Thursday, October 27, 2005

Girija: A Closet Republican


Girija's House revival stance is really in the way of a negotiated solution to the crisis. But then his unwillingness to go straight for a democratic republic is also frustrating a lot of the youth. He is like a dam waiting to burst.

His lack of clarity is raising the stakes.

He wants the House revived before anything else can happen. And the House is not going to be revived. And so there will be no resolution. The dictator king will keep turning up the heat. People are going to lose their patience. And the dam will burst.

Maybe Girija is a closet republican after all.

Peace Making: Emotionally Complex

I got to meet about a half dozen members of the Nepali delegation passing through town. I am not making a whole lot of headway. People will not come outright and say they are for a republic, they will not come forth and say they are for a negotiated settlement. There is too much eagerness to instead express ethnically prejudiced remarks. It is a hodgepodge.

It is like water at five degrees celsius, and water at 95 degrees celsius. Molecules move differently at different temperatures. I might be dealing with the five degrees molecules. The forces at work are so very different. The speed is so slow. There is little or no emphasis on logic.

They are the ones on the ground facing the reality. So of course they have final say. That is only fair. But there is this defensiveness. There are these overt and covert suggestions as to why you don't come to Nepal, but there is not much willingness to exchange ideas with the same person to whom the invitation is extended.

The forces at play that are deciding what Girija, Gyanendra and Prachanda say and do are very real for each of them. And I can listen to explanations as to why they say and do what they do. But all three could admit the big picture is ugly. It is a mess.

But I am going to keep trying. You counter the "m" word with the "p" word, and then you ask the next question.

Could The Chinese And The Russians Be Reading This Blog?

I made this blog entry: Dean 2008, China, Pakistan, Russia, North Korea, Cuba And Nepal. And the next I knew the Russian Duma passed a resolution supporting the king's call for his two elections and the Chinese extended monetary aid to the Nepal army. Russia has this superpower hangover. It will oppose America in ways that are insignificant as if to feel like it is still a bipolar world. And the Chinese did not give lethal military aid, but it gave some money as if to say no they are not scared.

Perhaps it was all just a coincidence.

Attacks On Kantipur FM

The king is cementing the republican sentiment. There is increased bipolarization. He is raising the stakes. The veneer is coming off if it ever existed.

Wild Maoists

These people are so out of the whack. They are almost begging for foreign military intervention. They have been singing their anti-imperialism tune for so long, they need a foreign military intervention to justify their propaganda.

Now they are out and about talking of a Greater Nepal. They want to expand Nepali territory.

Looks like Prachanda has been on the run for so long, he has lost touch with reality.

Looks like they took a huge risk internally to declare the ceasefire, and since the regime did not respond as it should have, the hardliners among the Maoists organized a backlash against those who took the risk of the ceasefire.

All three camps just keep digging their heels, the king more than most.

There is this unstoppable momentum to the bottom.

Countdown To A Republic

I don't think the seven party leaders are against the idea of a republic. It is just that they do not want to get too ahead of the general population. Once a critical mass gets out in the streets, I don't believe they will be eager to preach against the republican agenda.

The king was not a democrat to start with. Now the smoke is fast clearing up. His true face is getting seen. He is not even attempting a facade.

Democrats: A Colorful Crowd

There are all kinds. There are many who still fantasize the 1990 constitution can be saved. They are the ones scared of the social progressive agenda. They are the ones who get scared of words like Dalit, Madhesi, Janajati, Mahila.

The Endgame

What will it be like?

In The News

Noorani: King Gyanendra and Henry VIII


King Gyanendra and Henry VIII

A.G. NOORANI

The Indian Independence Act, 1947, enacted by the British Parliament, set up, by Section 1, two independent states, India and Pakistan. Section 6(2) endowed their legislatures with full legislative powers, including the power to amend “the provisions of this Act”. It would be absurd to imagine that this gave either state the power to amend Section 1 and absorb the other within its territories, nullifying the partition. But it would not have been absurd at all for them to amend Section 7(1) (a) and (b), which provided for the lapse of British suzerainty over the princely states and transfer it to the new state. That paramount was attached to British rule. With its transfer to former British India, paramountcy over the “native states”, comprising one-third of the country, should have been transferred as well. India’s leaders would have been justified in enacting this amendment on August 16, 1947, and thus solved the states’ problem.

Two considerations deterred them. Legally, the literal interpretation was wrong. As a Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court said: “The worst way to read a Constitution is to read it literally.” Everyone knew that Section 7 was intended to help the two states to tide over transitional difficulties.

Morally, the action would have been reprehensible. The Act embodied a compact between the Indian leaders and the British government. The states’ problem, though created by the British, was ours to solve. Abusing Section 7 would have been a legal as well as a moral wrong. It would also have been a nullity in law.

The Act did no more than adopt the British parliamentary practice of using “the Henry VIII clause”. An authoritative work on British Constitutional law, O. Hood Phillips’ Constitutional and Administrative Law mentions that “Parliament sometimes delegates to a Minister the power of modifying the enabling Act so far as may appear to him to be necessary for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation. Such provisions are usually transitional” (emphasis added, throughout). Which is why they are placed at the end of the Act in the “miscellaneous” part. No Minister or government dare use it to “modify” the law basically, let alone subvert it.

The Committee on Ministers’ powers noted that the power “has been sparingly used, and… with the best possible motives”. It had not “given ground for complaint”. Nonetheless it was “inconsistent with the principles of parliamentary government”.

It was called “the Henry VIII clause” because that King was regarded popularly as “the impersonation of executive autocracy” and the clause reflected, in popular eyes, the famous Statute of Proclamations, 1539, which gave him the power to legislate by proclamation. The Committee said: “The purpose of Henry VIII was to enlarge his powers to make proclamations having the force of law. The sole purpose of Parliament… was to enable minor adjustments of its own handiwork to be made for the purpose of fitting its principles into the fabric of existing legislation… and of meeting cases of hardship… .” It was repealed on Henry’s death in 1547 (Cd. 4060; pages 36 and 61).

Such a clause figured as Article 392 of the Constitution of India, on the lines of its predecessor Section 310 of the Government of India Act, 1935. It gave no power to the President of India to nullify the Constitution just as a similar provision (Section 35) in the Prasar Bharati Act, 1990, does not empower the government to scrap Doordarshan’s and All India Radio’s autonomy.

King Gyanendra has done just that to Nepal’s Constitution. He has invoked Article 127 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1990, to subvert Nepal’s parliamentary democracy. In doing so, he has put the institution of monarchy on its deathbed. Article 127 reads thus: “If any difficulty arises in connection with the implementation of this Constitution, His Majesty may issue necessary orders to remove such difficulty and such order shall be laid before Parliament.” Three features stand out. First, Article 127 occurs in Part 20 dealing with miscellaneous matters.

Secondly, it is a power to be exercised only on the advice of the Prime Minister. Article 35(2) of the Constitution says clearly: “Except as otherwise expressly provided as to be exercised exclusively by His Majesty or at His discretion or on the recommendation of any institution or official, the powers of His Majesty under this Constitution shall be exercised upon the recommendation and advice, and with the consent of the Council of Ministers. Such recommendation, advice and consent shall be submitted through the Prime Minister.” If the King is to act on his own under any provision, it must be “expressly provided” by it. Article 127 contains no such qualification. Advice of the Prime Minister is the rule; the King’s discretionary power is the exception to be “expressly provided”. Interestingly, while Article 78 of India’s Constitution vests the executive power “in the President, to be exercised in accordance with the Constitution”, Nepal’s Constitution takes the precaution of insisting [Article 35(1)] that it vests in the King “and the Council of Ministers”.

Even Article 115 on emergency powers contains no such exceptional provision. Proclamations of Emergency are subject to the approval of the House of Representatives. Thirdly, so are the King’s orders under Article 127. They must be “laid before Parliament”. Ergo, the power cannot possibly be abused to deprive Parliament of its authority.

Gyanendra did just that. On November 4, 2002, he sacked the Prime Minister, Sher Bahadur Deuba - Nepal’s Ramsay MacDonald (”the boneless wonder”) - for his “incompetence”, dissolved the Council of Ministers and postponed the general elections which were to be held on November 3. These orders were made, he claimed “in accordance with Article 127″. Emboldened by the lack of strong reaction, particularly in India and elsewhere, he gambled on February 1, 2005. He sacked the Deuba government, which he had reinstalled in between, imposed a state of Emergency in his own discretion in breach of Article 115 and invoked Article 27(3). This provision reads thus: “His Majesty is to preserve and protect this Constitution by keeping in view the best interests and welfare of the people of Nepal.” This provision binds the King to preserve and protect the Constitution, not to violate it or scrap it because in his view the interest and welfare of the people so required. Gyanendra’s perversion of Article 27(3) is palpable and serves only to expose him. The man is simply clutching at straws. As part of his scheme, leaders of political parties were imprisoned. This formulation is akin to that described in oaths of office for Presidents the world over. Article 60 of the Indian Constitution contains a similar formulation. It does not empower President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam to scrap the Constitution because he thinks it is in the interest of the Indian people to do so.

Gyanendra was opposed to his brother the late King Birendra’s acceptance of the 1990 Constitution when he relented to the popular movement for democracy and the pressures of a March 1989 Indian trade embargo. Birendra set up a nine-member Constitution Recommendation Commission (CRC) headed by the Chief Justice, Justice Biswanath Upadhyaya, an erudite and upright Judge whom this writer had the privilege of meeting in Kathmandu in August 1990. He told the International Crisis Group (ICG) on September 29, 2004, that the King had “misinterpreted” Article 127, which was modelled on Article 392 of the Indian Constitution. A respected member of the CRC, Daman Nath Dungana, pointed out that in order to invoke Article 127 “a recommendation is needed from the Prime Minister and [the order] must be within the Constitution.”

The CRC should know since it had prepared the draft and presented it to the Council of Ministers. “Palace allies” presented a “palace draft” thereafter. Senior Army officers met a CRC member to urge that the Army should be under the King’s control and sovereignty should reside with the monarch (ICG’s Report, June 15, 2005; Towards a Lasting Peace in Nepal: the Constitutional Issues; page 3; an extremely able document). Its report of September 15 is entitled Nepal: Beyond Royal Rule. The title reflects the changed reality.

The palace’s moves failed. Article 3 pointedly asserts: “The Sovereignty of Nepal is vested in the Nepalese people and shall be exercised in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.” No wonder King Birendra announced the new Constitution on television on November 9, 1990, the day it came into force, “with a strained face”.

Both its background and its provisions reflect a fundamental reality: The Constitution was a solemn compact between an absolute monarchy and a people clamouring for democracy. Not once did King Birendra invoke Article 127 to nullify it in all the nearly 11 years he presided as head of state in a parliamentary democracy. That was left to his brother, Gyanendra, who became King on June 4, 2001, after Birendra’s assassination by his son. A King who breaks a compact with his people so wilfully and perverts clear provisions of the Constitution proclaims three things - utter lack of integrity and unfitness to rule; the demise of the monarchy; and the irrelevance of the Constitution.

So systematic was the abuse of Article 127 that a former Election Commissioner, Birendra P. Mishra, opined that the Constitution should be renamed “the Constitution of Nepal 127″. In an article in The Himalayan Times (September 7, 2005) he cited instances to show that “from October 4, 2002, onwards, a new or an amended Constitution is being gradually framed in an unwritten form with such salient features like: the sovereignty lies exclusively with the monarch… ” Indeed, “the entire administration of the Kingdom is at present being run by this Article [127]”.

Gyanendra came to power under the worst of circumstances. He was a businessman. The mystery of his brother’s assassination remains unresolved still. As Michael Hutt recalls in his introduction: “On the night of Friday June 1, 2001, King Birendra and the whole of his immediate family were either killed or fatally injured by gunfire while they were attending their customary monthly gathering at the Narayanhiti Palace in Kathmandu. Of the 21 guests, Birendra, his wife Aishwarya, their younger son Niranjan, and their only daughter Shruti, were all pronounced dead at the Birendra Military Hospital shortly after the incident. Their other son, Crown prince Dipendra (who was proclaimed King even as he lay in a coma) was declared dead on June 4. Five other relatives also died of gunshot wounds, including Dhirendra Shah, one of King Birendra’s two younger brothers.

“Prince Gyanendra, the only surviving brother, was crowned king on June 4… . Conspiracy theories multiplied, fuelled by suspicions that Gyanendra, perceived as the chief beneficiary of the massacre, might have had some hand in planning it, and by the widespread public unpopularity of his son (Paras), who was widely believed to have been implicated in some well-known drunk-driving incidents, of which at least one had led to a fatality. Demonstrators who ventured out on to city streets found that they were being fired upon by police, and for several days the capital was placed under curfew.”

A Commission comprising the Chief Justice and the Speaker of Parliament - another member withdrew - submitted a 196-page report. “However, the report contained a number of contradictions and left many questions unanswered.” The novelist Manjushree Thapa writes a gripping account of that massacre and its aftermath of “mass disaffection”. Her critique of the report is detailed and devastating.

Gyanendra came to power under a cloud and the cloud still hovers over him. It did not induce restraint, but recklessness. The ICG’s Report of September 15 warns of “a real danger that hardcore monarchists will conclude that a final brutal crackdown is the only option”. The faithful courtier Tulsi Giri said last month that the Constitution is an obstacle for the King in achieving his objective (The Hindu, September 28).

THESE three books help us immensely in understanding the nuances in a grim situation. They are particularly useful for an understanding of the birth and growth of the Maoist movement and its ideological contradictions. Michael Hutt’s volume has essays by specialists of note. India’s immediate reaction, on February 1, was to express its “grave concern” at the “serious setback to the cause of democracy in Nepal” and to voice its support to “the two pillars of political stability in Nepal”, its multi-party democracy and constitutional monarchy. Eight months later, the formulation is no longer sound. To insist on it is to confer a veto on the culprit, Gyanendra. He is a source of instability and major political elements have dropped support to the monarch. The Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) led by Madhav Kumar Nepal opted for a democratic republic and for a Constituent Assembly at its Central Committee meeting on August 25. The Convention of the Nepali Congress (Koirala) adopted a resolution on August 30 deleting references to constitutional monarchy from its constitution. India must, therefore, alter its formulation and insist only on the restoration of democracy in accordance with the wishes of the people.

All this brought the mainstream parties closer to the Maoists organised in the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN-Maoist). Its leader Baburam Bhattarai said in December 2002: “Our party, our party Chairman Prachanda and our various publications have time and again stressed that our immediate political agenda is to consummate a democratic republic in the country. Please note that we are not pressing for a `communist republic’, but a bourgeois democratic republic. For that, we have advanced the immediate slogans of a roundtable conference of all the political forces, an interim government and elections to a constituent assembly.” One sticking point of old - the republic - is gone. What of the other fundamentals?

Will the Maoists disarm, shun violence and really work “a bourgeois democratic republic”? Vis-a-vis India, will they cease to encourage Indian Maoists and shun their fears of Indian hegemony? On September 1, Indian and Nepali Maoists pledged themselves to work together till “the cause of socialism and communism is established in Nepal, India and all over the world” (Indian Express, September 3).

Time was when the Maoists’ Chairman Prachanda told Revolutionary Worker in 2000 that “ultimately we will have to fight the Indian Army”, presumably if it intervened to save the King. He is an unabashed admirer of Peru’s Communist Party and admitted that he had been to Bihar and Andhra Pradesh (Spotlight, April 6, 2001). In an interview to Keshav Pradhan of The Times of India (September 13, 2005), Prachanda claimed: “We have only ideological ties with Indian Maoists.”

Events have been moving at a fast pace and have rendered many a formulation obsolete. Seven political parties - the Nepali Congress (Koirala), the Nepali Communist Party (United Marxist-Leninist), the Nepali Congress (Democratic), the Jan Morcha, and three others - issued a joint manifesto equating “rightist extremism” (the King’s rule) with “leftist extremism of the CPN (Maoist)”. But, not quite. It said: “A conducive atmosphere will be created for the Maoists to take part in the peaceful process of ending their conflict.”

Its demand for “reinstatement of the dissolved Parliament” implies, inescapably, revival of the 1990 Constitution and the King as head of state. The Nepali Congress changed its mind, and rightly so. The Maoists, too, have shifted their position significantly from the day they presented to the Prime Minister on February 4, 1996, their 40-point Charter of Demands before launching the “people’s war” on February 13.

Only through a dialogue can the Maoists’ stand and their sincerity be gauged by both the mainstream parties and India. On July 11, the Maoists appealed to the seven parties “to hold a dialogue… which would explore a way out”. On September 3, Prachanda announced a ceasefire for three months.

Gyanendra’s tactic is to split the Maoist leadership and separate the Maoists from the seven parties. No one in his senses will fall for this. The Nepali Congress reacted positively to the ceasefire. Prachanda’s statement made an overture to India: “We believe our move will encourage all forces, within and outside Nepal, who want peace through a forward-moving political solution.”

Popular resentment increases by the day. Gyanendra’s coup has failed dismally. He is ostracised internationally and distrusted domestically. The judiciary is a frail reed to rely on. Nepal has a vibrant radio movement. Its FM radios broadcast news as well unlike their supine Indian counterparts who submit to this unconstitutional ban. On August 10, the Supreme Court of Nepal stayed the government’s order closing down a private radio station FM 91.8. Another station Radio Sagarmatha, a community FM radio station, also began airing news. As did very many others. But the newly appointed Chief Justice, Hari Prasad Sharma, went out of his way to support the royal coup and denigrate the peace process in a speech at a conference of Chief Justices of Asia-Pacific on March 20, 2005. The King’s orders of October 4, 2002, and February 1, 2005, are pieces of “delegated legislation” and are very much open to judicial review. Even in the United Kingdom, courts have struck down such orders, which are ultra vires of the parent Act. Nepal’s Supreme Court will uphold dutifully the King’s order.

WHAT is the way out? The United Nations Assistant Secretary-General Kul Chandra Gautam said on April 4, that “ways can be found to accommodate the Maoist demand for a round-table conference, an interim government and some form of Constituent Assembly that is consistent with (democratic) principles”. Alone among the states of South Asia, Nepal has never elected a Constituent Assembly. Half a century ago, King Tribhuvan promised a “fully democratic political system functioning in accordance with a Constitution prepared by a Constituent Assembly”.

But such a body can work only on the basis of a political consensus. The Assembly can serve as an interim legislature following an all-party accord on an interim government that would hold the polls. Such an accord is entirely for the Nepali parties, the CPN (Maoist) included, to accomplish. Bodies like the Citizen’s Movement for Democratic Peace can serve as mediators. The ICG’s Report of September 15 notes differences on policy among leaders of the Government of India.

India can do a lot diplomatically. The 5,000-strong Maoist army cannot be ignored. The war has exacted a toll of 12,000 lives. Over nine million Nepalese live on earnings of less than a dollar a day, as Manjushree Thapa reminds us. Much can be done to alleviate suffering. The International Committee of the Red Cross has rendered yeomen service since 1998. It has successfully interceded with Maoists to secure releases of hostages. But it meets with obstacles when it seeks access to detainees in government prisons. It has branch offices in all the 75 districts of Nepal and sub-offices in more than 1,000 villages. India must support the ICRC. Indian non-governmental organisations (NGOs) should take keener interest in Nepal’s travails. The Government of India would do well to craft a coherent policy, which it could pursue consistently. It must not forget either its assets in Nepal or the memories of a past in which grave mistakes were made.

Surya P. Subedi, Professor of International Law at the University of Leeds, has written a documented critique of India’s policies on a host of topics. One has only to read the moving “late life recollections” of the legendary B.P. Koirala to realise that there was cause for resentment even at the best of times (Atmabrittanta; Himal Books; Kathmandu).

Consider two episodes - on May 6, 1954, Nehru told Nepal’s Foreign Minister D.R. Regmi: “It was clear that the old Treaty between Nepal and Tibet had no force or relevance today. It might be considered to have lapsed. Normally, this should give place to a new treaty or agreement between the two countries and, sometime or other, this would have to be done. But it is not necessary or desirable for Nepal to take the initiative in raising this matter.” Why not? Half a century later Nepal knocks at India’s doors for a new treaty.

An anti-monarchy demonstration by Tribhuvan University students in Kathmandu on May 15 demanding the restoration of democracy.

One was, indeed, offered by the self-styled author of the “Gujral doctrine”, of which little is heard in India. Prof. Saubhagya Shah of Tribhuvan University records that episode in Hutt’s volume. In 1990, Inder Kumar Gujral was External Affairs Minister and in Nepal the Panchayat government had been “disabled by the mutually reinforcing actions of Opposition demonstrations and the year-long Indian trade embargo. At a moment of extreme vulnerability, New Delhi (that is, Gujral) sent a new treaty proposal on March 31, 1990, for the King to sign in return for the possibility of relieving the pressure on his beleaguered government. The terms of the new proposal were so harsh that they `virtually put the clock four decades back to July 31, 1950′.” It was far worse than the 1950 Treaty.

The crux of the treaty proposal rested on four restrictions on Nepal: 1) Nepal would not import arms or raise additional military units without Indian approval; 2) Nepal would not enter into a military alliance with any other country; 3) Indian companies would be given first preference in any economic or industrial projects in Nepal; 4) India’s exclusive involvement would be ensured in the exploitation of `commonly shared rivers’, in Nepal. “Rather than sign the treaty with India in the hope of saving the panchayat regime, King Birendra instead pre-empted New Delhi’s calculations by abruptly handing over power to the alliance of the Nepali Congress and the United Left Front without seeking Indian assistance or mediation.” Prof. Subedi’s volume reproduces the full text of that shameful document.

India can adopt a two-pronged approach - active diplomatic support to Nepal’s political parties in their struggle for democracy, coupled with a major policy declaration, at an appropriate moment, that it is prepared to meet Nepal’s concerns on the 1950 Treaty, cede Kalapani to Nepal, and do all it can to assure its neighbour of help. But all this would be undertaken by India only when a democratically elected government assumes power in Kathmandu. Such a declaration would be warmly welcomed by all in Nepal, bar the King.

India and Nepal need each other; not least for mutual security. But that security rests not on any “security clauses” in any treaty but on the sheer facts of life of which geography is but one part. India must aim at the hearts and minds of the people of Nepal; they are the best guarantee of the security of both countries.

Gyanendra has repeatedly broken his promise to India and indeed to his own people. In March, for instance, he promised through his Foreign Minister Ramesh Nath Pandey that he would restore “multi-party democracy at the earliest”. His lies need to be exposed, especially the ones on Article 127. International legal opinion, especially English jurists, should be mobilised to pronounce on the true import of Article 127 and thus strip Gyanendra of the fig leaf he uses to cover his moral and constitutional nudity.

Himalayan `People’s War’: Nepal’s Maoist Rebellion edited by Michael Hutt; Hurst & Co., London, distributed by Foundation Books; pages 322, Rs.650.

Forget Kathmandu: An Elegy for Democracy by Manjushree Thapa; Penguin; pages 260, Rs.350.

Understanding the Maoist Movement of Nepal edited by Deepak Thapa; Martin Chautari, Kathmandu; pages 395, Rs.500.

Dynamics of Foreign Policy and Law: A Study of Indo-Nepal Relations by Surya P. Subedi; Oxford Univesity Press, India; pages 274, Rs.595

Monday, October 24, 2005

Tanka Goebbels Dhakal


Nazi Propaganda (1933-1945) - Joseph Goebbels
Propaganda in Nazi Germany
Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television: Joseph Goebbels ...
Dr. Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945) Reich Minister of Propaganda | The ...
Goebbels Nazi
Joseph Goebbels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Joseph Goebbels - Propaganda Principles

The clampdown on the media evaporates off possibilities of dialogue between the king and the democrats.

The king's brown shirts physically assaulting the Kantipur FM premises is straight out of the book of the fascists.

A massive bipolarization is in the works.

The seven parties need to come around to the two word program of a democratic republic.

King G has autocracy written all over his face.

The bureaucracy is already with the democrats.

The army has to be requested and warned to stay out of it.

The police have to be befriended if possible. The idea is to get hundreds of thousands of people out in the streets. Avoid direct confrontations. Outdo them with sophisticated organization. But it would be unrealistic to think all confrontations can be avoided.

Precisely because the parties were inefficient, partially corrupt, and partially inept that we need full democracy. We criticize our parties when we compare them to the parties in mature democracies. But this is not the time for doing that. This is the time to compare 12 years of democracy to the absolute monarchy before and after.

Dean 2008, China, Pakistan, Russia, North Korea, Cuba And Nepal


Bill Clinton Had Icecream For Lunch
Jesse Jackson On Martin Luther King Boulevard
Soaking In Howard Dean
Dean Was In Town Yesterday

The Saudi Royal Family Has Got To Go
I Am Running For Dean 2008 Campaign Chair
Takes Two Arms And Two Legs To Swim
2008: Some Themes
2008: Some Thoughts
Dean 2008
Dean-Hillary-Obama Ticket
Democracy For Nepal, DFN
The Three Pillars

Recently Pyar Jung Thapa was in China, and the Chinese met up with him, and promised him an increased military cooperation. If that means more Nepali and Chinese army generals pay each other visits, organize tea parties for each other, that is fine. But if China were to get involved in providing lethal military supplies to the Nepal army, that would be like taking sides in Nepal's internal matters.

So far China has stayed neutral. I would have preferred they were actively on the side of the democrats, but it is fine if they just stay neutral. It is fine if China stays focused on economic issues, on issues of trade.

But taking sides will not be okay.

China can not afford to turn Nepal into a fault line between itself and America. The king of Nepal is not worth the trouble. China can not afford to pick up fights with three major trading blocs: the US, Europe and India. For what?

China the country and the Chinese Communist Party are not one and the same. The Chinese economy and the Chinese Communist Party are not one and the same. It is only a matter of time before the political monopoly of the Chinese Communist Party is brought to an end.

There is not going to be a hot war. There is going to be a war with communications technology.

As for "Taiwan, Tibet and human rights," Taiwan and China might become one after China becomes a democracy. West Germany did not become communist. It was the other way round. There is going to be democracy in China, and China is going to become a federal state, and Tibet is going to be one of the states, and the Tibetans are going to enjoy religious freedom. Human rights are not western or Asian, they are human, and universally applicable. The Chinese people are as human as anyone else on the planet.

The Chinese immigrants in the US are going to take the lead.

There can be a soft landing. The Chinese Communist Party could opt to become one of many parties. They might even stick around as the largest party post-democracy. If they can ditch Maoism for a market economy, they can ditch totalitarianism for a multi-party framework.

But all that is for later.

For now China is going to make sure it does not take sides in Nepal's internal matters.

China is not a democracy.

Pakistan is no democracy. Musharraf is a joke.

North Korea is not on this planet. Kim Jong Il is a total basket case.

Russia is a half-hearted attempt at a democracy.

Cuba is not one. Fidel will flee.

The king of Nepal and his international friends just might ignite the third, final wave of democracy. They really might be up to something.

How do you identify the autocrats? They hang out together. They hobnob. They see common ground. They seek solace with each other.

Sunday, October 23, 2005

A Day In The Life Of Gagan Thapa


It was a full day spent with Gagan Thapa.

What is he like? The guy is flat out hilarious. Every other sentence he speaks he is cracking jokes. And they are not jokes from the jokebook. He is just talking, relaying stories from here and there. It is just that he gives this funny twist to events and circumstances. He is smart. He is very smart. He speaks easily. He is extremely social. He is very comfortable around people, all sorts of people. He is agile.

The lunch in Jackson Heights was to be at 11, and I showed up on time. I called Anil. He did not pick up the phone. I called Sanjaya. He said the place is not open yet. I later learned Anil had mistakenly put out the time to be 11 when it was to be more like 12.

So I got off the train. I walked around trying to find the place. A young, pretty woman approached me. She had a small handwritten card that said she had children, if I could please help. I waved no, I was on the phone. Then I got off the phone. She spoke. She spoke English.

"Where you from?" I asked.

"Bosnia."

She talked me into giving some money. I said I had no change. The smallest bill I had was a five. She talked me into going into a store to break the bill. I came out saying the line was too long.

"Give me the five bucks," she said. I was not expecting to hear that. That was blunt. She talked me out of five dollars.

"Do you have children?" she asked.

"No."

"Why don't you have children?" she said with a broad smile.

"I am an unlucky man."

Then another woman approached me. She also had a card in her hand. I swiftly walked away. I had not taken the train to Jackson Heights to file for bankruptcy.

The first person to show up was Deepak "Nepe" Thapa. He is the fiercest republican at Sajha. We talked for a little while, then we walked into the restaurant after it opened, and we talked some more. People started streaming in. A roundtable was full before Gagan showed up.

I was hungry. I had started eating even before Gagan showed up. I was told there was no protocol, and it was okay. People at the table must have felt sorry for me. I really was hungry. For dessert I had eight or so gulab jamuns. I think Gagan, who was sitting opposite me, noticed. Well, Gagan, chill. I don't remember the last time I had that many gulab jamuns at once. These ones were just so warm and nice.

Gagan talked expansively. He touched on many different topics. People around the table participated, but it was mostly Gagan talking.

He brought up the topic of internal reforms inside the parties. Madhav Nepal is no better than Girija Koirala when it comes to treating the student organizations with respect, Gagan emphasized. Party leaders interfere in the internal matters of the student organizations when there are no provisions to do so.

There was a broad discussion of money and politics, the lack of transparency inside the parties, the lack of legitimate financial opportunities for aspiring career politicians.

Pramod Aryal called in. He was asking for a transcript for Gagan's talk from the previous day. He is the ultimate Mr. Telephone man.

After lunch we went sight seeing. Sanjaya's car and Prateek's car were put to service. Gagan got to get off for the Statue of Liberty viewing, Ground Zero, Wall Street, the Seaport, and the park near the UN where the September 16 rally was held. It was during some of those walks that I really got to know Gagan. There were a bunch of fun conversations.

I tried taking several pictures of Gagan with the Statue in the background, but to our frustration the Statue would not grow in size as I pointed the camera at it. The Statue that Gagan got as a gift yesterday looked bigger to the one he got to see. There was no time to take the boat.

He is a people person. He has to meet you before he can feel comfortable emailing you back and forth. He is a face time person.

He relayed many stories. Stories from his current tour, stories from his street appearances, stories from the past few years. He is full of stories.

"This is not a movement for you and I to become martyrs," I emphasized at one point. "This is a movement to throw the autocrats out, and get the democrats into power. If anyone does end up a martyr in the worst case scenario, it will be King G, not some democrat. Caecescu style."

I really wanted to make this point. We need to be working for an orange revolution, a velvet revolution. There should be no bloodshed. Even for the king I wish a soft landing. The confrontation has to be political, not physical.

You get half a million people to come out in the streets and stay in the streets. No need to try to cross the police lines. No physical confrontations. I know that is hard to do if the police come attacking, as they often do. But the goal has to be to just get the large crowd out.

The goal has to be to turn Nepal into what Ukraine was during the winter of 2004.

Gagan has laid the case for a republican Nepal like noone else. 95% of the 30,000 and more college students in Nepal who voted on the issue voted for republicanism. Gagan speaks for them.

Deepak Thapa who I have nicknamed the Gagan of Sajhaland kept making the same case. The widely quoted Nielsen poll from late 2004 that claims more than 60% of the Nepalis are for a constitutional monarchy, and less than 10% for a republic is at fault, Thapa claimed. There was a small sample of only 3,000 people. And the question was misleading. The question was as to what kind of monarchy the people preferred, and more than 60% said constitutional monarchy, a little over 20% said executive monarchy. The question if the people want a repubic or not was never asked in that poll. And 2/1 has had a major impact on public opinion. That same poll does not say the same thing for the college student age group that the referendum does.

Deepakji has a point. Recently all district chiefs of the Anandi Devi Sadbhavana also pushed for a republic. Looks like cadres in all parties are for a republic. Only the leaders are not coming forth openly. Is it some sort of a fear factor?

Just like "multi-party" was the phrase that ignited the 1990 movement, now "democratic republic" might be such a phrase. If the seven parties and the Maoists can come around to that two word agenda, people will fill up the streets. The civil society movement has been getting a much better response than the parties, and it is because the civil society has a stated goal of a democratic republic.

The king has been unrelenting in his excesses. He is leading the country to a decisive bipolarization. The country might be going through the birth pangs of a democratic republic.

Gagan's approach is not to do with polls. He makes a clear case for a republic, and then asks for the political consciouness in the country to be raised, because that is the right thing to shoot for.

"We sharpen the agenda and the program of the seven parties," he said. He is not trying to start his own party. He is not trying to leave the Nepali Congress. His goal is to stay engaged and work for internal reforms inside the Nepali Congress. I commend that pragmatism.

Gagan thinks the movement will really take off after Tihar.

Back at Sanjaya's place I initiated a discussion on the endgame scenarios for the movement. What do we want? What options do we have? I got the impression the endgame will take care of itself. The work at hand right now is to get the seven parties to come around to the slogan of a democratic republic. Because that is the right thing to do, that is what the people want, that is what is good for the people.

Gagan relayed the story of the first corner meeting after 2/1. It was an act of superb organization.

Then there was the ride to the airport. We just assumed it was JFK. It ended up it was the Newark airport. We were already near JFK by then. Good thing Anil was driving. He knows the city like the back of his hand. We barely made it on time. And for most of the ride Gagan was busy on the phone. There were all these goodbyes that needed saying. It was Kiran Sitoula's phone, Gagan told me. Sitoula the nuts and bolts man.

Gagan was off to London for a week. Then it was off to Nepal.

"Be safe," I said and huggged him goodbye.

145 Photos.

Saturday, October 22, 2005

The Man, The Myth, The Legend: Gagan Thapa



Finally I get to meet Gagan Thapa in person.

I am hoping to get there at least half an hour early, but the weekend construction work on the train tracks makes you take unexpected detours, and I am seven minutes late to the assigned time. One person shows up after the program is all over and Gagan is out in the street. He never learned of the time change from 5 PM to 2 PM. At least that is not my story.

I get off the train at 125th Street. Then I run after figuring out which direction to run. The main door is closed. Just when I am trying to figure out how to open it, it opens. Khul ja simsim. Mridula Koirala and others are down at the entrance.

I hurry up to the third floor. Bump into Anil and Sanjaya. I head straight to where Gagan is sitting and introduce myself. We know each other by name and have seen each other's photos. But this was the first time meeting in person.

He is sitting next to someone who went to the high school I did, about seven years ahead of me in the row of batches. "I know you."

I tell Gagan and him I met Bill Clinton a few days back and got to shake his hand. I did not wash my hand for the rest of the day. Today I was getting to shake Gagan's hand. The hand is going to go unwashed for the rest of the day. Gagan is mildly chuckling. (Bill Clinton Had Icecream For Lunch)

More people arrive. The program starts fashionably late. Anil announces we have to leave the hall by 4 PM. Anil pulls me aside. "I wanted to ask you something even if belatedly, after the fact."

I have a transcript in English of Gagan's talk in Boston posted at my blog. Anil tells me Nepe has posted it at Sajha, and Anil has printed it for the Americans among the audience. (Gagan Thapa Talk In Boston: Two Hours Audio)

"You don't need my permission for such a thing," I say.

I mean, we are supposed to be in the middle of a revolution. This is not the time for niceties. Gagan refers to the same transcript before he speaks. He says he is going to stay within the outlines of the transcript. But he ends up elaborating much more. And I am glad he does.

Two people are recording the talk on video, artist Asmina Ranjit and the Samudaya person, so I figure I will just post links to those later on after those clips go online. I might even prepare another transcript later on.

For now I want to emphasize the key points.

12 years of democracy were not perfect, they were not even democracy in the strictest sense of the word, but don't lump the democratic parties with the true villains, he says. Nepal is two years older than America, but look at America today. It was lack of democracy that kept Nepal behind. Blame the monarchy, not the parties.

What you do here, the support you extend here really helps at the other end, he says. Keep doing what you have been doing. People in Kathmandu think your September 16 protest rally is the reason the king cancelled his UN visit. (September 16 Protest Rally, King Cancels UN Visit)

And he gives a terrific analysis of why the monarchy should go, no ifs, no buts. I am impressed as much with the conclusion as I am with the window into his thought processes he exhibits. Gagan Thapa is a sharp mind. He is a gutsy street fighter, but he is also someone who reads and thinks a whole lot. He is humble, he wants to learn. He is articulate. He has a great grasp of both Nepali and English. But I am glad he makes most of his presentation in Nepali.

His talk is preceded by the Aandolan Jari Chha DVD. It is heartwrenching to see the police mercilessly beat up demonstrators. Seeing it in photos is one thing, but seeing it in video is a whole different story. And the atrocities we see on the screen are only the tip of the iceberg. Brave photography nevertheless. This video needs to be uploaded on Google Video. The world needs to see. My high school roommate Dinesh Prasain has done the voiceover. (Dinesh Prasain Tour: Report, The Dinesh Prasain US Speaking Tour)

I have the honor of asking the first question.

"Before I ask the question, let me point out," I say, and relay the Bill Clinton story to the audience. Then I add, "I know you have already partially answered this question. But after Tihar looks like the movement might really take off. What support, moral and logistical, can the Nepali diaspora provide?"

He says financial support is not needed. But moral support is needed more. There are many Nepali groups all over America. But there is no one umbrella group that does rapid response. The Kantipur FM got assaulted, but I have yet to see a press statement from this end condemning it.

His comment is to the point. We at this end criticize the political parties, but the organizations at this end do not perform that much better. Fair enough.

I get myself some homework from Gagan. I hope to make a whole bunch of phone calls.

There are several other questions. Then a whole bunch of people come to shake Gagan's hand. Many want pictures taken with him. Some with my camera.

Around that time I also get criticized by several people in person for a piece I wrote after meeting Sharad Chandra Shaha. (Sharad Chandra Shaha Is A Dazzling Person)

I do not apologize but I do quite some explaining. I made no ideological sacrifices. Infact, I was very open in my criticism of Shaha and others in the king's inner circles. (Gang Of Four) I have criticized Tulsi Giri more severely than anyone else I know. (Response To The Panchayati Ghost Tulsi Giri)

But I was in a peace talks mood. Sharad Chandra Shaha, Bharat Mohan Adhikari, Tara Nath Ranabhat, and Lokendra Bahadur Chand were all staying at the same hotel for a few days. I had a chance to meet them individually and see if I could get all of them together and talk things up. I failed, that's another story. But if I am going to talk to Shaha, I need to respect him as a person. How else can I hope to do business with him?

I still believe the seven party alliance and the king should agree on an all party government that will take the country through a constituent assembly. I prefer that option to a revolution. When you go for a revolution, several intangibles come into play. The goal is a constituent assembly, and the least disruptive path to that assembly is the best option.

I believed that then, I believe that now.

Sadly I don't see either the king or the parties coming around to it. And so I am going to do my very best to support the movement.

No, meeting Sharad Chandra Shaha was not a mistake. It was an effort at peace making. I wish more people in each of the three camps did what I did. I am willing to lose some popularity for peace. Many Nepalis are losing much much more than that.

I also see representatives of Tamang and Sherpa and Gurung groups come to meet Gagan. These Janajatis are one step ahead of the Madhesis in terms of their political consciousness. They have vibrant organizations. They make sure the Bahuns and Chhetris know this is America, not Nepal. There is almost this hierarchy, Bahun-Chhetri, Newar, the different Janajati groups, and Madhesi. Dalits are pretty much non-existent. The mini-Nepals in America reflect the power structure in Nepal even in purely social circles.

As a Madhesi I have thought some into this. First of all, neither my personal nor my professional lives depend on any Pahadi. So I only interact in a zone of mutual respect if it be forthcoming. As for the collaboration on the movement in Nepal, as long as federalism is on the agenda, as it is, the collaboration does not have to be lovey-dobey, it only has to be an attempt at effectiveness. Organizations like the Alliance and the Youth Council are into event logistics for Nepali guests passing through town. They do a great job, and the logistics are not my forte. I contribute primarily through my blog and I telecommute directly into the circle of the top leaders of the seven party coalition. I help with the analysis, the strategies. And I think it helps the movement when I go shake Bill Clinton's hand, Jesse Jackson's hand, Howard Dean's hand, and so on. I also pick up the phone when and where it can help.

I think the Madhesis do need to work on the ANTA idea all over America. The pride has to be cultivated. And then there has to be an emphasis on creating zones of mutual respect with the other groups, and especially with the Bahuns and Chhetris and other Pahadis with hangovers from Nepal.

I think for many Madhesis to rally behind the ANTA is tantamount to coming out of the closet. It is only happening so far in trickles. Members of an oppressed group have spent too much time running away from their collective identities. It takes some time to undo that disintegration.

Gagan is booked for most of the rest of his stay in the city. I want to spend some time with him but he does not really have a slot. But there is an open lunch with him in Jackson Heights tomorrow at 11. I don't feel bad about not having more time with him, but I do feel bad he is not getting to do much sight seeing in the city. Too many people want one-on-ones with the superstar. Meeting in large groups, or going sight-seeing in a group they might feel diluted. There is a rush to get on a first name basis with Gagan. It is almost ineffective to the cause. But how often does someone like Gagan come to the city? The 1990 movement produced Madan Bhandari. This movement is to produce Gagan.

See you tomorrow at lunch, Gagan. After that he spends time with Kosmos Bishwakarma. At lunch I am going to throw in the idea of taking Gagan on a tour of the city. He needs to see at least the top four or five places. People can hold the conversations during the tour.

And then after the event Sanjaya Parajuli, Mridula Koirala and I ride in Sanjaya's car over to Mridula's restaurant. I have known her name and face since I got into the city. But today I got to know her as a person. She is like the Mayor of the Nepalis in the city, the unofficial ambassador.

She was reading news for Nepal Television during the last years of the Panchayat. Once she referred to the king as the Vice Chancellor of Tribhuvan University instead of the Chancellor, and she got sent from the news reading section to the production section. She is good friends with star TV journalist Bijay Kumar. And looks like she just knows a whole lot of people. BP Koirala's daughter in DC, not to say Girija Koirala. She knows Keanu Reeves, the actor. Senator Charles Schumer has dropped by her restaurant.

Minendra Rijal of the Deuba Congress once told her when the Foreign Ministry in Kathmandu issues people like him passports, they also give them a key to her apartment. A lot of dignitaries pass through I guess.

Mridula has been running her Upper West Side restaurant for almost 15 years. She is a successful entrepreneur. I don't know many Nepalis who even attempt to be, let alone succeed.

"I am a feminist," she says. Not many white women say that, let alone South Asian women.

Mridula presented a replica of the Statue to Gagan on behalf of the Alliance. She was the second best speaker of the day after Gagan.

She was off to a dinner with Pradip Giri's ex-wife who now works for a UN organ. I overheard them on the phone. The query was if Gagan was coming along! Answer: No, Gagan is not with Mridula and me.

Gagan is hot property. Everyone is wanting to spend some time with him.

The following Saturday I get to meet 15 leaders from the seven parties who will also be passing through town. I intend to make a second attempt at this: Wish Me Luck.

78 Photos.

Friday, October 21, 2005

INSEC Report: One Month Of Ceasefire


The Maoists are going to have to make up their minds. If they declared their ceasefire for the illegitimate Gyanendra Shahi government, they need to act like it. On the other hand, if they did it so as to forge a stronger alliance with the democrats, they need to act like it too.

Their best bet is to work towards a solid eight party alliance.

I think it was a mistake the government did not reciprocate the ceasefire. But then 2/1 was also a mistake. This government had made endless mistakes. I am not surprised it made the mistake of not responding to the ceasefire. I would have been surprised if it had done the right thing.

It makes no sense for the Maoist republicans to hedge their bet on the goodwill of this regime.

The Maoists have already said they are for a democratic republic, and that they want to get there through a constituent assembly. Such a democratic republic will not have room for any party to have a standing army. The state will have an army and that is it.

Before the country goes through a constituent assembly, the Maoists will have to have disarmed. And they know that as well as you and I do.

So in agreeing to a democratic republic, and a constituent assembly, they have in effect said, yes, we will disarm.

The best way would have been for this royal regime to invite UN mediation. But I don't see that happening.

The Maoists insisting on UN mediation is like Girija insisting on House revival. Neither is about to happen. Because both strategies depend on the king's willingness to go for it, and he has made it absolutely clear he will not go for either.

So Girija and the Maoists need to face the reality.

The Maoists have to make a constituent assembly and a democratic republic possible by thinking of other ways of disarming.

I think the Maoists should take a serious look at my idea of a unilateral disarmament:
Art Of War, Art Of Peace.

If UN mediation not be forthcoming, that idea might be the fastest way to a democratic republic.
Mohi magne dhungro lukaune garna bhayena.

The Maoists don't have the option to play games. Geopolitics don't allow for games.

I don't think the Maoists are trying to. But I do think there are hardliners among the Maoists who are hard to convince. And there might be plain inefficiency, a case of not being able to do exactly what they intend. And there is the relentless state offensive. So they don't have as many options. They are not in an easy situation themselves.

But the Maoists have been mum for a while. There have not been statements from them in a little while.

I hope they will take the best option they have: a unilateral disarmament that leads to a strong eight party alliance for a democratic republic, so there is a total bi-polarization in the country. That bi-polarization will hasten the demise of this regime like nothing else might.

I don't believe the Maoists declared their ceasefire intending to play games. They waited for a week. They became convinced the royal regime was not going to reciprocate. So they thought, if the regime is not interested in peace, and the seven parties are not going to launch a movement to get rid of the regime, then what options do they have except to prepare for another round of fighting to tire out the regime?

The flaw in that thinking is to assume the seven parties are not going to dislodge the regime. The seven parties are about to wage a decisive movement. This regime has only a few months left.

But if the Maoists wage another round of civil war, they mess things up for the very movement that will dislodge the regime. Why will the Maoists do such a thing? Why will they do anything that might prolong the life of this illegitimate regime?

So they should preferably think in terms of a unilateral disarmament. And if they can not do that, they have to extend the ceasefire. If they do extend the ceasefire, the movement has more breathing room. The movement dislodges the regime, and a democratic interim government is formed. That governemnt will take the UN mediation route, if necessary. If that's what the Maoists want. But then that also means there will be no eight party alliance.

A solid eight party alliance is the best, quickest way to a democratic republic. A seven party alliance can also do it as long the Maoists do not wage another round of civil war.


.....
statement of Prachanda declaring ceasefire, which came unexpectedly
.....
The Maoists also did not respect their own commitment.
.....
been involved in killing of civilians, crossfire, abduction, targeting of schools, beatings and incidents of loots.
.....
A total of 4 civilians have been killed by the Maoists whereas they have abducted 8057 persons, most of them being students and teachers.
.....
targeted schools in at least 9 districts including Jhapa, Argakhanchi, Morang, Jumla etc
.....
Maoists also were found of beating civilians, students and even human rights defenders
.....
even looted a sum of rupees 6,00,000 which was to be distributed among community schools in Taplejung district.
.....
looted the house of one person in Ramechhap
.....
threatened different industries, businessmen, government employees, schools and NGOs to pay tax, stop functioning in Jhapa, Kavre, Morang, Kaski, Dailekh and Surkhet districts.
.....
continuing their activity of detaining people in their 'labor camp'.
.....
at least 90 Maoists have reportedly surrendered to the government
.....
the government has increased its activity of searching villages, arresting citizens and disappearing them. The security persons are even seen of carrying out extra judicial killings.
.....
endangered the durability of the unilateral ceasefire of the Maoists.
.....
security persons have killed 29 people during the first month of ceasefire mostly in acquisition of being Maoists. They have also arrested at least 106 persons from 25 districts in allegation of being Maoists. Even civilians have been injured in the landmine explosion planted by the RNA. They even beat civilians for no reason in Ilam and Surkhet districts while carrying out search operations.

....
Maoists’ unilateral ceasefire, which brought rays of hope for sustainable peace amongst the Nepalese people, seems in the verge of breakdown following the activities of the government. It is a very high time for the government to response it by reciprocating the ceasefire so as to create conducive environment for peaceful resolution of the problem.
......
the Maoists should create favorable environment where the movement of political parties could be taken to the villages, which has not been seen in the first month of the unilateral ceasefire.
......
government has stimulated the violent activities in the name of anti-terrorist operations.


[PDF]
ONE MONTH OF CEASEFIRE
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
ONE MONTH OF CEASEFIRE. An Assessment of Human Rights Situation during the ...
Human Rights organizations including INSEC and HRERLC, ...
www.inseconline.org/download/Ceasefire%20.pdf - Similar pages

Sage Radachowsky Interviews Anil Jha


Audio Clip Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, a joint general secretary of Nepal Sadbhawana Party (Anandi Devi), sat down for an interview on 18 October 2005 while he was in Boston on another program.

In the interview, Anil speaks about his party’s struggle to represent Madeshi issues, in terms of proportional representation, cultural and linguistic rights.

He speaks about the armed conflict and dynamics between the 7 agitating parties and the CPN(M). In this regard, he touches on what the role of international community could be, to support a nascent 7 Parties/CPN(M) alliance that may yield peace with dividends of social justice if enacted correctly.

He touches on the split in the NSP that occurred in 2003. The leader of the other faction, Mandal, is now an acting minister in the King’s government. He predicts that the Anandi Devi faction, which is representing the will of the people, will survive as the Nepal Sadbhawana Party while the Mandal faction will subside.

Listen to the interview by saving the file from the link below:
MP3 file, 3.59MB

Produced by Sage Radachowsky for INSN.


Madhesis are exploited. That has been true since Nepal got established as a country. The country is there, but the state is not there. The Madhesis pay more than 70% of the revenues, but get less than 20% back. Less than 5% of the civil servants are Madhesi, there are none in the army. Maybe there are a few doctors, engineers, barbers, dhobis in the army who are Madhesi. Same with the police. Only one Madhesi became DIG.

Also on citizenship certificates. Nepal has 24 million people. More than 4 million people are seeking citizenship certificates. Most of them are Madhesi. Those are government figures. A UML government came up with those numbers. The UML is a party dominated by hills people. Even they came with those numbers.

Another issue is to do with parliamentary constituencies. In Manang 10,000 people get one seat. In Rautahat half a million people have only four seats. All constituencies should be based on equal population.


We are also demanding a federal form of government. The central government can not do everything. We are for five state governments and one central government. The centre can take defense, foreign relations. Development work should be by the states.


We also talk about our culture. There is no such charter in the world anywhere. In the Nepali parliament only one race is allowed. The MPs are not police or military. So why is there a unform for MPs? In other countries, the MPs decide what they want to wear.


There is Mt Everest and there is Rajbiraj. In the same zone. When it is 40 degrees celsius, Everest might have minus 10 or minus 20. How can you control both places? That is why we are talking of federal government.
A tribal of Namche wears bakkhu, a Madhesi wears dhoti.

As you know Nepal is multi-lingual, multi-cultural.
We are also talking about language. Nepali is the common language in the hills. More than 60-70% of the Madhesi people can not speak Nepali. Our lingua franca is Hindi. So we want Hindi to be the second national language. When hills people talk to the locals in Rautahat they do so in Hindi.

Our all these demands have been momentarily sidelined. For now we are focused on democracy. We are one of the seven agitating parties.


The Maoists are fighting with the establishment. Their slogans are positive. That is why they became popular. They became popular among the tribals, Dalits, women, the Madhesis. Those groups never got justice during 12 years of democracy.


The international community does not listen to those with no muscle. We have no bargaining capacity. The Maoists through guns and ammunition attracted all the world community.


All things in the country are derailed. Democracy is derailed, development work is derailed. We are very aware about that.


Peaceful movement is not noticed. The big powers only listen the sound of barrels. Otherwise we Sadbhavana Party people have been talking peacefully for 15 years. We waged hunger strikes. But noone noticed. Not the international community. But they notice the Maoists.


This is a very fertile time. This is a negotiable time. All the major parties, even the pro-palace party RPP is not supporting the king. The RJP is not either. All the parties are against the king. All seven parties, who had 95% of the parliament, are all for a constituent assembly. This is a fertile time for the Maoists also. This time will never come in the future. If the Maoists miss this opportunity, they will not get this ever again. They should come talk to us, the seven parties.


They have stopped their People's War by our request. We hope we will settle something.


In 2003, our party split. Badri Mandal is a Minister, he was Deputy Prime Minister. He wants to be Minister at any cost. He has no principles. He has card given to him by Gajendra Babu. He is cashing that card. But once there is democracy, his party will collapse.
We will be the only Sadbhavana left. If now there is regime of king, but when the time of public will come, only those who are with the people will survive. We are with the people.

Any talk between the Maoists and the seven parties, the obstacle is what and how we can implement any negotiated agreement. This is a major obstacle. Neither they nor us are in power. That is why.
We can only make strategies in terms of joint agitations. Something will be negotiated. We should convince the international community. That is necessary. If Maoists by heart and soul and by brain, if they would like to, they can do so. The general people are with us. The people are not with the rulers.

The international community is confused by the Maoists. Their goal is totalitarian. But they are also wanting to convince the international community that that is not the case. That they will obey rule of law, multi-party, market, press freedom.
By their activities they can convince the international community. They have captured parts of the country. If they will practice these things in those parts, then they will earn legitimacy. By thier acts. By doing.

If someone can organize a Maoist party, they must know the international reality. They must know geopolitics. They must be thinking about their future.


Politics has two sides of coin. One is change society. Another is to rule over the country.
Prachanda is more than 50 years old. If he wants to be Prime Minister. I am in politics for the last 16 years. I have never seen Prachanda. So I think he is thinking about this. I think he will come into the open soon. But for that the right environment has to be created.

Some are seven party opinion, some are my party's opinion, some are my personal opinion.


My English is not so good. But I wanted to express myself. You can edit if there are any mistakes.

Sage: Your English is 10 times better than my Nepali.

Gagan Thapa Talk In Boston: Two Hours Audio
Anil Jha, Bimal Nidhi US Tour Logistics
Sadbhavana Meets In Janakpur
Bimalendra Nidhi US Tour
The King In Janakpur
Nepal's Terai People In Deplorable Conditions: Mahto
Words Matter
Madhesi Hum Lenge Sau Mein Pachas
Hridayesh Tripathy
The Kathmandu Media Ignores The Sadbhavana
Sangram Morcha: A New Political Party (1993)
Badri Mandal: Sadbhavana's RPP Face
Peace First, Then Democracy, Democracy First, Then Social Justice
Phone Talk With Hridayesh Tripathy
Madhesi Rights: Abhi Nahin To Kabhi Nahin
Pradip Giri: DaMaJaMa
Tibetans And Madhesis
Phone Interview With Rajendra Mahato
Hridayesh Tripathy In Delhi: Good News