present their “Demand” to the elected government in a politics.
4.They had to bring these issues to the people of Nepal and let them decide about their legitimacy, but they never tried to do so.
5.Those all the issues that they have concern are their sake of presence in the politics in Nepal.
6.Those all the issues that they have concern are the key elements to manipulate a layman and a laywoman and push them into so called “People’s War”.
7.CPN (Maoist) is not itself a legitimate political party according to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 2047 (1990) article 113.
8.Any elected government does not have any obligation to look their demands as they never want to be in a mainstream of political system.
9.Democratic ideology grants to rule majority over minority in politics with a mandate of voters or supporter in which they never want to be ruled.
10.Most of those so called “Demand” does not relates to politics, but relates to social, cultural and moral values, which are ironically non-politics issues.
|
| gbncorg< |
Posted
on 13-Nov-02 11:51 AM
Maoists and their illegitimate “Demand”
All the so called “Demand” by Maoists is illegitimate Because:
1.They never endorsed the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 2047 (1990).
2.They never accepted the Kingdom.
3.CPN (Maoist) is not just a pressure group which can present their “Demand” to the elected government in a politics.
4.They had to bring these issues to the people of Nepal and let them decide about their legitimacy, but they never tried to do so.
5.Those all the issues that they have concern are their sake of presence in the politics in Nepal.
6.Those all the issues that they have concern are the key elements to manipulate a layman and a laywoman and push them into so called “People’s War”.
7.CPN (Maoist) is not itself a legitimate political party according to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 2047 (1990) article 113.
8.Any elected government does not have any obligation to look their demands as they never want to be in a mainstream of political system.
9.Democratic ideology grants to rule majority over minority in politics with a mandate of voters or supporter in which they never want to be ruled.
10.Most of those so called “Demand” does not relates to politics, but relates to social, cultural and moral values, which are ironically non-politics issues.
|
| gbncorg |
Posted
on 13-Nov-02 11:58 AM
Soory, my DSL worked well, too much well, I guess. I just clicked once to submit my posting, but it worked too much. Get to know DSL,,,,,,,,,,,:)
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 13-Nov-02 12:50 PM
The Moaist demands are "populist" demands. If they want to establish a communist state they have no legitimate right for many of their demands. By this I mean communist state under them (wild fantasy) would not provide what they demand themselves. So what they will not provide, they have no right to ask. That is why it is "populist". They are "feel good" demands, a guise to gain popular support during the initial phase but "exposed" by their later action. Dr. Bohra has argued his points well.
Most of Arnico's points are valid:
Some demands of Arnico, that are impractical:
From Maoist:
"A willingness to allow monitoring of its arms and troop positions, and a willingness to eventually lay down all arms."
No one would weaken his/her hand while negotiating and let his posiiton and strength be a public knowledge. There is not enough "trust" to achieve this.
From the king:
"That he help facilitate the negotiation process by generously expressing a
willingness to consider stepping down from the throne and ending the
Shah dynasty, and a willingness to do so in the event that the people of
Nepal decide so through a free and fair referendum."
A highly unlikely proposition that an institution that kept all its privileges after transition to democracy would so easily "step down" under the mandate of popular referendum. Such a referendum if it were ever to be held would be subject to massive fraud, threats, voilence and rigging, like the 1980 referendum. I see no practical reason to believe, someone so privileged for centuries would meekly subject to people's wish, especially if those people have been considered and treated like "bheda" all through the centuries. People are the "owner" of sovereignty only in paper, in reality they own nothing.
It will be interesting development; let's see what happens. Voilence is not going to subside... The people will have to put their foot down and seek some kind of denouement. That is how I see it.
|
| paramendra |
Posted
on 13-Nov-02 12:56 PM
|
| gbncorg |
Posted
on 13-Nov-02 04:26 PM
KICK BOXING TOURNAMENT IN NEPAL:
PRACHANDER VS. GYANENDER :
GYANENDER VS. PRACHANDER:
GIRIJA PRASAD VS. SHER BAHADUR:
SHER BHADUR VS. GIRIJA PRASAD:
LOKENDER VS. SURYA BAHADUR:
SURYA BAHADUR VS. LOKENDER
MADHAV KUMAR VS. BAM DEV:
BAM DEV VS. MADHAV KUMAR:
|
| Arnico |
Posted
on 14-Nov-02 01:12 AM
A few replies:
Ashu and Oys: yes. discussing alone is not enough. Agreed. We need agents, people to carry out actions. But I am sure you also agree that discussion can foster learning that at best helps guide the action (and at worst just wastes time).
NK: thanks.
wy: Thanks for posting a very relevant article.
Thakkar and Dhumbass: I don't think the issue is whether we doubt various leader's sincerity in acting in the interest of Nepal and the Nepali janata, but how to create a situation whereby Nepal's interest matches with their interest...whereby they need to act in Nepal's interest even if they "don't feel like it"...
SMR: I don't know about the contents of hidden agendas. If you do, please enlighten us.
gbncorg: I fear that by focusing upon the illegitimacy of their demands (or even their actions) and rejecting them for that (and calling them terrorists, etc.), we are ignoring both their REAL capacity to AFFECT (to use a neutral word) the lives of most Nepali janta, and opportunity to improve things that could become possible by taking them more seriously. Peace negotiations should focus upon finding the common ground to allow establishing peace, and hopefully not degenerate into questioning eachother's legitimacy... we need to be practical...
Dilasha: thanks for the poem. Yes. I am back in sajhapur.
Paramendra: yes, there is also a lot in their demands that is disagreeable to most of us. And a lot that is not achieved by demanding, but by working hard for years. The sooner that they enter mainstream politics, the sooner they will have to work rather than just demand... and they will have to work within a legal framework.
However, I continue to believe that there is ENOUGH common ground in the wishes of the different sides, that, by making some compromises on all sides it is possible to come up with a vision statement of a future Nepal that can is agreeable (even if not enthusiastically) to all sides and the basis for a peace agreement.
Siwalik: I think we should look beyond what is practical today, to look at what is necessary, and then find ways to get there. Regarding the two points you mentioned:
There are many other ways of monitoring weapons/troops besides by RNA. Can get international inspectors. The point is that last time the Maoists lost trust by their hidden activities during the cease fire... so if they want to be taken seriously this time they better make sure the trust can be maintained. As for eventual disarmament: of course they will have to disarm, or be integrated into a Nepali national army or something. Right now their weapons are the only thing that makes us take them seriously. We need to negotiate what they get in exchange for putting down their arms. Sad situation? Yes. But that's reality. Hopefully (or rather, this is where we need to be loud), what they get is something that is a gain for the Nepali janata. Improved equity and social justice and service provision, while allowing the economy to function and grow healthily...
The second point too: to me you sound too cynical. The past gets repeated in the future only if too many cynics think it is inevitable! Assuming that it is in the king's interest to promote the survival of the monarchy or of his leadership role (who knows, perhaps he'd rather have a mandate gained through elections), he would need to look at the present and future, and not the past for guidance. Showing generosity now would probably get more people to support him in such a future referendum than if everyone is pissed off at him...
... just my humble current views. I am open to learning....
|
| HahooGuru |
Posted
on 14-Nov-02 02:38 AM
My great e-Mitra Arnico,
I don't want to repeat the contents on this peace talk issue what I wrote in the following thread.
http://www.gbnc.org/sajha/html/openThread.cfm?forum=2&ThreadID=7860#23185
Snehi e-Mitra
HG
|
| HahooGuru |
Posted
on 14-Nov-02 02:45 AM
BBC: Soldiers in Nepal have shot dead a suspected Maoist rebel in front of the house of an official in charge of royal affairs.
--
It is probably the first half-success against bomb planting guys. RNA, instead of killing that guy, would have caught him and interregated to catch others, or followed him so that they could get more inmates of the guy. RNA peoples should study Game Theory. They performed very bad in that particular game.
HG
|
| HahooGuru |
Posted
on 14-Nov-02 02:52 AM
PEACE TALK negotiaters should first study GAME Theory or hire peoples who know how to analyze games. Well, the great mathematicians who name Game Theories need not be best players, but, they can be best advisors. Maoists are played games with dumbs for last 7 years. Now, King Gyanendra is the only remaining (hopefully) game player in this final round of game. In this game, the team will win who can be best strategist. Maoists' tricks are already open, mostly : throw talk issues, confuse people and keep on terrorizing peoples. Worst, game players in Nepal's politics: Girija, Shere, Madhav Kumar Nepal and me "Hahoo!Guru".
HG
|
| Arnico |
Posted
on 14-Nov-02 10:27 AM
Hahooji, thanks for pointing out the other thread (somehow because of travels I actually missed seeing that one as it started to grow!)... the thoughts about game theory are interesting... at least qualitatively I can see lots of relevance...
Question of curiosity (or my ignorance) : are there any professionals in Nepal with training in conflict resolution mediation?
|
| paramendra |
Posted
on 14-Nov-02 11:22 AM
The following is from The Kathmandu Post:
Maoists’ three demands
Post Report
KATHMANDU, Nov 13 : The underground Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has reiterated its readiness to participate in a round table conference to end the nearly seven-year-old insurgency in a joint statement issued on Wednesday, the last day of the three-day nationwide strike.
Maoists leaders Prachanda and Dr. Baburam Bhattarai said, "The success of our protest programme proves...that the masses have approved our proposal to find a positive political exit and resolve the present civil war through round table conference, interim government and election for the constituent assembly."
The underground leaders have also urged all political forces to rally towards the demands for the constituent assembly election and formation of interim government after the conference.
"We still request all political forces to keep themselves prepared to find a peaceful exit without undermining the ground realities," they added.
The leaders have also warned that they would come out with fresh mode of reprisal and protest programme if their demands were not fovourably responded. The two leaders reiterated their criticism of the King for his October 4 step - sacking Sher Bahadur Deuba as a Prime Minister and taking controls of the executive powers by himself.
I don't see why this course can not be taken, as long the as the Maoists are willing to lay down their arms, and disclose their entire military layout: how many soldiers, arms, where, etc. The king, Chand, and the political parties should be able to call the Maoists' bluff, and seek peace.
To the Maoists:
(1) Lay down your arms.
(2) Be ready to accept the eventuality that a referendum might keep the constitutional monarchy intact.
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 14-Nov-02 11:29 AM
Allright Arnico, you see me as cynical. That could be very true. When I am not idealistic, I am cynical. I am cynical--I would like to think more a realist--based on the past actions of the king and the nature of power politics. I base it on the referendum of 1980, the constitutional privileges of 1990. I have based my views on historical trajectories of how the kings of Nepal have behaved. I would like to share your optimism and would be glad to be proved wrong in my cynicism, but what are your reasons to think that the king will subject his continuation to the people's will. More than 7000 people have lost their lives fighting for a republic, which I may point out the king must be aware. Have these lives lost mattered at all, you think, in the computation of the king?
Regarding Maoists subjecting themselves to verification and monitoring, I still maintain that it is not very likely. And yes, I have thought about the possibility of international involvement in the issue, but still see it unattainable. I still feel, they have an advantage at nipping away at the state infrastructure to make the state so weak their control area will increase rather than decrease. May I point out that Moists too have international leftist support? There was a very powerful article regarding this development a few months back (I have to see if I can find it).
|
| Junkie |
Posted
on 14-Nov-02 11:34 AM
I, too, have a D-R-E-A-M ....... that everyone these maobadis and the politicians use the computer ...... they get those annoying "in your face" pop-ups that screams:
"Congrat-u-l-a-t-i-o-n-s! We have an exciting offer for you ..... etc etc"
|
| Junkie |
Posted
on 14-Nov-02 11:35 AM
everyone=everytime ...... dhaat yo "Nepali Ma Bi" ma padheko haat .....
|
| real matrix |
Posted
on 14-Nov-02 12:53 PM
Arnico, Good Article and Thanks for sharing your views I think they were really informative.
Well Just had a few questions in mind just as Thakkar Sharma put on his posting "how many of you think these politicians no matter whether they are Maoist, or Congress or UML or .....are really worried about the country and people like us?"
Look at there (congress, communist and Maoist) past records. If we start making a list it will take us months to complete it. So for now lets just take the maosist since they are really creating problems.
How can we trust the Maosists ?
When they first came they claimed to be the people's force (still claim). They said they wouldn't destroy infrastructure, nor kill civilians (to name a couple). Currently they have been kidnapping youngsters (men and women) to join their forces or be their shields. If you happen to visit any bordering towns of Nepal you will find a lot of citizens, who have run away from their homes in fear of the maoists. So even if we bring maoist to the negotiating table what assurance do we have that they will not create any havoc after a while when they are dissatisfied or when they find out the people hate them. They claim to go against India but Baburam and Prachanda both have hide outs in India.So do we beleive them.
How can we trust our country to party whose leader claims that Alqueda and Talibans aren't terrorists ? What are the chances that we wouldn't be the next Tabliban ruled Afganistan (if the maoist come to power) ? What are the chances that Baburam, Prachanda and Mahara wouldn't fight like cats and dogs like Girja and Sher Bahadur are doing today ? So what do we get after all these meetings and negotitions and claims ? Nothing.
|
| SMR |
Posted
on 14-Nov-02 03:51 PM
SIWALIK,
I like many of your points. Change requires dreamers and idealists (I don't know if you are one) , and I am confident that without them the long-run vision gets blurred. But, allow me to give my two cents too:
Drop the gun, join the debate, and work toward achieving those goals kind of approach will be less likely to work with the Maoists, especially if they have a strong feeling that the current political forum does not have any room for them to achieve these things. The earlier negotiating team tried that and failed. There have been 7000 deaths already and they are willing to inflict some more havoc. Frankly, many of the demands fall under the “feel good” category (Siwalik), and many can be agreed upon right on the spot. Actually, the Deuba givernment had undertaken a few of them anyway: property for daughters and land reform.
But what they want is the long-term influence of their views on the political process. The extreme case scenario will be a one-party communist rule, which they themselves do not think that they will get. Short of that, what is the common denominator that will be acceptable to everyone? I thought some interesting ideas were in this article by Bohara:
http://www.nepalnews.com.np/ntimes/issue118/comment.htm
But going beyond, the question then has to be about coming up with a middle ground that might be palatable to everyone in a meaningful way, and not just a repeat of the 1990 understanding—you scratch my back and I will scratch your back. Do I like it? Probably not. Am I going to get everything I like? Absolutely not.
Do I want a system like the US (which is by the way is not perfect -- women were allowed to vote just 80 years ago, Blacks were not allowed to enter a restaurant until the late 60's, and the slavery--)? Yes, because I like the term limit and the primaries to select the candidates, a two-party stability, and the federated system with a decentralized power structure. I also like the fact that even the big guns go to jail for political crimes. When was the last time anyone went to jail in Nepal, I mean some notable ones?
Similarly, some people may want to simply borrow the Indian system, which is not very perfect either. Even after 50 years of democracy with a very vibrant multiparty system, the untouchables are still lynched by the upper caste. And some consider it to be one of the most racist countries in the world. You know what I am trying to get at!
We must seek solution within from our own neck of the wood (quoting Al Roker). That said, I am optimistic. I think there have already been a lot of changes in our thinking in Nepal, and there is no turning back. The fact that the people are questing all sorts of old paradigms left and right is a huge achievement.
The time ripe to bring about some significanet changes. But we also need to get off our perfect dream world. We need a significant change in our leadership (like in China just the other day) paving the way for the new generation of new young leaders. For this to happen someone like Girija and Bhattarai have to mutually take the lead. I am singling out them because they have claimed to be the champions of our democracy. A wishful thinking, I know!
|
| Logical Sense |
Posted
on 14-Nov-02 04:03 PM
Arinicoji, very timely and thought provoking thread. Good discussion by others including Paramendra, Siwalik and et al.
I have entirely different view though. I would like all of us to think 'Out of the box'.
Why Negotiate with Killers?
By promoting Negotiations, in my opinion, you are inviting (and planting) violence in the Nepalese society for forseable future. What you are going to promote is:
1) It is OK to kill your teacher in front of his pupils
2) It is OK to deskin father infront of children
3) It is OK to burn/bomb National infrastructures
4) It is OK to disobey constitution, rules and relugations,
as soon as you Loose Election and your deposit is confiscated because you did not even get a minimum vote in general election.
So, you are saying if Sadbhavana looses next election they can group all Teraibasi and start killing and terrorizing people and then YOU will be ready to negotiate with them?
And you are saying similarly as soon as one party looses election takes up the arms and starts brutalizing the nation YOU are ready to negotiate with them?
Common, let us have some sense. 'No Negotiation With Killers'. Girija is bad, Chand is useless, Deuba is Chore, Gyanendra is Power hungry, but still we should not negotiate with MAHA KILLERS!!!!!!
Also, just look at the 40 points demand by Maoists, don't you guys laugh on those demands. Aren't those demands exactly taken from demands we used to give to our Campus Chief when we wanted to conduct strikes? During those good olden days?
BRB needs to grow up little bit from his College type of neta giri and be a visionary for the country.
Demanding 'minimum wage' type of social and economical justice is not a 'Revolutionary Demand' but shows a Pathetic mind trying to invent cause for his killings.
My solution would be to rather:
Negotiate and get a mandate with all the legitimate parties in main stream, King and the Army/Police, India (SAARC), China, Japan, EU, UN and US to come up with one single PLAN, and one SINGLE VOICE to:
1) Crush terrorism in top level, which includes pardoning and rehabilating lower level cadre (lots of OTHER good ideas from Arnico's starting comments)
2) Start implementing programs for Socio Economical development of Nepal
3) Make sure the Democracy is preserved
4) Make sure that there is no Brewing ground left for yet another Maoists insurgency in the country.
But 'NO NEGOTIATION WITH THE KILLERS' please!
I really see a great opportunity for a sleeping Nepal to wake up and smell the growth opportunities.
- iti
|
| paramendra |
Posted
on 15-Nov-02 10:18 AM
In that case, LS, since you espouse the option of a possible military defeat of the Maoists, how do you propose the country should go about it? Is that really an option?
|
| HahooGuru |
Posted
on 15-Nov-02 10:56 AM
Increase RN Army to 100,000. Invite the young maoist low level cadres also to join. It will give them job. Station 1000 armies in every district. Till now its shows 100army are fighting well with the huge number of Maoists. They could not over run when there is RNA number exceeds 100s. So, 100,000 can be used to control whole country. I think for last 12years, Army was cornered by Girija and they did not have enough resource to be updated. Now, after kicking out Girija and other political parties, RNA is going to strengthen it self, well, development projects are now not primary in RNA's index.
Well, Mahara says, RNA will not fight long. That is not true. For RNA it is the start of show time. They will get full access to national resource, budget, that they did not get for last 12years. Thus, RNA does not want to lose this chance to renew and update themselves. Using MAoist war's name, they will buy sophisticated weapons (inside ocrruption will be there, too). Then, they will also strengthen police. In next round, kill culture will be developed in Police, instead of Lathi Charge culture we had so far. All credit goes to Maoists.
If Maoists needed 7 years to come here, Maoists will also expand their war, and Army will slowly increase.In 12year(5 years from now), Army will slowly start dominating the Maoists and in next 3 years i.e. 8th year from now, RNA will finally recover the control and peace will be recovered. RNA will become strong. A new wave will come in public once peoples can have fresh air in peace, and democracy will be the issue. Well, king will find tile "constititutional monarch" again, and Gyanendra might die by next 10years, as none of the Shah king alived more than 55, but, he is double lucky and might be alive for another 101-5years or so. Paras will be King in next 15years or so.
It is my prediction based my experience on Nepal. I used to be Khate jhanda to placard bokne thito to gauko chiya pasal ra khudra pasal banda garai nepal banda safal garaune ek haude keta (kunai dina).... Painting garne color kinna naskera used engine oil le dhung ara bhitta potne ek SLC passout.... I have been watching Nepal, probably more than 2 decades.
I am confident that my prediction goes very timely. Well, I do want to have peace as early as possible, but, I have spent lot of time in conducting experiments in my own researches, but, the results are never what exactly I wished for. My guru told that it is the difference between real world and our theoretical expections. Well, there lies "error" and My guess is that my predictions lie within +-2 years. So, at the earliest, 6 years will take place to control MAosits. Maximum 10years.
Long war will have few advantages though net benefit is negative loss everywhere.
Lets see the positive side of this war:
1. Peoples who hate or dislike Maoists will be more mixed, come more closer.
2. Caste to racial differences will decrease, because they need each others help to survive, and they can not remain isolated. This is the main advantage of wars/national crisis.
3. Economic: new set of rich will emerge. The feuds who used to survive on others will grually be cornered, because peoples are having horizontal move: migrating. Thus, feuds will have to tackle with new clients and in this sense convetional tricks won't work.
4. More people will go abroad. Nepal will have strong mass outside Nepal, and it will have great impact onces the war ends. They will return with more biz. knowledge and technologies.
5. ...........
Aru Pachhi.
HG
HG
|
| wy |
Posted
on 15-Nov-02 10:56 AM
LS,
I agree with you on one point. A weak military is not the answer. A strong military wil bring them to the table. Go get the military hardware from the free market (Israels will be willing to do so, I heard somewhere.). People may wish this and we may wish that, but the RNA will not be abandoned so easily. It's just not going to happen. But, they will also not be able to solve all the problems for those bunch of politicians.
Convince the Indian government that it is in their best interest to help Nepal militarily, especially if the Al Queda operatives are moving in Bangladesh. Then only can we see some movement towards the table. A complete defeat is not possible, and we have to be realistic about it. A majority of the conflict around the world has mostly been settled through talks, and that should be the ultimate goal.
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 15-Nov-02 12:54 PM
Logical Sense, in my opinion, promoting negotiation is not encouraging all the things you mention. Promoting negotiation is seeking political solution, which means trying to find a common ground that will allow us to live as a nation and move forward. It means corecting the past injustices and inequalities that have brought us to the present quagmire. If not negotiate what? If you disfavor negotiation,what is the likelihood of prolonged battle? How long will it go on? Let me make a thumbnail sketch for you.
24 million Nepalese;
12 million in abject poverty;
Suppose:
6 million are sympathizers;
3 million are willing to fight. But let's suppose
1 million base for recruitment, and even if
half a million nepalese who have seen no concern for them over the past form a base for Maoist movement, and continued war.
At the rare of 7000 casualties in 7 years
Approximately 1000 causalties/year
Moaist can keep their "people's war" for 500,000/1000 = 500 years. And that is a generous estimate.
So can you realistically envison a better future without a political solution? You still favor marginalization as an option?
|
| Logical Sense |
Posted
on 15-Nov-02 01:11 PM
I agree with wy and HG to make the RNA strong.
But, with following qualifications and alysis:
1) Too strong Military in a baby democracy like Nepal may not be in the best insterest of the country. It is very easy to become next Pakistan.
2) But, a combination of Strong Military in the background, a well trained and well equiped Police force in the fore ground and a well placed PARA military in the middle is well balanced security structure. (reason is Military has no knowledge of the Law of the land, so it is easy for them to break it - they should be called only in extremes....)
The jurisdiction to all these three should lie in three different branches of executives.
Some analysis:
The reason why we are in stalement with Maoists and why the problem is lingering so long is well discussed and there is no point to repeat again and again, but, one dimension has not been talked and has been ignored because of Superficial Analysis.
People forget and keep blaming on PAST PMs (Girija, Deuba etc.). But, really speaking the main culprit of this mess is King and the Monarchy institution. Before any eyebrows are raised let me qualify:
1) King and the institution really never fully tried to let go their power. They had a say in most of the political appointments.
2) They never let PM mobilize the army. Army was laughing when the police were being killed.
PMs really could not be bold enough to implement their power. Yes, that way you can blame them, but, our constitution do put king on top, so, the problem.
All these point to the fact that King really wanted the democracy to fail. And look at him he is not scared, he is not worried, he is laughing at what is Nepalese Janata is going through.
Having said that do I believe in Republic, No, do I beleive in Maoists, heck no.
I believe in True Democracy.
And Paramendraji and wyji, I do believe in 'Negotiation', but not with the KILLERS but with the sensible democratic force, including KING.
That is why in my solution I said we need to NEGOTIATE about how to proceed with all the democratic forces and have the consenses and then move. And, make all the Government actions including RNA actions more and more transparent to public so that public start trusting the Government and the Security forces.
Maoists movement is NOT Political, period.
As said earlier by others 75% of their 40 points demands are socio economical which can and should be on going projects (and who does not want their Matribhumi to be prosperous?). Rest of 25% can be put forward as referendum and measures infront of Nepalese voters with fair and secured election observed by international instititutions.
- iti
|
| Logical Sense |
Posted
on 15-Nov-02 01:23 PM
Siwalikji, I think we crossed each other during postings.
Still, last few paragraphs kind of addresses your points. Meaning I am not against negotiation. But, I am in favor of negotitating with democratic forces and not with the killers.
So, for Maoists if THEY are interested to talk then they need to be DEMOCRATIC first (that should be the joint message from combined democratic forces), meaning stop the violence, give up the arms, then come to the table, oh yes, I am interested to talk to them.
I am not interested to talk to them because of the INTIMIDATION. And that is what message I want to give to Prachanda and BRB and to all Nepalese public so that in foreseable future we DO NOT Create yet another havoc like this.....
Siwalikji, the war on Terrorism is not easy. US with it's full mights and all the nations seemingly joining hands with them can't even find ONE PERSON, what do you think Nepal can do that fast?
So, should they go and negotiate with Al Qaeda?
Sure it will take time. Not 500 years, and not one year. But, if you chug along with the right approach definitely withiin few years. In my opinion RATE of improvement is important more than ABSOLUTE numbers.
I hope I made my point clear...
- iti
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 15-Nov-02 05:25 PM
Logical Sense: Brainding someone "terrorist" is not going to mean they all have the same objectives and they are teh result of similar socio-historic-economic situation. Al Queda and Maoist do not seek the same objective and they do not operate under similar environment. No, USA should and would not negotiate with Al Queda, but they look the other way where Saudi Arabia is concerned. It is ironic since they are the biggest fund and manpower provider for terorism. Just look how many were from there, 15 out of 19. Al Queda's menace has not subsided, but USA is going after Iraq, why? Cuz it is an easier target and it is far easier to show result. Not the same with terrorist. War agaisnt a gueralla force is virtually an unwinnable one, and it will stop only if the guerilla wants it. Nepal cannot afford another year of instability. All the more reason to take every measure possible to seek a political settlement, but for that all paties have to give some ground, the one at the top will have to give the most...
|
| Logical Sense |
Posted
on 15-Nov-02 05:46 PM
Siwalikji, whether it is terrorism or guerilla war, the tactics is same. Terror, intimidation and etc. No matter what, negotiating with these encourages others to follow the same path for slight disagreement in idealogy. There might not be direct parallels between these two terrors but both of them have no love for peoples' lives, that is for sure. Negotiating with Suicide bombers, Hijackers, Abductors always encourages others copy cat to follow the path.
Maoists have not shown any idealogy which puts them above terrorists status. They started their movements only after measurably failing in the current democratic systems. If they were ideals then why did not they start it in 1990? Why they supported the democracy for 6 years and suddenly with drew their support for some idealogy? Why they are flipping flopping in what they want.
Reading their interviews, papers and watiching their actions etc. don't give me any ideas that they really want good for the nation.
They simply seem to be confused blood thirsty lunatics, who would send their own daughter to study in the same country they call imperialist but put guns in the hands of innocent daughters of poor citizens and let them stay as prostitutes in the jungle camps.
Pathetic!
You want negotiate with them?
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 15-Nov-02 08:07 PM
Dang! Looks like we are a country with nothing but bunch of losers who double talk and simply suck everyone around them dry. It is a classic case of power corrupts, and absolute power.... you know it.... I suppose the only way out is to try to eradicate those who oppose the ones in power. But, wait, seems like that was exactly what has been done for the past few decades...
|
| HahooGuru |
Posted
on 15-Nov-02 08:36 PM
Santosh Panta heads to be next Mohan Khatri: read KOL for full texts.
Panta added that he had met Maoists for his programmes. “When I show the brutality in killing a teacher, it is the way the Maoists do it.”
Replying to Maoists’ ultimatum to quit the army, Panta said he would not do so since it was just an honorary post. “If they think killing me would help their cause and if my death facilitates peace then I am ready for the supreme sacrifice,” said Panta.
--
They finally owned the killing of US security personnnel (KOL)
|
| HahooGuru |
Posted
on 15-Nov-02 08:43 PM
I salute with my hat off, to Santosh Pant for his guts to stand on what he does and he will continue even with the threats. It will be Gandhi style. It is the only way to defame the Maoists.
Last Saturday, I saw movie on animal, chimpanzee, the trainer lets the young chimpanzee to bite his hand, though its painful, he does not retreats his hand. Finally, a situation comes when chimpanzee feels that his opponent is strong and is not going to run away just by bite. Chimpanzee retreats back whenever he offers his hand. We need to deal in the same way. Because maoists are now running terror, and if we afraid, their terror campaign will speed up, becdause they want to come to power by terror. But, we can only portray them as evil through going ahead what we think is not bad, but, our right to do it. Gandhi style. We as public not do armed struggle with maoists, but, unarmed struggle as taught by Gandhi, after a level they will have pain, and strain. It will be of course regrettable that we will be missing these great peoples like Mohan Khatri, but, in long run we will be proud of them.
HG
|
| wy |
Posted
on 15-Nov-02 09:59 PM
Siwalik,
I like many of your points, and your idealism too, but to some extent only.
Yes, everyone is a crook, but some are less (marginally perhaps) crook that the others. This is what we have to work with. I, for one, am not ready to hand over the country to the Maoists, just because we had decades of less than perfect system. Be careful, folks. The King is not perfect and he would love to institute a strong monarchy if given an opportunity, but the Maoists are horrible. The parties are a bunch of loser too. For now, keep the Army strong, and hope that everyone comes to the table for a talk. I still believe that the talk is the only way out.
Speaking of the bad decades, Siwalik, there were perhaps 70 deaths during those oppressive years, and now it is already about 7000 within the last six years, a bunch just within a year. Please don’t tell me that it is all because of the establishment alone. The Maoists have to own up some of that too. Just because a violent group spreads its terror, does not hesitate to kill a person like Major Khatri and threatens a person like Pant, does not mean that the 300 years old monarchy and its Army will simply cave in. Be practical. Not that I am advocating a strong Monarchy; don’t get me wrong. I am just playing a devil’s advocate.
No matter how many bombs Arafat explodes, the Israeli government is not going to cave in. In fact, he has been losing ever since he gave up the Camp David offer. I sympathize with Arafat for his struggle, but he has utterly failed to show a leadership to spare his people all the hardship of the last several decades. Terrorism should not be allowed to profit. No matter what the cause is, exploding bombs in a disco or a mall or on top of a statue killing a poor woman will be considered terrorism.
The Maoists, who started out as Robin Hoods, suckered in the innocent people into their noble causes, got some kudos from the general public, but then started showing their true colors afterward
Looking at their action over the last few weeks or so: Prachand sends a reconciliatory note, Baburam follows that with a similar tone, then Baburam contradicts himself by sending a hard line letter, then there is a joint statement from Prachand and Baburam, Mahara goes on TV and applauds Al Queda, and the Jumla and Gorkha carnage happen. Is this the type of leadership we want? Can we trust them to lead us?
I cannot imagine giving the reign of the country to these losers. Yes, there were many shortcomings and undemocratic actions in those decades that you talk about, but you have to be careful in comparing the two. People have not been thrilled either as demonstrated by their lack of support for the political leadership.
Be careful what you wish for. I do firmly believe in some fundamental changes that will put the country back on a steady course. It will require new leadership.
Peace!!
|
| wy |
Posted
on 15-Nov-02 11:11 PM
HG,
I agree with you. Mybe you should start a new thread with this theme. Salute to Shantos Pant.
They have gone really too far this time. I am a peaceful person and believe in democracy and the ideal and talks; I don't like absolute monarchy, but I am finding it hard day by day to even thinking about these guys and a peaceful settlement.
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 16-Nov-02 12:50 PM
wy: I do not always look at it through Maoist or monarchist perspective. I am just trying to be objective. Let's see what politics is about. In Nepal and most places it is primarily a pursuit of power, and less of service. In pursuit of power, politics has been used in Nepal by the traditional rulers for marginalization and monopoly of resources. The marginalized people had no option but to wait for times to change. And times did change; that is an eternal law. Democracy brought something important--hope. It is when people's hope start to rise that "revolution" occurs. During the bried stint of freedom experienced in Nepal, all those who had been supressed and lost their voices had an opportunity to voice their discontent and find out that they had as much right to power and benefits as anyone else. We may say political entrepreneurs have a role to play here in raising such discontent and "demanding" for power sharing with the traditional elites. And when the system fails to take that into account and contineus with the "feudalistic" monopoly and continued marginalization, discontent erupts into violence. That is an objective assesment without any regards to who is who in Nepal's context. That is what I am trying to point out without condoning what is going on. We are free to put the relevant actors as we see fit. But the fact remains, the solution should be political and justice should be the fundamental goal whether it is socio-economic or political power sharing.... That is the way to resolve the situation that is taking us all down the drain, not an attitude that says, we are not going to negotiate with the killers. Killers are on both sides, no one is saint here.
|
| wy |
Posted
on 16-Nov-02 06:24 PM
Siwalik,
We all know that politics is power and power is politics. It is true more so in a country like the US. Just because your views are not acknowledged that does not mean you shoot people, bomb buses, over run posts, create human shields, extort, loot, cut hands, and feet. Bin Laden had his own rationality and reason for blowing up buildings and killing people (innocents if I might add) that does provide him any moral equivalence. Same goes with the Maoists.
You say, people get killed including innnocents, and that's life. No, it's not life. Murder of the local political workers one by one is not life. Killing Mr. Khatri is not life. And threatning Pant with his life for his plays is not life. And you count on these losers to uphold freedom of expression.
Polpot killed 1-2 mills, Stalin wiped out about 20 mil, Mao did his share all for thier brand of ideologies, which by the way have been rejected around the world. The Maoists are unknown commodity, and we really do not know what they want. People demanding low inflation and closed border don't go on a shooting rampage. 7000 people do not die because of the high inflation and Hindi movies.
Someone wrote somewhere: "Drop the gun, join the election, and work to get to the goals." And you say, that's life, people get killed.
I still believe in talks, but be aware of their ultimate motives. You might just get what you wish for.
|
| wy |
Posted
on 16-Nov-02 06:25 PM
I meant ....that does not provide him any moral equvalence...
|
| wy |
Posted
on 16-Nov-02 07:45 PM
Siwalik,
I just wanted to express my view that what I was tryng to say was to draw a line. Like you I am in favor of a peaceful talk and democracy too. When you said innocent people get killed and that's life, then I thought getting foreign army to crush the insurgency would be part of life too, at least for those who want to maintain the status quo. We will never then get out out of this mess. We need to call a spade a spade. I thought we needed to draw a line. To me, Army is just doing its job, and I am not in favor of weakening them. Peace!!!
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 16-Nov-02 11:06 PM
wy: you are right. What "aught" to be is world apart from what happens in reality. Nobody should have the right to in your words, "Just because your views are not acknowledged that does not mean you shoot people, bomb buses, over run posts, create human shields, extort, loot, cut hands, and feet." But in the history of the world worse things have happened. I wouldnot like to see such atrocities, but what darkness resides in human hearts, who knows? Did all the innocent Afghans deserve to die at the hands of Americans in search for Talibans? We all agree that it is utterly dusgusting, but human affairs rarely follow human hearts. That is all. One can only wish that none of the "jihads" or world wars had ever occured, but they are vain wishes. I need not say more...
|
| Jayahos |
Posted
on 17-Nov-02 06:19 PM
The TimesofIndia runs an editorial on Peace Talks of Nepal.
First para is like this:
The state of near civil war in Nepal with the monarchy unable to check the unrelenting Maoist offensive is an SOS that those interested in peace in the Himalayan kingdom cannot ignore. Friends of Nepal would agree that the situation appears irretrievably grim as things stand today
For full article visit following link:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/comp/articleshow?artid=28601921
|
