|
In-depth analysis:
Don't add fuel to fire
Kathmandu: Bewilderment continues to prevail in Nepali politics.
The men in the government add to this confusion through their incongruous speeches and private talks with the country's media men.
Dr. Tulsi Giri, the country's first vice chairman in the government that is led by King Gyanendra himself is contributing to this confusion to the extent that his recent utterances regarding the monarchy and the democratic system in the country provided yet another talking point to the already disturbed parties.
To recall, Dr. Giri is reported to have told a media gathering at his private dwelling that the nation can't have monarchy and democracy at a time. This means that he wants to tell the population to chose one of the two.
Dr. Giri, a full-grown politician of the bygone era indeed has created ripples in the already troubled Nepali waters.
His intentions could well be fine and could have favored a strong and mature and constructive monarchy in the country but the manner he has tried to feel the pulse beat of the population and definitely of the agitating political parties is not only dangerous but could invite troubles of the highest order for a monarchy that is committed to the system now in place.
Dr. Giri, a declared hardliner who favors in an open manner an active monarchy, should have thought twice prior to making such testimony of its disastrous political consequences and bang within and without. His expressions are sure to do more harm than good to a monarchy that has time and again reiterated its "unflinching" commitment and regard to the democratic system.
The King is on record to have said in many international forums that all that he wanted is to consolidate the system well after addressing the pressing issues confronting the country of late. The King is committed to uphold the norms and the values of the democratic system come what may.
Interpretations are being provided that Dr. Giri is ventilating King's inner wishes, which is very difficult to absorb. The fact is that the King neither can afford to go anti-current of the wave of democratization in the world nor would be allowed to do so for a variety of national and international reasons. Above all, the King will himself say a big no to Giri's proposition because he understands what it would mean when brought into action. More so, how can one justify Dr. Giri's puzzling statements as to have been the King's mind? One has reasons to doubt Giri's motives.
All in all, Dr. Giri appears to have spoken his mind in order to feel the nerve of the political parties so that he could see how the political parties react to his "maiden" idea?
Intellectuals in Kathmandu remain assured of King Gyanendra's democratic credentials and thus hope and conclude that Dr. Giri's erratic utterances could have come from his own mind that in no way could be interpreted as to have been spoken on behalf of the constitutional monarch.
That the Nepali monarchy has fully assimilated the institution to the ideas and the values of the constitutional monarchy after the 1990 change becomes clear from an interview then granted by late King Birendra to an international magazine wherein the King was asked a meaning loaded question as to "how the Nepali monarchy would cope fare and cope with a government headed by the REDA-the communists.
The interview was conducted when Man Mohan Adhikari, the UML leader was the country's prime minister.
Analysts recall with pleasure that the late King Birendra had told the questionnaire that " since things were well guided by the 1990 constitution and since both the government and the monarchy have to abide by the stipulations in the constitution so I think it wouldn't be a problem for both of us".
Late King Birendra in saying so had clearly indicated that Nepali monarchy will have no problem or whatsoever even if the country were being ruled by the communists.
Be that as it may, political psychotherapists prefer to dismiss Dr. Giri's blunt and wild ideas that neither is feasible nor acceptable. On top of all these, the Nepali monarchy would not go by the whims of personalities of Dr. Giri, analysts believe in all earnest.
King and Kofi Annan's consent brings UN team in Nepal
Kathmandu: Beginning Jakarta and then Doha and later at various forums in Kathmandu, the King is on record to have said confidently that his three years experiment in taking over the charge of the country in his shoulders would come to an end when peace is restored in the country and the Maoists insurgency "tamed". To recall, King Gyanendra has time and again reiterated that "there was no question of winning over the rebels, it was a question of taming them".
This means that King Gyanendra too prefers a non-military solution to the overly stretched Maoists imbroglio.
Not so many people know that king Gyanendra while being in Jakarta, the Indonesian capital a few months back, had met Kofi Anna, the UN Secretary General. Obviously the two leaders did not talk about the weather in New York and Katmandu. They must have talked politics and that too on the Maoists insurgency and restoration of the derailed democratic order in Kathmandu.
In all likelihood, the King should have assured the Secretary General of the compulsions of his February 1 move for which the receiving end must have reiterated that the system be brought to the original track.
On his part, King Gyanendra presumably sought the engagement of the good offices of the UN in sorting out the Maoists insurgency in Nepal.
Kofi Annan, who has repeatedly been expressing his concerns over the deteriorating law and order situation in the Himalayan Kingdom of late must have listened King Gyanendra's logic carefully and ultimately concluded that his good offices were the need of the moment.
A deeper analysis into the possible tête-à-tête in between the two in Jakarta does lead us to believe that they must have talked about the India factor prior to the engagement of the United Nations mechanism in the Nepali affairs.
India is on record to have rejected any third party mediation in the government-Maoists talks in Kathmandu but instead has indicated that she would be more than willing to mediate in the settlement of the Nepali dispute.
That India is a factor which can't be dismissed outright and that King Gyanendra and Kofi Anna did discuss the pros and cons of the India factor prior to the UN engagement gets reflected from the expressions of Annan's special emissary who is currently in Kathmandu who has said that he has plans to talk to India in this regard.
The King wishes the UN mediation. Kofi Anna is ready to offer his good offices. Comrade Prachanda is on record to have said that if the UN comes to the scene, he and his party would not mind.
But what about the India-close insurgent leader Dr. Bhattarai?
Should this mean that the UN coming to Nepal so far had been blocked by Dr. Bhattarai or for that matter his mentors in Delhi?
As a matter of fact, India would prefer UN not mediating the Nepali affair as if it so happens, India, a country that is tip-to-toe drowned in scores of insurgencies countrywide, considers that it might set a sort of precedence in her case as well and the insurgents, the Indian ones, would demand the same treatment for themselves in their respective cases. India knows that if UN sets its foot in Nepal, it might hurt its case in Kashmir.
Now that Kofi Annan is convinced, Prachanda is convinced and King is also more or less appears determined in having the UN mediation, then what about India? Will India allow the UN team to mediate? What will happen to the secret and the hidden agendas of India that she wants to extract from Nepal while in conflict?
And more so, how Prachanda's colleague Dr. Bhattarai will react to this political overture in Nepal?
A fresh statement of Prachanda does speak of his consent of any third party mediation; it could be UN even. Is he speaking taking into consideration of the arrival of the UN team right in Kathmandu some two days ago?
However, debating over the Indian intentions will be simply wastage of time as it is clear far and wide as to what India is and what it wants from Nepal when the latter in troubled waters.
Let's presume that King Gyanendra has received sanctions from India's proxy prime minister, Dr. Man Mohan Singh when the two met in Jakarta. Let's hope that India behaves in a perfectly gentle manner. If she does not then it would mean that India would disturb the talks until its hidden agendas were met.
That's all.
Rebels hint safe landing
Koirala awaits a litmus test
Kathmandu: The NC president is not a sinking horse yet as many would believe.
Despite of innumerable shortcomings in his personality, Koirala is the one political animal who is still regarded as the one who could revolve the country's politics around him.
Others, by political height or for that matter of the immaturity, fall short of Koirala's stature. This is a fact that must be understood by his detractors here and there.
That he is still a chum of the New Delhi got reflected the manner South Block mandarins treated him this time there
That he is believed and considered to be a rebellion at par with the Maoists too got reflected when congress president met Prachanda and Dr. Bhattarai many a times while being in Delhi and the two sides exchanged views on how to cope with the Nepali events.
Koirala is supposed to have convinced the insurgent leaders in Delhi that theirs coming to the mainstream fold of the country's politics had become essential but concurrently he is supposed to have told the rebels that they would be embraced and greeted in Nepali politics only after laying down of the arms.
That the rebels too possess regard for Koirala became clear when Dr. Bhattarai, a rebel leader presumed to differ with his boss-Prachanda-on India factor-too indicated through a write up that his party would not mind an elderly leader as their own leader in the process of sorting out the prevailing Nepali imbroglio. Dr. Bhattarai's clear indication was his preference of Koirala over the others. This is significant. Whether Dr. Bhattarai said this on his own or was "instructed" to speak so could well be a matter of serious discussion among the political creatures of the country.
Nevertheless, the events that happened in Delhi, for example, Koirala's meetings with practically all the Indian leaders who possess a say in the country's politics and his meetings with Nepali rebel leaders and thereafter the indications from the rebel camp does tell that some thing very tangible political developments took place in Delhi-the Mecca of Nepali leaders.
The recent developments assume all the more significance when one is told that Girija Prasad had gone to Delhi after having a two-hour long tête-à-tête with King Gyanendra. Should this mean that all that have happened of late, the King is well informed about these events?
It has not been clear as yet whether Surya Bahadur Thapa, a close man of the South Block since time immemorial, have had a chance to ventilate his feelings to the rebel leaders or not, however, what is for sure is that since he is more trusted in the South Block scheme of things, analysts are forced to presume that Thapa could have also spoken the King's mind while meeting his Indian friends in Delhi. Let's presume that Thapa's words would have been accorded more weightage than those of others.
Should this mean New Delhi now has only two choice: either to support her old chum Thapa, a comparatively matured Nepali politician, or the one who is less conspiratorial but could do miracles for India if in power?
Prachanda's fresh expressions that he was willing to forge a sort of alliance with the agitating seven parties does tell that the Maoists are now convinced that by joining the alliance in Kathmandu they would have crossed the half-way of entering into the mainstream of the system. This is no less an achievement.
In doing so they would be exhibiting their regard for the system now in place. A grand departure indeed from their previous rigid stance.
Now the question arises as to which force on earth has made the rebels to change their previous stance? Was it Koirala's lectures on the very ideals of democracy or Bam Dev's rough and tough definitions of democracy that could have convinced the rebels to change their mind?
Or is it Indian tacit maneuverings that told them now not to further embarrass the one which provided shelter in its territory in the eyes of the globe?
By now the entire world knows that which force did support the Nepali rebels and for what reasons.
Well !Well !Well.
Now a litmus test awaits Koirala and his party. This would apply to the rest of the legitimate political forces as well.
How Koirala as the leader of the seven agitating parties plus of the rebels as well, let's presume this from their recent indications, strikes a balance in between the constitutional forces that till today adhere to the institution of monarchy in the country and the rebels who possess no good words for the said institution while providing a safe landing for the rebels?
What will be carefully watched is how Koirala will bring the rebels into the folds of the agitating parties and how he tackles the million-dollar question of the arms that the Maoists militia possess at the moment?
Koirala's political acumen would be tested on how he convinces his international friends, excluding India, about his engagement with a rebel group that is still considered by many countries as radical communists?
Be that as it may, the rebels coming closer to the agitating parties should be considered a half way victory. This should mean that the rebels finally need a safe landing and in the process have banked upon Koirala.
Rebels now favor democracy instead of constituent assembly; change in stance?
Kathmandu: And finally the leader of almost a defunct party, the Nepali Congress-Democratic is in New Delhi.
Perhaps it is the end of the series of invitation being accorded to Nepali leaders by the Indian establishment for reasons neither New Delhi.
Nothing to panic from the Indian designs. The more she interferes in Nepali affairs, the more she gets exposed.
By the same token, Nepali leaders too have established that on earth it is only India and her establishment alone that would wish to listen to their grumbling. The fact is also that no other country other than India would prefer to listen to Nepali leaders for others have nothing to interfere in to the matters of a sovereign country like Nepal.
The invitation extended to Nepali leaders in series is somewhat puzzling. More mind-boggling is the unidentified and undeclared purpose of Nepali leaders' travel to that country who upon return from New Delhi pose that they have conquered the earth and thus what they will utter should become binding on all.
However, this is not the case.
The more they visit Delhi, the more they were exposing their host country.
Let's presume that not all eggs are rotten in Delhi. Let's believe that some sane brains prevail there who in all honesty wish to see a stable and peaceful Nepal that was and will ever be in the overall interest of India.
The fact in the form of tragedy is that Nepal can't change its neighbor. Good or bad, Nepal has to fare with this neighbor hoping against hope that one day a pragmatic Indian leadership will not repeat the tactics of arms twisting as and when Nepal was in crisis.
To recall, Bam Dev Gautam, a UML leader who is known for his fiery speeches and a declared rival of Madhav Nepal, last week told a media gathering that the demand of a constituent assembly were not primarily of the Maoists.
While saying so Mr. Gautam then had surprised many a brains but that the demand for a constituent assembly were not of the Maoists and that Gautam was speaking the truth became evidently clear from what Prachanda now has to say now in his fresh statement. He says now, "we are ready to hold talks with any global organization, including the United Nations, which are in favor of democracy, peace and progress of the Nepali people".
Prachanda does not talk of constituent assembly as revealed some time back by Gautam. Prachanda now instead talks of democracy. This means that he believes now in a democratic system. This implies that his party would wish to assimilate itself into the system provided some tangible benefits were accorded to his party. Interestingly enough, this is what King Gyanendra also says. To recall, King is on record to have said that a true and vibrant democracy is people's democracy.
Should this mean that King Gyanendra and Prachanda were talking the same? Or is it that Prachanda is convinced now with how his people's democracy has been defined by King Gyanendra?
Finally, Prachanda wants peace and progress in Nepal. No debate in this regard. Koirala needs peace. Bam Dev wants peace. Prachanda wants peace and the King also. So where in the difference?
Prachanda's fresh statement is important and loaded with meaning in the sense that it has been declared at a time when so many positive happenings are taking place in this country. More so the statement has come at a time when the UN team is here. Should this mean that peace is round the corner? Should this mean that things will take a positive turn much to the discomfiture of some who would wish Nepal sinking into deep waters of the ocean of conflict?
Analysts take Prachanda's reiteration in good faith and hope that he would abide by what he has freshly said.
Perhaps it is time that the lame-duck government understands the meaning contained in Prachanda's reiteration and cashes in upon Prachanda's changed stance.
IFJ representative in Nepal
Kathmandu: It is horrifying to learn that the local administrators are coming heavily down against those media men who dare to write of the authorities' wrong doings.
Scores of media men in the country continue to be the target of the local administration in an unjustifiable manner.
Only the other day, a journalist in Birganj, Bhadra Nath Adhikari have had to face the wrath of the mid-regional administrator Rabindra Chakraborty, for having written stories dwelling on administrator's possible accepting a bribe.
An infuriated administrator put Adhikari behind the bars for a fault not of his own.
The central umbrella organization of the journalists, FNJ, has vehemently condemned Chakraborty's highhandedness.
In the mean while, Jacqulin Park representing Federation of the International Journalists is in Nepal to assess the prevailing situation of the nepali media in the recent times. "We will make a detailed study of the incidents and problems Nepali journalists are facing and will prepare a document about it" said Park to a select group of media upon her arrival in Nepal.
ENBREF:
LTTE training Maoists on suicide bombing
Kathmandu: Newspapers report last week claimed that that the Sri Lankan rebels, the LTTE, are training rebel Maoists from India and Nepal.
According to an Indian Newspaper, the LTTE operatives are training the Maoists to create a squad of twenty to thirty women and children and make them human suicide bomber delivery squad. They are packed with explosives and carry cyanide in case they are caught.
News reports also claimed that the French Maoists are also involved in the training program.
China provides land for Lhasa consulate
Kathmandu: Finally after 206 years of Nepali presence in Lahsa, Tibet, the Chinese government has provided land on lease to Nepal.
It was stated that an agreement was reached in Beijing after a consultative meeting between Nepal and China.
Nepal received the land on lease for 70 years for its consulate; in lieu Nepal will pay China Rs 35 million.
Nepal preparing for tri-lateral talks
Kathmandu: A trilateral talk involving Nepal, China and India is to be held shortly to discuss a proposal on developing Nepal as a transit point between China and India. Discussions are being held after Chinese support for the proposal.
Preferring anonymity a senior official at the Foreign Ministry told a vernacular daily last week that “Nepal is preparing for initiating immediate trilateral talks”. Our homework will be concentrated on this, he added.
UN team arrives
Kathmandu: A special envoy to the UN Secretary General Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi arrived last week for a six-day visit to find a peaceful resolution to Maoist conflict in the Kingdom.
Mr Brahimi is heading a three-member team. Brahimi was reported as saying that his visit was a “follow-up” visit after a meeting between the King and Annan in Jakarta in April.
Brahimi is expected to meet senior government officials, leaders of political parties and a cross-section of representatives of Nepalese society.
King expresses sorrow
Kathmandu: HM the King Gyanendra last week expressed deep sorrow over the loss of lives caused by the terrorist attack in London.
In his condolence message sent to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, HM while condemning the shameful act of terrorists, sincerely hoped that the perpetrators of the heinous crime would be brought to justice at the earliest.
“We take it as yet another reminder of how resolutely the worldwide war on terrorism needs to be carried out in the spirit of solidarity to save people and democracies from terrorism in all its forms and manifestations,” the King said.
The King also extended heartfelt condolences and sympathies to Her Majesty the Queen and through her to the families of the grieved people.
Maoists free journalists
Kathmandu: Two journalists who were abducted by the Maoists have been freed. After eight days of negotiation the Negotiators from the Federation of Nepalese Journalists (FNJ) were able to secure the release of the journalists.
The released journalists were charged of writing news critical of the rebel group.
They were freed from Jamuna village, about 600 kilometers (375 miles) east of Kathmandu, on Sunday.
Journalist Som Sharma had been abducted in May while Umesh Gurung was being held under what the rebels said was house arrest for the past month.
|
