Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Friday, May 01, 2009
I am an optimistic person
Dr. Surya P. Subedi has just been appointed the UN Special Rapporteur for human rights in Cambodia by the Human Rights Council, a tough job by any standard. The UN and the Cambodian government have had thorny relationship on the issue of human rights. Although the mandate remains the same, the Special Representative position was changed to the Special Rapporteur, following the resignation of Yash Ghai last year. Ghai suffered personal attack at the hands of the Cambodian government. Dr. Subedi is a Professor International Law at University of Leeds and a practicing Barrister in England. He was appointed an honorary OBE in 2004 by Queen Elizabeth for his services to international law and Britain-Nepal relations. Dr. Surya Subedi spoke to John Narayan Parajuli about his new role and lessons Nepal can draw from Cambodia. Excerpts:
Why were you appointed the UN Special Rapporteur for human rights in Cambodia?
I believe it was because of my standing as a truly independent, impartial, and objective academic; my expertise in international law in general and international human rights law in particular; and my familiarity with legal, political and human rights issues in Asia in general and Cambodia in particular.
I worked as a General Editor of an annual pan Asian publication – the Asian Yearbook of International Law - for six years. It enabled me to interact with academics and other intellectuals from many Asian countries, including Cambodia. Perhaps as a Nepali citizen too. Nepal has no axe to grind against any nation. We Nepali people are generally liked in international circles for our friendly nature and hard working and sincere character. I believe a well-qualified, hard-working and sincere Nepali is well placed to serve in any high international positions.
UN and the Cambodian government have been at loggerheads over the issue of human rights for quite some time and that makes your job very challenging, doesn’t it?
Yes, it does make my role challenging. But again the very position of a UN Special Rapporteur is a challenging one – to perform a difficult and at the same a noble task. I regard this as a huge privilege and a great opportunity to make my contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights. Promoting human rights and speaking for the oppressed, marginalised and disadvantaged people is always a challenge. I am committed to human rights and the rule of law nationally and internationally and I would do whatever it takes to promote and protect the rights of Cambodian people. That is my main objective. But my approach would be a constructive one – designed to achieve results rather than unnecessarily antagonizing people.
Your predecessor Yash Ghai resigned in frustration. There is a growing concern among the civil society leaders in Cambodia that you might receive the same kind of hostile treatment from the government just like your predecessors.
Let us wait and see how the people and the government of Cambodia will deal with me when I begin my task. I am by nature an optimist person. I was encouraged by the tone and content of the speech delivered by the Cambodian ambassador to the UN after the decision by the UN Human Rights Council to appoint me to this position. His approach was a constructive one and he said his government would co-operate with me. I hope the government authorities realize that the progress, prosperity and peace in Cambodia lies in the greater respect for human rights and the dignity of each and every Cambodian citizen.
Does your understanding of conflict in Nepal add value to your work in Cambodia, and vice versa?
Yes I believe that my study and analysis of the situation in Nepal for a long time as an independent and objective person will help me to understand and appreciate better the situation in Cambodia and the plight of the people there. I have been writing quite frequently and for a long time in both the Nepali and international media on the constitutional, legal and political situation in Nepal and have advanced my own views on how to make the constitutional, legal and political system in Nepal a fair, inclusive and equitable one for all. Likewise, I hope the experience that I will gain from my work in Cambodia will enable me to make a contribution to improve the human rights situation in Nepal, and to encourage political leaders to embrace democracy and democratic culture both in their words and deeds. I think I have said it elsewhere that democracy has come to the people and the country of Nepal but not to the political leaders.
I do not think Nepalese leaders have been able to articulate any foreign policy of the country. The time to go out with a begging bowl to foreign countries should be over. It only lowers Nepal’s standing internationally and exposes the naïve and shallow character of Nepal’s political leaders. No foreigners will build Nepal. Foreign countries have their own agenda behind whatever assistance they may provide to Nepal. People in Nepal should start believing in themselves and put their act together to build the nation.
Cambodia has had a long period of political transition with occasional setbacks between the Paris Peace Accord signed in 1991 and now, how would you describe the process, and is there a lesson Nepal can learn from it?
The lesson Nepal can learn from the Cambodian experience is to abide by the letter and spirit of past agreements reached among the major political actors. Once people start deviating from their own commitments then they lose the trust and confidence of other people. Such a breakdown in trust and confidence costs the country and the people dearly. This is what seems to be happening in Nepal. Political leaders should lead the way and set good examples at least in their public life. You are right to point out the commitments expressed in the Paris Peace Accord concerning the situation in Cambodia. But the process to implement the commitments has been frustratingly slow. That is why Cambodia finds itself in this situation. In my personal opinion, both Cambodia and Nepal should honestly honor and implement the provisions in the past agreements to move the country forward so that they can achieve higher economic growth, political stability and social harmony in order to ensure that the fruits of democracy reach to as many people as possible
Is there a chance that the current transitional period in Nepal will drag that long?
No it should not last that long in Nepal. I am hopeful that the constitution will be written and promulgated within the stipulated time frame. There is no way out here for any body and any sensible political leader should have realised this. However, writing a new constitution is not an end itself. It is a vehicle to advance the society in a more civilised manner. For this, the political process should take the issues of impunity, transitional justice, and respect for human rights as seriously as the process of writing the new constitution. It is where people like us with independent and objective minds and no party political ties have a role to play in applying more pressure on the government and all political leaders and assist the UN agencies such as the OHCHR in playing a more meaningful and effective role in Nepal.
What is your take the ongoing debate and controversy surrounding the issue of army integration in Nepal?
The issue relating to the integration of the Maoist fighters into the Nepal army is basically a political one and should be resolved on the basis of the past agreements reached. The rank and file of the foot soldiers in both camps are the sons and daughters of the same poor Nepali people. They both have same aspirations for themselves and for their country and have similar traits. It should not be a problem to bring them together. There should be a programme of training to depoliticise the mind-set of Maoist fighters fit for a professional army loyal to the nation and the people as a whole rather than to their political masters. The problem may lie in the integration into the upper levels of the military hierarchy as the people in the existing Nepal Army would like to safeguard their current position and their prospects for promotion etc. But the number at the top end of the scale is small and a political solution should and could be found to address such concerns.
What are your hopes and fears for the Nepali peace process?
I am optimistic. In terms of the political change, so much has been achieved in Nepal. Some of them have been unprecedented in the world. Now the time has come to capitalize on this political achievement and focus on the overall nation-building process in unison. The fears would of course be not necessarily the derailment of the peace process because it is not a viable option for anyone, but the lack of foresight, wisdom and vision on the party of political leaders resulting in constant bickering and squabbling.
Monday, May 07, 2007
INTERVIEW
I THINK WE SHOULD TALK TO THE MAOISTS: US CONGRESSMAN WALSH
Congressman James T Walsh, a republican, has been in the Congress for last 18 years. Perhaps, he’s the only member in the Congress who speaks fluent Nepali and keeps a close tab on Nepal. He was instrumental in drawing considerable Congressional attention to Nepal last year and the years before. As the Chairman of the United States Congress’ Friends of Ireland, he was closely involved with the Northern Ireland peace process. He’s an influential member of House Appropriations Committee of the Congress that controls the power of the purse. Journalist John Narayan Parajuli spoke to Mr. Walsh in his office in Washington, D.C. about his experience in the Congress, his connection to Nepal and his take on Nepal’s peace process.
Tell us about your experience in the new Congress.
It’s not as much fun as it was. Being in the minority, I don’t get to make the decisions, I made before. I have to work with my new [Democratic] Committee Chairman and Subcommittee chairman. I have been here for 18 years, and I think I have the respect of my colleagues. And in areas where I am knowledgeable, I think I am still able to help make policy, and certainly will continue to follow issues of importance to me, and certainly Nepal is one of them.
It’s my impression that the Republican Congress held more hearing on Nepal last year than the new Congress. Is it party politics, or just the timing of the events?
I think it’s probably timing and probably priorities. I was in a position where I can get other members to hold hearings because it was timely with the revolution and the ceasefire and there was lot happening in Nepal in last couple of years. And probably people think things are quieter now. But also I think there were Republicans members like myself, who wanted to get more public attention to what was happening in Nepal. Hopefully the Democrats will also do that.
Now you keep a close tab on Nepal. What is your connection with Nepal?
It goes back a long time. When I was just finishing up my college, I applied for the Peace Corps, and I was accepted in an agriculture program, which surprised me because I had very little practical agriculture experience. I was sent to Nepal. I lived in Nijgarh, Bara. Our district capital was Kalaiya.We had a dera in Birgunj, four, five of my Peace Corps friends, we shared. When we went to the distict krishi bikas meeting, we would stay in the dera, and would take the bus back and forth to Kalaiya. It was a very bumpy ride. I worked with farmers in Nijgargh Pachayat. I worked with people who moved down from hills and people who were indigenous in the terai, tharus. I grew wheat, corn, rice vegetables. I did a little bit of everything. I was able to see a lot of Nepal while I was there. I traveled to the West: Pokhara and Annapurna, and to Namche and the Everest region. I try to, as best I could, maintain my ties with friends whom I lived with. I email back and forth. I obviously follow the politics and the recent changes in Nepal.
I understand that you are planning to go back to Nepal. Have you planned anything specific yet?
Actually my hope is that I could go and observe the elections. That would be ideal. I think the elections are the critical event in the near term history of Nepal. But when I first came back here in 1991, and the government changed and democracy was established, we wrote to the king, and asked the king to respect the students and people who went to streets asking for democracy. And I saw the impact that the United States had, and I think that the United States continue to play a positive role encouraging democracy. So if I could go for the election, that’s when I would go.
The Maoists have joined the government. What’s your take on it?
I think it’s very significant that they have decided to participate in democracy. It should now be a contest of ideas and not weapons. I am pleased to point that they have relinquished their weapons. I think it is very important that they honor that commitment; that they not continue to threaten violence.
They should forswear weapons, put them aside forever and participate in democracy truly and fully.
Do you agree with the administration’s policy of isolating the Maoists as long as they don’t swear-off violence?
I don’t know if I would be as strict as the administration. The Maoists have set aside their weapons, if that continues, that builds confidence. And their should be other confidence building measures for the Maoists, if they continue to respond in a positive way, I think we should engage them. I think the international community should engage them. But they have to continue to keep their word and swear-off violence, and not use the threat of violence. But the fact that they still have guns does make one pause.
You have been closely involved with the Northern Ireland peace process, what’s your experience? Is their lesson Nepal can learn from it?
I think there are some parallels. In Northern Ireland, people think it’s about religion. It was not really about religion. It was more about national aspirations. There is a group of people who align themselves with England; others align themselves with the republic of Ireland.
Basically there is a difference of opinion amongst people. The Republican and the Loyalists paramilitaries fought for 30 years, killed thousands of people. But they came to the conclusion that it would never be resolved militarily. They decided to work things out through ceasefire, elimination of weapons, what they referred to as “putting weapons beyond use,” confidence building, dialogue, and comprise. And it has taken a lot time—13 years since the ceasefire and they still don’t have a government. But very soon they will. And it is going to require the same process [in Nepal]: patience and persistence. And it will require the international community to stay engaged, to watch what’s happening. Just as the United Nations has steeped-in in Nepal, a group of countries involved themselves in the Northern Ireland.
Critics say the United States was rather soft on the Irish Republican Army (IRA), and that it is unwilling to be equally flexible on the Maoists. Does ideology play a role in such considerations?
There‘re subtle differences. My view is that if, as I said, if the Maoists continue to perform and keep commitments, we should engage them, we should talk to them. This is somewhat different than the administration. The administrations under President Clinton and President Bush, there were time when they would not deal with the IRA. They continued to consider them terrorists even after the ceasefire. I have always been of the opinion that you have to engage, you have to talk, break down barriers and build confidence.
I think the fact the Maoists are communists is more of a problem, although the IRA is very much a socialist organizations.
As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, will you be willing to sponsor a bill to increase funding for Nepal, if the Nepal government requests, or on your own initiative?
Yes. I have always supported the additional funding for Nepal. I think we need to be helpful with the election process.
I would very much like to see the United States working with international organization like the World Bank help Nepal to create and harness the hydroelectric power that it has. Nepal has vast hydro electric potential. Before the Maoists revolution began, there was some real movement on harnessing some of the rivers in Nepal. It’s somewhat environmentally controversial. But there ways to harness that power that would make Nepal energy independent, in fact an energy exporter.
State Department officials say they don’t want to been seen as competing with India—in terms of assistance. Is that a fair benchmark?
India is certainly much closer to Nepal, physically, culturally and spiritually. But I think that the United States can play a positive role working with Nepal’s neighbors in helping to coordinate activities. When I was there, you had Soviet Union, India and U.S. building the east west highway. Everyone was building a section. We should be able to continue to do that sort of thing.
How optimistic are you about the peace process?
So far so good. I really want to see the elections; I want to see the elections run fairly. I don’t want to see any ballot intimidations by the Maoists or anyone else. I think Prime Minister Koirala is a remarkable man. I have met him a number of times. I think he has got the country headed in the right direction, but there are lots of pitfalls between here and there. But I very hopeful that once the elections are over, the people of Nepal, who this is really ultimately about, will have the confidence that the government they elected is the government they wanted.
Anything you would like to add?
Just dherai namaskar and namaste to mero daju bhai, didi bahini, and I miss Nepal, and I am looking forward to coming back.
Congressman James T Walsh, a republican, has been in the Congress for last 18 years. Perhaps, he’s the only member in the Congress who speaks fluent Nepali and keeps a close tab on Nepal. He was instrumental in drawing considerable Congressional attention to Nepal last year and the years before. As the Chairman of the United States Congress’ Friends of Ireland, he was closely involved with the Northern Ireland peace process. He’s an influential member of House Appropriations Committee of the Congress that controls the power of the purse. Journalist John Narayan Parajuli spoke to Mr. Walsh in his office in Washington, D.C. about his experience in the Congress, his connection to Nepal and his take on Nepal’s peace process.
Tell us about your experience in the new Congress.
It’s not as much fun as it was. Being in the minority, I don’t get to make the decisions, I made before. I have to work with my new [Democratic] Committee Chairman and Subcommittee chairman. I have been here for 18 years, and I think I have the respect of my colleagues. And in areas where I am knowledgeable, I think I am still able to help make policy, and certainly will continue to follow issues of importance to me, and certainly Nepal is one of them.
It’s my impression that the Republican Congress held more hearing on Nepal last year than the new Congress. Is it party politics, or just the timing of the events?
I think it’s probably timing and probably priorities. I was in a position where I can get other members to hold hearings because it was timely with the revolution and the ceasefire and there was lot happening in Nepal in last couple of years. And probably people think things are quieter now. But also I think there were Republicans members like myself, who wanted to get more public attention to what was happening in Nepal. Hopefully the Democrats will also do that.
Now you keep a close tab on Nepal. What is your connection with Nepal?
It goes back a long time. When I was just finishing up my college, I applied for the Peace Corps, and I was accepted in an agriculture program, which surprised me because I had very little practical agriculture experience. I was sent to Nepal. I lived in Nijgarh, Bara. Our district capital was Kalaiya.We had a dera in Birgunj, four, five of my Peace Corps friends, we shared. When we went to the distict krishi bikas meeting, we would stay in the dera, and would take the bus back and forth to Kalaiya. It was a very bumpy ride. I worked with farmers in Nijgargh Pachayat. I worked with people who moved down from hills and people who were indigenous in the terai, tharus. I grew wheat, corn, rice vegetables. I did a little bit of everything. I was able to see a lot of Nepal while I was there. I traveled to the West: Pokhara and Annapurna, and to Namche and the Everest region. I try to, as best I could, maintain my ties with friends whom I lived with. I email back and forth. I obviously follow the politics and the recent changes in Nepal.
I understand that you are planning to go back to Nepal. Have you planned anything specific yet?
Actually my hope is that I could go and observe the elections. That would be ideal. I think the elections are the critical event in the near term history of Nepal. But when I first came back here in 1991, and the government changed and democracy was established, we wrote to the king, and asked the king to respect the students and people who went to streets asking for democracy. And I saw the impact that the United States had, and I think that the United States continue to play a positive role encouraging democracy. So if I could go for the election, that’s when I would go.
The Maoists have joined the government. What’s your take on it?
I think it’s very significant that they have decided to participate in democracy. It should now be a contest of ideas and not weapons. I am pleased to point that they have relinquished their weapons. I think it is very important that they honor that commitment; that they not continue to threaten violence.
They should forswear weapons, put them aside forever and participate in democracy truly and fully.
Do you agree with the administration’s policy of isolating the Maoists as long as they don’t swear-off violence?
I don’t know if I would be as strict as the administration. The Maoists have set aside their weapons, if that continues, that builds confidence. And their should be other confidence building measures for the Maoists, if they continue to respond in a positive way, I think we should engage them. I think the international community should engage them. But they have to continue to keep their word and swear-off violence, and not use the threat of violence. But the fact that they still have guns does make one pause.
You have been closely involved with the Northern Ireland peace process, what’s your experience? Is their lesson Nepal can learn from it?
I think there are some parallels. In Northern Ireland, people think it’s about religion. It was not really about religion. It was more about national aspirations. There is a group of people who align themselves with England; others align themselves with the republic of Ireland.
Basically there is a difference of opinion amongst people. The Republican and the Loyalists paramilitaries fought for 30 years, killed thousands of people. But they came to the conclusion that it would never be resolved militarily. They decided to work things out through ceasefire, elimination of weapons, what they referred to as “putting weapons beyond use,” confidence building, dialogue, and comprise. And it has taken a lot time—13 years since the ceasefire and they still don’t have a government. But very soon they will. And it is going to require the same process [in Nepal]: patience and persistence. And it will require the international community to stay engaged, to watch what’s happening. Just as the United Nations has steeped-in in Nepal, a group of countries involved themselves in the Northern Ireland.
Critics say the United States was rather soft on the Irish Republican Army (IRA), and that it is unwilling to be equally flexible on the Maoists. Does ideology play a role in such considerations?
There‘re subtle differences. My view is that if, as I said, if the Maoists continue to perform and keep commitments, we should engage them, we should talk to them. This is somewhat different than the administration. The administrations under President Clinton and President Bush, there were time when they would not deal with the IRA. They continued to consider them terrorists even after the ceasefire. I have always been of the opinion that you have to engage, you have to talk, break down barriers and build confidence.
I think the fact the Maoists are communists is more of a problem, although the IRA is very much a socialist organizations.
As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, will you be willing to sponsor a bill to increase funding for Nepal, if the Nepal government requests, or on your own initiative?
Yes. I have always supported the additional funding for Nepal. I think we need to be helpful with the election process.
I would very much like to see the United States working with international organization like the World Bank help Nepal to create and harness the hydroelectric power that it has. Nepal has vast hydro electric potential. Before the Maoists revolution began, there was some real movement on harnessing some of the rivers in Nepal. It’s somewhat environmentally controversial. But there ways to harness that power that would make Nepal energy independent, in fact an energy exporter.
State Department officials say they don’t want to been seen as competing with India—in terms of assistance. Is that a fair benchmark?
India is certainly much closer to Nepal, physically, culturally and spiritually. But I think that the United States can play a positive role working with Nepal’s neighbors in helping to coordinate activities. When I was there, you had Soviet Union, India and U.S. building the east west highway. Everyone was building a section. We should be able to continue to do that sort of thing.
How optimistic are you about the peace process?
So far so good. I really want to see the elections; I want to see the elections run fairly. I don’t want to see any ballot intimidations by the Maoists or anyone else. I think Prime Minister Koirala is a remarkable man. I have met him a number of times. I think he has got the country headed in the right direction, but there are lots of pitfalls between here and there. But I very hopeful that once the elections are over, the people of Nepal, who this is really ultimately about, will have the confidence that the government they elected is the government they wanted.
Anything you would like to add?
Just dherai namaskar and namaste to mero daju bhai, didi bahini, and I miss Nepal, and I am looking forward to coming back.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Transitional Tantrums
The palace monopoly on state may be over, but the danger in the ensuing anarchy raises doubt if this is more than just a transitional flux. The specter of no one being in charge is no less terrifying.
By John Narayan Parajuli
As if the revolution of April has opened a Pandora’s Box, a quick glimpse over Nepali horizon will detect more problems than it did before April 24. There are more daily protests. More and more people seem frustrated, more vigilantes lurking to set things right in their own way. The overall violence has ebbed since the monarch’s wings were clipped, but there is no excuse for the continuing cycle of needless deaths. The Maoists cadres continue to run amok—despite repeated assurances from their leaders. How much of this is a transitional flux and how much a battle to undercut each other?
It’s not uncomplicated to make sense of the daily occurrences in Nepal. An upbeat Nepali society following the revolution suddenly seems to be overcast by clouds of doubts and uncertainty. After assuming an astronomical speed, suddenly the parties involved in the negotiations have decided to slow down by the same measure. It’s easy to be overwhelmed by the news. We don’t’ have to give up just yet. Transition periods are never smooth and we shouldn’t expect one. I would still give the Seven Party Alliance the benefit of doubt. If Prachanda is man of his words, his first press conference should be assuring us as well.
It is perhaps effortless to sit at the commentariat and criticize SPA for all its shortcomings; we shouldn’t however forget that it had a colossal task cut out. SPA has been hard at work. Not matter, how its actions are viewed, it had the will to institutionalize the gains of the revolution. Many have questioned the relevance of SPA’s parliamentary marathon. But one should not forget that with the elimination of the Palace from the equation, the resultant void was not less perilous. There would have been a power struggle if it was left unattended. Worst, certain elements within the palace, not the king himself, could very well have tried to bounce back. The Thai coup admonishes us to chart the course carefully. SPA had to tread a difficult course in dealing with the Army; so far it has done an excellent job of bringing it under a civilian control, although its loyalty remains to be tested.
SPA is under constant watch and it knows that it can’t deviate, however there is another party to the conflict that needs to be, if not more, equally brought under active scrutiny. Nepali civil society has been relatively soft towards the rebels. Perhaps that’s the nature of the civil society and press to be sympathetic towards the underdogs. But the Maoists are no longer the underlings. They have transformed into major league players. Things have changed, so should the attitude.
One wonders when the Maoists would give up chest-thumping: The April Revolution was in no way an endorsement of the Maoists agenda—the Maoists should stop acting like it was. They contributed in the success of the April Revolution. And we are all glad they did.
Prachanda summed up his party’s intention in his first press conference. But they haven’t been quite translated into action; his cadres continue to act against his party’s stance, while on the contrary Maoists leaders continue to justify their misdemeanors. Prachanda and his men continue to brow-beat their rivals cum partners in the peace process into total submission. There is a simmering anger among a sizeable chunk of the population that the Maoists agenda is thoroughly being implemented. That’s a legitimate anger simply because not everyone is a Maoist or buys the Maoists agenda, for that matter. Unless the Maoists come clean, the peace process isn’t going forward. Just claiming an autonomous place in the fraternity of equals isn’t going to do them any good, unless they learn to treat others as equals too. Despite encouraging sings, they haven’t quite done that yet. The weapon in their possession is problematic and gives them unfair advantage. Until recently, it was my belief that too much pressure too soon on the Maoists could break them. But now I am convinced that there is no other way but to force them. This is not to imply that the Maoists give up weapons just like that: Disarm in a mutually acceptable fashion without further delay.
The longer the delay, the bitter it will get, and the harder it will become to avoid a split in their movement. It’s very likely that there are some deeply entrenched opportunists in the insurgency movement for whom peace could soon become nasty. A delay would also mean shift in public mood. Public mood is volatile, the possibility of it going soft on monarchy can not be ruled out. If the recent NDI-AC Nielson poll is any indication, public volte-face on republic is imminent lest the Maoists ebb their offensive. All this would mean they would lose their bargaining chip over time. Perhaps they can’t see this. Media coverage and plethora of invitations and honors can be delusional.
Flattering as these receptions are, they can be dream shattering too. And all these receptions come with strings attached: Expectations. And Maoists haven’t quite lived up to my expectations, and many many more others like me. Now if that feels like more than they signed up for. They should expect more. After all, who said conversion into the church of mainstream of politics was easy?
By John Narayan Parajuli
As if the revolution of April has opened a Pandora’s Box, a quick glimpse over Nepali horizon will detect more problems than it did before April 24. There are more daily protests. More and more people seem frustrated, more vigilantes lurking to set things right in their own way. The overall violence has ebbed since the monarch’s wings were clipped, but there is no excuse for the continuing cycle of needless deaths. The Maoists cadres continue to run amok—despite repeated assurances from their leaders. How much of this is a transitional flux and how much a battle to undercut each other?
It’s not uncomplicated to make sense of the daily occurrences in Nepal. An upbeat Nepali society following the revolution suddenly seems to be overcast by clouds of doubts and uncertainty. After assuming an astronomical speed, suddenly the parties involved in the negotiations have decided to slow down by the same measure. It’s easy to be overwhelmed by the news. We don’t’ have to give up just yet. Transition periods are never smooth and we shouldn’t expect one. I would still give the Seven Party Alliance the benefit of doubt. If Prachanda is man of his words, his first press conference should be assuring us as well.
It is perhaps effortless to sit at the commentariat and criticize SPA for all its shortcomings; we shouldn’t however forget that it had a colossal task cut out. SPA has been hard at work. Not matter, how its actions are viewed, it had the will to institutionalize the gains of the revolution. Many have questioned the relevance of SPA’s parliamentary marathon. But one should not forget that with the elimination of the Palace from the equation, the resultant void was not less perilous. There would have been a power struggle if it was left unattended. Worst, certain elements within the palace, not the king himself, could very well have tried to bounce back. The Thai coup admonishes us to chart the course carefully. SPA had to tread a difficult course in dealing with the Army; so far it has done an excellent job of bringing it under a civilian control, although its loyalty remains to be tested.
SPA is under constant watch and it knows that it can’t deviate, however there is another party to the conflict that needs to be, if not more, equally brought under active scrutiny. Nepali civil society has been relatively soft towards the rebels. Perhaps that’s the nature of the civil society and press to be sympathetic towards the underdogs. But the Maoists are no longer the underlings. They have transformed into major league players. Things have changed, so should the attitude.
One wonders when the Maoists would give up chest-thumping: The April Revolution was in no way an endorsement of the Maoists agenda—the Maoists should stop acting like it was. They contributed in the success of the April Revolution. And we are all glad they did.
Prachanda summed up his party’s intention in his first press conference. But they haven’t been quite translated into action; his cadres continue to act against his party’s stance, while on the contrary Maoists leaders continue to justify their misdemeanors. Prachanda and his men continue to brow-beat their rivals cum partners in the peace process into total submission. There is a simmering anger among a sizeable chunk of the population that the Maoists agenda is thoroughly being implemented. That’s a legitimate anger simply because not everyone is a Maoist or buys the Maoists agenda, for that matter. Unless the Maoists come clean, the peace process isn’t going forward. Just claiming an autonomous place in the fraternity of equals isn’t going to do them any good, unless they learn to treat others as equals too. Despite encouraging sings, they haven’t quite done that yet. The weapon in their possession is problematic and gives them unfair advantage. Until recently, it was my belief that too much pressure too soon on the Maoists could break them. But now I am convinced that there is no other way but to force them. This is not to imply that the Maoists give up weapons just like that: Disarm in a mutually acceptable fashion without further delay.
The longer the delay, the bitter it will get, and the harder it will become to avoid a split in their movement. It’s very likely that there are some deeply entrenched opportunists in the insurgency movement for whom peace could soon become nasty. A delay would also mean shift in public mood. Public mood is volatile, the possibility of it going soft on monarchy can not be ruled out. If the recent NDI-AC Nielson poll is any indication, public volte-face on republic is imminent lest the Maoists ebb their offensive. All this would mean they would lose their bargaining chip over time. Perhaps they can’t see this. Media coverage and plethora of invitations and honors can be delusional.
Flattering as these receptions are, they can be dream shattering too. And all these receptions come with strings attached: Expectations. And Maoists haven’t quite lived up to my expectations, and many many more others like me. Now if that feels like more than they signed up for. They should expect more. After all, who said conversion into the church of mainstream of politics was easy?
Friday, September 15, 2006
Permanent Fiasco?
By John Narayan Parajuli
Nepal has failed to tap into the international pressure to force Bhutan on refugee stalemate. Nepal must quickly make up its mind on other alternatives, lest it faces a permanent fiasco.
Bhutanese refugees have been around for ever. To be homeless for 16 years or more must be like eternity. One can only imagine. But therein lays the problem. We have failed to imagine and comprehend the gravity of being displaced for so long. Worse, our governments were never mentally prepared for the job of taking Bhutan head-on. It’s unfair to say that the Nepalese government alone could have done alone as it lacks direct leverage of any kind on Thimpu. But the potential of what it could have achieved in Thimpu through an indirect channel remains seriously untapped.
Nepal needs to seriously take advantage of international generosity. The international community has been more than willing to help and has helped in maintaining the shelter and supplication for the Bhutanese refugees. Besides providing much needed dollars to run the camps, it has time and again reiterated its stance for an amicable resolution of the refugee issue between Nepal and Bhutan. And often their statements have implicitly put the onus on Bhutan. Bhutan certainly knows that and has often indicated in the past that it is feeling the heat. The agreement on verification modalities between Nepal and Bhutan, the start of the verification process were achieved as a result of international pressure. But unfortunately the pressure wasn’t sustained and Thimpu resorted to its dilly-dallying tactics as the attention diverted.
In June 2003, after an excruciatingly lengthy delay, the Bhutanese government announced the results of the verification exercise conducted in Khudunabari camp in 2001, agreeing to take back those people categorized as bona fide Bhutanese citizens, voluntary emigrants and criminals: a total of 75% of those screened. But the bilateral negotiation between Nepal and Bhutan soon hit another deadlock.
In fact the history of bilateral negotiation on refugee issue between Nepal and Bhutan is a history of deadlocks. Bhutan begins to up the ante as soon as little progress is made. The intention is clear: To frustrate every one and to eventually make them give up the hope of returning refugees to Bhutan.
Since the end of 2003, under periodical international pressure Thimpu has intermittently declared its willingness to resume bilateral talks, while also not failing to pay lip-service to the agreements already made with Nepal to repatriate at least a proportion of the refugees. But far from honoring the agreements, both sides have even failed to convene a minister-level meeting.
The plight of the Bhutanese refugees has been rather more torturous with the passage of time. Most refugees understand that they may never be able to return, yet they haven’t given hope of going back someday. For its part, Nepal has done a lot in humanitarian terms, but has failed to muster enough diplomatic ensure the return of refugees. Worst, it has failed to tap into the international interest to resolve the conflict.
The United States and the European Union are interested in helping Nepal and Bhutan resolve the issue. More importantly they are willing to use their limited influence over Bhutan provided that Nepal takes the initiative.
Visiting US Congressmen led by Jim Kolbe last month urged the Bhutanese government to repatriate its people. He, however, didn’t fail to mention Washington’s willingness to allow some refugees to settle in the States. Washington has exerted periodical pressure on Bhutan. Given its almost non-existent weight over Bhutan, its effect hasn’t been dramatic as would be expected of that of America. However, the Clinton administration did try to bring the Indians on board. It realized that without India putting pressure on Thimpu, Bhutan is unlikely to budge an inch. Clinton allegedly wrote to Bhutan and Nepal to expedite the process, as a result they did. But as Washington and others in the international community shifted their focus to other issues, Bhutan went back to its old modus operandi.
In the light of never-ending stalemate, third country resettlement is a viable alternative. But Nepal government hasn’t fully made up its mind. It still is willing to take a chance and wants to exhaust the repatriation option before pursuing other alternative. Pursuing two other options, local integration and third country solution will absolve Bhutan of its guilt and will send a wrong message. Any remote possibility of repatriation would then have to be abandoned. Once the camps are dismantled Bhutan can argue that all of the Bhutanese refugees are Nepalese—as it has always tried to claim. It’s a difficult choice, but Nepal has to make one. Either it should summon extra ordinary amount of diplomatic will to bring Bhutan back to the negotiating table, or it should explore the remaining two options. In any case, time is running out.
Nepal has failed to tap into the international pressure to force Bhutan on refugee stalemate. Nepal must quickly make up its mind on other alternatives, lest it faces a permanent fiasco.
Bhutanese refugees have been around for ever. To be homeless for 16 years or more must be like eternity. One can only imagine. But therein lays the problem. We have failed to imagine and comprehend the gravity of being displaced for so long. Worse, our governments were never mentally prepared for the job of taking Bhutan head-on. It’s unfair to say that the Nepalese government alone could have done alone as it lacks direct leverage of any kind on Thimpu. But the potential of what it could have achieved in Thimpu through an indirect channel remains seriously untapped.
Nepal needs to seriously take advantage of international generosity. The international community has been more than willing to help and has helped in maintaining the shelter and supplication for the Bhutanese refugees. Besides providing much needed dollars to run the camps, it has time and again reiterated its stance for an amicable resolution of the refugee issue between Nepal and Bhutan. And often their statements have implicitly put the onus on Bhutan. Bhutan certainly knows that and has often indicated in the past that it is feeling the heat. The agreement on verification modalities between Nepal and Bhutan, the start of the verification process were achieved as a result of international pressure. But unfortunately the pressure wasn’t sustained and Thimpu resorted to its dilly-dallying tactics as the attention diverted.
In June 2003, after an excruciatingly lengthy delay, the Bhutanese government announced the results of the verification exercise conducted in Khudunabari camp in 2001, agreeing to take back those people categorized as bona fide Bhutanese citizens, voluntary emigrants and criminals: a total of 75% of those screened. But the bilateral negotiation between Nepal and Bhutan soon hit another deadlock.
In fact the history of bilateral negotiation on refugee issue between Nepal and Bhutan is a history of deadlocks. Bhutan begins to up the ante as soon as little progress is made. The intention is clear: To frustrate every one and to eventually make them give up the hope of returning refugees to Bhutan.
Since the end of 2003, under periodical international pressure Thimpu has intermittently declared its willingness to resume bilateral talks, while also not failing to pay lip-service to the agreements already made with Nepal to repatriate at least a proportion of the refugees. But far from honoring the agreements, both sides have even failed to convene a minister-level meeting.
The plight of the Bhutanese refugees has been rather more torturous with the passage of time. Most refugees understand that they may never be able to return, yet they haven’t given hope of going back someday. For its part, Nepal has done a lot in humanitarian terms, but has failed to muster enough diplomatic ensure the return of refugees. Worst, it has failed to tap into the international interest to resolve the conflict.
The United States and the European Union are interested in helping Nepal and Bhutan resolve the issue. More importantly they are willing to use their limited influence over Bhutan provided that Nepal takes the initiative.
Visiting US Congressmen led by Jim Kolbe last month urged the Bhutanese government to repatriate its people. He, however, didn’t fail to mention Washington’s willingness to allow some refugees to settle in the States. Washington has exerted periodical pressure on Bhutan. Given its almost non-existent weight over Bhutan, its effect hasn’t been dramatic as would be expected of that of America. However, the Clinton administration did try to bring the Indians on board. It realized that without India putting pressure on Thimpu, Bhutan is unlikely to budge an inch. Clinton allegedly wrote to Bhutan and Nepal to expedite the process, as a result they did. But as Washington and others in the international community shifted their focus to other issues, Bhutan went back to its old modus operandi.
In the light of never-ending stalemate, third country resettlement is a viable alternative. But Nepal government hasn’t fully made up its mind. It still is willing to take a chance and wants to exhaust the repatriation option before pursuing other alternative. Pursuing two other options, local integration and third country solution will absolve Bhutan of its guilt and will send a wrong message. Any remote possibility of repatriation would then have to be abandoned. Once the camps are dismantled Bhutan can argue that all of the Bhutanese refugees are Nepalese—as it has always tried to claim. It’s a difficult choice, but Nepal has to make one. Either it should summon extra ordinary amount of diplomatic will to bring Bhutan back to the negotiating table, or it should explore the remaining two options. In any case, time is running out.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Nepal will get $ 40 plus million from the U.S.; More likely, if requested
By John Narayan Parajuli
WASHINGTON DC, June 27 - It seems the return of the political parties to power in Nepal has triggered an international race of largesse. The prospect of peace has resumed a bigger flow of international assistance.
In the latest development, the U.S. government has decided to increase the annual assistance to Nepal by almost one-third.
US ambassador James F. Moriarty returned to Nepal after securing more assistance during his visit to Washington last week. It is learnt that ambassador Moriarty has secured an additional 12 million dollars in assistance for Nepal on top of the 35 million dollars that the US government provides Nepal annually. Although sources dispute the exact figure, it will be upwards of US $ 40 million.
A Congressional source familiar with the ambassador’s itinerary says that he “worked really hard” to make the additional funding available for Nepal. Details of his visit are sketchy, but during his trip to Washington Moriarty met top administration officials and officials in the legislative branch. He met the State Department under Secretary Paula Dobriansky – and Senate staff to update them on the current political situation and to make the case for robust U.S. assistance to Nepal during its period of transition. He also met with Congressman James T Walsh and aides of Senator Patrick Leahy and Richard Lugar to update them on Nepal. Among others, he met the U.S. National Security Advisor Stephen Hedley, USAID Administrator Randall Tobias and one of the Assistant Secretary of Defense. The content of his discussion with the National Security Advisor—who spends about 6 hours each day with the president—was not known. Moriarty is said to have had worked for Hedley in the past.
The US ambassador is expected to issue a statement in Kathmandu on Wednesday detailing his visit to Washington and its outcome. Sources say that the ambassador presented a cautiously optimistic assessment of the developments in Nepal. Congressman Walsh (R-NY) whom Moriarty met said that he [Moriarty] was “anxious to see if Maoists swear-off violence and destroy their weapons.” He was skeptical about the Maoists' intention, but that could have changed with the Maoists almost ready to join the interim government, says another Congressional source. Despite the skepticism, the United States seemed encouraged by the recent political developments and has expressed eagerness to continue supporting the democratization process—without ‘interfering.’
The U.S. has identified three key areas of assistance to continue its support for the democratization process in Nepal: democracy, governance and conflict mitigation. Secretary Boucher while testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations committee on May 18 said that the United States government will continue to work these key areas.
Congressional sources indicate that the United States is willing to provide more economic assistance to Nepal provided the Nepali government makes a formal request. “We need to be supportive,” said Congressman Walsh (R-NY), “United States should and will help Nepal.” Walsh, who has been very active about Nepal in the House and intends to visit the country, soon, indicated that he is willing to take initiative at his level. With war in Iraq and other pressing priorities, it has become increasingly difficult to acquire more funds for small trouble spots like Nepal without allies in the Congress.
“I would like to see United States actively involved in [giving] foreign aid to Nepal,” Walsh told this scribe during an on-camera interview at his office. With some influential legislators from both parties watching Nepal closely, Nepal is likely to have more allies in the U.S. congress than it ever did.
It is understood that State Department officials are prepared to meet Nepal’s request, however they don’t want to be seen as competing with India. But they are ready to match Nepal’s request with additional assistance.
Excerpts from Congressman James T Walsh’s interview:
US is trying to have a hands-off approach on Nepal—supporting the democratization process while not interfering.
We should be willing to help, but certainly not exert our own will.
The government shouldn’t respond to the Maoists on the Army until the Maoists are fully disarmed.
If the Maoists have a good idea for the future of Nepal, they need to sell it to the people of Nepal right now. Let their ideas compete in the market of ideas freely.
We need to be supportive, but there has to be a sense that everybody in Nepal is at the same table before that happens
The U.S. is very anxious to see if the Maoists will swear-off violence and destroy their weapons.
I will do anything to help Nepal.
The assistance will focus on:
Building the capacity of vital democratic institutions like the Peace Secretariat, Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority, National Human Rights Commission, Election Commission, and the judiciary;
Support national and local peace building initiatives and improve public understanding of the peace negotiations, the cease-fire Code of Conduct, and plans for a constituent assembly process;
Support the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Nepal;
Assist Nepal’s political parties and civil society groups to become more internally democratic, more inclusive, and better able to provide outreach to constituents to underscore that Nepal’s democracy belongs to all of its citizens and that their political leaders answer to them;
Strengthen provision of public health services and facilitate economic growth and commerce through employment-creating public works, agriculture, job skills training, and infrastructure projects that better connect Nepal’s population centers; and
Develop professionalism and respect for human rights among Nepal’s security forces.
WASHINGTON DC, June 27 - It seems the return of the political parties to power in Nepal has triggered an international race of largesse. The prospect of peace has resumed a bigger flow of international assistance.
In the latest development, the U.S. government has decided to increase the annual assistance to Nepal by almost one-third.
US ambassador James F. Moriarty returned to Nepal after securing more assistance during his visit to Washington last week. It is learnt that ambassador Moriarty has secured an additional 12 million dollars in assistance for Nepal on top of the 35 million dollars that the US government provides Nepal annually. Although sources dispute the exact figure, it will be upwards of US $ 40 million.
A Congressional source familiar with the ambassador’s itinerary says that he “worked really hard” to make the additional funding available for Nepal. Details of his visit are sketchy, but during his trip to Washington Moriarty met top administration officials and officials in the legislative branch. He met the State Department under Secretary Paula Dobriansky – and Senate staff to update them on the current political situation and to make the case for robust U.S. assistance to Nepal during its period of transition. He also met with Congressman James T Walsh and aides of Senator Patrick Leahy and Richard Lugar to update them on Nepal. Among others, he met the U.S. National Security Advisor Stephen Hedley, USAID Administrator Randall Tobias and one of the Assistant Secretary of Defense. The content of his discussion with the National Security Advisor—who spends about 6 hours each day with the president—was not known. Moriarty is said to have had worked for Hedley in the past.
The US ambassador is expected to issue a statement in Kathmandu on Wednesday detailing his visit to Washington and its outcome. Sources say that the ambassador presented a cautiously optimistic assessment of the developments in Nepal. Congressman Walsh (R-NY) whom Moriarty met said that he [Moriarty] was “anxious to see if Maoists swear-off violence and destroy their weapons.” He was skeptical about the Maoists' intention, but that could have changed with the Maoists almost ready to join the interim government, says another Congressional source. Despite the skepticism, the United States seemed encouraged by the recent political developments and has expressed eagerness to continue supporting the democratization process—without ‘interfering.’
The U.S. has identified three key areas of assistance to continue its support for the democratization process in Nepal: democracy, governance and conflict mitigation. Secretary Boucher while testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations committee on May 18 said that the United States government will continue to work these key areas.
Congressional sources indicate that the United States is willing to provide more economic assistance to Nepal provided the Nepali government makes a formal request. “We need to be supportive,” said Congressman Walsh (R-NY), “United States should and will help Nepal.” Walsh, who has been very active about Nepal in the House and intends to visit the country, soon, indicated that he is willing to take initiative at his level. With war in Iraq and other pressing priorities, it has become increasingly difficult to acquire more funds for small trouble spots like Nepal without allies in the Congress.
“I would like to see United States actively involved in [giving] foreign aid to Nepal,” Walsh told this scribe during an on-camera interview at his office. With some influential legislators from both parties watching Nepal closely, Nepal is likely to have more allies in the U.S. congress than it ever did.
It is understood that State Department officials are prepared to meet Nepal’s request, however they don’t want to be seen as competing with India. But they are ready to match Nepal’s request with additional assistance.
Excerpts from Congressman James T Walsh’s interview:
US is trying to have a hands-off approach on Nepal—supporting the democratization process while not interfering.
We should be willing to help, but certainly not exert our own will.
The government shouldn’t respond to the Maoists on the Army until the Maoists are fully disarmed.
If the Maoists have a good idea for the future of Nepal, they need to sell it to the people of Nepal right now. Let their ideas compete in the market of ideas freely.
We need to be supportive, but there has to be a sense that everybody in Nepal is at the same table before that happens
The U.S. is very anxious to see if the Maoists will swear-off violence and destroy their weapons.
I will do anything to help Nepal.
The assistance will focus on:
Building the capacity of vital democratic institutions like the Peace Secretariat, Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority, National Human Rights Commission, Election Commission, and the judiciary;
Support national and local peace building initiatives and improve public understanding of the peace negotiations, the cease-fire Code of Conduct, and plans for a constituent assembly process;
Support the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Nepal;
Assist Nepal’s political parties and civil society groups to become more internally democratic, more inclusive, and better able to provide outreach to constituents to underscore that Nepal’s democracy belongs to all of its citizens and that their political leaders answer to them;
Strengthen provision of public health services and facilitate economic growth and commerce through employment-creating public works, agriculture, job skills training, and infrastructure projects that better connect Nepal’s population centers; and
Develop professionalism and respect for human rights among Nepal’s security forces.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
The Gauntlet
As sanity returns the memories will fade increasing the danger of recurrence: of leadership fiasco and public apathy. Leaving a legacy and sustaining the memories as a caveat is the challenge.
By John Narayan Parajuli
Sanity is finally returning to the corridors of power in Nepal. But as the memories of people power fades, our leaders would be tempted more than ever before to slack and fall back to the old modus operandi. The public will take shelter in self-built cocoon of indifference.
So far the revolutionary fervor has pushed the conventional limits beyond conventional imagination. But there is a difference between visible cosmetic changes and substantial changes. Whether or not the Ministers take oath of office in the Palace is good to write in the press; it ceases its utility beyond that point. The public outpouring during the movement wasn’t simply for constitutional niceties. It was for real change.
Breaking some wishy-washy protocols therefore shouldn’t be the preoccupation of this new government. The King has expressed his conviction that the source of power lies in the people; it’s time we swiftly and quickly test his verbal commitment clipping his wings for good. Let’s not get fooled by his verbal assertion again. It’s high time we institutionalize the achievements of the people power—before oblivion becomes the order of the day.
At the risk of sounding jingoist, let me say that people of Nepal haven’t lost the sense of freedom that the forefathers so dearly protected from outsiders. Those days of explicit outside control are long gone. In this new era nations have more internal enemies than those from outside their territorial boundaries.
People of Nepal of have overthrown one tyrant after another since 1950s. But they keep coming back in different guise: Ranas, Paches, and rajabadis. (The Maoists are an offshoot of that free Nepali spirit which unfortunately has resorted to violence as a means.)The resilience of these negative forces reflects badly upon our collective memory—as to how quickly we forget the atrocities and injustices. We leave job half done and leave the rest to the leaders who are at best a mediocre bunch—whose track records are dismal, whose commitment level zero, whose zeal for a legacy shockingly non-existent. Freedom is a process, rather than an act. It is a sustained war, rather than a decisive single battle.
The new Koirala government has performed relatively well so far. But it is far from what is needed to attain the goals of the people’s movement. But any government’s performance boils down to one thing only: Leadership quality. Prime Minister Koirala’s stature as a father figure of democratic movement is beyond comparison in Nepal, although his own personal democratic credential contradicts that standing. Many were stunned to hear his appointment to that coveted office for the fifth time. Wasn’t there anyone better?
Despite his horrible record in the past, he is known for standing up to his conviction. But Koirala has to do better than that. He should be able to brush aside the sycophants that surround him. A person who claims to believe in the voice of reason should not find it difficult in making logical decisions. He had famously called on Baburam Bhattarai to convince him about the righteousness of Maoists movement. If Bhattarai did, Koirala said, he would enter the jungle with a gun on the shoulder to join the Maoists. If on the other hand, Koirala were to convince Bhattarai otherwise, his condition was that Bhattarai should abandon the Maoists movement and join the mainstream. Although that epic debate never took place, Koirala made it clear where he stood.
He’s defiant, intrepid and consistent. The hope is that he wouldn’t compromise or undermine the achievements of the people’s movement. Although Koirala personally prefers constitutional monarchy, he hasn’t winked his eye in going for the constituent assembly which he knows can seal the fate of monarchy. He seems to understand very well that his personal preference cannot foreshadow people’s mandate.
But he’s sun over the hill from all angles. Nothing but legacy should be in his mind. A legacy that’s above petty family or party interest and that will keep him alive in memories.
There has never been a dearth of energy and ideas in Nepali politics, but not a passion to itch one’s name in the coveted tablets of legacy. Ideas lived the life of a moth—dying the minute they were born. There has never been one in Nepal who seems to have envisioned leaving a legacy—at least in politics. Legacy is all about leaving beyond one’s life; sadly we Nepalese seem to have no appetite for that kind of immortality. May be our faith in reincarnation militates against such imported concept. Lack of opportunity may be an alternative explanation—as legacies are product of difficult times when human spirit is put to test. So here’s the perfect timing.
Let you become the pioneer Mr. Prime Minister. One legacy entails another. That wish cum challenge is extended to anyone willing and able to—namely Prachanda.
By John Narayan Parajuli
Sanity is finally returning to the corridors of power in Nepal. But as the memories of people power fades, our leaders would be tempted more than ever before to slack and fall back to the old modus operandi. The public will take shelter in self-built cocoon of indifference.
So far the revolutionary fervor has pushed the conventional limits beyond conventional imagination. But there is a difference between visible cosmetic changes and substantial changes. Whether or not the Ministers take oath of office in the Palace is good to write in the press; it ceases its utility beyond that point. The public outpouring during the movement wasn’t simply for constitutional niceties. It was for real change.
Breaking some wishy-washy protocols therefore shouldn’t be the preoccupation of this new government. The King has expressed his conviction that the source of power lies in the people; it’s time we swiftly and quickly test his verbal commitment clipping his wings for good. Let’s not get fooled by his verbal assertion again. It’s high time we institutionalize the achievements of the people power—before oblivion becomes the order of the day.
At the risk of sounding jingoist, let me say that people of Nepal haven’t lost the sense of freedom that the forefathers so dearly protected from outsiders. Those days of explicit outside control are long gone. In this new era nations have more internal enemies than those from outside their territorial boundaries.
People of Nepal of have overthrown one tyrant after another since 1950s. But they keep coming back in different guise: Ranas, Paches, and rajabadis. (The Maoists are an offshoot of that free Nepali spirit which unfortunately has resorted to violence as a means.)The resilience of these negative forces reflects badly upon our collective memory—as to how quickly we forget the atrocities and injustices. We leave job half done and leave the rest to the leaders who are at best a mediocre bunch—whose track records are dismal, whose commitment level zero, whose zeal for a legacy shockingly non-existent. Freedom is a process, rather than an act. It is a sustained war, rather than a decisive single battle.
The new Koirala government has performed relatively well so far. But it is far from what is needed to attain the goals of the people’s movement. But any government’s performance boils down to one thing only: Leadership quality. Prime Minister Koirala’s stature as a father figure of democratic movement is beyond comparison in Nepal, although his own personal democratic credential contradicts that standing. Many were stunned to hear his appointment to that coveted office for the fifth time. Wasn’t there anyone better?
Despite his horrible record in the past, he is known for standing up to his conviction. But Koirala has to do better than that. He should be able to brush aside the sycophants that surround him. A person who claims to believe in the voice of reason should not find it difficult in making logical decisions. He had famously called on Baburam Bhattarai to convince him about the righteousness of Maoists movement. If Bhattarai did, Koirala said, he would enter the jungle with a gun on the shoulder to join the Maoists. If on the other hand, Koirala were to convince Bhattarai otherwise, his condition was that Bhattarai should abandon the Maoists movement and join the mainstream. Although that epic debate never took place, Koirala made it clear where he stood.
He’s defiant, intrepid and consistent. The hope is that he wouldn’t compromise or undermine the achievements of the people’s movement. Although Koirala personally prefers constitutional monarchy, he hasn’t winked his eye in going for the constituent assembly which he knows can seal the fate of monarchy. He seems to understand very well that his personal preference cannot foreshadow people’s mandate.
But he’s sun over the hill from all angles. Nothing but legacy should be in his mind. A legacy that’s above petty family or party interest and that will keep him alive in memories.
There has never been a dearth of energy and ideas in Nepali politics, but not a passion to itch one’s name in the coveted tablets of legacy. Ideas lived the life of a moth—dying the minute they were born. There has never been one in Nepal who seems to have envisioned leaving a legacy—at least in politics. Legacy is all about leaving beyond one’s life; sadly we Nepalese seem to have no appetite for that kind of immortality. May be our faith in reincarnation militates against such imported concept. Lack of opportunity may be an alternative explanation—as legacies are product of difficult times when human spirit is put to test. So here’s the perfect timing.
Let you become the pioneer Mr. Prime Minister. One legacy entails another. That wish cum challenge is extended to anyone willing and able to—namely Prachanda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
