A good opportunity

Touching as the Prime Minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai’s resignation speech to parliament was, it also underscored the ruthless power struggle inside the Nepali Congress. While his adversary, NC President Girija Prasad Koirala has no doubt emerged the decisive victor, Bhattarai quit as PM an embittered man who had to endure "humiliations for the sake of party unity". Although his resignation was inevitable since his government had fallen in minority in the Nepali Congress parliamentary party after 69 NC lawmakers moved a no confidence motion against his ten month old government, it is still quite doubtful that the political uncertainty shadowing the country as a result of the power tussle within the NC will end. For Bhattarai may be down, but he is still not out.

Much will depend on who Bhattarai’s successor is going to be. Although Koirala’s ambition even in the dusk of his life is known to all, his accession to the PM’s chair may not be that easy given Bhattarai’s statement that this would be opposed. With 113 NC members in the lower House, it will be difficult for Koirala to maintain comfortable numbers in parliament even if the NC parliamentary party chooses him the next prime minister. If however, the NC parliamentary party holds elections—as opposed to the convention of choosing through consensus— and chooses the person for the job, it could end the Bhattarai-Koirala feud once and for all. But this would call for a sacrifice that would enable the parliamentary party to elect someone from the next generation. Though this is unlikely to happen, it would certainly be the best course for the Nepali Congress.

First of all, holding elections for the prime ministership will set in a process of democratization within the Nepali Congress — something this party sadly lacks at the moment. The tendency in the NC leadership to seek consensus to arrive at important decisions as also that preference for secret pacts is responsible for many of the ills afflicting the NC. A Prime Minister elected by the parliamentary party enjoys greater legitimacy and is hence less susceptible to the machinations of vaulting ambition. Another problem with the NC is that in many ways it is a static party dominated by the old generation who refuse to make way. Younger generation leaders, both as prime minister and party president, elected, not chosen by consensus, would bring dynamism to the NC and enable it to provide a stable government which can focus on doing its job unhindered by internal squabbling.

In a way, Bhattarai’s resignation has provided the NC a rare opportunity to democratize itself and to change from being a personality or a dynast dominated party. What course the NC will take will no doubt become evident in the next few days. For now, the NC leadership would be well advised to consider the suggestions in this writing because the next few days will determine whether the party has moved one step forward or taken two steps back.

Hang on, relief is near

Recently we had an opportunity to meet the Parliamentary delegation from the Kingdom of Nepal to Australia. The delegation included Speaker of the House of Representatives Tara Nath Ranabhat, Mrs Ranabhat, Vice-Chairman of the National Assembly Chiranjibi Rijal, and MPs Messrs Raghujee Panta, Mohan Bahadur Basnet and Rajendra Mahato.

It seems that it has become customary for each MP to say how much suffering he and his family members endured during the Panchayati system, how many times he was able to get elected, who were his opponents, where his offsprings are studying and living currently, and that Nepal has the second highest hydro electricity potential in the whole world.

When the members of the delegation were asked why despite almost a decade after democracy, the country was sinking further down every day under rampant corruption, the Speaker of the House of Representatives Ranabhat reminded us that it took almost 100 years for Australia under democracy to come this far and said that expecting anything in just 10 years of democracy is impractical.

All Nepalis, hang on, relief is near. After another 90 years we will all enjoy the benefits of democracy. Australians present during the occasion muttered that they hoped the speaker would not say this to his Australian counterpart.

Our speaker was proud to tell us that Nepal has a great market potential to sell drinking water and ‘pashmina’ shawls to Australia and we should pursue such ventures. I would have thought that the priority of the government was to supply drinking water in Nepal and support rural cottage industries.

No wonder Maoists are gaining ground.

Pramod Adhikari
Canberra, Australia

Bhattarai in Nepali politics

By Sanjaya Serchan

The resignation tendered by Prime Minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai has brought a chapter in Nepali political history to a close. As one of the founder-members of the Nepali Congress (NC) in 1947, Bhattarai had acquired a particular standing, an aura within and outside the Nepali Congress party. He not only acquired the title of a ‘Saint’, apparently because he never married and never acquired any property, but he was also well known for his humour and off-hand comments.

There are a few survivors of the 1950’s movement, who can recall Bhattarai’s role as one of the commanders in the ‘revolution’ to topple the Rana autocracy. There are, however, stories of the stengun-wielding Bhattarai who led an armed group to capture some eastern districts. Bhattarai’s role in the 1950/51 saga is worth noting for a historian, as are the roles of the four actors -- the King, NC, Ranas and India -- leading to the New Delhi compromise, with consequences for the course Nepalese politics was to take for the next half century.

The overthrow of Ranas in 1951 saw Bhattarai’s installment as chairman of the first Advisory Assembly. This, incidentally, is said to have made Bhattarai, at the age of twenty-six, the youngest ever chairman of any legislative body in history. Another record often cited against Bhattarai’s name involves his foray into journalism. Bhattarai is said to be the first foreigner to have interviewed Soviet leader Khruschev.

The parliamentary elections of 1959 saw the NC attain an overwhelming majority, though Bhattarai himself lost in the elections. This earned Bhattarai the tag of a loser in elections, which was to continue even after the restoration of democracy thirty years later. Despite losing, Bhattarai was nonetheless made Speaker of the House of Representatives through a provision in the constitution that a person from outside the House would be given the particular post. Bhattarai seems to have had no qualms about presiding over a House of elected MPs, and especially over the person who had actually defeated him in the elections.

The imposition of the partyless Panchayat system in 1960 forced many party leaders into oppositional politics. Bhattarai, however, did not, after his release from prison, follow BP Koirala in exile in India, nor did he actively participate in the NC’s armed uprising against the Panchayat. BP’s death in 1982 saw the reins of NC leadership pass to the troika of Ganeshman Singh, Bhattarai and Girija Prasad Koirala. Although Bhattarai had been made the party’s acting president even during BP’s lifetime, the party saw cohabitation among the three leaders.

The post-1990 scenario saw Bhattarai assume the mantle of prime ministership twice, the second time just recently as an elected Prime Minister. Those who contrast Bhattarai’s second term with his first, however, tend to forget the circumstances of the interim prime ministership of 1990-91. The one-year interim government had two agendas, agendas which had been set by the people’s movement. They were: framing the constitution (the initial six months) and holding elections (the final six months). These overshadowed other issues. People's power not only brought Bhattarai the prime ministership through the abrupt removal of Lokendra Bahadur Chand, but also gave him the momentum to continue. Bhattarai’s waffling, with regard to the formation of the Constitution (Reform) Recommendation Committee and whether the NC would contest elections alone or together with other parties, as well as on other matters, were simply overlooked during that memorable years of Nepalese history.

Bhattarai’s second innings as Prime Minister, however, glaringly brought to the fore his shortcomings such as not acting on any specific agendas set by the moment and being unable to set his own agenda, he showed little managerial skill and seemed ineffectual. Although Bhattarai had not lost any of his ability for witticisms, there were a few tangible benefits to go with such jocularity. Nepalese society is not particularly puritanical, and given some efforts at governance, it might have readily overlooked Bhattarai’s idiosyncrasies.

Bhattarai as elected Prime Minister was of course hampered by the fact that he never had a substantial following within his own party, or in parliament. This points out another important, facet of Bhattarai’s personality. Madanmani Dixit once remarked that BP Koirala would have made a successful industrialist or businessman if he had ever ventured into those fields. Girija Prasad Koirala, during his first stint as prime minister, made himself a laughing stock by showing his personal attachment (and embellishing it with his personal biography) to the particular group of people he happened to be speaking to. Bhattarai, on the other hand, remains curiously apolitical, often refusing to pander to the masses.

This might arise from the conviction, even pride, that pandering to the "mob" and the one upmanship of competitive politics are not ends worthy in themselves, and they do not serve the truth.

To understand Bhattarai’s world-view, one has to turn to his upbringing. Born outside Nepal, in a religious family (thus the daily readings of the Bhagvatgita), he graduated in 1946 from the Banaras Hindu University. This upbringing showed in such contentious issues as the establishment of a "Hindu" university in Birgunj, compulsory Sanskrit education and the role of women in society. It also showed in Bhattarai’s concept of the centralized state as a patron, a provider and not a facilitator. More nobly, it lent a certain stoicism to Bhattarai’s personality. This enabled him to bear the ten long uninterrupted years in prison (of a total of fourteen years) following the royal coup of 1960, longer than what BP Koirala and Ganeshman Singh had borne, and when he was finally released, it was without accepting any conditionalities. Bhattarai’s religious background might also have sharpened his view of the self vis-a-vis the society, often scorning the latter for the former. The detachment from things of the Hindu ascetic, his obsession with purity and personal salvation, can also become a cold unconcern, even contempt, for the mundane affairs of life. This is what possibly led VS Naipaul to claim that ‘social values’ did not exist prior to Christianity’s advent. The religious upbringing also led to Bhattarai’s emphasis on moral or spiritual development. Although Bhattarai has not possibly read Jurgen Habermas and about his "life-worlds," he held the belief that there are issues beyond material prosperity, and consumption cannot be an end in itself. Compared to such material predation, the sins of flesh are relatively minor and can be indulged in! In a world ruled by economic fundamentalists, Bhattarai’s views, except for some stray remarks, would have met with failure even if he had tried to implement them, which he did not.

What does the future hold for Bhattarai? He will be spending the next four years as an MP and can therefore, in addition to regaling the House with his wit, act as a ‘moral’ beacon of the parliament. At the pettiest he can indulge in conspiracies to undermine the government of Girija Prasad Koirala. As regards the verdict on Bhattarai that is an issue best left to history. At the moment it seems only fitting to say that Krishna Prasad Bhattarai contributed his bit to the Nepalese Renaissance that began in the early 20th century and which is still continuing.

Going Nepali

By Ajit Baral

Flip over the pages of a newspaper for vacancy announcement. Found it? What’s written? "Candidate should have fluent spoken and written English", To have good command over English is imperative, right? after all, English is a universal language. Thus, perforce, we have to have good English. Yes. There are other advantages of having good command over English- it gives one a head start over others, not necessarily in finding jobs only, but also in other areas as well and one receives a fair amount of veneration.

But, notwithstanding the ability that weighs in your favour, English writers are stuck in a fix: Writing in English or Nepali?

English isn’t our language. Thus writing with the same kind of flair and mastery of English, as native writer of English, for Nepalese English writer is very difficult, if not well nigh impossible. Indians have done that, but they were bequeathed with colonial legacy ie, English, which has helped them. Not us. Though, Laxmi Prasad Devkota (time and again we have to come to Devkota when mentioning about Nepalese writing in English) also did it. How he did it? that too more than fifty years ago, when everybody used to learn Sanskrit is a mystery. He can only be seen as an exception.

Writing in English, even discounting the other factors that goes behind good writing, for Nepalese is a difficult undertaking. And, infusing good standard in writing is a tall task for us. So, without quality and standard in writing, our writing can’t jostle with multitudes of writing all over the world for recognition and response, but just sinks without ever creating a bubble. Only if steady stream of writings come flowing, can our writing attain quality and standard to compete against others in the international market. However, this is not happening. And, compounding the misery is that only few are involved in English writing. Since, we can’t draw response from international market, the significance of our writing is greatly reduced. And, if we target Nepali readers of English, there are only a handful of them and publishing a book targeting that motley group of readers is neither economically viable nor rewarding. Let me illustrate this point. Our English newspapers have less circulation. Most of them are subscribed by hotels, travel and tour companies, embassies, offices etc. They are for display rather than for reading. So, you can imagine the actual number of readers.

And, when it comes to serious writing, the market virtually doesn’t exist. So, what’s the point of writing in English?, writers quipp.

Novelist Khagendra Sangraula says that he writes about the lower strata of people as a remission of guilt for allowing himself to be clamped by materialism that is at odds against the ideology he espouses. Like him, other writers also have some purpose of writing. But, this purpose is rendered futile if one cannot reach the people. Since neither Nepalese English writers can compete in the international market nor can they reach Nepalese readers, writing in English is neither rewarding nor purpose-fulfilling. Also, conduits through which Nepalese writing in English can find outlets are very minimal. So, as Nepalese English writers confided, their writing is bound to stay stashed in come obscure corner.

Therefore, there is a definite urge among our English writers to go Nepali, which contextually is rewarding and may also hold some significance. That’s the reality, ke garne?

Should armed forces be mobilized against Maoists ?

The Kathmandu Post and Mercantile Pvt Ltd, as a part of their weekly polls, conducted a survey on "Whether the government should mobilize the armed forces to tackle the Maoist insurgency" on the Net weeks ago. Out of total 2280 respondents, 61 percent voted "yes", 37.3 percent voted "no" and 0.7 percent did not know.

We regret the possible inconvenience, if any, that may be caused due to the non-mention of original names by some respondents.

Army should be mobilised to combat the growing Maoist insurgents. The Maoist problem is not at all a political problem. How can it be a political problem when we have one of the world’s best political systems? Against whom are Maoists fighting? What is their political goal? Answers of these questions will be - they are fighting to make Nepal unstable and to take the power in their hands and implement an autocratic system. How can you do table talk with the Maoists when they are killing innocent people every day? Are not those innocent Nepali people their brothers and sisters?

- Arjun Bhujal

The current Maoists problem is directly created by the Nepali Congress (NC) led government. Since the restoration of democracy in 1990, the fight for power within the party and leaders pulling each other down like GP Koirala dissolving his own elected majority government in 1994 are an examples of this. The same thing has been going on for the last one decade. Let’s say the power struggle within the NC cost the nation millions of rupees in election. Because the money has been used for their power struggle, the Nepalese poor have been deprived of their basic civil rights like education and health. This short sightedness of the NC led-government is solely responsible for the present situation. If the government uses money in the Maoist affected areas, it will be a better solution than the use of force. It is the battle of hearts and minds and the people have become the battle ground. The government should distribute its resources and utilise them effectively in western Nepal. So, I do not think the use of force is the permanent solution of the present situation. If the government deploys armed forces, then it will be like pouring petrol into the fire.

- Mr Gurung

Using the armed forces will only make the Maoist problem worse than it is. It is already a shame on our nation. Politicians have ignored the basic problems and have been giving speeches to masses with empty promises. A force against a force can never be the long term solution and how can the Royal Nepali Army which has earned so much glory and pride engage in such low Guerrilla warfare? The ongoing People’s War is a problem the Police force should be capable of handling. May be, the problem lies within the police force and its lack of response is not professional addressing the issue. Politicians, of course, have a crucial role in this game. They have to find solutions to the problem but no one is taking care. How long will the empty speeches continue? Why should there be such a mini-civil war? Call them terrorists. But the fact is that they are our fellow Nepali brothers. Nepal as a peace loving country should be greatly ashamed of its failure to address the problem.

- VK

The use of army does not guarantee control over the Maoist insurgency. On the contrary, it will add fuel to the fire. The government should think seriously why Maoists are attacking NC related people mostly. In the name of controlling Maoists, there have been a lot of killing of people whether they are Maoists, common innocent people, NC members or UML activists. Nepal cannot afford more killing by involving the army in the name of controlling Maoist activities. I do not want to see Nepal turning into a Sri Lanka or Bangladesh. Maoists have been called to the table for talks and they are ready provided the government meets their demands. Here, the government has to play its role very carefully and seriously to try to find a solution. At this point, it is worth mentioning that the government should think what is best for the Nepali people. They should not try to show their power and take unwise steps with prejudice.

- Aslesha Subba

Maoists are killing people for no reason. Their mission would have been fruitful if they had eliminated all sorts of corruption and created a country with sanity, but what they have done is meaningless. I respect Maoist leaders. But why did he choose the way in which poor innocent people are slaughtered day after day? First, I heard that Maoists are frustrated Nepalese people who were going to create a country in which corruption would not exist and the people would be given equal rights as Nepalis. But what is this ? What will the families of those who have been killed do to make ends meet ? This is total insanity, criminal.

They must change their ways or they will all pay for it. People must understand that Maoists are evil and that destruction of evil is the only way to construction.

- Nripendra

No. This is the right time to sit across the table for both the government and Maoist leaders . If the government deploys army against them, the situation, at least in my opinion, will be worse than the present one. It would be nice if human rights activists such as Padma Ratna Tuladhar played an important role with regard to this issue. Poverty and dual economy, political corruption, nepotism, favouritism, etc are the contributing factors that have encouraged the Maoist insurgency in Nepal. The government should be serious about these matters too.

- Madhusudhan Subedi

It will be a disaster if the government deploys armed forces against Maoists. We have to learn from history and try to take the right actions for the benefit of the country. We do not want Naxalites or Battikalawas inside Nepal. There has been not a single instance in modern history, I believe, where a political problem has been solved outside the negotiation table. Even if excessive force is used, the negotiating table is where it will eventually have to end. We should not forget the fact that most of us discussing this problem now over the Internet are privileged ones, and the people supporting the Maoists are rural Nepalese who have been subject to generations and generations of suppression by a number of different political systems and regimes. It is unfortunate though, that these people have been brainwashed by the group of people who believe violence to be the only weapon. But there is another question to be posed here? What is the alternative to their movement? Trust uncorrupt leaders to drive them on the path of prosperity and happiness that they have been lacking for generations? There is a graver problem at hand here than just the fact that there are some people resorting to violence to find a way out of the suppressions they are undergoing. I believe the problem has to be solved through series of negotiations rather than through violence as soon as possible and both sides need to practise and question their own moral status rather than that of the other side. Whatever we do we have to make sure that we do not plunge our future generations into insecurity by attempting to resolve this conflict in a violent manner. That will be in the best interest of Nepal.

- Chinta LataTIPUR____________IND