Inept handling

The Koirala government's attempt to showcase the "defection" of Maoist Central Committee member Dinesh Sharma at a state stage managed "press conference" is an example of how the meticulously constructed  environment for talks could be vitiated at once with one single miscalculation. The government, which apparently sought to gain the maximum mileage from the "press conference" was left red-faced and the Prime Minister himself had little else to say but that the government had met its end of the bargain and it was upto the Maoists to meet theirs.

The Deputy Prime Minister obviously outdid his master by saying, in effect, that if the Maoists did not want talks, the entire state machinery would be arrayed against the rebels. Maoist strongman Prachanda, in a statement faxed to newspaper offices Saturday evening, said, the chances of talks with the Koirala government were "very slim". All this may be music for some ears but for the country, it is really tragic that the talks so near should now be pushed back towards uncertainty. The manner in which the government behaved has rightly angered the soft spoken Leftist leader Padma Ratna Tuladhar who had brokered the "unofficial" talks between the government and the Maoists. But he has, as he should, repeated his commitment to bring the two sides together for talks to end five years of violence that has cost the nation dearly in terms of human lives and infrastructure development. Talks and more talks, not arms are the answer to the ideologically inspired insurgency.

The manner in which Dinesh Sharma and another Maoist leader was paraded at the "press conference" could not but anger those who wanted an early and peaceful end to the problem. One of the main conditions for talks laid down by Maoists was that the government make public the whereabouts of the detained Maoists. It would have been appropriate for the government to hand over the two to either the mediator - Tuladhar in this case- or to a human rights organisation without fanfare. A delicate matter such as this certainly did not require the kind of hype the government wanted to indulge in. It can only be said that the Koirala government acted out of wrong advice and as a result its handling of the matter was totally inept. Now, with the Maoists saying it will be difficult to talk with the Koirala government, and the government saying it will use all it has to quell the rebellion, things are not looking good for a poor country like Nepal where some three billion additional rupees allocated to security, would be more productive if diverted to development . We do hope that both the Maoists and the government will realise that the people want peace and that good sense will prevail on both sides. The need of the hour is to ensure that the path of negotiations is not abandoned simply because of a blunder. The country and the people surely deserve better.

US presidential elections

By Bishnu Pratap Shah

Come November 7 and the people of United States of America are going to elect for the 54th time, the highest functionary of the country - The President of United States of America -  whose decisions in the coming four years will affect not only his people but also those in other parts of the world who have no say in his election. As a leader of the most powerful and rich country in the world, his decisions, domestic or foreign, will influence, catalyze and impact, for better or worse, the events and lives in other countries also. His election process, therefore, is watched with interest, concern and even worry throughout the world capitals.

US Election Observers find it intriguing that people on Nov 7 elect electoral college only who assemble in Washington DC and actually elect the President some time in coming January. Every state has a fixed quota of electoral college equal to the member of congressmen to be elected to the House of Representative from that state. The uniqueness of the electoral college system is the 'winner take all' system which in practical terms means that if fifty one percent of the members of electoral college of the allotted quota of a particular state are won by a particular party, hundred percent of that electoral collegiate vote goes to that party. If the number of electoral college, for example, in California is 54 and Democratic Party wins 28 members of electoral college, all the 54 votes of the electoral college goes to that party. Reasons for electoral college system instead of direct election has been attributed to the fact that the means of transport and communication at the time of the founding of the republic was underdeveloped which made canvassing for presidential hopefuls  throughout the country impossible. Now with development of the means of transport and communication, candidates directly appeal to the people and electoral college system has become irrelevant. Legally, it is still valid and carries the potential danger that the popular and collegiate vote may go in the opposite direction, particularly when the race is neck to neck. Voice of concern for the weakness of this system can be heard. The mainstream opinion, however, seems unconcerned about any change. This can be called an indicator of the stability of the system where desired changes in the system are brought upon the behaviour of the actors through the dynamics of public opinion and pressure easily rather than through change in the system itself,  as they try to do in democracies of developing countries.

Election, democratic election for that matter, is always a big national exercise anywhere in the world. It involves politically and, emotionally every citizen of the country one way or the other through the process of registration, or campaign or debates or actual voting or reaction to results or all. The process of registration for electoral roll, campaign, debates, voting and announcement of results together leave no one untouched, not even those who implicitly or explicitly boycott the process itself. Presidential election in USA, one of oldest and mature democracies in the world, is no exception to this phenomenon. This article tries to sum up some aspects of that phenomenon as observed by the writer himself in different parts of the USA.

If true competition, transparency and due process of law are basic ingredients of democratic election, American presidential election is very democratic as it has these elements to the maximum extent possible. The competition is real and tough. No major candidate can afford to be complacent and unresponsive nor sidetrack or neglect any issue that has come in the campaign process.

American presidential election is one of the oldest democratic elections in the world. Since 1789, they have elected 37 persons as presidents. Some of them were only school graduates. Presidents judged great by future generations, Harry S. Truman among them, were from this group also. Personality, force of character and capacity to make decisions, were basic qualities that were given premium in a presidential candidate in the past. Moral character in traditional sense seems to have failed to evoke reaction this time. Attempt to raise character related issue by a candidate against another has not paid any dividend to the one who tried to do this. But who can predict the behaviour of the creature called voter?  Program platforms may play role only marginally: But it can be decisive in the closely competitive election though. Al Gore's health and educational programs have been projected as aiming at enabling lesser income groups to have a share in the national economic prosperity whereas the same has been projected as over government by his detractors. Bush says he wants to return economic prosperity to the people by tax cut and thereby enrich the pocket of taxpayers. This is being attacked as pro rich by the other side. Choice between two candidates is also presented as choice between more government and less government.

An observer of US Presidential election from beginning to end will not fail to notice that political parties have lost their influence in the selection and victory of their candidates and formulation of programmes and policies. Election has become fight between personalities and their policies and programmes. The major role played by mass media in the presidential election has brought the presidential hopefuls directly face to face with the people and thus marginalised the role of political parties. The candidates fight on their own through media and political parties are helpful only in raising funds and working as their errand boys. The role of mass media has made election transparent to the fullest extent possible. Not only candidates air their views, policies and programs through media, the latter, by their debates, queries and panel discussions make it possible for the voter to know about candidates in detail at the minutest level. Their characters, past mistakes and lapses, family lives and every aspect and implication of their policies and programmes are brought to the voters gaze. The highest literacy rate and economic prosperity of the voters added by the role of vigorous mass media make the US election one of the most transparent and, therefore, most democratic exercise, free from most electoral distortions and malpractice of Third World democracies.

One singular development of the presidential election over the last decade beginning with the candidacy of Ross Perot, has been the entry of other candidates. Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader in the present election are in the race with good policies and programs, palatable to Third World people also. But the problem for them is the role of mass media which highlights only the personalities of the big two parties together with policies and events associated with them. Since money plays a big role in the US election and candidates other than from big parties can only raise a fraction of the finance needed without mass media projection, they have little chance of winning but can affect the result by undercutting the voters of either one or another of the candidate.

 But that they have been able to make their presence felt, however weakly, is considered by some as a significant pointer for the future. The campaign offices we visited indicated poor resources

and organisations. The volunteers painstakingly working without pay and with little money, not enough even to pay for telephone and to send campaign materials to voters. They however,  exuded sincerity of purpose.

(To be concluded)

Business of glamour

By Nitya Nanda Timisina

The skirt is higher. The neck line is lower, the waist disappearing, tinted hair, and tight hipped pants". Sure, this culture is going to hell.

Bollywood and Hollywood are fast annexing our culture. From fibre to fashion, things have swiftly changed. Youngsters are crazy for lustre.  Each aspires for greater height, superb physique and aquiline nose. Even an average Nepali youth wants to stay fit exclusively as Hritik. The bollywood blockbusters have a role to play, not to mention the Paris, London and New York fashion.

Except for legislators, Dhaka Topi is gone. Girls and boys compare themselves with movie icons. Girls in particular, have found their appearance to be their biggest concern in life and constantly struggle to keep track of international models. A London weekly magazine derisively called them "lollipop ladies". They seem to have little concern in life except to hang around at beauty parlours and shopping malls. They dream of buddies like Hritik, bite their mobile that has become the electronic fountain pen. The business of glamour exists everywhere. There is no place in TV for indigenous people.

Hindi films are making such bumper editions in TV, radio and Internet that children refuse to read storybooks. I blame this on the onslaught of internationalism and the hightech kickoff of superfluities. We're robbing ourselves of our identities and cultural values. Turning 'feminine" pages, looking for stardom, struggling to feel young are corollaries of the abject weirdness of our young people. For all age groups, watching TV and movies has become the in-thing. Imagine not having to watch TV for a day or two, people will resort to hartal.

Media, with its magical ingredients of fashion and cinema,  is moulding and transforming our live every minute. But, they are not free from competition and the one that excels in colour, taste and imagination carries us away. The fashion parade telecast in MTV stir the teens who live by its appeal.   I simply do not understand what's so special about these hunks that they should make a hue and cry on the screen. They appear as big guys but they aren't communicating anything worthwhile. Many thanks to the televised glare of Hindi movies. It is no wonder that Nepal TV is airing them as well.

From Kakarvitta to Mahakali, Hindi mania has spread. For all these Hindi fans, Bhanubhakta, Devkota, Nir Shah, Santosh Pant and Gopal Bhutani have nothing appealing. For these dudes, poverty is no bar when it comes to Bollywood stars. The trend has not left students. Arguably, the students can be found haunching over Internet peeking at porno sites. Gone are the madals and damphus and the jhyaure songs. And somewhere far away in the hills, kids carry bricks on their heads at a construction site calling themselves Hritiks and Abhishekhs.

Pakistan let down in 1971

By Kuldip Nayar

Iwas a stringer for The Times, London, when its news editor rang me up on the night of July 12, 1971, to check whether Henry Kissinger, the then US Secretary of State, had gone to China. I had reported on his talks in New Delhi five days earlier and his departure to Islamabad. But I had not the faintest idea of his visit to China.

I checked with our Foreign Office, which characterised the query as a figment of my imagination. I informed the news editor in London that there was no conformation available. Subsequently, I came to know that Farrukh Humayun Beg, the Islamabad stringer of The Daily Telegraph, London, had filed a story on Kissinger's departure to China by a Pakistan Air Force plane on July 9. But the story was killed at Islamabad itself. Why I am telling this now is because the entire episode can be pieced together on the basis of the file maintained by then President Yahya Khan. He was a go-between and the file has been made public.

That Kissinger feigned illness in Pakistan and went to Beijing for two days, July 9 and 10, to arrange a meeting between President Nixon and Chinese leaders, is known. What is not known is how Yahya Khan helped arrange the meeting between two enemy countries through handwritten letters.

Both America and China were so beholden to Pakistan that they promised action if Indian forces ever went to East Pakistan to assist the Bangladeshis in their liberation struggle. There are some nasty remarks against Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi. The Memorandum of Conversation, kept in the National Security Archives, Washington, reveals them.

Let me first take up the arrangements about the meeting. A blow by blow account is available in a book, From a Head, Through a Head, To a Head, by F S Aijazuddin, a chartered accountant by profession. The secret channel between the US and China through Pakistan was coded as "Moonglow" and the correspondences back and forth spread over two years, from 1969 to 1971.

Messages from the White House were either dictated or typed on unmarked plain paper and handed personally to Agha Hilaly, then the Pakistan Ambassador in Washington. He would then type oral message or transcribe it in his own hand. The message would then be sent by diplomatic bag to Yahya Khan. The Chinese Ambassador in Islamabad  communicated the reply to Yahya Khan personally. This procedure was adopted because both the Americans and the Chinese insisted on absolute secrecy.

There is no doubt that Chou-En Lai, then the Chinese premier, promised Islamabad that Beijing would intervene in case there was a war between India and Pakistan on the creation of Bangladesh. But he did not keep his word. Lt Gen AAK Niazi, who was heading the military  operation in East Pakistan at that time told India, when he was a prisoner of war, that Islamabad had assured him China's assistance but it did not come. Pakistani forces in the East had long been expecting foreign intervention. In fact, when Indian paratroopers were dropped in one area near Dacca, many Pakistani soldiers came out of their bunkers to cheer them, taking them to be Chinese who had come to their rescue.

When Chou-En Lai met Nixon, he blamed Yahya Khan for not leading his troops in East Pakistan "Even though we assisted with armaments, we didn't send a single military personnel, what the Soviet Union calls military advisor. We only sent some people to train in the use of planes and guns we sent, and afterwards brought those people back."

Nixon said: "we  have a problem with regard to military  assistance, because of our Congress, and as I informed the PM and as the Deputy Foreign Minister (Qiao Guan Hua) knows, American public opinion opposes military assistance to Pakistan. Incidentally, in retrospect, it is my belief that had we been able to provide more assistance to Pakistan, it would have averted war because India would not have been tempted to win what they thought was a cheap victory. But that is water over the dam." (Kissinger had conveyed a strong warning against starting war when he met Indira Gandhi at New Delhi on July 7).

China would stand by Pakistan in the present crisis. This position began to develop  with a rather low-key remark at a dinner on the first night that China "could not but take some interest in the situation."

The dinner between Chou-En Lai and Nixon ended with a request to the US President to convey assurance of Chinese support to Yahya Khan.

Nixon has been recorded as saying: "I told Chou that we were trying very hard to discourage an Indo-Pak war. I assured him that we were bringing all the influence we could to try to prevent a war from developing. Chou said this was a good thing, but he inferred that we might not be able to do too much because we were 10,000 miles away. China, however, was much closer. Chou recalled the Chinese defeat of India in 1962 and  hinted rather broadly that the same thing could happen again." The Chinese detestation of the Indians came through loud and clear. Conversely, China's warm friendship for Pakistan as a firm and reliable friend was made very plain. Memorandum of conversation recorded on February 23, 1972, narrated that.

Nixon said: "Nehru would certainly rank among the most intelligent. He could also be arrogant, abrasive and suffocating self-righteous, and he had a distinct superiority complex that he took little pain to conceal." He had also met Mrs Gandhi in 1953 when she was her father's hostess and found her 'charming and graceful'. When I encountered her years later, however, when she was PM and I was President, there was no doubt that she was her father's daughter. Her hostility toward Pakistan was, if anything, even stronger than his."

Nixon shared the perception of "Mrs Gandhi's genetic  inheritance" with Chou-En Lai who, in their meeting together in 1972, expressed the thought that it was a "great pity" that she had taken "as her legacy the philosophy of her  father embodied in the book, Discovery of India." He asked Nixon whether he had read it.

Kissinger, sensing that his President   had not, intervened by saying: "He was thinking of a great Indian Empire." Chou-En Lai replied: "Yes, he was thinking of a great Indian Empire-Malaysia, Ceylon, etc. It would probably also include our Tibet. When he was writing that book he was in a British prison, but one reserved for gentlemen in Darjeeling, Nehru told me himself that the prison was in Sikkim, facing the Himalayan mountains. At the time I hadn't read the book, but my colleague Chen Yi had, and called it to my attention. He said it was precisely the spirit of India which was embodied in the book. Later on when I read it, I had the same thought."

What the conversation between the Chinese premier and Nixon underlined is the "disdain" for India felt by both sides. Both promised Islamabad that they would intervene but did not. Even on December 14, 1971, a day before Niazi's surrender, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, then Pakistan's foreign minister, called Yahya Khan to hold on since America was about to intervene. Nixon first sent a warning' signal to India and then ordered the Seventh Fleet, led by the nuclear powered aircraft carrier Enterprise, to go to the Bay of Bengal. China did not even go over the exercise to help Islamabad. It turns out that both were interested in "saving' West Pakistan. Mrs Gandhi had no intension of taking the war there.