I n d e p t h    A n a l y s i s
King only constant in roadmap success?

Kathmandu: Political opportunism retained as yet by the UML threatens its "Roadmap". It has its students in partnership with the congress clamoring for republicanism in the five party agitation on the streets of which it is still a part and yet has nothing to do with the anti-monarchy slogans. The UML says, moreover, it is no longer demanding the restoration of the now dissolved parliament but continues to support the agitation programs in which the congress and other partnering parties claim that it is the solution to the present problems.

As glaringly contradictory as this itself is, it is the UML alone which sees no contradiction in any of its several demands that have emerged publicly as prescriptions to resolve the political quagmire.

Hidden in this mess is the UML’s compulsions dictated by the grassroots where the Maoists have swept their cadre carpet from the UML leadership’s feet while what is theoretically the largest standing party in the dissolved parliament must demonstrate street strength in the urban areas through the radicalization of students flirting with the republicanism that is kin to the ideologically more coherent Maoists.

Added to this problem is the organizational headway being made by the congress rivals who are hand-in-glove with the Surya Bahadur Thapa government that has used the months in office to strengthen its party and cadre coffers. The Girija Prasad Congress has, moreover, distanced itself more officially from the accommodative standpoints of the UML roadmap on the issue of constitutional re-framing that is a cornerstone of Maoists demands.

Clearly Madhav Nepal and his party cronies are on tenterhooks juggling the many faces of a roadmap which perhaps has been more frankly admitted by K.P.Woli as merely preliminary probe into the possible.

To judge, the ultimate outcome of a roadmap that has been admitted by Comrade Woli as not the penultimate shape at the moment, one has merely to view the constants. The only constant so far is found in the King’s roadmap issued some fourteen months ago where he called on all including the political parties represented in the dissolved parliament to coalesce in helping for a government that can successfully tackle the issues emanating from the constitutional crisis which has obstructed the routine holding of parliamentary elections.

It may thus be easy to make a single prediction regarding the roadmap. Its success will depend on how soon, as successfully this royal constant will be met with the UML collusion.

Coalition partners differ on so many political issues; a weakened movement now

Kathmandu: The UML is all happy with its what it prefers to call a new formulae that would, if accepted by all contending forces including the Maoists and the Nepali monarchy, facilitate a solution to the present constitutional crisis.

Other UML partners in the coalition against what they call "regression", have become suddenly suspect of the UML’s abrupt political overtures.

A feather in the UML’s cap has been hurriedly been added by the Maoists who have taken the Roadmap charted out by the UML as somewhat positive.

The Maoists’ fresh political overtures in favor of the so-called Map of the UML has come as a bolt from the blue to the already puzzled coalition partners who now see a sort of "design" in the framing of the map by the largest communist force in the country.

A beaming Madhav Nepal is making whirlwind tours to various districts in order to "popularize" his map among his voters and others alike. In the process he is getting derailed from his party’s and coalition’s standard line on how to take the movement against regression and view the slogans being chanted by the students in the streets against the monarchy.

To recall, the agitating students have been all out against the monarchy and been demanding republic for the country.

Look how Madhav Nepal says: " We still believe that a sort of political consensus was necessary between the King, the parliamentary parties and the Maoists in order to get out of the present impasse. If the King loses time, he will have to repent".

The same day in Ithari, a small town close to Dharan and Biratnagar Madhav says: "We don’t approve the students’ chanting slogans against the monarchy and that we still were in favor of constitutional monarchy".

The fact is that his party affiliated students have gone out of his hands and been chanting slogans in favor of republicanism. Mr. Nepal says that those chanting such slogans did not belong to his party.

If Mr. Nepal’s utterances were to be believed, and we have reasons to believe, what is for sure is that his talks in Lucknow found some strikingly similar views at his tête-à-tête at Nagarjun and hence what could be certainly said that the roadmap prepared by the UML under the instructions of Madhav Nepal is the outcome of the latter’s secret parleys with Prachanda and King Gyanendra.

This has some political significance simply because the manner the Maoists have positively responded to UML’s roadmap does hint that a sort of understanding could have been reached in between the two "authorities" and hence the sudden and all-surprising roadmap.

To recall, the congress and the rest of the coalition partners excluding the UML have yet to bring their own set of versions to provide a direction to the country in order to clear the political mess that has gripped the country since 4th October 2002.

The fact is that the King has seven point agenda under his sleeves for the country which he has already pushed for the perusal of the political parties. The UML has come up with a nine-point roadmap for the country. The coalition partners currently in agitation have had their some eighteen point demands and that too in the name of the country. Add to this the Maoists forty point demands which they apparently have kept intact. All put together, we have seventy-four in all. What is common in them all is that all agenda pushed by various political establishment talks for the country. However, the ground reality is that nothing so far has come out that could be taken as to make its impact on arresting the country’s ever dwindling and extremely volatile situation.

These agenda coming as it does from various political quarters and that too in volumes have confused the people.

The UML’s leadership is so much enthusiastic of its new creation, read the map, that it has voluntarily sent signals to all interested quarters that if they wished any sort of reform or a kind of change in the basic structure of the map, the party could do so in the larger interest of the nation.

The congress under Girija Prasad has expressed its displeasure over the UML coming up with the map without consulting the coalition partners in advance. The congress believes that the map must not have come up on its own unless Madhav Nepal got some hint from certain quarter(s). Koirala naturally should some design in Madhav Nepal stealing the political show, which he could not.

A dissatisfied Koirala will in all probability encourage his band of students to "thwart" the UML design, analysts predict.

Narhari Acharya, a congress ideologue says that the UML’s roadmap since has come out of the blue and hence should be held suspect. He, however, says that it would have been better if the UML would have discussed the salient features of the controversial roadmap before making it public and making it a private party property. He then also says that since the map is there and hence discussion on the nitty-gritty’s of the map must be discussed in details.

Be that as it may, what is clear now is that the coalition partners stand divided on these counts: the roadmap devised by the UML; and on the issue of whether it was opportune moment to allow the students to chant slogans in favor of republicanism; and finally what to do with the King’s prescription?

While Koirala is against the roadmap and dismisses the King’s prescription and backs the students chanting slogans against the monarchy, Madhav Nepal not only clear about his roadmap but has also told it that his party would not subscribe to the view of republicanism.

Add to this, Comrade Rohit of the NMKP too apparently prefers to distance himself from the anti-monarchy slogans and the from the idea of republicanism at least for the time being.

The NSP might have its own grudge with the King but expectedly it would not irritate the King for obvious reasons.

All put together, Koirala appears to be the odd-man in the entire coalition.

This means that the UML, the congress and NMKP-the three parties in coalition differ on so many political counts.

Should this mean that the coalition against regression has weakened? The partners housed in the coalition beating their own drums?

Politics is for acquiring power. The UML has its own sort of politics to bounce to power but prefers to warn and not confront the King. The congress too is in the race under the tutelage of Koirala and is playing politics of confrontation with the King. The meager parties have become the tails of larger parties and been playing politics to join the government if formed by their larger political friends.

The RPP is a mess for the moment.

Prachanda spells out CPN( Maoist) policies

-Not to settle for less than constituent assembly; prefers UN’s mediation-

Kathmandu: The Maoist Supremo, Comrade Prachanda alias Pushpa Kamal Dahal, better late than never, has come up with his political rendition of his own doctrine governing the entire movement, the Prachanda Path-the Prachanda way, and has reiterated again that all that he and his party would demand is a "round table conference"; an "interim government" and "election to a Constituent Assembly".

Obviously, Comrade Prachanda in an article printed in a broad sheet daily dated January 20, should eulogize the theory, the Prachanda Path, for the Supremo of the said movement considers that the way charted by his insurgency in his own name has "provided a new dimension of ingenuity and creativity to the communist movement with the proposed new idea of Development of Democracy in the 21st Century".

Comrade Prachanda dismisses others’ who might not possess faith in his "Way" by saying that those would differ with his philosophy who "fail to understand this ingenuity and creativity of the ideas and view it from old perspectives".

This is his claim.

Prachanda has in his article outlined a few points, for example, he touches upon the political approach of his party and then talks of political tactics acquired by his party and then dwells at length on the political aspects of a new constitution wherein he reiterates on what should be on the political, economic, social and foreign policy.

Reading his article, affirmatively an interesting one, one gets carried away and thinks that if his party were in power, the country could be equated with what the mythological Lord Ram had in Ayodhya-the Ram Rajya.

One would wish that things happened Prachanda’s way.

However, charting out plans and thinking somewhat absurd in the given context is one thing, and the materialization of the same is an entirely another.

Nevertheless, Prachanda’s article has appeared a week later of the UML’s roadmap appeared in town and hit the media headlines.

Examiners of the political events in the country see nothing new in Prachanda’s article except that he is still unbending on his demand for a constituent assembly. Surprising though it may appear, however, the fact is that though Prachanda is harsh on the institution of the monarchy but then yet has not spelt out whether his new "democracy" would have or provide any role for the monarch or not. This is intriguing.

As usual, Prachanda has come down heavily against the United States and claims that the US wishes to expand its role in South Asia. This is nothing new as the Maoists have been ventilating their anger against the United States from day one of their insurgency.

Nevertheless, what is really important and significant as well is that for the first time a top-hat of the insurgency, Prachanda himself, does talk about the "unequal" treaties which he says have got to abrogated altogether.

Look what he has to say of the past treaties. "Abrogation of all unequal treaties from the past and conclusion of new treaties and agreements on a new basis".

Markedly, if one were to recall, the Maoists statements made in the recent months and years, they summarily tried to avoid any thing that could be considered as a snub to India. However, Prachanda now in clear terms says that his party would wish the past treaties abrogated which means that either he is annoyed by India in the recent weeks or felt the need to woo the psychology of the national population.

Or else why so suddenly Prachanda hints that the treaties Nepal signed with friendly countries in the past, India implied, had remained unequal and need to be abrogated. A grand departure from its stance indeed.

Talking of unequal treaty, what is the general impression in Nepal is that the treaty of 1950 is not only controversial one but an unequal one. Is it that Prachanda is pronouncing of that treaty mentioned earlier? Should this mean that Prachanda apparently is not that happy with the Indian establishment for obvious political reasons that surfaced after Madhav Nepal met him in Lucknow and the ensuing Indian criticism within and without.?

Pleasingly enough, Prachanda reiterates that the sort of foreign policy he would prefer for the country does talk about China as well. "Promotion of good neighborly relations with neighboring India and China with mutual cooperation in the fields of utilization of natural resources, trade and transit for mutual benefit, keeping in view the particularity of economic, political, cultural, historical and geographical relations with them".

However, the use of the term "particularity" by Prachanda is rather hazy which needs to be clarified.

The rest that he reiterates in his foreign policy issues is more or less same even at the moment.

Talking on the party’s political strategy, Prachanda says that the scheme is geared to "free the Nepali society from feudalism and imperialism through the bourgeois democratic revolution" and adds that the "military strategy of the people’s war is objectively based on the goal of achieving this political strategy". According to Prachanda, his party "wants" to institutionalize a republican form of state through the constituent assembly and believes that in a free and fair election the mandate of the Nepalese people would be in favor of a republic.

A casual glance at this statement does make it clear that Prachanda would wish to jump into the fray of a constituent assembly and would not mind if the verdict went against his consideration. Is he saying this by implication?

The party only "wants" a republican form of state in Nepal but is not sure what would happen next. Although he believes that the people will favor his demand for a republic. However, what makes him so sure about this is intriguing. The Maoist supremo then says that "if free and fair elections" could be held, his party would come out with flying colors. This again means that usually in Nepal, elections are not free and fair. He is speaking correct.

Prachanda in an established manner claims that Nepal at the moment had two ideologies, two armies and two states in the country. This means that we have a state within a state. He however, opines that he would wish to go in for the election of constituent assembly provided the UN were brought to the scene in demobilizing the "two" armies at time of the said election.

To recall, Madhav Nepal’s Roadmap too talks of the UN mediation. Interesting indeed. Some how or the other, the two ideas converge. A matter of serious debate indeed.

The government side has brushed aside the idea of the demobilization of its army at time of the elections.

All put together, analysts conclude that Prachanda’s inner wish is to sort out the differences in between what he calls "two states" amicably. All that he wishes is the election for a constituent assembly (supreme modality of democracy as per Prachanda) and is prepared seemingly to accept the verdict of the people. What is the harm in giving second thought to Prachanda’s "hints" of a friendly overture" contained in the article?

All that the nation needs now is a seasoned facilitator who has the idea on how a conflict is managed and that too satisfying both the contenders.

Political analysts at the Tribhuban University conclude that Prachanda’s article is worth reading though there is room to differ. At least his article would initiate a sort of debate which might provide positive ways to tackle the issue confronting the nation. It’s time that the government, the old regime, too furnishes its own version or comments on Prachanda’s formulae. Is the old regime listening?

It’s the King’s turn to act

Kathmandu: Understandably, the one who is hit hard from all possible quarters is the monarch.

The political parties are on an agitation which they claim is against the monarch’s October 4, 2002, moves.

The Maoists too have been targeting the King politically.

Add to this the students too have joined the ranks of those who are hell bent on pressing the monarch until he yields.

The Thapa establishment which should have shielded the monarch is seen busy in lingering its own tenure in Singhdurbar caring little for the monarch.

The King is the center of all the attacks by default indeed.

The fact is that the King was pressed to use the article 127. It was, analysts say, not the wish of the King to go in for that controversial article of the constitution, but apparently he was left with no other option than to use article 127.

Political analysts opine that the King could have done a lot the day he took over the charge of the country. This he could have done easily and have enjoyed people’s unconditional support for it was a period when the majority of the population had developed a sort of allergy to the political parties and their leaders for their past mal-performance, mal-governance and indulgence in acts of rampant corruption while in power.

However, the King tried to move his own way and in the process appointed two different governments under two separate personalities, albeit from the same political paraphernalia, who both failed much to the discomfiture of both, the people and the King.

Both the prime ministers could not bring about any visible change in the country. Things remain intact as was at time of the sacked prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba.

Neither the elections could be held nor the political parties came to the rescue of the King’s nominees let alone bring the Maoists to talks.

In the process, the laymen, read those who were left in the cold by the previous democratic governments, who had expected substantial changes in the country within the framework of democratic system too had to assure themselves that the country would itself acquire a track.

Now that all the major political parties are up against the King including the students, the King must initiate actions that go a long way in mitigating the sufferings of the people and also takes care of the political grievances of the political parties including those of the Maoists.

The King must read in between the lines the underlying message that Prachanda has to offer through his January 20 article wherein he prefers to keep silence on the role of the King even after adoption of a new constitution upon the accomplishment of the election for a constituent assembly.

The UML is still for a constitutional monarchy. The NMKP too apparently subscribes to the views of the UML. The RPP is unconditionally in favor of the constitutional monarchy.

Add to this the King hopefully enjoys the political support of the Indian establishment and the countries in the developed West. That the Nepali royalty is revered in India gets reflected from the manner Crown Prince was accorded rousing welcome in India this time. Crown Prince is in India visit.

With all these available political support the King can move easily. He should however, work himself hard in convincing the political leaders now in agitation that he was committed to democratic system in both words and deeds. To do so, the King can invite all the agitating leaders for a conference and seek their suggestions on how to move ahead so that the country gets out of the present mess and chaos.

A modest advice to the King would be to initiate contacts with the Maoists through his own channels, implied track two or even three diplomacy, and bring an end to the endless war that we are fighting with ourselves.

The King as the guardian of the State must act now and he should act fast.

Piece of suggestions only. It is up to the monarch himself to decide what has got to be done.

Prime Minister Thapa has nothing to lose. It is the King who would continue to be the target of the political parties.

Islamabad SAARC Summit A productive one

-Ambassador Rahim

Kathmandu: SAARC Secretary General Q.A.M.A Rahim has said that the Islamabad SAARC Summit was a landmark in truest sense of the term as such and would go a long way in bringing the regional countries further closer.

"It was a very productive Summit indeed", said Ambassador Rahim to a press gathering at the premises of the SAARC Secretariat last week.

He lauded the visionary role played by the leaders of South Asia in having approved the SAARC Social Charter; the agreement on South Asian Free Trade, SAFTA, and the adoption of the additional protocol to the SAARC Regional Convention on Suppression of Terrorism.

He, however, admitted that with so many things emerging out of SAARC Summits, tackling of the agreed issues would be difficult but then yet it had to be efficiently tackled even if the governments have had to increase human resources in their respective countries.

"It was the Summit that allowed both India and Pakistan to come closer", Rahim remarked.

"South Asia would now see an expanded cooperation in between and among the member states", concluded Ambassador Rahim.

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