I n d e p t h    A n a l y s i s
Amendment bid distant from rational sentiment!

Kathmandu: Scene shifts to New Delhi where Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba goes visiting amidst much controversy at home on the timing of the visit itself. What Deuba is not saying is the compulsion of the visit despite the opposition. The importance of the visit lies here.

The fact that his fractious political party's central committee meet couldn't stop him is indication that his compulsions are strong and that he has prevailed at the meet.

The trip apart, opponents in the party have, in the apex body meet dumped the issue of the constitutional reforms on his head. This is significant. The growing conclusion in the political parties for constitutional reform has its genesis in a Koirala-UML accord. Reluctance on part of Deuba will ensure the further cementing of ties between his party's opposition and the real opposition parties to force the issue in parliament. This is adequate enough stick outside of the growing rumors that Koirala has secured for himself the magic number in his parliamentary party to dump Deuba.

Curiously, it is only the political parties that harp on the theme of the constitutional reforms as a cure-all for the current problems. The bulk of the media and the framers of the constitution are almost unanimous in stating that the call to amend the constitution is either untimely, inadequate or outright unnecessary.

Typically, the UML standpoint on reforms appear to have been bargained with to forge a congress-UML consensus. The congress working committee has added to the UML demands. If the UML had asked for a smaller parliament, proportional representation and election government, the congress now has added the need to reduce Royal Powers and Royal Representatives and increase the power of the Prime Minister on the plea of strengthening the parliament.

It is this blatant grab for power and more power that exposes the congress-UML gimmick regarding the constitution. The bulk of the people, the intelligentsia and the media included, are by now much aware that the central role of the political parties and the excesses of organizational politics has contributed to the current political malaise. The reforms proposed do in no way contribute to checking these excesses. On the other hand, the proposals only aim at enhancing them.

As much as this publicly clear, the fault in the current constitution is further exposed in the fact that the parliamentary parties can publicly ignore this outright deficiency of the current constitution and insist upon empowering themselves further at further risk to the system itself. It thus appears that our political parties entrenched in the parliament by publicly admitting to the misuse of the system can refuse to acknowledge public sentiments and pervert the system through amendments to suit further entrenchment.

The most curious aspect of the demands for constitutional change emanating from the political sector is the blatant blind-eye turned towards a monarchy which can't but sit possibly silent amidst the debate regardless of the fact that it was and is the monarchy that legitimized the current constitution.

Curiously, the political leadership has been pouring praises on the role of the monarchy in upholding a constitution which, the political sector admits, has been dangerously compromised by the politicians themselves. Sincerity towards the system would have demanded a common-sensical approach that could use the institution of the monarchy to tame the excesses of the partisan politics in any argument at constitutional reforms. Not only is this so distant from the party-agenda on constitutional reforms, the argument that the monarchy must play "no role" in the amendment debate as per the constitution becomes yet another reflection of the excesses of partisanship that the constitution allows the political sector. It is this that makes the people even more distant from the parliament and the political leaders.

Have the Maoists leaders met Koirala or vice versa?

Kathmandu: President Girija Prasad Koirala's conspiratorial political brain appears to have achieved substantial political gains in the recent days and weeks.

Koirala was the one who day in day out used to dub the Maoists insurgents as terrorists and every time felt that this insurgency needed harsh treatments from the State machinery. In the process, Koirala during his tenure in government as nation's prime minister wished to crush the insurgency summarily but alas! he could neither convince the constitutional monarch nor the military authority for the mobilization of the army to the Maoists affected areas.

Those who know Koirala would definitely say that he is a born communist-hater. His hatred against the communists perhaps has no match in the present day world. Koirala hated the ML, the UML and any other communist parties namesake for completely unknown reasons. His hatred against the Maoists is a recent matter indeed.

President Girija Prasad Koirala surprised many a brains last week at the inaugural of a media seminar when he exhibited a grand departure from his old rhetoric against the communists to the extent that Koirala said that his idea behind the present talks on constitutional reforms were all "aimed" at bringing in the Maoists insurgents to the nation's mainstream politics.

"'My consideration is that if certain important amendments are effected in the constitution right at this juncture might lure the Maoists rebels to enter into the nation's mainstream", said a jubilant Koirala, leaving the attending participants to guess as to what "sweets" if added in the existing constitution would change the hearts of the Maoists insurgents.

Elaborating his plans further, President Koirala also said that "dialogue" could only be the solution to the Maoists imbroglio.

The personality who wished the grand annihilation of the rebels through the use of guns and bullets finally talked of initiating the now stalled talks with the Maoists.

This was yet another grand departure from his old stance.

Now question arises as to what changed the mind of president Koirala in the recent days? Yes this is the million-dollar question currently being raised by the informed citizenry of the nation.

Our own analysis to this abrupt change in Koirala's stance is that he has either met "Dr. Babu Ram Bhattarai" while the latter was rumored to be in the Capital district or at best could have met some junior ranking Maoists leaders who could have ventilated their preference for the resumption of the talks with the government.

The assumption that Koirala could have met some Maoists leaders in the recent days also gets support from the "authentic" news that Koirala's yes-man, Mr. Chakra Prasad Bastola, too met one Brahman Maoists leader last week itself.

Koirala's assumption that the congress-UML proposed change in the 1990 constitution might facilitate the rebels to join the mainstream could be taken in the light of these "clandestine" talks with the Maoists wherein the latter could have hinted the former regarding some "specific" changes if brought in the constitution might pave the way for their entrance into the national mainstream.

It is and should be these clandestine talks/meetings with Maoists leaders that has apparently prompted Koirala to exhibit his new-found love for the rebels.

Therefore it becomes not a matter of surprise if the Maoists now prefer Koirala over Sher Bahadur Deuba.

The Maoists leader, Prachanda is learnt to have "expressed" his strong desire to go in for a sort of dialogue again with the establishment should a "peaceful atmosphere paved the way for the emergence of a positive exit to the current problem".

Not only this the Nepal closure announced by the Maoists for early April next month for four consecutive days could also be seen in this light. The Maoists plan apparently is to create a sort of panic in government and the lay men and there by pressing the government for the talks. Guess works only.

Be that as it may, the Maoists appear to have changed their political strategies. Their new strategy is to manage the convergence of all political parties at one place and make the constitutional monarch the target of everybody's attack.

Interestingly enough, one of the demand of the Maoists for the interim government tallies with those of the Congress-UML demand. The difference being that the latter demands this provision in order to conduct the elections so that the election results are free and fair. The Maoists stick to their demand for a constituent assembly to which Koirala opines that the congress's new formula would meet the Maoists end time permitting. This is mysterious indeed.

Intellectuals opine that the talks between the government and the Maoists have become a must and any politics aimed at bringing the two warring sides to the table would be most welcome.

What is the harm if Comrade Prachanda prefers talks now?

Fortunately enough, the Nepali HR activists too have hinted that Maoists-Government talks were round the corner.

Good news indeed.

Civil society denied their legitimate right to discuss matter of constitutional reforms

Kathmandu: The talk of amending the constitution is in its crest.

The Koirala faction of the congress and the main opposition UML remain confident that the ongoing parliamentary session would clear the constitutional amendment matters and that soon the nation will have a new and changed constitution that would benefit all sections of the Nepali society including the Maoists.

Contrary to that, the government under Sher Bahadur Deuba's leadership has been giving the impression that it is in favor of the amendment in the constitution but let it take some time for discussion.

The ruling party only the other day instructed the government to proceed with the matter of the constitutional reforms and give it a final shape right in the ongoing session of the parliament.

The government, on the contrary, appears reluctant in obeying to the dictates of the ruling party.

While the congress and the UML are pushing the matters regarding the constitutional reforms without allowing the whole affair to be discussed in and among the members of the civil society and other informed citizenry, the neglected sector that is the Katmandu's intellectuals plus other scholars from other parts of the nation too have stepped up their demand for bringing the constitutional reforms issue to public debate.

This is a change seen of late among the learned quarters of the country who now wish that they too must be given a say in deciding their fates as the constitution, they maintain, not only remain the sole property of the political parties but of those too who were not a party to the political sectors.

Two set of theories are currently in circulation in the country pertaining to the role of the constitutional monarch at time of the constitutional reforms.

The first set of theorists understandably led by the Nepal's major political sectors appears reluctant in providing a "say" to the monarch while effecting changes in the constitution. This et opines that the 1990 constitution has nowhere mentioned the role of the monarch at time of effecting a change in the constitution and hence dismisses the role of the monarchy outrightly. In effect, this lobby wishes that the monarch's powers whatever has been allowed to him in 1990 constitution be either curtailed or scrapped.

Conversely, the other set of theorists see a distinct role of the monarch while bringing about a change in the constitution. This set maintains that the tripartite agreement that culminated in the 1990 constitution and since the monarch was a party to that agreement and hence the precedence must not be rejected. This set opines that the monarch must be consulted in advance and his mind regarding the subject must be taken into account. They further say that any neglect exhibited in this regard by the political sector(s)might bring about "disasters" of Himalayan dimensions in the country.

This set, at the end, wishes to hint the political sector not to undermine the role of the constitutional monarch who in essence provided "legitimacy" to the 1990 constitution and could provide the same to the changed constitution later if the monarch is duly consulted in this regard.

The political sector remains undeterred and is firm in its determination not to consult the King on this matter.

The fact is that neither the King nor the civil society members have been consulted in this regard. The major political actors have denied the informed citizenry their legitimate rights to take part in the constitutional reform discussion.

What if the two "aggrieved parties" become "restive" and come to the streets and challenge the changed constitution? What if the monarch expresses his dissatisfaction over the whole affair?

The big-fight between Chaudhary group and Credit-Agricole continues

Kathmandu: The big-fight is on between the consortium led by Prithivi Bahadur Pandey and Binod Chaudhary of the Chaudhary Group of companies over the buying the shares of the Credit Agricole-Nepal Indo-Suez Bank.

The fight that was apparently going on in between the two for years suddenly took a new turn when on March 12, the representatives of the Credit-Agricole organized a press conference to convince the Nepali press men about their "legitimate demand".

Pat came the reply from the other camp. Binod Chaudhary too on March 13 hurriedly summoned a press conference in Kathmandu and put his "versions" and maintained that he be allowed to buy the Credit-Agricole shares as had been agreed upon between the Agricole and the Chaudhary group some three years back.

(The biggest victim in the whole affair of the big-fight became the French Ambassador to the Nepali court, Claude Ambrosini.

According to the media men who attended the March 12 press conference had two views: the Ambassador was present indeed but did not speak his mind on an issue that is subjudice; the second view is that the Ambassador did talk about the issue but after the conference ended.

Some chameleons present at the March 12 press conference made it a strong point and felt the need to tarnish the image of the French Ambassador by dragging the Ambassador into the issue.

Consequently, Binod Chaudhary according due respect and honor to the French Ambassador said that "we have learnt that a sort of diplomatic pressure is being applied to make our case weaker which, if correct, is sad.

The French Ambassador when contacted by this scribe said that "he did talk about the issue with some media men after the conclusion of the press meet".

"I know my diplomatic functions very well. Rest assured that I did not wish nor have a wish to influence an issue that is pending in the Nepali courts awaiting verdict"', added the French envoy.

However, as the official representative of the French side in Kathmandu, I do wish that the matter gets early settlement so that the Credit-Agricole could decide the next step, the Ambassador continued.

"I am disappointed over the kind of delay that exists in Nepal for clearing up the tussle in such issues. All that I wish is an early settlement of the issue in question for unnecessary delay seen in sorting such issue might send negative signals to other countries who wish to invest in Nepal", concluded the Ambassador).

The French side maintains that there has not been any "legal contract" in between Chaudhary group and Agricole and hence they were free to sell their shares to any one.

Conversely, Chaudhary group opines that the MoU signed with the Credit-Agricole in Singapore on May 8, 1998 remains still a valid document and is as good as a legal contract and thus wishes to secure the extra shares for itself that the credit-agricole is all set to sell. According to this group, they could fight the case in Singapore itself time permitting.

Informed sources say that since the case was subjudice one and hence it would be fair to wait till the competent court provide verdict.

Others say that the long-going tussle in between the two, Chaudhary group and Credit-Agricole, would have already been settled had the Nepal Rastra Bank played a decisive and fair role in the affair.

Is it that the NRB is the real villain? Is the interest of some of the high officials of the NRB is tied up in this issue? Is it that the NRB is playing double with both the conflicting parties?

Possibilities galore indeed.

Democracy doesn't guarantee good leaders, says Ambassador Coon

Kathmandu: The society for the promotion of Civic Education in close cooperation with the American Center organized a discussion program on "The individual Citizen and Democracy: Rights and Responsibilities" on March 15 at Hotel Radisson.

The key note speaker was Mr. Carlton Coon, former American Ambassador to Nepali Court.

Speaking on the occasion, Ambassador Coon suggested the Nepali leaders to change their attitudes towards various "neglected and rejected ethnic communities in order to bring them all to the nation's main stream".

The American dignitary who had served as Ambassador in the early eighties in Kathmandu stressed the need to remove the cultural blocks which, opined Ambassador Coon, had retarded the economic growth of this nation.

He however, said that in a democratic system, corruption does exist but then at a minimum level.

Concluding his remarks, Ambassador Coon mentioned that " democracy does not guarantee that it would have good leaders to lead the system itself"'.

Robert Kerr, Executive director at the American Center introduced the main speaker to the attending participants.

The president of the Society, Dr. T.N.Upraity gave the salient features of the society.

SAARC technical committee could be an effective facilitator

Kathmandu: At the initiation of the SAARC Secretariat, a meeting of the Technical Committee on Social Development began in Kathmandu Monday, March 18.

Delegates from all the SAARC member countries are participating in the first ever meeting of this technical committee.

Anisha Ahmed, Deputy minister from the Maldives gave the welcome address wherein she said that such meetings do immensely contribute in ascertaining the common challenges that the SAARC nations collectively faced and facilitate to arrive at a common formulae to address the common issues.

The Bhutanese director at the SAARC, Mr. Wangdi read out the message of the SAARC Secretary general for the conference. SAARC Secretary general at the moment is in New Delhi.

"'As the technical committee on social development meets for the first time, it needs to consider its role as an effective facilitator to accelerate social progress through regional cooperation as envisioned in the SAARC Charter"', SAARC Secretary General Mr. Q.A.M.A Rahim said.

National | 5 Question  | Editorial | 2nd Impression | International | Past