Who Wants Election in Nepal?

As everyone seems to be busy talking about what is good for Nepal and what is not. No one leaves any stone unturned when it comes to blaming someone for this and somebody else for that. And, in the midst of all this, the one thing that most significantly defines democracy—elections—is sidelined. So the obvious question becomes who wants election in Nepal?

The King?
No way! Given the notion that the first sitting of the CA will be empowered to decide on the fate of monarchy, there's absolutely no way the king would want to see elections being held now. He must be drooling at the way the politicians are busy blaming each other and proving once again that they have no ability to make any decisions, let alone write a new chapter in Nepal's history. Public memory is short and it wont be long before we start hearing "yo bhanda ta raja nai ramro."

The Maoists?
After talking for decades about how they are all for people power the Maoists literally got their rear ends thrashed by the Madhesis. "Support" stemming from fear and intimidation is never sustainable. The people are not stupid and will voice their disdain in the form of electoral choices the minute they get a chance. So it is virtually unimaginable that the Maoists want elections anytime soon, at least not until they have a stronger control over the state machinery.

The Mainstream Political Parties?
Their claim to fame have been hollow talks and they have never had to prove their worth. But no matter how confident they sound in the outside, they feel extremely vulnerable. What if the people finally see our flaws? What if the Maoists capture booths? What if the royalists somehow get a chunk of the pie? In such a chaotic scenario, isn't it better to simply stay put, talk – talk and talk, and avoid elections?

Foreign Powers?
Let's be honest. Foreign powers are not really interested in what happens in Nepal. They are more interested in how the situation in Nepal affects them. And let's face it. That is usually the real face of international relations any way. The powerful dictates to the weak and big guys marvel at the chaos facing the small guys. Any form of stability can only diminish the opportunity to meddle into Nepal's internal affairs like a bunch of hyenas digging into a dead deer. Why would they want the deer to suddenly come to life and escape?

The Nepali People?
It's been more than 10 years since the last elections. Lots of changes have taken place since then, mostly for the worse. How do we voice how we feel? Aren't elections the best way of getting the message across? So yes, the people are yearning to go out and vote. It's about time that they get the opportunity.

But, then again, who has ever given a damn about what the Nepali people want?

Champions of Nepal - On Paper!

Look at any successful runner – Carl Lewis, Michael Johnson, or our own Baikuntha Manandhar. In their primes, they were virtually unbeatable. Carl and Michael were international powerhouses; while Baikuntha was a regional champion (doesn't he still hold the South Asian record?). However, all three (and many other champions) had one characteristic in common; they came to their races prepared. If they won, it was to their credit, and if they lost they took responsibility.

Never once did I hear Carl, Michael or Baikuntha complain about their opponents or blame their losses on their competitors. If they lost once, they prepared harder for the next race and excelled. The result was magnificent—every time they ran, it was usually them who made the headlines, not their opponents.

Why am I singing praises of these runners? For one, I always admired their courage, work ethic and hunger for success. And, more importantly, they provide tremendous learning opportunities.

In Nepal, we saw SPAM score a big win last April. Good! They had something great to build on and win the hearts and minds of the Nepali people. But no, they had their own agendas. They seem to believe that winning is about one of two things—ban their opponents from participating in the contest or not holding the contest at all. If the IAAF had stopped organizing 100 meter competitions after the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, guess who would be today's 100-meter champion? Yes, Carl Lewis!

In democracy, the biggest contest is elections. It is the root of all legitimate democratic practices. Any major issues are decided either by the people (through a referendum) or by a body of elected representatives. When was the last time our "parliamentarians" were elected? Well, some of them about 10 years ago and others, NEVER!

And these pseudo parliamentarians are roaring about "declaring republic" as if it is their birth right. But no one can clearly explain what gives them the right to decide on a 238-year-old institution. Now, if they were true champions (or even wanna-be champions), they would focus all their attention towards holding the CA elections—on time and on a free and fair setting. After all, isn't it prudent to run with your eyes focused on the destination rather than looking back at the starting line? As someone wisely put it "you don't run life by looking at the rearview mirror, you run it through the windshield."

These guardians of democracy have run Nepal for a year now. And their successes so far have been limited to words only, not deeds. The partnership between the seven party alliance and the Maoists, that was supposed to liberate Nepal from autocracy, is now mired in infighting and power tussle. To them, it is not about Nepal any more; it's all about sharing power, it's all about bombarding the airwaves with stale rhetoric.

Accountability is a word that is laughed upon. Preparation is an unnecessary chore. Focus is counterproductive. What matters to the builders of a new Nepal are hollow talk, threats and accusations.

When was the last time anyone won a race with this kind of attitude?

Where is Nepal Headed?

From what I understand one of the main arguments for including the the Maoists in the government was to instill in them a sense of accountability. After all, the argument goes, when the Maoists are IN government, it is very difficult for them to go around practicing hooliganism and resorting to violence.

A sound argument, at least on the surface of it. I personally have a stronger (and much shorter) argument than that – they are Nepalis!

That’s when logic ends and reality starts kicking in. Certain actions of the Maoists put the whole peace process in doubt. Add to that the history of the seven parties, and the combination, really, begins to look suspect. For the current arrangements to work there needs be a change in thinking, strong trust within the governing alliance and committed leadership. All three, unfortunately, are in short supply.

There hardly seems to be a shift in thinking going on. The very government that was bent on “investigating” the killing of 21 people during last year’s April uprising, is allowing the continuation of a home minister, whose tenure has seen twice as many people killed.

Trust seems to be severely lacking between the SPA and the M as well as between SPA themselves. Not a day goes by without us hearing about someone expressing displeasure about the other.

As for strong and committed leadership, I argue that there is none given that there is no unified voice coming out about anything. These are trying times for Nepal and even now we don’t see two leaders of different parties talking about a unified message. If not now, when? And I ask again, who is in charge in Nepal?

As for my own change in thinking, as much as I hated to see the Maoists join the government without any material shift in their modus operandi, I am now willing to hope that this marriage will turn out to be happy and amicable. However my questions remain unanswered.

• Will the Maoists now focus on ruling and establishing credibility instead of yapping about everything?
• Will Madhav Kumar Nepal, please, take a strong position on anything?
• Will Girija prove that he is thinking beyond the one or two years that he has left to live?
• And, will we, in the near future, see any signs of material positive impact from the alliance of SPA and M.?

Krishna Prasad Sitaula Must Go!

Twenty-eight people were massacred in Gaur last week. A similar number of people have died since the Madhesi agitation began. That puts the total number of dead people at over 50. Extortions are widespread. Beatings, lootings, and abductions are as common as daal, bhaat, tarkari. Yet no one from the government's side has had the guts to take moral responsibility and step down.

What have we come to in this country? Weren't there street protests demanding punishment to the culprits of the April Movement, where 21 people died? Now there are over 50 people dead in little more than a month and everyone is busy deciding which party gets what ministerial portfolio!

I've asked this before and I will ask it again – who is in charge in Nepal? Why hasn't the home minister resigned yet? Now, I understand that if we start asking for resignations every time someone dies or get injured, it will be a mega-chaotic situation. At the same time, however, if those responsible are not held accountable, who knows how many more lives will be lost in the future?

Sitaula must go! There's no two ways about it. This person has failed to maintain law and order, made the government look like an idiotic bunch of Maoist goons, and hasn't accomplished anything. If the government is indeed working on behalf of the "wishes of the Nepali people" as they so loudly claim, the continued presence of the inept Home Minister does nothing to enhance the cabinet's credibility.

It is sad that so many people have lost their lives. It is also unacceptable and unpardonable that so many people have died and so many others have been injured, abducted and coerced during the rule of a government whose sole responsibility, supposedly, is to work as per the wishes of the Nepali people. And if one person cannot take responsibility for his failures, then the intentions of the whole government and its allies can (and should) be strongly questioned.

Questions? The Maobadis Have all the Answers

Describing democracy in a few words is easy: people power, strong institutions, fair.

Describing Nepali politicians in a few words is even easier: irresponsible behavior, loathe to accountability, clueless.

Before I go any further, let me be clear. I am not (yes, I am not) an expert in Democracy and Nepali politics. However, as a firm believer in the power of people and democratic institutions, I can't resist commenting on the ongoing circus in Nepal.

Capable people own up and learn from their mistakes, take appropriate corrective actions and move on. Losers, on the other hand, make excuses for everything, blame others for their failures and are incapable of looking into the future, because the past holds promise for them, not the future.

Take Prachanda's recent tirade against "palace elements" as an example. First he confidently barks that the palace "hatching conspiracies" by assassinating an American official and blaming it on the Maoists. Then, two days later, amidst rebukes from all sides, he proudly asserts that the Maoists are “collecting evidence” to prove his point.

Of course, when the King spoke – irresponsibly, according to SPAM – his statement was made into such a big issue. And now Prachanda comes in and blurts out something that, to me, is no less ridiculous and irresponsible than the king defending his coup-de-tat.

The next day Mr. Mahara made another astonishing statement about the palace spending Rs 600 million to assassinate SPA leaders. The story also talked about a CD being filed at the parliament. Upon closer look, it seems that the only things the CD contains are a bunch of anti-Maoist articles.

We should expect a DVD (perhaps a Bond movie) that proves the alleged palace conspiracies against American officials.

Going a step further on Monday (March 12), Prachanda proudly claimed that the Maoists have technical human resources and weapons outside cantonments with the ability to launch massive simultaneous attacks on many places. Of course, the excuse this time was that the UN did not register them.

A few questions arise from these episodes:

1. If all the evidence had not been collected, why did Prachanda make such a serious allegation? Or, was he simply blurting out random thoughts?
2. Do we have a clear double standard in Nepal about who can say what?
3. If arms are swept by rivers, parliament will bypass the CA election to declare Nepal a republic, and the Maoists can renege on most of the tenets of the peace accord, what kind of democracy are we supposed to expect in Nepal?

And as for democracy in Nepal, regardless of what system we have, will it suffice if the Maoists say that we have democracy?

Democracy in Nepal? Three Questions

The last time I checked, democracy was defined in the dictionary as follows:

government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Now let's look at the democracy in Nepal. We have a government by the eight parties, on which the supreme power is vested (according to the interim constitution). Half of our parliamentarians are not elected agents and we haven't had free elections in over eight years.

Now one might argue that this is a special case. The people have just wrested power back form an autocratic king and it takes time to build democracy. I agree 100%. But, how long are we going to operate with excuses? When will results exceed excuses. After all, isn't that what we are always left with -- lots of excuses and very little results.

So, on that note, I am just looking for answers to three questions:

1. What is being done to hold free and fair elections so that we finally get to have elected agents making decisions?

Currently, we have an ad-hoc parliament deciding everything in the name of "the wish of the Nepali people." How do they know what the wish of the Nepali people is? Have they been out talking to their constituents (god knows who has what constituency)? Or have extensive polls been conducted? If people power is supreme and that is all we care about, shouldn't the top priority be to hold elections and see what the people really have to say?

2. Is the Maoist's threat to unilaterally "declare republic" a sign of their own autocratic attitude, fear of facing the electorate, or simply a ploy to intimidate voters?

If people are the ultimate deciders in a democratic system, why are the Maoists always saying things that utterly disregard the intelligence of the Nepali people? One has to understand that "Nepali people" include far more citizens than the vocal, aggressive and destructive kinds you see on the streets everyday. And, if who you see on the streets are indeed representatives of the Nepali people and their general mood, what is the objection in simply going to the polls?

3. Who is in charge?

A time of crisis can pass peacefully and productively if it is clear that someone is in charge of the situation. Who is in charge in Nepal? The Prime Minister seems to be saying one thing and his own ministers (apparently representing the wishes of the Nepali people) contradict him without even thinking about how foolish it makes all of them look. By Prachanda's bold statements, it looks as if he is desperately trying to show that he is in charge, but his blabber hardly fits someone who understands what it means to be in charge. The press is always crying foul and the civil society is too busy singing the Maoist song. Half the people are busy protesting and the other half is quietly sitting at home. Who is in charge?

So when will the kids stop fighting so they can come home and do their homeworks?

Full of Contradictions

I saw this really interesting piece by journalist Keshav Poudel on Spotlight on Confused Leadership, Derailed Polity and Bewildered People. His premise is the confused state that political leaders are in, specifically in terms of the current Terai crisis.

It is not very common to see Nepali journalists researching on contradictory statements made by politicians. And I don’t fault them, because there is so much contradiction going on that your average journo would just get swamped by the load.

In any case, text in red is my own two-paisa worth of thoughts about each person and their quote. This posting's a little long, but worth reading (at least the text in black) to understand the mindset of the people who we call our leaders.

As a prime minister, I am also morally responsible on painful incident in Lahan. The incident is also the result of Maoists’ arrogance of gun
Girija Prasad Koirala
quoted by Annapurna Post January 23.

You are responsible for a lot of things Girija Babu. There was a time, when you wouldn’t even negotiate with your own party members (remember the 36 and 24 group?). Had you done your job right when you were leading Nepal all these years, we wouldn’t be in this mess today. It's almost ironic that you have now emerged as our savior.

Palace is in a coma as its fate will be decided by the Constituent Assembly.
Vice President of Nepali Congress Sushil Koirala
quoted in Gorkhapatra, January 24.

Yeah, but did you consult with your party general secretary about this?

The palace is actively backing the agitation in Terai.
Ram Chandra Poudel, Nepali Congress General Secretary.

Sure, Ramchandra ji! And how about the time when you so confidently proclaimed that the Maoists were operated by Nirmal Niwas? God has given you a mouth and tongue. To stop or not to stop diarrhea is your own responsibility, isn't it?

We discussed about the evidences that revealed the involvement of palace in fuelling riots there.
Agriculture Minister and NC CWC Member Mahanta Thakur
quoted in The Statesman, January 24.

Sure, finger pointing is so easy, isn’t it? Now how about actually doing something to solve real problems?

I don’t see any significance in holding dialogue with an organization that has no capacity and strength of their own.
Maoist leader Prachanda
quoted in The Himalayan Times, January 24.

Yes, kill a few thousand more people first before we are willing to call you an organization with capacity and strength of its own.

Dr. Upendra Yadav was with us. He was arrested by Indian police in New Delhi along with leaders of Madhesi Mukti Morcha Matrika Prasad Yadav and Suresh Ale Magar. Indian police handed over Matrika Yadav and Suresh Ale Magar to Nepal Army whereas Dr. Upendra Yadav was released. Dr. Yadav stayed more than six months in New Delhi . You must understand the situation - Dr. Yadav, who was released when two of our comrades were handed over to face most harsh situation.
Maoist leader Prachanda
in Kantipur Television Bahas Program on 27 January.

So what’s the point comrade? Upendra Yadav is an Indian Operative? But wait, didn’t you say just a few days ago that his movement was orchestrated by the palace and Hindu fundamentalists. Or, are you, too, suffering from the say anything syndrome?

We should hold talks with Madhesi Janadhikar Forum and Terai Jantantrick Mukti Morcha. But we cannot deny addressing the problems of Madhesi on the ground that they are backed by palace and regressive elements.
Nepali Congress leader Dr. Rambaran Yadav

But wait, Ram Baran ji, is it or is it not a legitimate movement? If the palace is indeed instigating some of the violence, wouldn’t it be simply prudent for you guys to address the problem as soon as possible? And I can only guess that if you are willing to hold talks with them, you are conceding that it is a legitimate movement?

If we just term the agitation in Terai as instigated by palace or other regressive elements, we are just trying to escape from the reality of Terai’s problems. The agitation in Terai is the expression of suppression of voice of Terai by our rulers. Do not try to get rid of the issues of penetration by ignoring the genuine issue of Terai. Darbar will utilize the opportunity if it gets it. That is not the issue now but the issue now is to address the question raised by people. We have not seen any communal hatred in Terai.
Dr. Devendra Raj Pandey, Civil Society Leader
in Kantipur Television, January 26

Makes sense to me. But I haven't heard you say a word against Prachanda's rigid stance against negotiating with the MJF. But wait, criticizing the Chairman would derail the peace process, right? I can see that!

We have solid information that the royalists had provoked the violence with the support of Hindu fundamentalists.
Dr. Baburam Bhattarai

We too have solid information, Doctor saab, that you guys provoked violence in Nepal over the last decade with the support of Indian fundamentalists.

We had not imagined that there would be such huge participation in our agitation. This is spontaneous reactions against the oppression of Madhesi.
MJF chairman Upendra Yadav
in Kantipur Television, 25 January.

This is our problem, Upendra ji. We cannot imagine anything, especially when it comes to our future. We are just too busy fighting, killing and making nice slogans. That’s enough for the unemployed and frustrated youths to get charged.

They are carrying many truck loads of people from Bihar, India to create violence in Terai. There is no question of negotiation with any of these forces backed by Palace and Hindu fundamentalists from India . We have to now declare Nepal as a Republic state so that the possibility of conspiracy dies forever.
Dr. Baburam Bhattarai
in Radio Sagarmatha, January 27

Well, Bhattarai ji, even if you get rid of the king, how do you propose to get rid of Hindu fundamentalists from India? Are you proposing another fight against the BJP? Actually, it is not a bad idea. But, no, you wouldn't do that after all that India has done for you and your comrades.

Dr. Upendra Yadav flared up this agitation following his meeting in Gorakhpur with Hindu fundamentalists. The faces taking part in the violent agitations are unknown figures.
Prachanda
in KTV Bahas, January 27

Gosh, what a bright idea! How about Upendra Yadav being too ambitious, now that he has seen perpetrators of violence skipping the electoral process to become parliamentarians? Perhaps he too would like to be a saansad someday, comrade, no? And unknown faces? Who knew your face a year ago? Relax comrade, relax!

I was not alone to participate in Gorakhpur meeting. Leaders of all political parties including a leader of Nepali Congress were there too. Some issued a doctored photograph published in local newspaper to destroy my image.
Dr. Upendra Yadav
in Kantipur Television.

Yeah, we have watched a few too cheesy movies, haven’t we? Doctored photograph, by definition, has already destroyed one of your images. What is next? Someone wearing your nakaab will start killing people now?

The demand of Terai is genuine as we have been pressing for the government to fulfill their demands. But the faces involved in the agitation show that regressive and reactionary forces are backing it.
Madhav Kumar Nepal
South Asia Free Media Association, January 26.

Who better to recognize a reactionary than you, comrade? Please, for once, can you take a definitive stance on ONE issue? Why do you always have to cover your ass? By the way, did the palace get back to you with a reply to your binti patra?

Siraha, Lahan, Janakpur, Birgunj and Biratnagar are burning. By labeling the people of Janakpur and Madhesi community as monarchists and communal, some leaders are fuelling the fire.
Brishesh Chandra Lal, former mayor of Janakpur
quoted in Kantipur, January 26

Who needs fuel when we have the firebrand MJF leaders?And who will admit the real problem, when everyone can so conveniently bring the palace into the discussion? I tell you, if the King were to die today and 500 people joined the funeral procession, the politicians would accuse Paras of instigating violence. Shows a lot of self-confidence, doesn’t it?

When leaders of seven parties ignore genuine agitation of Terai’s people using force to suppress their voice, it is my moral obligation to resign from the cabinet.
Minister Hridayesh Tripathi
quoted in Gorkhapatra, January 31

Yes Gandhi ji. You are so good at morality. So good that you went on to investigate the misuse of saansad-subidha vehicles when you yourself were renting out your own subidha vehicle. Do you really have jaundice, or are you simply buying time to come back to being a minister. It’s good being a minister, no?

Why should we Trust the Maoists?

Amidst the sad incidents in the Terai, Nepalis once again got to see the inconsistent and untrustworthy side of the Maoists. In case we have forgotten, I am talking about the same CPN(M) that is primarily responsible for over 13,000 deaths in Nepal.

Yes, the same Maoists, that now are preaching good governance, democracy and peace. Yes, the same ruthless beings, who, after screaming about "Indian imperialism," for over a decade, now are relentless about singing praises of India.

Yes, the same Maoists, who, just a week ago, were claiming that the Madhesi agitators were "non existing groups" and "criminal elements" are now discrediting the very government that they are a part of and are expressing solidarity with the Madhesis. And, after touting their apparently non existing democratic credentials, they are now talking big about not having abandoned any of their core beliefs.

The funny part is it was the killing of a Madhesi youth by Maoist cadre that fueled this whole mess in the first place. But the Maoists promptly declared that “regressive, royalist forces” were behind spreading chaos. How convenient! Obviously, what the Maoists say is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The CPN(M) is supposedly one of the cornerstones of our bumpy road to peace and prosperity ahead. With them on board, who needs bums and bruises? To make a point, it seems, they are capable of doing and saying anything. They have done it in the past and will do it again. And when things don't go their way, they will not hesitate to renege on their commitments. Threats and violence, after all, are what brought them to prominence in the first place.

Way to go comrades!

Wishful Thinking or Pitiful Excuse?

There we go again! Instead of sitting down and focusing on solving the problem, our politicians with “exceptional democratic principles” are once again blaming others and trying to shrug off responsibility.

I’m talking about the Terai unrest. From what I understand, the issue at the table was the interim constitution not adequately addressing the problems of the Madhesi community. The way the interim constitution was hastily pushed through probably lends credibility to the Madhesi people’s complaints.

Instead of analyzing the problem and trying to solve it, the politicians in Nepal are once again blaming the whole issue on phantom “regressive forces.” However, if we look at the motive, the group that benefits the most from this chaos is the current leaders in power.

On one hand we have a very rigid—almost autocratic—interim constitution. On the other hand, we have activities going on that threatens the holding of the elections which will pave way for a new and, hopefully, more sane constitution. So one could argue that the current leadership is behind the chaos because they want to cling to the tremendous power that they are currently enjoying. How’s that for an argument?

If the regressive forces—assuming that they are the “royalists”—are instigating the Terai violence, then they are far more stupid than I thought. To reestablish credibility through chaos is nothing more than wishful thinking. However, if blaming the regressive forces is simply a ploy of the politicians to deflect blame (and oh yes, they have done it in the past and will do it again), then it’s pitiful.

What's Next For Nepal?

We are hearing good things about the historical promulgation of Nepal's new constitution. If things improve as well as the events in the last few days, then we have good reason to be optimistic about Nepal's immediate and long-term future. However, Nepal is very good at disappointing its people. As I have said before, constitution is just a piece of paper. It is up to the political leadership to make it work for the people.

Here I have tried to come up with three scenarios for Nepal as a result of today's developments. While I sincerely hope that the best case scenario plays out, I pray that we never have to see the worst case. My likely scenario is not very appealing, but making it better requires the vigilance, understanding and unity of the Nepali people.

Best Case Scenario
Everybody gets back to their senses. They not only talk the talk but do the work and in a relatively short period of time, we are able to see signs of Nepal climb upward from the deep abyss that it is now in. The Maoists prove that they are astute leaders not only with bullets but also when facing the ballots. The NC and UML people go through comprehensive introspections and find ways to govern with dignity and poise.

In a few years, monarchy—regardless of its status then—will be rendered irrelevant, and reinvigorated Nepal and Nepalis will have learned to find ways to enjoy lasting peace and prosperity. With prosperity, the common Nepali will find it easier to fight poverty and the root cause of our problems will be addressed effectively.

Worst Case Scenario
It is hard to teach old dogs new tricks. Our 50+ year old yuba netas will never learn from their mistakes. Once the chaos and commotions are over, they will once again go back to their old ways of looting the national coffers. The army will be heavily politicized, demoralized and turned into a cash cow for the ruling party just the way RNAC was milked. Dissenting voices will be quelled.

The concept of democracy will be blurred and confused with "anybody-can-do-and-demand-anything" and small splinter groups will try to usurp and exert power in every possible situation. The country will be badly divided and we'll see demands for autonomous/independent states along communal lines. The Maoists, used to ruling by fear and terror, will be unable to perform any magic tricks and will go back to their old ways of violence and killing. With no one in apparent control, Nepal will head into a rapid downward spiral allowing our "friendly neighbors" to heavily intervene politically or militarily.

Likely Scenario
After a few months and years of blaming all the ills of Nepal on the king and the shah dynasty, reality finally takes control. Without anyone with the kind of leadership and integrity to lead Nepal, it will be business as usual with ministers and political leaders talking big and doing very little. Corruption may not be as blatant as before, but will continue.

The major parties will squabble on petty things and national consensus will be a thing of the past. Before we know it, a couple of decades will have passed without Nepal making any major progress. Religious and communal tensions will be more common than anytime in Nepal's history.

Once again, I hope things turn for the better for all of us. Jaya Nepal.

Nepal's Road to Another New Constitution

Read Nischal Nath Pandey's article on NepalNews yesterday. He talked about the "Constitution Making Process in Nepal." It was generally a good piece of writing and I had to agree with Mr. Pandey on most of his tenets.

However, as far as the success or failure of the constitution goes, it's all about changing the mindset. We have heard the same SPA leaders say over and over again that the 1990 constitution was the best in the world. Now that same constitution is a failure. So the question is, did the constitution fail or did the politicians fail the constitution? And, if it is the latter, what guarantee do we have that the same politicians will not fail the new constitution?

Keshav Poudel had a nice piece, also on NepalNews (reprinted from Spotlight), about Nepal's Constitutional journeys.

It seems to me as if everyone is worried about Nepal, except Nepalis. The Indians are worried, the Americans are worried as are the Brits and the people at the UN. And all we do is ask those external players what we need to do. In such a scenario, what is there to convince us that the SPAM leadership will not use the new constitution as a means for them to deflect their prior mistakes and massive errors of judgment?

Constitution is just a piece of paper. What makes it work is an inherent belief in its spirit and fundamental values of good governance. The big questions is does SPAM know that. Their past actions make me believe that they don't care. However, for the sake of Nepal and the Nepali people, I hope that they have learned from the past.

The New Nepali National Anthem

राष्ट्रिय गान
सयौं थूंगा फूलका हामी, एउटै माला नेपाली
सार्वभौम भइ फैलिएका, मेची-महाकाली ।

प्रकृतिका कोटी-कोटी सम्पदाको आंचल
वीरहरुका रगतले, स्वतन्त्र र अटल ।

ज्ञानभूमि, शान्तिभूमि तराई, पहाड, हिमाल
अखण्ड यो प्यारो हाम्रो मातृभूमि नेपाल ।

बहुल जाति, भाषा, धर्म, संस्कृति छन् विशाल
अग्रगामी राष्ट्र हाम्रो, जय जय नेपाल ।

No matter what your political affiliations are, you have to agree with me on one thing. The new national anthem of Nepal is indeed a masterpiece. Within 46 words, the poet has successfully encompassed everything that Nepal is about – the history, the people and the geography.

Byakul Maila should be commended for producing this masterpiece. I have to admit that when I first heard about the new Nepali national anthem being selected, I took it as another politically motivated decision and the end product would be crappy. But kudos to the selection committee as well. This is a very well-balanced writing.

Many, including myself, will be sad to see Sriman Gambhir go. I don’t care much about the words, but the tune was good and was something I grew up humming. And when I think of the Nepali national anthem, that will probably always be the first tune that comes to mind. But part of that sadness is the paradigm that is set in my mind. If I step out of it and think openly, the current words are much more meaningful to us as Nepalis, than the previous ones. Nepal is definitely not about the king and monarchy alone. It is about Nepal and the Nepalis.

You have to appreciate something that deserves to be appreciated. The new Nepali national anthem has excellent wordings. It will be interesting to see what kind of melody and music will give it the final form. If the composer does as good a job as the poet, we have ourselves a great national anthem.

Updated - October, 2007: Not only does it read great, the evergreen Amber Gurung has done full justice to the musical composition as well. I personally think it was not necessary to repeat the first two lines, but it sounds great! See for yourself:

All we are saying is give peace a chance

I am writing again after a long hiatus. Couldn’t keep on commenting about the current situation in Nepal. For whatever it is worth…

Alright, the peace accord is signed and Nepal is headed for a peaceful future. Good news. If indeed the Nepali people get what they want (which I assume is peace followed by prosperity) I will be as pleased and content as any other Nepali. But the big question is, will we get what we want?

Certain things provide reasons to be concerned about the eventual outcome of the peace deal. While those in charge are willing to forget the 13,000 lives that were lost during the insurgency, they seem to be extremely vigilant about the 23 lives lost during Jana Andolan II. Pardon me if I come across as naïve and clueless, but those numbers do not add up for me.

The SPA leaders are extremely vocal about the corrupt practices of the royal government. And they are perhaps right about certain corrupt practices. But we also hear about Govinda Raj Joshi and Khum Bahadur Khadka being given “clean chits” by the courts. And the same “parliamentarians” that were charged about impeaching judges remained mute about these acquittals.

The general mood of everyone political has been to shift all the blame of Nepal’s misfortunes to the king and monarchy. Is that really true? Now I don’t mean that the king was guiltless. His idiotic steps messed up things really bad and hurt the very institution that he set about strengthening. But how are we to believe that simply doing away with the king and kingship will get Nepal heading in the right direction? When people like Narahari Acharya claim that monarchy is the greatest obstacle to peace, do they seriously believe that monarchy was responsible for 13,000 deaths?

Are the politicians talking about a republican setup in Nepal after thorough analysis or only as a means to deflect all the blame to the weakest party in the current situation? Are they out to kill the beast or simply cornering a cat? To say that they have no hand in what Nepal went through during the last 15 years is grossly disrespecting the rights, sentiments and dignity of the Nepali people. So, while the SPA politicians bask in the glorious role as peacemakers they should also spend time thinking about the best course of action.

I, for one, believe that the situation in Nepal is still volatile albeit a lot less than a few months ago. Therefore we cannot afford to fan the chaos by blindly removing a power source from the equation. If the politicians do what they are supposed to, then the institution of monarchy will automatically be rendered redundant. In fact, had the SPA leaders done their jobs right in the post 1990 Nepal, the redundancy would probably start to become obviously by now.

Hence, instead of wasting time in witch hunting and creating more chaos, people like Madhav Kumar Nepal and other SPA leaders should spend more time democratizing their own parties, weeding out corrupt leaders, and think about ways to make Democracy II more successful. If the soon-to-be-elected Constituent Assembly decides to get rid of monarchy altogether, so be it. But the need of the hour now is to ensure that the Constituent Assembly elections are free and fair, and that people get to vote with their free will without any intimidation from any sides.

Long live Nepal. May peace prevail…

Of People and Politicians

"Will of the people" is a very common term these days. Everything that the SPA is doing is supposedly according to the people's wishes. In fact the SPA is so enamored with acting as per the "aspirations of the people" that they are ignoring the long term impact of their actions.

A strong democratic system has to have three well grounded pillars—the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. As the final interpreter of the constitution, the judiciary is perhaps the most important part of any democratic system. It is vitally important that this important arm is independent and is run by highly competent judges.

Another concept in democracy is the separation of powers. The three branches of government cannot be mashed together in the name of national consensus or "people's aspirations." The concept of separation of powers is an important check and balance against any branch becoming too radical and abusing its authorities.

The SPA apparently has a myopic view about the fundamental tenets of democracy. By mandating the judges take their oaths in the parliament, they are not only blatantly disregarding democratic principles, but also giving an impression of "be all, do all."

What kind of precedent does these kinds of hasty decisions set? Have the SPA parliamentarians thought about the long-term? Or are they so busy fulfilling people's aspirations that they don't have time to reflect on their past mistakes and work towards not repeating them in the future?

And this whole idea of people's will seems to be more and more of a rhetoric than a clear mandate. Who knows for sure what the people want? I have said it before—in a democratic system, the voice of the people is heard through the ballots. These SPA members elected nine years ago hardly represent the people. And to be taking such radical steps in the name of people's wishes is sheer lunacy.

But again, it is right for us to expect good things from the same people who have failed us in the past? Leaders have to earn trust which is their mandate to work for the people. But if they work to make themselves supreme, where do the people stand?

On the HoR Proclamation

The House of Representatives in Nepal passed a “historic” proclamation last week. Time will tell how historic it is, but for now it has to be seen as a major decision.

The King’s Blunders
In a famous Hindi movie, the merciless villain Gabbar Sing reminds hapless villagers that only one person can save them from his wrath—khud Gabbar (Gabbar himself)! In the April uprising of Nepal, only one person was ultimately responsible for the massive decline in popularity of the Nepali monarchy—the monarch himself.

The king surrounded himself with bad people and paid the price. All this while he was constantly talking about “swachha chhabi.” Even when he took over direct rule, many Nepalis were willing to give him a chance. People were sick and tired of violence and constant abuse of the system by everyone. No matter what his intentions were (and whether he had any good intentions is now questionable), king Gyanendra’s utmost priority should have been to project an image of reform and a system of governance based on accountability, integrity and strong democratic norms. It’s hard to imagine that a team with people like Kamal Thapa, Jagat Gauchan, Sharad Chandra Shah and Niranjan Thapa, would ever give that impression.

The Proclamation
There isn’t much room to disagree with some of the tenets of the proclamation. However, there is no mention of issues (i.e. corruption and lack of strong democratic norms) that are equally, if not more, responsible for plunging Nepal into the current state of mess. As it is worded, the proclamation gives the impression that it was the king who is at fault for everything. Is that really the case? Are the politicians unwilling to take responsibility for anything? Like I have said over and over again, the king’s moves would be extremely unlikely, if not outright impossible, had the leaders succeeded in garnering the support and trust of the general population.

Another issue that is untimely and unnecessary under the present context is turning Nepal into a secular state. Not once did I see people on the streets demanding secular Nepal. People were mostly upset about the lack of progress on the peace front seemingly declining everyday situation in Nepal. Is Hinduism to be blamed for Nepal’s crisis? Why the issue of secularism before corruption? Did the people march on the streets asking for a secular Nepal?

Besides, isn’t Nepal status as a nation an issue that is decided by all Nepalis rather than by a parliament that is defunct for all practical purposes? After all the last elections were held over eight years ago, and the ground realities are much different now.

The army is said to be freed from the king’s clutches. This is fine on paper. But politicizing the army and making it run on the whim of the defense minister or other politicians will be death wish for Nepalis. After all the army is the only obstacle to stop a full-fledged takeover of Nepal by the Maoists.

And, in the absence of context, what is the law of our land? Since when did parliament become bigger than the constitution? Remember, this is an opportune time to start from a fresh slate. What happens now could have long term repercussions. The politicians should be mindful of not setting precedence that will hurt the building of democratic culture in Nepal. Things need to be done the right way, not in a haste that reeks awfully like a locomotive fueled by vendetta rummaging through the political scenario.

If this proclamation is challenged at the Supreme Court, what is the court expected to look at? Is it appropriate for laws to nullify the constitution? Isn’t it the other way round? And the way parliamentarians are going around threatening judges of impeachment should they go against the people will, what direction are we heading towards? Isn’t an independent and strong judiciary a fundamental requirement of lively democracy?

Learn your Lessons
So far everything appears to have been driven by the Maoist agenda. What has the government received in return? Are the Maoists willing to stop their extortion spree that has become more rampant in the weeks since parliament was restored?

A big debate is going on about the suppression of the people’s movement which saw 22 people lose their lives. However, there seems to be no talk about the 13,000 dead directly as a result of the Maoist rebellion. Is this kind of double standard going to be the norm now?

Lots of mistakes have been made, especially since the 1990 popular movement, that has stifled the growth of a vibrant democratic system in Nepal. The need now is to sift through those mistakes and figure out ways of not repeating them. Acting in haste to quell immediate voices of decent is not as important as starting to build a deep-rooted democratic culture that is self-sustained and immune to attack from any person or institution that is driven by personal agendas.

Election or Consensus?

This whole issue of consensus just drives me nuts. On one hand, we talk about democracy and democratic culture, institutions etc. etc. And on the other hand we always seem to be bogged down by this whole idea of “consensus decision.”

Now don’t get me wrong. Consensus is not necessarily a bad thing. Understanding and accounting for everyone’s voices is important. But in a democracy, the voice of the ballot is far stronger than the voice of consent. And when we are consistently pursuing consensus, we lose the vibrancy and active participation that democracy guarantees.

I won’t even talk about the pre-2001 days when consensus was used as a means to postpone serious discussions rather than to genuinely arrive at a unified decision.

Let’s take the election of the speaker for instance. The seven party alliance apparently tried very hard to make Subash Nemwang the “consensus choice.” Fine. But that effort simply delayed Nemwang’s assumption of office. With the Nepali Congress and the UML supposedly behind Nemwang, why not simply have an election and elect him? If nobody decides to run against him, then fine, he’s the unanimous selection.

We’ve seen a similar culture within party-politics where the leaders are so bent on presenting a “consensus candidate” that what the party members really want is usually suppressed under the opinions of “senior” leaders.

Democracy is based on the electorate choosing their representatives—no matter how big or small the destination is—parliament, city council, school board etc. There should be a consensus on only one issue and that is the election schedule. And if there is only one candidate, so be it. We have an unopposed winner!

Shying away from elections can very well mean ignoring the will of the people, be it the general population, party cadres, or any given group. Consent is good only up to a certain point. Serious issues require serious steps and there no action more serious or inclusive than an election.

Democracy is not Merely a Brand

The post-1990 democratic era saw the raping of democracy by the very people who were trusted by Nepalis to establish a transparent democratic system in Nepal. These netas left no stones unturned to cling to power and abuse their power.

When it came to benefiting from a certain move, they did not even hesitate to involve the palace in decisions where the king had no constitutional role. Case in point—the house dissolution recommendation of Manmohan Adhikari and the ensuing squabbles.

In any case, on February 1, 2005, king Gyanendra became the latest attacker to the constitution. But what we must not forget is that had the netas done their jobs right, the king would not have the guts to mess with democracy and the constitution.

Did the king make a mistake? Certainly!

Is the king and the institution of monarchy solely responsible for the mess Nepal is in right now? Absolutely not! He's played his part and the latest mess is probably all because of his doings, but in no way is the king solely responsible for what Nepal has gone through in the last decade and a half.

So what is my point?

My point is that we have not heard a single word of remorse or self evaluation from the leaders, who are currently too busy deflecting all the blame to the king and the palace. Like I said, yes, the palace is at fault, but shouldn't the citizens of Nepal have the opportunity to be reassured by the netas that what went on between 1990 and 2004 will not happen again?

What we don’t want is the politicians committing blunders with mid- to long-term repercussions, all in the haste of “providing an outlet to the current crises facing the nation.”

At the very list, the politicians should clearly and concisely answer the following three questions:

1. What plans do they have to ensure transparent governance based on meritocracy, integrity and accountability?
2. How do they propose to ensure that the planned constituent assembly elections will be fair and be conducted without any threats or “civil-actions” by the Maoists?
3. What will happen to the leaders who engaged in massive corruptions while they were members of the post-1990 governments?

Debate along these lines are crucial to allay the concerns of those Nepalis who are suffering from the JJAPKC syndrome (jun jogi aaye pani kaanai chireko). We should not forget that the post-1990 experimentation with democracy failed because of lack of vision and planning necessary to build strong institutions. We should not be making the same mistakes again and simply hope that the brand “democracy” will take care of everything.

This is our country and we should help change it. As Gandhi once said, “the spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within.”

Chronicles of Misfortunes

Let’s go back to 1990. A massive wave of people marching on the streets compelled King Birendra to relinquish absolute power and give way to democracy.

All throughout the people’s movement of that year, and a few months into the interim government’s time we heard a great deal about how evil and corrupt the pancheys, mandaleys and royalists were. People were really fed up with the system, and deservedly so.

So guess how many people from the Panchayat days were punished or faced jail time after the re-emergence of democracy in Nepal? 0, zero, zilch, nada. Why? Well the leaders would make you believe that they were showing their magnanimous sides—forgive and forget. Or, they would give you the laharo tanda paharo (domino effect) theory and refuse to dwell on the issue.

Yet, we kept hearing the new politicians blame the old ones for all the misfortunes and difficulties facing Nepal.

The primary reasons that people wanted to get rid of Panchayat—corruption, nepotism, non-transparent governance and lack of meritocracy—all went on as if nothing had changed. Even the concept of freedom was murky at most times. Newly emerging free press of Nepal reported that more people were killed by the state during the first tenure of Girija Prasad Koirala than during the entire Panchayat rule.

Yes, people did get a chance to elect their “representatives,” who shamelessly played games with politics and took the voters for granted. The very MPs who rented out their Land Cruisers and Pajeros to third parties pretended to investigate the misuse of parliamentary benefits. Who received what ministerial portfolio appeared more important than chalking up strategies to steer Nepal towards the path of renewed progress and prosperity. RNAC was milked like a Holstein cow.

Was Panchayat really as bad as it was purported to be? Absolutely. But the democratic leaders were no better. Years spent in jail became a far more important qualification than academic credentials or experiential competence. By the middle of Mr. Koirala’s first tenure people were saying yo bhanda ta panchayat nai ramro (panchayat was better than this). Were they right? Probably not, but it was a clear testament of how the democratic leaders were failing the common people.

Does it appear that I am beating dead horses? Yes, but it is for a reason.