I n d e p t h    A n a l y s i s
UML wooing all sides

Kathmandu: As events are allowed to escalate on the streets, an indifferent public awaits the event that will pressure the different sides in the political arena to budge. The fare is that it will be the indifference that will buckle under. That this is what the Kathmandu bundh and the series of bundhs threatened in opposition to government, and thus the King, is clear.

A movement that is now a year over old designed to pressure the King to change his stance on the constitution had been passing the public by. Radical slogans in a supposedly different student movement provoked administrative action. Now, party and students movement combined to attract other class and professional organizations in the agitation. Katmandu’s volatile trading community will be asked to pay the price of nonchalance. The Shutter-culture suffers in bundhs of this type and their continued non-participation in the agitation is being targeted.

The Nepali congress assumes a back-seat in the Kathmandu bundh agitation on practical grounds. Their valley organization is weak and divided and the UML presence among Katmandu’s small traders is an organizational target worthy of co-opting into the agitation.

Of course, this reluctant community can’t but close down businesses when threatened with brickbats and mob furore. But the initial reaction of compulsory closures may very well be voluntary ones if this is the only practical solution to opening business.

The UML whose presence was large in the bundh on Monday can thus be explained. Also, it seems to be the only party at the moment with a roadmap open-ended on all sides. It partners an agitation with a congress that wants the reconvening of the dissolved parliament. It proposes a round-table conference with the Maoists participation after which elections and constitutional change will be made. It, moreover, has modified initial demands for its premiership in a five-party led government to accommodate the monarchy’s prescription for an "all-representative" government endorsed by the five parties. If the congress, which insists on the restoration of the dissolved parliament, is likely then to part ways with the UML if one of its open-ended proposals is endorsed, the roadmap’s call for Maoists participation in its round-table remains a no-no as yet in their response to the UML. The one feasible road to be taken thus is the "all-representative" government angle.

But then the cadre will have to be winned away from the radical exhortations from which the UML leadership makes a point of distancing itself. The party will have first to convince itself that its current accommodative standpoints is no about turn. While politics is surely the art of the possible, how this will apply to the UML’s options will have to be watched. As of the moment, its roadmap package on the streets is close to the Maoists, it partners the agitating congress and woos the monarch.

Neither the King nor the political parties appear to yield

Kathmandu: The King is aware or not, the fact is that he is under pressure from all possible political sectors including the students and the Maoists.

Whether the King is briefed properly by his political aides or not on the changing political contexts each day in the country, the fact remains that the monarch is being projected by the political "actors" as undemocratic whose words and deeds differ.

King Gyanendra’s interview with the Time magazine though speaks of the prevailing people’s mind, but the fact is that the political parties have begun interpreting his statements in the interview as a monarch who was not satisfied with the role provided to him by the 1990 constitution and that the monarch wishes to assert some more role so that he too could remain prominent in determining the political course of the nation.

The idea of the King in itself is not that bad contrary to what has been given to understand by the political parties currently in agitation against regression but then yet the manner the King has pushed his ideas and ventilated his inner feelings for the population within and without does hint that King Gyanendra would not settle for less until and unless the agitating "monopolists of democratic system" yielded and listened to his voices and concerns.

This means that neither the King nor the political parties will yield under their prevailing stances.

Bad omen indeed for the nation.

The fact is that instead of easing the situation, which is what had been expected, King Gyanendra’s interview has compounded the Nepali politics even further from where it was.

The fact is also that neither the King appears to be in a mood to retract from his "bold assertions", nor the agitating political parties wish to hush-hush the matter for good. The result is that a sort of confrontation of a bigger dimension appears to have suddenly gripped the country, whose consequences could be unfathomable, politically speaking.

Neutral observers, however, say that whatever the King has opined in his interview were the things what "we" the people had been crying about for all along these thirteen years and hence what is the harm when the King reiterated the same?

Others maintain that for good or bad, the corrupt and inefficient leaders of today’s political scene would be entrusted to run the system and not the King.

The fact is that the King has clearly told in his interview that he was the one who must speak now in favor of the (implied) rejected and neglected people.

The fact is also that, analysts say, the King too missed the "opportunity" for it was him who dictated the State of affairs for all along these eighteen months and could have done a lot if he so desired.

"The King too has miserably failed. The people had expected that beginning October 4, he could have brought about far-reaching changes in favor of the people for whom he now is encouraged to speak", said one political analyst on condition of anonymity.

On a real plane, Koirala is, as a matter of fact, dead against the King’s interview and has dubbed it by saying that the King is expressing his opinions as if he were an eighteen century King; Madhav Nepal of the UML though is mild in his criticism against the King but yet his hands are tied and hence could not be trusted politically; Amik Sherchan is the one who summarily rejected the royal audience which speaks so many things without explaining the reasons; the NMKP leader, Narayan Man Bijukchee is on record to have said of the King that "ultimately it is the monarch to loose"; one faction of the splinter Sadbhavana is unhappy with the monarch simply because the latter did not invite its leaders for a royal audience and hence has felt humiliated; add to this, the students of all hue and cry, deliberate or otherwise, have been chanting slogans against the King and that too openly and on a regular basis and etc.

Summing up it all, what comes to the fore is that it is the King and not his government to loose should the situation take a different turn.

Analysts maintain that when the King claims that he is the protector of the constitution then why he is not concerned to bring it back to the rails as is being alleged by his detractors?

Certainly, the King being the guardian of the State and a protector of the constitution has a duty as well to correct the anomalies if it is well within his political limits as stipulated in the constitution.

The fact is that the interview of the King appears to have widened the gap in between him and the agitating political parties. And it is not for nothing that Maoist leader Dr. Babu Ram Bhattarai very cleverly and tactfully interprets that it was this particular interview of the King that has mercifully brought the Maoists closer to the now agitating parties.

The Maoist leader also has claimed that slowly but steadily, the nation was taking a bi-polar shape instead of the existing triangular force represented by the King, the parliamentary parties and the Maoists themselves. This means that the Maoists think that only two pole existed as of the moment: the Maoists and the agitating political parties.

A section of high placed sources claim that the King next Sunday might provide some hints to the national population on the future course the nation’s politics would take from his Nepalgunj speech.

The King, to recall, is being felicitated by the population of Nepalganj coming Sunday. As usual, the Maoists have threatened to disrupt the felicitations program.

Reports have it that the unified command is already kept on an high alert in order to avoid any disturbances at time of the felicitation ceremony.

All in all, country in in a greater crisis since ever. Analysts hope that political actors including the monarch understood the dimension of the problem and acted in a manner that is in the larger interest of the nation and her people.

EU calls for ‘establishment’ of ‘multi-party’ government

Kathmandu: Friends of Nepal have suddenly become restive.

Nepal’s major donor countries have concluded that it was time to serve a sort of warning to the men handling the affairs of the state in this Himalayan Kingdom that if they opted to run the country beset with political and constitutional problems, it would be difficult for them to continue with their developmental assistance as usual.

Not very surprisingly then the members of the European Union having their diplomatic representations in Nepal should approach the incumbent Prime Minister to voice their serious concern on the ongoing Nepal situation.

In fact. Monday afternoon, the EU members headed by French Ambassador to Nepal, Monsieur Claude Ambrosini went to see Prime Minister Thapa at his office and told in no uncertain terms that they were not happy with the scheme of things going on in this country of late and that they hoped that the deteriorating situation be arrested and democratic processes brought into action.

A press note released by the French embassy in Kathmandu on behalf of the European Union does speak about the violations of Human Rights cases from the government and the Maoists side both; does spell out that the EU was concerned over the continuing political and parliamentary crisis in the country and moreover does hint that the members of the Union would wish to see the prevalence of peace in the country at the earliest and that it would be pleased if the country went for the polls both at the local and parliamentary levels soon.

The message is there for Nepali establishment from the developed West.

A close analysis of the EU statement released Monday evening does indicate that the members of the Union some how or the other believe that the government side was no less, comparatively speaking, in violating the Human Rights abuses. "The EU calls on Government of Nepal to take urgent steps to significantly improve the observance of HR in conformity with its international obligations as signatory to International HR conventions and declarations".

In saying so, the EU apparently wishes to hint the Nepal government that, firstly, it should " significantly improve" the observance of HR cases which implies that the EU is not that happy with the explanations offered by the establishment side which says that it has been their effort to minimize such violations. This further could be analysed in a manner that the EU will be more than happy if Nepal as a nation-state acted responsibly in this regard and abided by the international conventions she has already signed in this regard.

On top of all these implied messages, the EU remains suspect of the Doramba, Ramechapp, killings of the Maoists at time when the last peace talks with the Maoists were on in Kathmandu. That the EU remains unsatisfied with government explanations on Doramba killings gets reflected from what the press release has to say: " The EU points out that the Ramechapp incident which occurred in August 2003 remains to be clarified in accordance with the international standards".

The EU thus grills the government in this regard.

This is not all. The EU also "urges" the rebels to observe HR in conformity with the existing international HR Conventions and declarations.

Here is an idea from the EU to both the Maoists and the government: "As an immediate step in support of the observance of HR by both the parties to the conflict in Nepal, the EU presses the GON and the Maoists to sign the HR accord proposed nationally by the National HR Commission.

However, the EU expects the Nepal government to take the first step to "indicate that it acknowledges its obligations".

The EU press statement also talks about the "establishment" of a "multi-party government". This perhaps means that the existing government does not represent a government to which they could call or accept a multi-party set up. However, the EU statement does not tell as to whose government and with whose participation in the government could be a multi-party in their assessment. Are they saying a government sought by Madhav Nepal? Or they been talking of a government under Thapa with other political parties’ participation?

However, when they are talking of the establishment then they must have talked of a government that is yet to be "established" with multi-party participation.

The EU statement indicates that the EU members were eager to see elections being held in the country at both the local and national levels. In saying so they apparently hint that the country can’t be run with "unrepresentative" government of the sort of the one now in power. However, the statement does imply that the elections should be held "as soon as the security situation permits". This clearly means that the EU considers the situation not suitable for elections at least for the moment?

For the security situation to come under control so that the elections could be held, the EU statement "strongly encourages the GON and Maoists to enter into a cease-fire agreement and to initiate a "peace process".

Thus the EU statement is a mixed bag of warning to the government on the HR abuses and a hint to the shying political parties to accept the elections if the security situation permitted. The statement that urges the rebels to initiate a peace process is also no less important.

The team included Rudiger Wenk, the chief of the EU delegation in Nepal and members from other EU countries based in Nepal.

Madhav, the ultimate winner

Kathmandu: Madhav Nepal, the leader of the UML, is an eagle-eyed player of Nepali politics.

A close focus on his style of playing of politics does reveal that he is for all, and for all which in effect not a true perception.

He is, for example, with the coalition partners fighting a relentless struggle against regression and thus is close to Girija, Amik Sherchan and Bijuckche giving an impression to the partners that he is meant for them and that he would remain a strong pillar in the coalition scheme come what may.

Similarly, he is with the Maoists and meets its leaders in Siliguri and then recently in Lucknow and gives their leaders to understand that ultimately he and his party long for a republican set up and hence both must cooperate each other. This became evident when K.B.Mahara only recently divulged that the Maoists and the UML have had agreed to concentrate their struggle centering the King. Madhav Nepal did not disclose this "bilateral" understanding reached in between the UML and the Maoists in Lucknow. This means that Mr. Nepal could support the Maoists line if politics does not favor his "consensus" candidature for the post of the premiership of the country. That he is with the Maoists gets reflected from the fact that his roadmap recently brought for public consumption does hint that the roadmap thus charted by the UML could take care of Maoists primary demands should the latter supported his abstract draft.

In the same vein, the UML, or for that matter Madhav Nepal, is close to the monarch and appears not to be in a mood to confront with him as Koirala is doing at the moment now.

Madhav Nepal, if one were to analyse his recent statements made specially after King Gyanendra’s Times magazine interview, is mild in his tone when he is talking about the King in public. He does exhibit that he is unhappy with the King’s expressions in the interview but then yet concurrently suggests the monarch to reconcile with the agitating political parties.

More so, Madhav Nepal is accommodative of King’s wishes also. Firstly, he says that he would not mind if Deuba were elevated to the ranks of the Prime Minister. He says, secondly, that he was ready to head a government even if it were a government participated in by the members of various political parties and not only of such a government that is being pushed by the five agitating parties.

In effect, King Gyanendra’s desire also appears to be the formation of a government well represented by the leaders of different political parties and not limiting to the dictates of the five parties alone.

Madhav Nepal, however, is accommodative of such a scheme but then yet prefers the endorsement of the five agitating parties prior to the formation of such a government. This means that he could be with the King provided he is made the chief of the executive on either case.

Thus, it seems that Madhav Nepal is prepared to face any political challenge provided the challenge favored his political ambitions.

On other diplomatic plains, UML leader founds himself closer to the Indian establishment. And if ex-UML leader, Hiranya Lal Shrestha, were to be believed, it is this UML leader who has visited Delhi twice well within six months. The UML which began its career in Nepali politics in the early 1990s by denouncing India for so many explained and unexplained reasons is no more an "expansionist" nation in the eyes of the UML. That the UML under Mr. Nepal managed the Mahakali Treaty ratification from Nepali parliament is a case in point.

Similarly, for Madhav Nepal and his party, the United States is no more an imperialist nation. This should explain the substantial political changes that have come in in the UML’s line of thinking vis-à-vis India and the United States.

Contrary to the UML’s line on the United States, its "ideologically" close friend, the Maoists, however, continue to consider the US otherwise. The fact is also that the Maoists have yet to spell out their fresh thinking on India.

Summing it all, the UML is benefiting politically from the present constitutional crisis.

Should the nation’s politics takes any turn, Madhav Nepal and his party will take care of the rest.

Police exceeding its limits; media-men manhandled

Kathmandu: Nepal’s police force is exceeding its limits, it appears.

The otherwise modest Nepali policemen have gone crazy these days. In the process, the policemen have of late been misbehaving not only the political leaders but also seen attacking students on the streets.

Indeed, the policemen are on duty but then this does not mean that they begin attacking all and sundry in the name of suppressing the agitation sponsored by political parties and their politically affiliated student organizations.

Use of force could not be the solution to the current agitation. Equally true is the fact that the police must have acted on government orders.

The fact is that even the Nepali media has become the victim of police excesses.

For example, on Sunday afternoon, the police entered into the office of Dristi Vernacular weekly, a Tuesdayer publication, and began summarily hitting at the heads of the men working for the said weekly.

Reports say that a good number of journalists there were badly injured.

Several media organizations have condemned the attack on the Nepali press by the Nepal’s police force.

We in the Telegraph join hands with all those who have disapproved police unwarranted action on the men belonging to the media.

We pray for the speedy recovery of those who were injured that ill-fated afternoon.

Concerned authorities must have the courage to tame the policemen who exceeded their functions.

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