I n d e p t h    A n a l y s i s
Article 127 coming into sharp focus!

Kathmandu:; Nepal's partisan media in apparent exercise of intellectualism amidst the widespread discussions on the elections taking place is now gradually putting forth the one constitutional exercise not applied as yet over the 12 years of the prevalent constitution-the implementation of Article 127. Of course, this exercise is said to be the way out of the current impasse. The King, it seems, must use this constitutional provision to accommodate the demands from outside the government to reconstitute the parliament and allow the Girija congress and parliamentary Left to rule.

The sources of this discussion begun this week make clear that parliamentary parties and their intellectuals and the mediamen want the King's intervention to smoothen the constitutional process on their behalf. Unfortunately the constitutional process itself has not been exhausted. Prime Minister Deuba is a constitutionally elected PM. He has dissolved parliament constitutionally. He has set the dates for elections constitutionally. He has yet to retract his statement that he will hold elections as required by the constitution.

What the new intellectual exercise is saying is that PM Deuba will not be able to hold elections. Or, for that matter, the discussions base their argument on grounds that the elections held under the Deuba regime in the current circumstances will not be fair. For starters, political activities on these lines from the anti-Deuba coalition that is emerging base the argument on the continuation of the emergency. This political sector suggests that the emergency is not compatible to free and fair elections. In the process moreover, regardless of the constitutionality defined by the Supreme Court on the emergency and the elections their public standpoints ignored the evident contradictions in their demands to lift the emergency coming side by side with demands for security in the elections.

The hypocrisy of the situation should have been clear to the emerging coalition that is forming around slogans against the Deuba regime. Two months remain for the elections. Political parties have yet to enter the constituencies on grounds of the Maoists movement. The Maoists themselves blowing hot and cold with simultaneous gestures for talks accompanied by stepped up insurgent activities nationwide. Nine months of emergency have not done away with the presence of terror and, yet the parliamentary parties are demanding that emergency not be re-imposed. With the same voice they are demanding security for their workers and candidates to proceed to the constituencies.

If this contradiction is plausible on grounds of politics, the other equally glaring contradiction emerges when the diversity of demands put forth by the Koirala, the UML and the Maoists demands are analyzed. Koirala threaten to launch a movement in case the dispute over the election symbols doesn't go his way. The UML threatens a movement if elections are conducted under the emergency or if inadequate security is provided and the Maoists threaten a movement and step up terrorist activities if the interim government including their participation is not formed. Deuba remains adamant that what he is doing is explicit in the constitution.

Unfortunately, there is none in the media to suggest that Nepal's partisan politics in opposition is outright undercutting the constitution. And, when it is this lobby that must now suggest that the King cut the Gordian knot on their behalf with the exercise of the one remaining constitutional provision yet to be brought to use, the very democratic credentials of Nepalese democracy as interpreted by our partisan media and intellectuals should surely be blatantly exposed.

Prachanda's statement talks of exhibiting maximum 'flexibility'

Kathmandu: If one were to believe the fresh press statement released by the Maoists' leader Comrade Prachanda dated September 1, it becomes amply clear that the leaders of the insurgency would like to attend the talks with the establishment in order to what Prachanda says "avert the present civil war- like situation".

However, the statement is loaded with conditionalities as well.

A close look at the press statement released by the Maoists insurgency what becomes evident is that they too appear tired of continuing the violent measures on which they were on at the moment and that should the government exhibit its "minimum" inclination for talks, they will surely contribute to the resumption of the now-stalled dialogue process.

At the same time it also becomes clear that the insurgents could announce a "cease-fire" unilaterally provided the government exhibits its wish for the talks and the talks thus held centers around arriving at a "positive" and "forward-moving" solution.

"If that happens, we are ready to become flexible to an unimaginable extent"'.

This means that the Maoists insurgency is mentally prepared for talks with the government. Now it depends upon the government to take up the matter seriously.

Surprising though, the September 1 statement of Prachanda has appeared at a time when civil society, intellectuals, non-partisan intellectuals and mediamen have been voicing the need for the simultaneous announcements of a cease-fire from both the warring rivals at least till the approaching festival season is over. This is a positive gesture from the Maoists quarter which have got to be reciprocated by the government side if it really represented the people and their genuine concerns for peace.

However, the Maoists statement is vague at one point for it says so many contradictory things in one sentence whose gist could be analyzed thus:

"The demand of the hour is that all the political parties and all those who represent 'people-oriented forces' unite in order to achieve a positive and forward-looking way-out to this imbroglio. To do so, we all have to create a sort of political movement and through the proper utilization of the prevailing "balance of force" a new constitution has got to be framed".(-unofficial translation).

Analyzing the aforesaid statement of Prachanda, a few things come to the fore.

Firstly, it hints that there is a need for a unified front. Secondly, the statement hints that they ultimately demand a positive and forward-looking solution. Thirdly, the statement mentions about the existing "balance of force" which means that the Maoists quarter now agrees that the 1990 constitution is the product of three forces, e.g. the congress, the left and the King. This also means that the Maoists forces would wish to frame yet an altogether new constitution through the predominance of the same three forces which remained instrumental in giving a shape to the present system and the constitution now in force.

If one carefully examines the fresh statement of Prachanda, then it becomes evident that all that the Maoists need at the moment is a new constitution. Neither they talk of the constituent assembly nor that of a republican state which they had been demanding before. At one point, the insurgency very vaguely hints that they too wish to have their say while framing a new constitution.

Does this mean that the Maoists insurgency now remains convinced in accepting the King as a formidable force in the present political context? If yes then this is a significant change seen in their attitude towards the constitutional monarch.

By and large, Prachanda's statement is one of the modest of all issued so far by the Maoists. 

But what is puzzling is that the Maoists on the one hand talk of the resumption of talks and indicate that they might announce a cease-fire, on the other, have stepped up their violent activities in the recent days. Appears they possess both carrot and stick.

Yet another point that can't be simply ignored is that the Maoists have yet to clarify as to whether their previous announcement of observing September 16 as a Nepal Closure still remains valid or there has been certain changes on that particular date?

Koirala's recent utterances might invite troubles!

Kathmandu: Splinter congress president Girija Prasad Koirala is in the news. This is so because he wishes to hit the media head lines on a regular basis. In the process, he blows hot and cold caring little that his speeches are now being ignored totally by the masses for most of his utterances appear totally irrelevant and originate in jealousy.

Koirala, a few days back, said in his hometown that should the Election Commission deny his party the congress Tree and the flag symbol, he would initiate a movement right from Biratnagar against the EC's decision. This was a news for the Nepali media men as Koirala had hinted that he could shake the nation for his own cause.

He came to Kathmandu and addressed a political gathering wherein he bluntly alleged that all the Western forces were hell bent on weakening Nepal's democratic system.

And very recently, he told a newspaper, The TARUN Weekly dated September 2, 2002 that the Maoists leaders repeatedly told him that the "militant faction of the insurgency" had close links with the Palace.

Analyzing Koirala's blunt remarks, what could be fairly said that the former is not enjoying good relations with the monarch and that Koirala is so annoyed with the Palace that he has forgotten the limits of what should be divulged for the public consumption and what he should not.

Understandably, Koirala is not happy with the Palace because it is this Palace which rejected his offer for the mobilization of the army while he was the country's prime minister. This could have come for him as a shock for it was this Palace again which supported Deuba's proposal for the mobilization of the same. The two different attitude exhibited by the Palace on almost the same proposal from the two prime ministers at different intervals of time forced Koirala to conclude that the Palace was hell bent on killing his political image. More so, Koirala concluded that the Palace by promptly supporting Deuba's proposal for the mobilization of the army clearly exhibited its political preference for Deuba -- his arch rival and thus the Palace should be considered to be his enemy.

The fact is that the Palace declared emergency when it was approached by the government in a purely constitutional manner. The fact is also that the Palace at normal circumstances does not issue clarifications even if personalities like Koirala accuse the Palace in one pretext or the other.

It is not the first time that Koirala has hurled accusations against the constitutional monarchy. This he has done as and when he is politically depressed and also at times when his own party credentials have been questioned by his own party-workers. Understandably, Koirala at the moment is neither the country's prime minister nor even commanded full authority in his own splinter group and hence the irrelevant accusations.

Intellectuals maintain that Koirala's utterances were clear manifestation of his inferiority complexes which he has developed of late, especially after he was forced by Deuba to limit his political activities. A clear case of personality clash!

But then, his fresh statements made against the Palace does indicate that should the EC deny him the tree and the flag symbol, he would create a havoc in the country which he has already declared.

It is altogether a different matter that today's Koirala is not the Koirala of the 1990 days. He should also think that for most of the country's ailments developed after 1990, he is solely responsible because he is the one who has enjoyed the most from the advent of the democratic system in the country.

Nevertheless, what is evident from Koirala's allegations against the Palace is that the former has met the Maoists leaders which he now admits to the aforesaid weekly. This also means that he has forged some sort of links with Prachanda and Dr. Bhattarai. If Koirala is to be believed then what could also be guessed that the insurgency stands now divided on how to proceed: through the talks or continue with the use of violence in order to press the government for the talks and force the latter to heed to their demands.

Clearly, Koirala's meeting with Prachanda and Babu Ram and their subsequent declaration to Koirala indicates that while Prachanda and Babu Ram wish to sit in the dialogue process, the other militant faction would prefer to continue with the violence. This means that there is a clear fissure now in the insurgency.

Given all these, how one would wish to interpret Prachanda's September 1 statement where the Maoists supremo has unequivocally reiterated his desire for the talks and has also told that his insurgency could exhibit its highest flexibility provided the other camp listened to their certain vital demands? The statement is strong enough indeed but not to the extent that the militant faction of the insurgency would wish to disturb the dialogue process if it started in the future. This should mean that there could be some differences of opinions among the rebels on how to proceed with the talks or for the announcement of the cease-fire. By and large, the insurgency including the militant faction apparently wish the resumption of the talks or else the statement could have been entirely different. It implies that the militant section too subscribes to Prachand's views which is in favor of talks.

Finally, how the Palace reacts to Girija's fresh allegations will have to be watched.

Deuba's stay and the Belgian embarrassment

Kathmandu: Nepal's prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba had left Kathmandu for attending the UN World Summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg but ended up landing in Brussels.

This was not all of the painful drama staged by the country's prime minister which the whole world witnessed.

When the premier landed in the Belgian capital, Brussels, the parliament there was already in a tense mood over the sale of Belgian arms to Nepal. Not only this, PM Deuba stayed all along in Brussels when the coalition government there was under tremendous pressure regarding the arsenal deal. The debate on whether it was appropriate to sell the arms to Nepal or not led to a near collapse of the coalition government.

How much embarrassing it would have been for Deuba's counterpart there to support Nepal's demand amidst growing dissension in the parliament about the same is quite understandable.

On the other hand, Nepal's prime minister stayed along all those troublesome days for the Belgian government without realizing the discomfort on the part of the host. It was clear case which demonstrated Nepal's inability to abide by the minimum diplomatic norms and generally accepted rules in the conduct of bilateral relations.

Thanks the Belgian government that it hosted Nepal's prime minister and somehow or the other managed approval from the parliament for the arms sales to Nepal.

Deuba left Kathmandu with an declared destination: Johannesburg. But he exhibited his desire to stick to Brussels that eventually turned out to be the real motive of the prime minister. This created suspicion in the minds of his countrymen who now conclude that had there been no commission deal in the said arms from Belgium he should not have stayed there to the utter discomfiture of the host country.

This is nothing but a plain betrayal of the faith of the masses which it possessed for the prime minister. The prime minister is answerable for his breach of trust by not attending the Earth Summit in South Africa for which he had left. He must also explain his sudden dash to London on grounds of health check-up. The CIAA would do well to interrogate the prime minister and seek clarifications on why he stayed in Brussels and also dropped in London for a cause which could have been done in Kathmandu itself. Will the PM's office clarify the matter at the earliest so that people remain convinced of his intents and motives?

CIAA's crusade wanes out!

Kathmandu: Apart from the initial bouts of crusade on corruption, the CIAA seems to be mum. People have started making different inferences on the silence of the crusader.

Why is the CIAA not taking actions when it has been well circulated by the national media that the sons of ministers possess wealth exceeding their known source of income, question the informed citizens? Why is it not taking actions against the known corrupt politicos?

People hoped that it would do so after the return of the prime minister. That some "rotten eggs" will taken action against once the PM was back home. The indications till now is just the otherwise leaving an impression in the people's mind that the CIAA's extra adventure exhibited a fortnight back has vanished into the thin air. Is it that the CIAA is receiving threats from the corrupt quarters or is it the prime minister himself has instructed the CIAA authorities to "go slow"?

Nevertheless, the CIAA must not forget that the whole country is at its back and are ready to go to any extent in supporting its holy war against the corrupt.

Against this backdrop, if the CIAA begins trembling its legs and exhibits its reluctance in nabbing the corrupt politicos, it would mean that the Commission itself is not serious enough in discharging its duties for which it was recently empowered.

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