I n d e p t h    A n a l y s i s
President Koirala bends!

Kathmandu: President Koirala is the patient. He is concurrently a medical practitioner who is able to cure his own ailments.

He creates problems for himself. He later manages to escape from the mess by devising certain schemes.

For example, he spoke so many indecent words against the judiciary and later clarified that he meant no harm to the nation's apex court and that his struggle was targeted towards the King.

A little later, now he is saying that all that he has been doing of late at Ratnapark was simply to strengthen the hands of the monarch and nothing more than that.

Koirala blows hot and cold concurrently. In the process, what he appears to have not taken note of, his own followers and the partners in the movement against regression are criticizing him. The partners in the struggle against coalition have begun talking in a subdued voice that they find themselves in a very awkward position on how to champion the cause of a political personality who is challenged by the CIAA and now become the target of the nation's judiciary and who is de facto commander of their own movement. In a similar fashion, Koirala's own party men appear in a pendulum on whether to support Koirala's case at the Supreme Court or refrain from siding with their own president who has challenged the supremacy of the apex court.

At yet another level, the lay men but democratic minded ones too appear reluctant in taking the sides of a Koirala who claims to be a democratic person but yet challenges the very basic tenets on which democracy rested.

All put together, Koirala is losing his political base among his own party men and colleagues housed in other political groupings. The result is that he is creating problems for himself and expects others to come to his rescue.

Having said this, look what Koirala is planning in the days ahead.

President Koirala made a statement that he will abide by the commands of the Supreme Court instructions and would be present at the court in person. However, as is his habit, Koirala, however, put his own flimsy preconditions. The condition being that he will attend to the court provided the court allowed the media men to enter into the courtroom whose presence there would make things transparent.

An arrogant Koirala apparently tried to exhibit his supremacy by making a statement that if he is made to listen to the court dictates, the court too should listen to his commands.

The fact is that the court has summarily rejected his proposals by saying that such precedence doesn't exist and hence question doesn't arise to entertain Koirala's requests. To put it mildly, the court made it amply known to Koirala and his followers that the court can't be pressed the way Koirala wished.

Now that Koirala is all set to attend to the court's commands, what becomes important is that finally Koirala accepts the supremacy of the judiciary. It is less significant that what Koirala says inside the court-room and how he defends his case there. What is important is that he ultimately heeds to the court's orders and exhibits his loyalty in favor of the judicial system of the country.

Sources in the Congress-D say that Koirala's intention to carry with him the media crew inside the court-room at time of his explanation is a desire to make his stay inside the court a historic one through the use of the media. However, the fact is that the media, if allowed by chance, is expected to report what they listen there to which they neither can maneuver nor can report in a manner that suits to their political interests.

Be that as it may, political analysts say that Koirala's change in stance vis-à-vis the Supreme Court is by all angles a welcome move. Koirala's abiding by the dictates of the SC would serve as a precedence which presumably would be a sort of lesson for others of the sorts of Koirala who when enraged lose their temper and accuse the judiciary as and when the latter goes against their political interests or characters.

The fact is that Koirala is yet to receive the letter sent to him by the SC instructing the former to present himself in person well within a week or so. The Nepali rule is that the person so demanded by the court has to present himself at the premises of the court within a week of the receiving of the letter. Koirala's followers claim that the letter is yet to come to Koirala.

This is not important. What is important is that Koirala is presenting himself in person before the court.

Prachanda's tricky questions to test Deuba's political acumen

Kathmandu: The Maoists leadership appears to have gone crazy.

They have begun talking any thing under the sun as if they don't have any concrete schedule of their own to which they should stick till the end.

Look how the Maoists have been changing their stances of late.

" We will not talk with the Deuba government as it is more or less like a marionette sort of establishment".

"Instead, we will prefer to talk to the real masters (the King implied) of the old-regime".

Within a fortnight or so, the Maoists high command makes a U turn on its previous stands and indicates that they could even talk with this government provided the latter answered a set of questions posed to the government by the party. Should this mean that the Maoists are providing legitimacy to this government?

Without going into the details of the questions, analysts would wish to interpret the content of the six queries sent to Deuba by Comrade Prachanda.

The first question posed by the Maoists inquires whether this establishment can revert to a position prior to the days of October 4, 2002? In saying so, the Maoists hint that they would not mind the restoration of the now dissolved parliament, a line clearly being advocated by President Koirala alone. But then yet the fact is that Maoists' spokesman, K.Mahara, only the other day told that it would be a futile exercise to restore the parliament as demanded by some forces of the country. Should this mean that Prachanda is close to Koirala's line and his spokesperson rejects that theory? Should this also mean that Prachanda and Mahara differ tremendously?

The second question states that can the men in the establishment manage a sort of amicable relations with the parliamentary forces and prepare a conducive atmosphere for the talks going straight against the will of the military generals and of the Palace? In saying so the Maoists wish to hint that the talks were possible provided the Palace and the military establishment so desired. Should this mean that the Maoists consider the two, the Palace and the RNA establishment, coming in the ways of the talks? This does also hints that the Maoists still possess a sort of respect and honor for the parliamentary parties, which indicates their willingness in joining the democratic mainstream if things moved their way. Is this a change in their party's stands vis-à-vis the democratic order for which they basically don't possess any respect and honor given the past experience?

In his third question, Prachanda asks the establishment as to whether they can dare to trace and penalize the killers of Hem Narayan Yadav, a UML leader? In saying so, Prachanda cuts joke at the UML by implying that the UML could sacrifice any thing under the sun provided the party were elevated to the corridors of power. This question is strictly related with the UML wherein Prachanda would wish to examine the very credibility of the party-the UML.

The fourth query questions whether the men in the present government can exhibit its total and unequivocal sincerity, both in words and deeds, in making the people really sovereign through the Constituent Assembly? In saying so, the Maoists Supremo appears less confidant that the men handling the present administration would remain true to their words even if every thing is finalized in favor of the constituent assembly. A sort of mistrust persists in the minds of Prachanda, it appears.

The fifth question is bit exhilarating indeed. This inquiry is related with Nepal-India bilateral relations.

The query bluntly asks the establishment as to whether the men in government could bring in the good offices of the UN or some similar reputed International HR Commissions for arriving at a meaningful solution to the imbroglio by rejecting the military support from the Indian rulers?

In saying so, Prachanda hints that his party would not mind if the UN idea is dropped. But he would not settle for less than bringing in some recognized international bodies at time of the talks in lieu of the UN system. In the same vein, Prachanda shows signs of his displeasure over Deuba bagging India's military support to crush his part led insurgency. The question implies that Nepal would do well if she rejected the Indian assistance. This also means that Prachanda wishes that no foreign power as such should intervene into the Nepali affairs either militarily or in the form of efforts aimed at mediation. Clearly, for Prachanda, India is the villain at the moment. Unexpected change in Maoists stance indeed.

The last question is again related with the Armed forces. Prachanda asks whether the men in the government can commandingly and convincingly prove with one example at best that conforms to the government's claim that the RNA establishments were in total control of the government of the day? By implication, Prachanda hints that the government is a lame-duck one that acts under the influence of some powers and that the government can in no way go against the will of those powers.

Apart from the six questions, Prachanda also hints that if Deuba and his colleagues were really serious for the talks then he should answer the questions and expose those who were behind the curtains. If Deuba succeeds in exposing all those who are behind the curtains, we will come to the talks, says Prachanda.

He however, does not pinpoint those behind the curtains.

All in all, the six questions posed to the government by the Maoist leader is a positive one for he nowhere in the question rejects attending to the talks provided he gets plausible answers to his questions.

Analysts say the government would do well in answering the questions at the earliest and assure the lay men that peace were round the corner.

The questions are indeed tricky ones, which would test the political acumen of Deuba and his partners in government more so of the UML. A trying time for the Deuba government indeed.

Guns or reconciliation?

Kathmandu: The Sher Bahadur Deuba led four party partnered government is not a united lot.

This is what the political analysts conclude.

Deuba's ministers give an impression that it is they who provide direction to the government's impending moves and in the process confuse the people and their own leaders seated in their respective parties.

Worth noting is the fact that the ministers representing the UML party in government do clearly differ with what their own leaders in the party lecture.

For instance, Madhav Kumar, the undisputed leader of the party, has repeatedly been demanding the announcement of a unilateral ceasefire from the government, his own party minister, Bachaspati Devkota, the other day brushed aside his own party's boss demand by saying that any such declaration would do more harm that good. In saying so, Mr. Devkota hinted his party boss that his dictates would not be entertained on matters that are to be decided and finalized by the sitting government. It further implies that Mr. Devkota wants to hint Madhav Nepal not to poke his nose in the exclusive affairs of the government.

Why Mr. Nepal is insisting on the announcement of a unilateral ceasefire by the government is a matter to be seriously taken care of.

Is he expecting that if the government does so, the Maoists will follow suit? If he is so hopeful then it should not be a matter of annoyance to anyone including minister Devkota. Or is it that he is being seduced by the Maoists to press the government in this regard? What if Mr. Nepal makes the same fervent appeal to the Maoists for a declaration of ceasefire much ahead of the government's announcement? If he can press the government then why he appears reluctant in doing the same to his Maoists colleagues?

Is it that he wants to show the rebels that he is sympathetic towards their issue? This is not in effect.

That he is not that sympathetic to the Maoists got reflected the other day when Madhav Nepal in a threat loaded voice indicated Prachanda to come to his senses and understand the existing realities.

"Do away with the illusions, if any, and shun arrogance whatever you might have", is what Mr. Nepal suggested comrade Prachanda. In the same vein, comrade Nepal also made it clear to the leaders of the insurgency that if the conflict continued for long then in that eventuality it would be the Maoists insurgency that would accrue tremendous loss.

At yet another level, Madhav Nepal too clearly hinted that his party would wish the UN presence at the talks but would not recommend the international body assuming any advanced role. Madhav's stance now coincides with those of Koirala's regarding the possible role of the UN in the peace talks.

The same is with Deuba. His own words and speeches differ.

He says the media men that the talks will commence in a manner that even the media men would not get an inkling of the talks.

That he and some of his ministers were making false comments regarding the "secret ongoing talks" with the Maoists came into the open when comrade Prachanda sent his "thrilling" questions in the name of Deuba suggesting that the Maoists were yet to decide whether or not to go for talks with this establishment.

Analysts opine that Deuba upon his return from New Delhi is a different political stuff. A Deuba who used to talk the language of reconciliation in the not so distant past now is a different political personality who believes in the strength of the guns though he understands well that it is a battle that guns can't settle.

Now it is up to Deuba to decide on how to proceed ahead. He is left with only two major options: either to rely on the strength of the guns or reconcile with the Maoists by replying to Prachanda's hair raising questions.

Deuba would do well, opine analysts, if he adheres to the mode of reconciliation.

Warren assures support to FNJ

Kathmandu: The visiting President of the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), Mr. Christopher Warren talking to a delegation of the Federation of the Nepalese Journalists, September 28, has said that the FNJ has a tremendous role in guiding the overall functioning of the Nepal's media sector.

"The FNJ is the leader of the Nepali media", is what Christopher said of the FNJ.

He also made it clear that the central office of the IFJ understands this reality and that the IFJ would do every thing possible to enhance the functioning of the FNJ secretariat.

Mr. Warren who is here in connection with a regional media seminar assured the FNJ delegation that the IFJ would take up the case of the Nepal's working journalists' plight through appropriate international channels.

The FNJ delegation led by Mahendra Bist, apprised the IFJ president of the issues confronting the FNJ in its smooth functioning over the years.

Mr. Warren commenting on his meeting with the Prime Minister said that he found the Nepali chief of the executive less interested in media affairs for unknown reasons.

"The Prime Minister was not in full concentration when I met him at his official residence and was asking me less important questions", lamented the IFJ president.

The IFJ team included Ms. Jacqueline Park, director, Asia-Pacific regional Office, Sydney, Australia and Ms. Laxmi Murthy, IFJ New Delhi bureau.

Later in the afternoon, the IFJ President and his team visited the central office of the FNJ and addressed a press conference organized by the FNJ.

Responding to queries of the media men, President Warren expressed his grave concern over the plight of the Nepali journalists who, according to him, had become the victims of both: the rebels and the state security forces.

Opinion | Dateline | National |  5 Question  | Editorial | Letter | 2nd Impression | Views | International | Tête-à-tête with Amandine | Past