| Username |
Post |
| suva chintak |
Posted
on 08-Dec-02 07:34 AM
The country is in a terrible mess, the Maoist war marchine is destroying everything in its way, killing and murdering everyone left and right. The terrorists say they are out to destroy the present constitution, multiparty system and the free market.
Apart from issuing some lame statement against the violence, the political parties have not taken out one julush or public awarness campaign against the Maoists.
This behaviour is in stark contrast to their angry opposition and demonstrations against the King's actions. Granted he sacked Sher Bdr. Deuba, but the King is saying he is doing this under article of 127 of constitution, he respects the constitution and he will restore multiparty once the present crisis is over.
I just wonder why the political paties (mostly UML and NCs) see less threat to multiparty and free market from the Maoists than the king?
This is all the more intriguing when we see that these party leaders are doing nothing about the systematic murder of their village/district level cadres by the terrorists. If these parties really care about the country, their fellow party workers, multiparty democracy and free market, should they not take out one public demonstration against Maoist atrocities when they are planning ten against the king?
If their concern is multiparty system only, then there is just as much or more threat from the Maoists, right? Why are they so soft against a force that is killing their own party workers? I just fail to understand this political behavior of NC and UML.
Any insights and thoughts on this?
In Peace
|
| Freeek |
Posted
on 08-Dec-02 09:07 AM
I am getting paranoid about the talks on Nepali politics. Too many intelligent people in Nepal to analyze this and that about the recent situation, and even FUTURE. No wonder our country is going down with the speed almost closer to the velocity of light.
These INTELLIGENT people give me nerves. Insted of making things better, they are making them worst.
Look at an intelligent BabuRam bhattari... He has Phd Degree, that alone proves his intelligence. If getting thousands of people killed is Intelligence, Id rather stay Stupid.
|
| hariyonepal |
Posted
on 08-Dec-02 12:09 PM
Suvachintak:
I share your concern. They are busy demonstrating to get their seats back, but not to look after the well fare of their subordinates. That's what they do. If those bastard netas are so worried about democracy and the rights of people, why dont they shout against the violence. Forget about the country. They wont speak for their partymen.
|
| VillageVoice |
Posted
on 08-Dec-02 03:46 PM
SC, interesting points.
Yes, our political parties do lack moral courage. They mostly play up to the gallery. When your role model is Girija Prasad Koirala, the best you get out of the second generation is naturally Khum B, Govinda raj joshi, and JP. All these Bihari-style dadas have become political heavyweights. Then UML has MKN and KP as cheer leaders, hardly a very encouraging scenario, either. And RPP Chand and Suraya Bahadur--repeated failures, and corrupt to the very core.
But I would also want to know your viewpoints on whether the king has made genuine attempts to breach the gap between him and political forces? Ultimately, it's the nation that will suffer for their stubborness. Don't you think?
You said, somewhere, that the king has much to lose - in case nepal is annexed, we can always be MLAs, CMs, etc, but not him. (pls correct me if i got it wrong) Unless that was a remark delieverd in a lighter vein, it's hard to buy the logic therein.
Patriotism and love for a nation is immaterial of your position, don't you think? In fact, there are numermous histroical evidences which demonsrate that rulers, and dictators, walk long miles to make compromises with foreign powers so long as they can keep their chair.
The Shah House in Saudi Arabia and Egypt's Husni Mubarak, for eg, have made huge compromises with the Americans--against the popular opinion--(albiet reluctantly) over the years. Both realize their regimes could collapse the moment they stop their support for Americans.
Closer home, didn't Presient Gayyum invite Indian forces to Male to suppress the domestic rebellion (pls correct me if I am wrong)? And do we need a political scientist to tell us that King Jigme's cordial ties with New Delhi have a lot to do with India's continued silence over the ethnic cleansing in the kingdom--almost an entire ethnic group has been driven out so that the king could rule in peace?
While history will judge our current politicians harshly for driving the country to brink, King G. has his task cut out too: how does he unite a sharply divided nation and what kind of political foresight does he display in handling political parties (whose chips are currently down no doubt, but, don't foreget, they were popularly elected people, and they are legitimate rulers.)
With an unsavoury handling of the poltical parties, the king risks radicalizing that force, and adding fuel to the Maoist fire (by way of handing over Maoists a propoganda victory, demoralizing thousands of Nepalis who are actually card-holding members of these parties, complete break-down of any semblance of governance at the groosroots -- all a perfect recipe for national catastrophe of gigantic proportions.)
|
| suva chintak |
Posted
on 08-Dec-02 04:48 PM
Village Voice,
Excellent comments and questions.
1. In politics, I think the basic question is of priority. Of course a country or a leader wants to do many good things. But because of resource constraints you prioritize the things that need to be done...according to what you feel is the most urgent.
In this context, the number one priority in Nepal at the present is to save lives...of policemen, villagers, teachers, party workers, armymen, and yes, even the Maoist youth who have been thrown into the murderous inferno even as they live easy lives in India and educate their children in England!
2. So what I was wondering was if the leaders of NCs and UML can not speak up for their own partymen being slaughtered by the Maoists, aren't we kind of fools to expect them to be more concerned when ordinary citizens are killed? If we think from this angle, isn't it rather bizarre that these parties and leaders should claim to speak for the people or the country? Where do they get their moral legitimacy to speak for us if they can not even sympathasize with those victims who have literally carried them to their high chairs.
3. Returning back to the question of priority: At the basic elementary level, we must agree that the king is not out there systematically killing UML and NC workers like the Maoists. Given this situation, why are the UML and NC taking out 10 demonstrations against the king and none against the Maoists? Forget about ordinary countrymen, shouldn't UML/NC try to protect their workers by supporting the king to bring the Maoists to some control. After the threat to their own partymen is over, I would think it was okay to start opposing the king, if that is necessary.
4. I totally agree with you that kings/rulers/leaders can sell their country to foreigners just to stay in power or money. Another example is the King of Kashmir, for merging Kashmir into India Nehru made him a minister in his cabinet. So we have to watch both the kings and leaders for such opportunism...for example in Sikkim the democratic leader Lendup Dorje was responsible for throwing out the king and ending Sikkim's independence. All I wanted to point out was that if under the present context Nepal was annexed by India under the Maoist pretext, the Gyanendra would lose his throne, but we could be like any other Indian citizens and be eligible for MLA and CM positions. It does not mean the people can be less patriotic than the king, I just point out that the king would stand to lose more (his crown and throne for once!).
5. I don't know if you can say that the king did not try to get the UML/NC to be part of the government. These parties discussed it amongst themselves for days, makune would not agree to forward Girija's name and Giria was not willing to endorse Makune's name. Finally all of them agreed on Lokendra Chand as a consenus candidate by default, their reasoning being that if I can't be the man, than Chand is less likely to damage me!
Now after Chand became the man, UML and NC decided to not send in even ministers in the new cabinet! The government waited for two weeks for them to send in ministers. So I think the king seek thier help, UML/NC refused to go along. You rightly point out that because of the division, the country might suffer in significant ways. If that happens, the king will be blamed. But the NC and UML will also have to bear a large part of the responsibility for not being there when the country needed their support the most. You see, when you are in public life, you can not be innocent just by abstaining from an crisis. You have to give your best effort, and if that fails, that is at least a honest failure. But if you just sit by the side sullenly refusing to give a hand in an emergency, I think that is far more reprehensible.
If Makune and Girija have the people's welfare at heart, why can't they publicly make a pledge with the king to the effect that: we will be with you to take care of the Maoist crisis, but after that is done, you will hand over the power to the parliament?
The hole country could be a witness to this moral contract. It is a pity that they instead intend to do petty politics as ususal, they have only their own personal interest at heart, they don't even care for the plight of their cadres, and we will suffer the consequences.
In Peace!
In Peace!
|
