I n d e p t h    A n a l y s i s
Violence will bring change

Kathmandu: Organizational politics over five decades old in Nepal make possible the gleaning of street strategies. The "peaceful agitation" against "regression" has turned violent. The partisan media covers the violence as part of government repression. Even the BBC now covers the agitation "for the restoration of democracy". The government can’t but use the police to stop the agitators from breaking the security cordon. This is where the violence begins.

And so we are amidst a predictable round of violence and counter violence. Lost in the process is the bankruptcy of demands that the agitators have put to restore democracy. The five political parties that held sway over organizational politics in the past decade of democracy are in effect shunning calls for elections as impossible and are courting Maoists counter-violence to add to their waning strength. The focus now will be on police brutality to court a reluctant public whose participation the agitators’ have failed to otherwise woo.

That the five parties’ have cadre strength to demonstrate them on the streets was never lost on the public. But the media appears to have forgotten that their leadership had promised participation in hundreds of thousands. Sagging numbers made it imperative for their declared bundh to be enforced by visible show of presence by the burning of tyres and the use of threats in stark contrast to valley bundhs that happen merely on the basis of rumors these days. Government appears aware that continued disruption of daily lives might bring in Kathmandu participants that may add to depleting numbers of imported participants.

The crux lies here. What will defuse the agitation that is bound to be violent for sake of continuity? Are the parties cashing in on coordinating with the Maoists who have already announced their bundh in Kathmandu? Or will the government preempt the violence with arrests?

Predictable again, the arrests will be highlighted as proof of undemocratic governance. Preemption lacking again violence from the Maoists would seem inevitable. As of the moment, however, these inevitabilities of Nepali mass politics, however, leave little room to predict its course. As yet, government merely relies on the administration and politics is surely the agitators’ initiative.

India’s acquires hardened posture against Maoists

Kathmandu: The Maoists would wish to have the United Nations mediation in their would-be talks with the government.

The Thapa government rejects the Maoists preference for varied political reasons underneath.

Minister Kamal Thapa the other day talking to NTV indirectly hinted that Nepal couldn’t "afford" to irritate its neighbors by inviting the UN to mediate in its affairs. In saying so he amply indicated that Nepal’s hands were tied and that Nepal as a country can’t take decisions on its own on matters that could have direct bearing on her immediate neighbors. Analysts were quick enough to guess as to which country it could be which might have warned this country not to provide its nod to UN mediation. It is widely believed that if UN entered Nepal on this specific count, it might act as precedence for some countries in the region that remain plagued enough by such insurgencies and the leaders of the insurgency might push the Nepali stance to sort out their own cases through the UN mediation. The UN presence in Nepal will be considered by some as the Interpretations galore.

The Maoists, analysts conclude now, is a weakened force indeed. However, their weakness is not in its military strength. It remains, as is being talked, intact. In effect their weakness is in their loss of top-rung leaders who have of late fallen prey to Indian government’s wrath.

Prachanda and Dr. Bhattarai must have felt a terrible loss to their party and organization when they don’t find personalities like Matrika, Suresh Magar, C.P.Gajurel and very recently Mohan Baidhya-Pokhrel in their midst.

Undenyingly, insurgencies demand tactical and sharp brains which they were indeed. Mr. Mohan Vaidhya’s arrest in Siliguri last fortnight is supposed to have provided a severe blow to the mental strength of the party and more so it should have come as a bolt from the blue to the party’s supreme, Comrade Prachanda, as it is talked that Mr. Vaidhya is the real ideologue of the party who gave a credible shape to the PRACHANDA-PATH theory. How important Mohan Vaidhya was for the party and its leader becomes visibly clear from the first ever vitriolic remarks made by Comrade Prachanda against India, the place where they all supposedly have taken shelter.

Prachanda’s wrath against India could be seen when he says that his friend’s arrest in Siliguri is a design of the Indian establishment to seduce the other side and grab the important water resources for her perennial use.

Better late than never, Comrade Prachanda has got the point. In effect, he as a die-hard nationalist, should have understood the designs of the establishment from the very beginning.

However, analysts say whether Prachanda is correct in his analyses or not, time will tell. However, what is for sure is that Thapa government, considered to be more Indian than Atal Bihari Bajpayee, is gioving an impression that he could go to any extent in pleasing his Indian mentors and in the process he wouldn’t mind even if he handovers water resources at a dirt cheap price.

Informed sources claim that Thapa government has either already handed over or is all set to handover precious gifts to his friends in Delhi. In lieu what he gets? It is a question indeed.

What he receives is clear. For each and every river, he will be provided with one insurgent leader. If this is so, then Nepal must have provided India with four important assets to India in lieu of four top-hats of the Maoists insurgency.

Prime Minister Thapa is mistaken. It is unfortunate that a Nepali government is providing Nepali assets to an alien friend only to arrest Nepalese living in the alien soil? The bargain seems a terrible affair.

This is not all, the Maoists did retaliate against India by burning several Indian Trucks in the western region recently. However, this act of the Maoists would cost them heavily. The Indian establishment instantly sent chilling signals here and there which contained a sort of warning to the Nepali establishment that she must take proper care of the Indian national and of their properties as well. In the same vein, the Indian establishment has instructed the other side to come heavily down against the Maoists and the wrong-doers must be penalized.

The India displeasure against the Maoists does speak that henceforth India will not spare Maoists in its territory. If the fresh Indian statement is taken at its face value, it has got to be taken indeed, then what could be concluded is that for Prachanda and Dr. Bhattarai, Nepal would be the safest place on earth now.

Apparently, this hardened posture acquired by India against the Maoists might crystalise the protracted war in between the government and the insurgents which could force the Maoists to come to the table.

Prachanda must know, and he knows it perhaps more than any one else, that India is a country which can’t tolerate attack on its nationals, its properties and more so when its genuine national interests are attacked.

It is time that Comrade Prachanda and his colleagues think twice on how to proceed in the face of the India’s changed stance now and of their depleting strength at the very top rung of the party.

What is surprising in the whole affair is that as and when the King is out of Kathmandu for felicitations, India captures Maoists’ leaders. When King was in Nepalganj, India deported Matrika and Suresh Aley Magar and now when the King is in Pokhara, India arrests Mohan Vaidhya. Is it a mere coincidence or some thing entirely different, politically speaking? What is also interesting is that of late India has been arresting top-hats of the CPN(M) only and not deporting small fishes? Is India up to weaken the insurgency to an extent that is apparently desired by the Nepali side? What is not known is that what is the price or the cost involved for all these India gestures?

What is also true is that blaming India would not work as it has not worked in the past. Why should we blame others for our own follies and inferiority complexes? The fact is that India knows her national interests. We don’t or pose not to know.

Keep on debating.

Koirala’s political disadvantage is Madhav’s plus point

Kathmandu: For President Koirala, the success or the failure of the ongoing agitation will have its own sort of impact on his political career indeed.

If he succeeds, he will be considered as a hero. If he fails, he will have invited a sort of "political hara-kiri" for himself.

Koirala has only two options with him: make the confrontation a grand success or relinquish the party for good. Unfortunately, he has no third option.

As analysts know Koirala, he would go to any extent to make the agitation a success. Sky will be the limit for Koirala to bag victory and in the process if he needed the support of the Maoists to press the King to yield to his political demands, he would not mind come what may.

However, Koirala has a disadvantage attached if he so desired. The fact is that the international democratic community will instantly pack-up their support to the party he now leads for his what they might dub as (mis)adventure.

The fact is that if Koirala ventures to proceed that way, his party will have to face the music-both domestic and international. Analysts who understand Koirala better say that he could opt for this preference as the latter is considered to be a leader who was more radical than the present day Maoists in the days under King Mahendra in the mid-sixties.

However, what is also for sure is that Koirala will lose all whatever he has with him at the moment for his political follies if he hunted the support of the Maoists to make his proposition a success.

Madhav Nepal, by the same token, will never be a loser. The fact is that Madhav Nepal and his party, the UML, to recall, have yet to erase the word republicanism from their agreed manifesto which is still in force even as of today. The UML, like the Maoists, too ultimately thinks that Nepal must be converted to a republican state and that the UML, the manifesto reads, will subscribe to the parliamentary system now in place until a suitable condition dawned in the country in achieving their ultimate goals.

The UML has one more advantage to what Koirala hasn’t. Both the Maoists and the UML basically belong to the same breed of the communists. It is an altogether a different matter that the present days UMLites have become "diluted" and "unhygienic" communists whereas the Maoists have not. But then yet, in theory both the communists worship the same God and vow to root out the continuing subjugation of the capitalists.

Moreover, the UML if provided opportunity to chose in between the congress and the Maoists, certainly it would prefer the latter. Not very surprisingly then, in the recent years, as UML authoritative leaders have themselves reiterated, many of their cadres in hundreds and thousands have entered the Maoists insurgency for varied reasons. Equally true is that the UML if it has any danger for its identity, the threat comes from the Maoists quarters. The defecting UMLites consider Maoists as comparatively very closer to their own party’s ideologies and theories.

Needless to reiterate, the Maoists have gained much politically from the tussle that is going on in between the parliamentary parties and the monarch.

The Maoists have bluntly told that they could support the agitation. An indication to this effect came recently from Krishna Mahara who exhibited his party’s desire to support the agitation if the agitators so desired. The Thapa establishment has taken note of Mahara’s statement and concludes that the violent activities now seen in the agitation could have been the result of Maoists penetration. The parties in agitation dismiss the government’s theory out rightly.

The Maoists have political reasons to go in for the support of the agitation. In effect, what they wish is being accomplished by the parliamentary parties. They been demanding republican state in the country, the students and now the parliamentary parties have themselves been demanding what constituted one of the main agenda of the Maoists. The Maoists saying that they possess respect and honor for the parliamentary system have encouraged the parliamentary parties which is obvious. A sinking man knows the importance of a straw.

All put together, analysts say, the King is the lone campaigner. He could be correct in his stances, but the fact is that no body is listening to his fervent appeals.

Koirala is against him. Madhav Nepal for varied reasons can in no way defend the King for he considers that the King has time and again damaged his prospects for becoming the country’s prime minister. The smaller communist parties too are not with the King.

The King remains undeterred and appears determined to proceed his way come what may.

Informed sources say that the King might benefit politically if the parliamentary parties sought the support of the Maoists to come out with flying colors in their fight against what they call an act of regression initiated by the King. The presumption is that the King will then enjoy the supports from US, UK and India which might take care of the King’s agenda. Predictably, they would do so in order to contain the threat posed to the country by the phenomenal growth of the communists for whom they practically possess some sort of hatred in their inner hearts for reasons best known to them only. Likewise, India too would not wish to see the proliferation of the Reds in Nepal for understandable reasons.

But will the Maoists come to the rescue of the agitators? Or will they now prefer to come to the table considering changed Indian stance and the arrests of their key figures?

Agitating parties and Thapa agree on all-party government
Question hinges on who should be made Prime Minister?

Kathmandu: Poll or no poll is the question that is boggling the minds of the politicians and the intellectuals these days.

While the political leaders now in agitation summarily reject the poll forwarding the reasons that in this chaotic atmosphere polls can’t be held or even if it is held on phases, the results will not be that free and fair.

The opposing camp says elections must and could be held if the constitutional derailment were to be brought in its track.

The tussle goes on.

The fact is that both the theories appear valid in their own perspectives.

However, what is guaranteed is that the holding of the elections will not be possible until and unless the Maoists are taken into confidence and what this confidence means is any body’s guess.

Questions are also being raised as to why the parliamentary parties who possess democratic credentials been opposing the very idea of the elections? Is it only the fear of not being a free and fair elections if Thapa were to hold the elections? Is it prompted by the supposed threat of the Maoists who could damage the election procedures and even its outcome? Or is it a sublime desire to face the polls only after peace is restored in the country? Last but not the least, or is it that the parliamentary parties basically do not defer with the idea of the election but remain scared about the fate of the results should they be denied seats in the interim arrangement that would conduct the polls?

Interpretations galore.

However, the tradition in Nepal has been that polls are being held only when the contending major parliamentary parties ensure their seats in such a government that has been told to conduct the elections. The fact is that one’s presence in the government ensures required seats in the parliament that is agreed in advance in and among the political parties represented in the cabinet.

This amply speaks as to why the political parties been demanding the formation of a government that is comprised of their representation.

The fact is also that the Thapa government and the parliamentary parties agree on one point despite Himalayan differences politically speaking: formation of an all-party government.

The difference that is in between the two is that while Thapa would wish to give his own government a shape of what his friends in opposition been demanding, then on the other, the men in the opposition would wish to have a government from among the parties now in agitation.

The two differ here.

This means that the prime difference is on who should be the country’s next prime minister who would hold the elections.

Should this mean that if Koirala or for that matter Madhav Nepal were offered this post, will the movement die a natural death? Should this mean that if Koirala or Mr. Nepal were made the prime minister, the King will have corrected his political blunders which is what they have been alleging? Should this mean that it is not the constitutional processes that were undermined supposedly by the King will get a clean chit if the monarch elevated the ranks of either Koirala or Mr. Nepal to the post of the country’s chief executive? Should this finally mean that the politicians continuing struggle with the King is not for the de-linked constitutional procedures, but instead for a Chair in Singh Durbar?

Be that as it may, India once again has reiterated its desire that Nepal sorted out its political problems by forging a consensus in between the parliamentary forces and the constitutional monarchy. Will these Indian suggestions be taken up by the parties concerned?

How the Nepali leaders and the King will digest the Indian remarks which instructs both of them to come to terms at the earliest will have to be watched.

Should this mean that other democratic nations too would follow the Indian suit? Perhaps they should if they really wish to see a democratic Nepal flourishing in peace.

PRESS RELEASE
India strongly condemns the attack

Kathmandu: A statement was issued today,April 5, 2004, Monday, by the spokesman of the Ministry of External Affairs on the situation in Nepal. The text of the statement is reproduced below

 Quote

 "Government of India strongly condemns the attack on Indian cargo vehicles by CPN (Maoist) insurgents at various places in Nepal in which a number of Indian nationals were shot and seriously wounded and several oil tankers and cargo vehicles were burnt and destroyed. This is a blatant act of terrorism and its perpetrators must be apprehended and punished for their crimes. The Government of India holds the leadership of CPN (Maoists) responsible for these incidents.

 The Government of India also requests His Majesty’s Government of Nepal to provide full security for Indian personnel and property in Nepal. The Government of India is already working together with the authorities in Nepal to confront the challenge of terrorism through mutual cooperation. Such incidents, far from deterring such cooperation, will only lead to redoubled efforts on the part of both countries to overcome the danger which such terrorism poses to the security of both our neighbouring countries.

 Nepal faces an unprecedented crisis, the solution of which demands mutual understanding and cooperation between all the constitutional forces in the country in particular between the institution of Constitutional Monarchy and the political parties. As a close and friendly neighbour of Nepal sharing an open border, India would urge that, in recognising the seriousness of the current crisis, both Constitutional Monarchy as well as the political parties demonstrate flexibility and forge a national consensus to deal with this situation with the urgency it deserves. India will, as always, extend its full support to the people of Nepal in their hour of need."

Unquote

For the Internet users only-chief editor.

Irrational use of Medicine

Kathmandu: Almost half of all medicines globally are used irrationally. This, say medicines experts at the World Health Organization (WHO), can have severe consequences: adverse drug reactions, drug resistance, protracted illness and even death. In addition, the financial cost incurred by individuals and governments due to irrational use is unnecessary and often extremely high, particularly in developing countries where patients often pay for medicines out of pocket.

Irrational use of medicines includes: over-treatment of a mild illness; inadequate treatment of a serious illness; misuse of anti-infective drugs; over-use of injections; self-medication of prescription drugs; premature interruption of treatment. Several country figures show that such practices are frequent, and not exclusively in developing countries.

In Nepal, over 50% of antibiotics prescribed in 1996 were not needed and 40% of medicines expenditure in the same year was wasted due to inappropriate prescriptions. (WHO)

Road Safety is no Accident

Kathmandu: Road crashes are the second leading cause of death globally among young people aged five to 29 and the third leading cause of death among people aged 30 to 44 years. Road crashes kill 1.2 million people every year and injure or disable as many as 50 million more. Without immediate action to improve road safety, it is estimated that road traffic deaths will increase by 80% in low- and middle-income countries by 2020.  A joint report launched by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Bank demonstrates that much can be done to reduce the toll of deaths and injuries and that "Road Safety is no Accident".

"Thousands of people die on the world’s roads everyday. We are not talking about random events or ‘accidents’. We are talking about road crashes. The risks can be understood and therefore can be prevented," said Dr LEE Jong-wook, Director-General, World Health Organization. "Road safety is no accident. We have the knowledge to act now. It is a question of political will," he added.

 Unlike in high-income countries where those most at risk of injury or death are drivers and passengers in cars, the people who are most at risk of being involved in a road traffic crash in low- and middle-income countries are pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and users of informal modes of public transport.

In low- and middle-income countries, the cost of road traffic injuries is estimated at US$ 65 billion, exceeding the total amount these countries receive in development assistance. Road traffic injuries cost countries between 1% and 2% of gross national product, amounting to US$ 518 billion every year. (WHO)

Opinion | Dateline | National |  5 Question  | Editorial | Letter | 2nd Impression | Views | International | Past