I n d e p t h    A n a l y s i s
Magnanimity this at what price?

Kathmandu: Better late than never, Nepal as a nation-state has come to its senses.

Nepali leaders too apparently have concluded that they must come of their age in their dealings with neighbors, more so with the Southern neighbor, India.

So has the constitutional monarch followed the suit. He too appears to have concluded that continuation of a sort of traditional shy-diplomacy would do no better for this India locked country.

In what could be considered as a grand departure from the traditional trend, Nepal and her leaders including the monarch, appear to have decided to talk to India face-a-face on so many issues that have a direct bearing upon the maintenance of the overall security situation in the country and in the the peace building process in Nepal.

This is a good omen for this country, to say the least.

To begin with, it was for the first time that a sitting Prime Minister of Nepal, Girija Prasad Koirala, who some years ago had directly said that the government on the other side was in some way or the other supporting the Maoists rebels.

Koirala’s blunt remarks must have been taken by the other side as an affront. But the fact is that Koirala did say this thing which the other camp had to digest as a bitter pill. In effect, Koirala had hinted that unless India exhibited her magnanimity in sorting out the Nepali conflict, the insurgency would continue sine die. In saying so he had also indicated that the rebels were safe and Nepal as a nation-state can do little till they enjoyed clandestine support of the establishment there.

Koirala’s courage must be admired.

The other side till then had been ventilating officially that they did not know about the whereabouts of the Nepali rebels and that if they were provided hints about their location they would be nabbed by Indian security personnel.

However, this pretension got a big jolt when Madhav Kumar Nepal, UML leader, suddenly sneaked into Lucknow in November 2003 and had a four-hour long parley with nonelessthan Comrade Prachanda. A beaming UML leader revealed this much to the embarrassment of the Indian authorities which forced them to concede that the Nepali rebels could be in India but the establishment did not know about their hideouts.

Madhav Nepal’s (mis)adventure enraged the Indian establishment to the extent that Ishwar Pokhrel, a UML leader then and now a minister in Deuba’s cabinet, was interrogated by a simple constable at the Indira Gandhi Airport in Delhi to the extent that the UML leader was advised by the Indian security man to accept the Maoists demand for a constituent assembly elections.

All these forced the other side to accept the Maoists insurgency of Nepal as a common threat to the Indian security as well. This the other side conceded only when they felt the brunt of the nexus of the Nepali insurgents with those of the India’s.

Now, Nepal’s Maoists insurgency is a common threat to them as well.

As if this were not enough to embarrass India further politically in the comity of nations, King Gyanendra too has made certain remarks through an interview which was published right in Delhi last week.

"I will speak my mind while being in India on Maoists insurgency and would wish to learn the Indian perception on the insurgency", is what King Gyanendra says in the interview.

Clearly, in saying so the King is candid in hinting his hosts in Delhi that he is well aware of the hidden fact that the insurgents were taking shelter in India and that India was behaving as friendly to both: the Nepali establishment and the insurgents.

The fact is that India has become friendly to Nepal in the sense that she is nabbing some Maoists loitering in their territories and deporting to Nepal to exhibit that she was serious in this regard and understood the Nepali feelings. The fact is also that India on the other hand also maintaining contacts with the leaders of the insurgency through the kind courtesies of some Indian academicians and been sending signals to nepal that what was the harm in accepting some of the "Progressive" demands of the Maoists as was recently suggested by Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran.

Presumably, King Gyanendra wishes to get clear idea from his hosts in Delhi as to how they take the Maoists: as friends or as foes? To recall, Indian establishment was the first country to declare Nepali insurgents as terrorists much ahead Nepal did it so. Indian minister Jaswant Singh was the one who made this declaration some two years ago.

At yet another plane, King Gyanendra’s preference for a familiarization trip to the Indian areas that border Nepal is also interesting.

In demanding such a visit to the bordering areas the King has indirectly hinted the Indian authorities that since the concentration of the Nepali insurgents were in these bordering areas and hence he would wish to talk to the Indian security officials men posted there. In doing so, the King apparently indicates that the Nepali problem lay in the bordering Indian areas but not in the Nepal’s adjoining areas. This in itself is enough to hint the Indian authorities that if they acquired a tough posture, the Nepali issue would be handier to handle.

It is surprising to believe as to how the Indian authorities in Delhi accepted to oblige to Nepal King demands for a trip to the bordering towns? Does this hint that Delhi now possessed a different view vis-à-vis the Maoists? Should this mean that New Delhi’s changed posture would bring in both Nepal and India to accept the Maoists challenge in a joint manner? What would happen if this were so? How the Maoists would react to such joint overtures? What price Nepal will have to pay for India’s changed magnanimous attitude towards Nepal?

Be that as it may, the Nepali monarch is suggested not to get swayed by the Indian gestures. After all, the killing of an insurgent would mean the loss of a genuine Nepali. So would be it if a Nepali security personnel is killed.

Analysts say that the monarch would do well if he manages to bring the insurgents to the table rather than adopting a posture that divides a Nepali from the other Nepali even if the latter were in the jungles.

A Nepali in Kathmandu or in the jungles is still a Nepali. This King Gyanendra knows better.

Public await India trip results!

Kathmandu: Focus is on the King's India trip where the Indian media's curtain raiser has been kind in the least. Meaningfully perhaps Jyothi Prabhakar's Delhi Times piece is headlined "Till Kingdom Comes" and the effort is to sale the soft side of King Gyanendra while recognizing that the King has done the almost impossible task of having his will despite the constitutional monarchy in Nepal.

Of course, King Gyanendra's antagonists in Nepal have made it obvious that the success of his eleven-day India tour beginning tomorrow will be met by cries of a sell-out. Ridiculously, their reaction to the announcement of the tour has been met with cries for transparency for that reason.

With India playing soft to the visit and the Western powers acknowledging that Nepal has no other recourse to meet the national crisis other than a combined effort by the King and the parliamentary forces, it is now obvious that the reluctance of the so-called parliamentary forces to meet the international demand has been recognized internationally.

Logically therefore reaction from this quarter has been one of desperation repeatedly voiced in the Nepali media.

The effects on Nepali politics of such seemingly unreal standpoints are stark. For one, the desperations is visible in the partisan media which blows up party standpoints and is even choosy of coverage of international comments that suits this international standpoints. Example is found both in reportage of the European Union comments and comments in the Indian media on the Royal tour.

No where perhaps was the tilt more visible than in the coverage of the Raj Parishad last week. Despite the constitutional exercise at transparent collection of public opinion by Nepal's "Privy Council" in order to perform its constitutional role of rendering advice "when sought" by the King, the international community for one, is more than aware of the blatant perversions in the coverage provided the meet by the Nepali media and its political mentors.

The significance lies in this desperation.

To suit this contradiction perhaps the predictable attempt by the Maoists to announce their increased presence in Kathmandu itself will be cashed in upon by the parliamentary parties. Heightened Maoists activities coincide with well publicized charges accounted to India that the army is not doing enough to justify Indian security investments here.

The game plan is increasingly obvious. His antagonists in Nepal are not meeting with the King's India tour kindly. The reasons are obvious. The results are awaited.

UML eying elections?

Kathmandu: The cat is out of the bag.

The UML top leadership tentatively controlled by Madhav Kumar Nepal is having hard times for the party to assuage the agitating comrades not in government who have been alleging that since the party has already earned bad names by being in the Deuba government and hence it would be desirable to quit from the government in order to save whatever prestige and popularity the party still commanded in the country.

However, those leaders who have had a stint in government and have already tasted the "luxury" by being in the government and amassed comfortable amount of wealth appear determined not to quit the government come what may.

The tussle is fierce.

Madhav Nepal and his coterie is in favor of party's continuation in government for a variety of reasons albeit political ones.

This set presumes that by being in the government means not only the needed and required wealth for the elections but also considers it important to face the challenge of the elections if it were forced on them. Facing elections by being in government has a different meaning. If not in power, the chances of losing comfortable number of seats in the parliament becomes close.

The pretension that the UML has to be in government in order to check any further acts of regression sounds hollow. It is hollow in the sense that there is a powerful set of political conglomerate that is repeatedly saying from the streets since two years that regression has even intensified after the UML joined the government.

President of the congress, Koirala, for one, and his assistants in the street agitation appear determined not to provide a clean chit to Deuba government and by the same token to the monarch that regression was continuing even if others' challenged their contention and that only if the parliament were restored the regression would cease to exist.

The King is silent and appears not in a mood to over rule the SC's previous verdict that approved the dissolution of the house some two and a half years ago by an elected Prime Minister.

Koirala needs the restoration of the parliament to bring back the derailed system to its original track and suggests the monarch to go extra miles and make a political decision and restore the house.

In saying so, what Koirala forgets is that if the King is allowed to restore the house under article 127, how would he react in case the King after a brief intervals keeps the process of the dissolution and revival of the parliament going?

Koirala forgets that he is suggesting the King go unconstitutional once again to correct, according to him, the previous unconstitutional act. If the King is allowed to interpret the constitution the Koirala way, what is the guarantee that his political rivals in the communist and the RPP camps would not appeal the King to act in a manner that suited to their political interpretations?

The UML is silent on the matter. It could be because the party is in power which is what the party needed for obvious reasons.

EU warns the warring rivals

Kathmandu: The members of the European Union have for the first time appear to have made strong and fervent appeal to both the warring rivals, the government and the Maoists, to attend to the peace talks at the earliest.

Even stronger is the message to the rebels contained in the statement thus issued by the EU delegation that was recently in Kathmandu. The statement suggests the Maoists to "unconditionally" attend to the talks.

A grand departure from the EU's previous stands wherein the Union used to take the insurgency as more politically contrary to what others used to take the insurgency.

This is not all.

The European Union members have told the Maoists point blank to act in a more political manner if it were to be recognized as a legitimate political force to which they claim themselves to be.

In saying so the EU members have hinted the rebels to behave in a manner that suited to their claims or else would be dubbed as what other nations have already done in the past.

An enraged Maoist supremo has through a statement expressed his dissatisfaction over the manner the EU has treated the insurgency and says that the EU declaration if intends to bypass his party's ongoing crusade for a constituent assembly and summarily neglect the political parties' agitation against regression then such a wish would never materialize.

This means that both the EU and the insurgency have come face to face.

The EU demands the insurgency to act in a befitting manner so that they could continue to take the insurgency as a political movement or else face the music.

The Maoists claim that their revolution was a just one and moving in the right direction and that the EU has got to recognize their struggle in the larger interest of the Nepali people and the nation.

However, the EU announcement is concurrently makes scathing criticisms of the government in having not arrested the growing abuses of human rights by the state side.

In a way, the EU has tried to send signals to both the camps in a subtle manner.

Comrade Prachanda, analysts say, should not have come harsh on the EU statement as it is this European community that has so far taken the insurgency as a political matter and has so far not joined the ranks of those countries who prefer the insurgency to be crushed militarily.

Analysts say that the EU statement issued upon the conclusion of the Nepal visit of a delegation led by official of the Netherlands does provide ample space to the Maoists and appeals the latter to come to the talks so that the insurgency could find a safe landing.

The Maoists must understand the hidden message contained therein in the EU press release.

The government too should understand the EU message and try to contain the growing cases of HR abuses.

It appears that Deuba was hinting the other day to the diplomats of the European countries that his establishment was not geared to control the HR abuses to please those countries but was doing so guided by the logic that a democratic country must look into such charges seriously.

All in all, the EU statement is a carrot and stick both for the Maoists and the establishment.

Prachanda speaks his mind

Special interview with Pushkar Lal Shrestha, Swagat Nepal ( Nepal Samacharpatra), Translated by Bhola B. Rana

Kathmandu, 19 Dec.:--

Are you talking with the King alone?

Prachanda: We have not said we will only talk with the King. We have said a political outlet is possible only with talks with the de facto controller of the Royal Army and the old state. We are talking with the country's main political parties, civil society and intellectuals directly or indirectly.

Do you feel that talks only with the King, he will personally come for direct talks with you?

Prachanda: Either the King has to leave control over the old state and the army, or he has no right to push the country and people towards destruction from behind the curtain.

If that happens and if that is what you want, has your party now concluded that the King is in control over all decision-making responsibilities? Don't political parties have any role?

Prachanda: It is not our conclusion that the King has the ability on decision-making on all subjects. The essence of our policy is to compel the King for a political outlet by working with political parties against regression. In that context, isn't the role of political parties clear?

You will not talk with representatives appointed by the King?

Prachanda: Without reliable accepted mediation and universally accepted mediation and accepted democratic procedures, we do not see a basis for confidence in talks with persons appointed by someone.

Why not talk with this government when you call it the King's pawn and representative?

Prachanda: The rationale for talks with the Deuba government, which hiked the budget for the feudal palace and promulgated a black law for the royal army has ended. If it had any standing, it would not have been difficult for the Deuba government to accept international mediation and decide a procedure for a constituent assembly.

If you say this government is not representative that is why we will not talk with it, do you see that only the King is representative? How do you prove your popular base?

Prachanda: Other parties will show the results of the last election. Right now in Nepal the King of the old power or Deuba does not have a popular base. We have not also said talks will be held or not by taking into consideration popular support. The main issue here is the question of talks for the entire structure of the royal army and old state against the backdrop of making the people sovereign. As far as the question of our popular base, its confirmation is the success of the nine-year people's war and the people's government running in the entire rural areas of the country.

Ministers are saying the condition for UN mediation is your ploy to get international recognition. What is it?

Prachanda: The so-called ministers have not only shown their irresponsible character but have also proved their helplessness by such comments on UN mediation. Not only that, they also that its an invitation for intervention. The talk of "invitational intervention" is only negative reasoning of imperialist and expansionist parties.

How do you take the government ultimatum inviting you for talks by 13 February 2005?

Prachanda: Against the backdrop of the civil war, to talk of election is a conspiracy in reality and finally to spread killing and make the situation even more complex.

Elections will not be permitted?

Prachanda: Election in the status quo is a part of regression. We are committed to smash the conspiracy.

If elections were held, representatives elected by the people would come for talks as desired by you, isn't it? Elections, therefore is right isn't?

Prachanda: In the first round of talks there was the "elected" government of Deuba. But the result proved its standing. We all know. Until the royal army is loyal to the palace, election and democracy will only be self-satisfying.

In your own words, you say election of the old power has no meaning while calling for election to a constituent assembly. What, in your consideration, is its procedure? A political conference of all the country's political centres, prominent individuals of civil society, an interim government appointed by it and an election for a constituent assembly arranged by it. That is the procedure we have been saying.

And weapons?

Prachanda: Until elections for a constituent assembly, both sides should lay down their weapons. After elections and according to results, both armies and weapons can be reinstated for a resolution. Detailed discussions can be held on this.

It took about three years to draft a constitution by a constituent assembly in India. Our situation is even more problematic. That is why it can take even a longer time. Within that period you will also be disarmed. Will that " vacuum period" be as productive as you think?

Prachanda: To give the country an outlet and on the question of trusting the people, if all are honest that vacuum period will be a time for extensive political discussion. It will take the entire people and nation to new heights in the context of consciousness.

Will you go for multiparty competition if the election for a constituent assembly does not go in you favour?

Prachanda: We are confident the result of elections for a constituent assembly will be in favour a complete democracy or a republic. Even then, we are committed to accept any result of the constituent assembly.

How do you look at the rebellion against you in different districts?

Prachanda: Essentially, we consider the Dailekh incident a planned conspiracy of the old power and the royal army. It is also a result of the work style of our local party. We have already started to expose the conspiracy of the enemy by taking lessons from it. We have also started to correct our local work style and reinforce people's contact and service of the people.

Do you accept support has drastically declined after killings of innocent people? In the beginning of the people's war, action against drunks, rapists and thugs had popularized you.

Prachanda: Our movement today has assumed widespread and all-encompassing. In the development of the revolutionary movement, shortcomings at some places are but natural. Because of that, it is not correct to say popular support has declined. We have moved unitedly by assimilating with the people by reducing shortcomings.

The party has been asking for pardon for action against central policies. Is the people's liberation army out of party control?

Prachanda: The propaganda that the people's liberation army is not under party control citing stray local incidents is a planned propaganda of the regressive feudal power.

(Courtesy newsofnepal.com) Special thanks to the editor Mr. P.L. Shrestha of Nepal SamachaPatra Daily-Editor)

En Bref:

IMF warns

Kathmandu: The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has strongly warned the government to fulfill its earlier commitment to maintain financial discipline and pursue reforms if it wanted to receive future assistance under the Poverty Reduction Growth Facility (PRGF) programme, reports said.

According to the report, failure in fulfilling its own commitment by the government would not only hamper the release of PRGF installments, it could also hamper the disbursement of over Rs 5.5 billion World Bank loan to Nepal, reports said.

ADB focuses on more results-oriented projects

Kathmandu: Talking to the press last week the ADB country representative Mr. Sultan Hafeez Rahman, said the on-going conflict has affected almost all of the ADB-assisted projects in the country.

Rahman said peace and stability were crucial to achieve Nepal’s strategic development objectives.

Talking to the gathering, Rehaman said, "ADB would make its future assistance to Nepal more sharply focused and results-oriented, use more sector-wide and programmatic approach, and encourage participation of more stakeholders and institutions in the design and implementation of all projects".

Rahman also said that the new CSP offers up to 50 percent of the total loan to Nepal to be transformed into grants. "This is a landmark achievement for Nepal and a strong commitment that ADB remains committed to assist Nepal and realize the development aspirations of the people Nepal," he added.

"The economy is likely to grow by about 3.7 percent in 2004," said Rahman. "To increase the growth rate of Nepal’s economy, it will be important for Nepal to deepen economic reforms to address the pressing issues of poverty, poor governance, and public service delivery," he added.

Kirat republican govt formed

Kathmandu: Vernacular daily Nepal Samacharpatra reports "Kirat Republican Government" under the CPN (Maoists) eastern command has been formed and it plans to implement a political counterattack program in the region for which plans have been formulated, quoting Vice-chairman Tanka Angbohand.

The daily further states that, the announcement asked for help to make the Mechi-Kosi strike on December 30 a successful one. Meanwhile, CPN(M) has been called a strike in Morang and Sunsari 24,25 December, district secretary Prabhat said, reports Samacharpatra.

Do not make mockery of Indian democracy and secularism: Asian HRC

Kathmandu: Asian Human Rights Commission asked the Indian Government not to support King Gyanendra because of growing human rights abuses, vernacular daily Kantipur reports. Claiming the King’s forthcoming India visit aims to collect political and military support as human rights violations increase, the Commission has asked New Delhi not to extend support.

"The previous Bajpayee government extended unlimited and blind support to the Kathmandu durbar and made a mockery of Indian democracy and secularism," the Commission said in their statement released on Friday." But the new administration should not repeat the mistake of the previous government to support the King responsible for crimes against humanity."

(Compiled from various sources)

Book of the Week

Title: Epidemiology and Communicable Disease
Author: Jivan Baboo Pradhan
Publication: Makalu Books and StationersPutalisadak, Kathmandu, Tel: 4220206
Email: makalubd@ntc.net.np
Price: Rs 150/-
Computer Design: Bishnu Hari Dhakal and T.N. Ghimire, Tel: 4435148

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