I n d e p t h    A n a l y s i s

Thapa must go

Kathmandu:- Prime Minister Surya Bahadur Thapa’s failure to build up on the achievement of the Lokendra Bahadur Chand ministry suggests he is on his way out. Continuing deadlocks in the talks for the talks with the Maoists and the resumption of violence despite the ceasefire suggest the urgency of a more determined and directional government. Increasingly anti-monarchial statements of the mainstream parties and hectic preparations for a decisive showdown with the monarchy by these organized forces suggests the need for a visible organized response utterly lacking in the Surya Bahadur Thapa cabinet.

If Chand’s nine-month tenure was marked by hesitancy and indecisiveness contributing to his resignation, Thapa’s two-month term is more characteristic of self-centered decisions affecting the administration in his favor at the expense of the King to whom he owes his position. His political task of wooing the agitating parties and talking to the Maoists remains asunder.

These eleven months since the royal action of October 4th, has dampened the initial public enthusiasm for change in the attempt to leave no stone unturned for the participation of the mainstream parties and the resolution of the Maoists problem. Even the initial activities to curb high level corruption have stalled amidst the quagmire of legalism and bureaucraties. The public now asks of the gains. That this is at the expense of the King is a concern reflected in the people.

It is these realities that prompt an immediate public demand for change. The time for talks is over. Even the Maoists who, taking advantage of the mainstream parties agitation, pile up their precondition for talks and delay the parley while strengthening their precondition for talks and delay the parley while strengthening their organization and conducting what is in effect probing armed missions against security forces must be made aware of the cost of the delay. The mainstream parties on the other hand must be told demonstratively that they will miss the public bus if they are not to cooperate.

These the Thapa government is unlikely to do in the effort to preserve the Thapa image of liberalism. Indeed, there is considerable concern that a Thapa attempt to soar up this image will further damage the monarch by concealing failures in a resignation demanding the restoration of the parliament.

That a judicial decision prevents this is lost in the politicization of self-centered interpretations by the political sector. It seems that it is the King alone that is sticking to a constitution which everyone else wants to use in his or her favor. It is the King alone that must act in his constitutional capacity and the time for appeasement in now over.

US Scholar Dr. Palmer offers nine point prescription for conflict resolution

Kathmandu: The Maoists have nothing to panic. He is neither a military man nor an advisor posted in Kathmandu to assist the government..

Instead, he is a scholar of international repute who had come here to share his research works-findings, which he has gained over the years regarding conflict management and resolution. The Maoists negotiators too would apparently benefit if they studied what the US scholar revealed the other day in the capital

He is Dr. David Scott Palmer—a Professor of Political Science who also holds an appointment as Prof. of International Relations at the Boston University, USA.

Dr. Palmer was here in town last year around this time but could not talk to a larger audience which he did this time.

Dr. Palmer has studied very closely the Peruvian politics, the Latin American military and the Shining Path guerilla movement.

Sharing his experiences, Dr. Palmer, at an interaction program with the Nepali intellectuals including the media held last week at the American Center said that Peace process not every time goes smoothly but more often than not has to tread along topsy-turvy path and that the process in itself could have several pitfalls.

Definitely he was hinting at the peace process currently being initiated in Nepal to sort out the Maoists insurgency.

"Nepal is not alone, others too had such similarly movements and insurgencies", said Dr. Palmer.

According to Dr. Palmer, there were about nine principles which could be brought into practice to get out of the mess of the insurgency of the sort of the Maoists.

Compromise: Compromise is the first principle, according to Boston University Professor. "Both the sides on the negotiating table must be able to listen to the other sides’ agenda if they were to arrive at a resolution to their long standing conflict. Once they compromise with the existing realities, it paves the way for further fruitful talks.

Complexity: Peace process, as Dr. Palmer sees it, is a messy affair and at times one has to come across with practically diametrically opposed views. Variety of obstacles, according to Dr. Palmer, could come at time of the talks.

Leadership: Conflict resolution demands a strong and sensitive leadership on both the sides for principles pragmatism is attached to it. According to the expert of International relations, the leadership involved in the peace process must have a determined and strong personality having popular credentials.

Honest brokers: The mediators or for that matter the intermediaries engaged in the peace process for the resolution of the conflicts must be honest and that their non-partisan attitude is what becomes very important. Unless the brokers were honest, none of the parties in conflict would prefer to take the words of the said broker(s) in good faith.

Trust: If you don’t have trust on each other, says Dr. palmer, the peace process can’t move an inch forward. "Mutual trust among the contesting parties must be developed in order to arrive at a positive solution to the conflict. In the process, confidence-building measures, CBMs, must be developed so that the process goes on smoothly.

Articulation: The two sides in conflict must reiterate their frame of reference, which in any case must be clear. There should be no hidden agenda. Dr. Palmer says the two sides have got to explicitly lay out their agenda whatever it is at time of the debate.

Consultation: As is not unusual, division of ideas and views on any one particular agenda is not quite unexpected but instead very natural. Some of the participants at the conflict resolution process might be on your side and some might be in the other camp. Palmer suggests both the sides to explain the hitches to your respective constituencies. Don’t give surprises to your men in your camps. Be in touch with your own constituencies so that they remain abreast with the developments at the negotiating table.

Confidentiality: Dr. Palmer suggests the contesting parties at the table to keep the proceedings a guarded secret. No need to divulge the happenings or for that matter the agreements unless both sides agree to it seriously or assure guaranteed that were demanded of it. The insurgency expert advises the parties not to get tempted by the press.

Implementation: The whole agreements arrived at the negotiating table will go to the dogs if the parties concerned don’t implement the agreements effectively. Whatever is agreed in between the two must be effectively implemented. The commitments made at the table must be kept if the conflict were to be resolved once and for all.

Nepali academia who were present on the occasion were of the view that the nine point principle as spelt out by the US Scholar could be a guideline to those who have been currently engaged in the peace process.

It would have been nice if the US scholar talked to those self-proclaimed experts and enlightened the politically biased facilitators who appear more political than the contesting parties.

Stage set for a possible big-fight?

Kathmandu: King Gyanendra will have presumably a very difficult time in the days ahead in dealing politically with the Nepali Congress President Girija Prasad Koirala who in the recent days has been making vitriolic remarks against the King.

Add to this the tirade that is being aimed at the King by the rest of the political parties now in agitation.

Koirala made an off the cuff remarks against the King and said that if the King continued to ignore their demands, the King would not find even a piece of three meters of land for himself.

Analysts consider Koirala’s fresh utterances as to have been the strongest and the most hard one since the former began hitting the monarch after the latter took a step as back as October last year. Analysts hasten to add that Koirala’s off-the cuff expressions against the constitutional monarch at some point of time might irritate the latter who could hit the NC president back with yet unknown measures.

"Koirala appears to have gone crazy to the extent that he has crossed all the limits in deriding at the monarch whose repercussions could well put the country in yet another danger", said one political science teacher at the University on conditions of anonymity.

Hastens another political analyst who says that even if the King retaliates to Koirala’s outbursts, he would do so through the Government of the day. In effect, the government under Thapa has already reacted strongly Monday when it said that the establishment would henceforth not tolerate any untoward comments being made by responsible politicians against the symbol of national unity that is the King.

This means that the government under Thapa too has taken Koirala’s somewhat erratic utterances very seriously. Understandably, if the government loses patience and Koirala or for that matter the five agitating parties continue to make scathing remarks at the King, things might go upside down. If this happens would mean that the already fragmented country, politically speaking, would receive yet another jolt whose consequences could be disastrous.

Koirala’s fresh remarks against the King appears to have been made when the speaker knew well that his mild tones and political overtures were not sufficient to jolt the monarch and that he could make the monarch to listen to his demands only if he spoke harsh and uncivilized words against the King.

The fact is that speaking rough and tough words against the monarch might not serve his political purpose. What he and his colleagues in the opposition should have done to use their own channels for a straight tête-à-tête with the King and convince him of the rationality and of the relevancy of their demands in a quite cool manner.

However, the fact is that Koirala is a different personality for whom the nation and the King come only after him because he is Koirala—the younger brother of late B.P.Koirala.

What Koirala forgets, recall analysts, is that the present day Koirala is a tainted and painted Koirala who differs from a Koirala who used to be a symbol of political freedom, liberty and democracy. However, all along these twelve years of the democratic dispensation the Koirala who is leading the present movement sans the people is a Koirala who is engrossed in a series of financial scandals of the Lauda and the Dhamija dimension.

All in all, what analysts, wish to suggest the Koiralas’ and the men in the present day establishment that wisdom must prevail and any untoward event arising out of Koirala’s fanatical statements must be nipped in the bud. Or else the stage is set for a big-fight in between the monarch and Koirala in particular and the rest of the agitating parties in general.

Analysts modestly suggest the conflicting parties not to aggravate the matter in the larger interest of the nation.

Hopefully, Koirala is making harsh comments against the monarch to add fuel to the impending seventh round of the agitation considering that his remarks might irritate the King and hence he would be sacked which in turn might infuriate the people who could thus contribute to the impending agitation.

But the question is whether the King will retaliate directly or use the established channels? Perhaps the monarch would prefer to listen to Koirala’s remarks that are attached with excessive depression and inferiority complex of the highest order.

Common observers opine that the King might have exceeded his constitutional limits but then yet to bring to his notice his supposed unconstitutional acts some other polite methods could be used which is what Koirala utterly lacked this time.

A towering personality of Koirala’s political stature must not have gone to that extent in saying that the King might not find a three-meter soil for himself. Doesn’t it sound too much? Perhaps yes!

Government-Maoist talks in limbo; agitating five put hurdles

Kathmandu: Talks could be held by the end of this Nepali month. Talks might not be held in between the rebels and the government.

A sort of military confrontation in between the two warring sides is imminent. The two confronting sides might not opt for a war.

Peace will prevail. Peace remains remote in the given scheme of things in the country.

The facilitators would use their good offices and avert the sort of crisis that appears to have unknowingly crept into the proposed third round of dialogue in between the government and the Maoists.

The facilitators apparently were themselves playing foul and might mar the possibility of the talks.

The government is serious and is not. The Maoist rebels too appear serious for the talks and were not.

These are some of the contradictory views emanating from the Nepal’s academic quarters regarding the government-Maoists talks that is presumably scheduled at the fag end of this Nepali month.

The government is sure that the talks will resume. So say the Maoists. However, the ground reality is that both have stepped up their violent activities on one pretext or the other.

The Maoists’ acts of violence continues unabated. The government security forces too have begun retaliating with full force. Both push their lame excuse: in self-defense. In the process, lay men are being killed and at times the military men or the Maoists rebels.

The fight is on though in a subtle manner.

All put together, the political scenario is that a sort of war could erupt any time should the RNA and the Maoists rebels in the jungles so desire.

Nevertheless, rumors are agog in the capital that says that the Maoists high command either has lost its control over its grassroots cadres or the cadres have themselves decided not to obey the dictates of their own respected high command. The logic behind this justification is that the Maoists high command in principle remains committed not to commit any acts of violence as per the agreed code of ethics. However, the fact is that acts of sporadic violence from the quarters of the rebels remains intact. Does this indicate that there is already a sort of cleavage in the Maoists camp?

The same could be said itself of the Maoists supreme command. Rumors have it that Comrade Prachanda is very much in favor of talks that lead to a permanent peace in the country. This is what he hinted in his last statement which was taken very positively by the majority of the population.

However, things have become up side down.

Only the other day, yet another top-hat of the Maoist insurgency, Dr. Babu Ram Bhattarai has straight away put a precondition that is not only hard enough but possesses the potential of even damaging the prospects of the happening of the third round of talks scheduled mid August.

"Either the King sees us in person and expresses his total committal that whatever is agreed in between the Maoists and his government would be binding on him or else at best the King must reiterate explicitly his word of committal through national media", this is what said Dr. Bhattarai.

Now the question arises whether the King should meet the Maoists and satisfy their demands or should he empower the government and through the government he makes a sort of avowal that he would implement what has been agreed in between the two contesting parties.

"All that the Maoists wish is a direct communication with the King and the King shouldn’t mind their modest requests", opines one school of thought.

Yet another thought is that the King can’t meet the rebels for so many technical reasons and that it would be best that the King reiterates his total committal for the condensed version of the conclusions arrived at after the talks in between the two.

The government has its own theory. The Thapa establishment would wish to gain peace their own way. The Maoists would prefer the same their own manner. Here lies the hitch.

And unfortunately, the parties in agitation exhibit their longing to exploit this hitch on their favor.

Understandably, the political parties currently in agitation feel that they have been totally sidelined in the country’s affairs. The fact is that they themselves have opted for that. To recall, the government is reiterating that it would wish the parties to join the talks. The Maoists too have reiterated the same. However, the ground reality is that thew parties remain adamant and say that they would not participate in any parley conducted by the unconstitutional establishment of Thapa.

But then yet one shocking opinion to the parties in agitation has come from one United States academician, Dr. David Scott Palmer who the other day told an academic gathering that the peace parley/negotiations could go smoothly even in the absence of the agitating political parties.

" It would be nice if they participate but would not make any substantial difference even if they prefer to remain out from the talks", opined Dr. Palmer.

In effect, Dr. Palmer told the gathering that negotiations of such sorts always take place in between the establishment of the day and the rebels and hence there is no need for the inclusion of any third party at the peace talks.

The US scholar’s blunt remarks must have come as a bolt from the blue to the agitating five parties.

All put together again, the stage for the talks is set and the talks will proceed provided the agitating five and their foreign backers push yet another conditions in order to dampen the prospects of peace in this beleaguered Kingdom.

It would be interesting to know as to which force on earth is backing the agitating five that they dare to bring heaven down to earth come September.

Wisdom prevails on all the sides, analysts hope.

French award to Kalpana Ghimire

Kathmandu: Her dedication and long productive association with the culture, tradition, literature, language and education of France finally made her qualified to receive a highly prestigious French Medal, "Chavelier Dans L’ordre Des Palmes Academiques": "The Academic Palms".

Ms. Kalpana Ghimire, a long time official of the French Culture Center turned Alliance Francaise was awarded one of the highest medals that the French nation awards to citizens who serve the French interests in the said domains better and that too with total dedication.

"It is granted to writers, artists but also to high ranking persons belonging to the large circle of national education who are so essential in maintaining the permanence of the French university, not only in France but also abroad", so said the French Ambassador to the Nepali court, Monsieur Claude Ambrosini while awarding the medal to Ms. Ghimire at a grand reception thrown in Kalpana’s honor.

On the occasion, Ambassador Ambrosini had all the praise for Kalpana for her uninterrupted service rendered for the promotion of the French culture in Nepal.

" You translated in Nepali and adapted for the theater and television many French classic authors like Molerie, Sartre, Camus", added the French dignitary.

A Kalpana who was by then had already become sentimental said in a voice choked with emotion that her association with the French people and the nation provided her with an opportunity to see the world in a wider perspective.

The Telegraph congratulates Ms. Kalpana for her stupendous achievements.

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