Katawal
The government has sacked the Army Chief and he has refused to accept the letter sacking him. This is turning into an interesting situation indeed. This will test whether the post below on “the importance of armies” holds true. The Maoists have made statements indicating they accept the possibility of a vote of no confidence. They might feel it’s best to be out of the government. They could be calculating that they will make more progress from within the government without their coalition partners anyway. But whatever happens, one would be foolish to assume that the Maoists don’t have a contingency plan here. They didn’t survive 10 years underground while building an army of 30,000 piece by piece through incompetence.
Update: President tells Katawal to stay in position
President Dr Ram Baran Yadav has written to the army headquarters instructing Rookmangud Katawal to stay in position, despite sack orders from the government.
The President intervened in the issue following a memorandum submitted by 18 political parties including Nepali Congress and CPN (UML).
President Yadav sent a letter at 10.30 pm Sunday. An emergency meeting of the army generals was called Sunday night after receiving the letter.
Earlier, an all party meeting held at UML headquarter, Balkhu decided to urge the President to protect the constitution by intervening in the government decision to sack CoAS Katawal.
What should be plain to all here is that there is nothing unconstitutional about the defense ministry sacking the army chief. However, there is nothing constitutional about a ceremonial president giving orders countermanding such a proposal. This letter is tantamount to authorization to conduct a military coup. We shall see how the Maoist contingency plans hold up.
Update: Prime Minister Resigns, Maoists Launch street protests
Nepal’s capital was braced for a wave of Maoist demonstrations Tuesday after a bitter stand-off with the national army forced the ex-rebels’ leader to resign as prime minister.
The collapse of the ultra-leftists’ cabinet after just eight months in office leaves the impoverished country without an effective government, and threatens a 2006 peace deal that ended a decade of civil war.
Maoist leader Prachanda announced Monday he was quitting as premier after his decision to sack Nepal’s army chief, a longtime rival, was vetoed by President Ram Baran Yadav, a member of the main opposition Nepali Congress party…
…Even if they do get the numbers, a coalition not involving the ex-rebels would be fragile, lacking in legitimacy and seen by the Maoists as a provocation, diplomats say.
I think AFP does a fair job assessing the situation. An NC-UML government is likely to be fragile and lack legitimacy, if it can be formed at all. The Nepali street will also understand that the government’s basis of formation is support from the Army and India. Remember, Army integration is a life or death issue for the Maoists. Their remaining in mainstream politics is dependent on it’s successful fulfillment.
Thus:
Maoists Set to Flex Muscles
May 5 – After quitting the government on Monday, Unified CPN (Maoist) has decided to intensify street protests and struggle from the legislature-parliament until the president rectifies his “unconstitutional” move and upholds civilian supremacy by sacking General Katawal. The nature and form of protests will be decided by the 45-member politburo committee meeting, Maoist sources said.
“We will see to it that a government is not be formed until our two demands are met,” said Maoist Spokesperson Dinanath Sharma after a meeting at the prime minister’s official residence in Baluwatar.
According to a source, the joint leadership of Dahal, senior leaders Mohan Baidhya and Narayan Kaji Shrestha has given orders to its sister wings to mobilize the mass to make their protest programme a success.
Maoist secretariat member Narayan Kaji Shrestha told the Post that the party does not have any problem with the formation of a constitutional government, but a new government cannot be formed until Yadav rectifies his move and sacks Katawal.
Maoists took a last minute decision to withdraw from government even though the party was not at risk of losing majority. Only CPN-UML and Sadbhavana Party had withdrawn from the government when the decision was taken.
Rayamajhi also said that there is likelihood that the party is trying to go for impeachment against the president in the legislature parliament.
In a “Normal” constitutional crisis, the security apparatus might be used to issue curfews, suppress protest, etc. Thats not likely to happen with 18,000 troops ready to go. While I don’t know what will happen next, I would be surprised to see a government successfully formed while the Army Chief and the President are still in place.
Update: Compromising Video of Chairman Prachanda Released
Note: I strongly recommend viewing the entire video with English Subtitles through the link above.
REPUBLICA
KATHMANDU, May 5: The real strength of the Maoist People´s Liberation Army (PLA) was between 7,000 and 8,000 and not 35,000 as reported by Maoists.This startling revelation comes from none other than Maoist chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal. He said this while addressing PLA commanders and combatants at Shatikhor cantonment in the capital on January 2, 2008, a video of the meeting — in possession of Image Channel TV — shows.
In what is obviously a coordinated effort to permanently oust the Maoists from government, a Video has been released showing Prachanda playing to his base of PLA. I do not have a translated transcript, so I can not be sure exactly what is being said, but it appears to confirm year-old slips from some hard-line members made when reassuring international Maoist parties that the peace accords were a step forward and not a step back. As usual, the media’s paraphrasing does not reveal the context of what is being said. Prachanda is talking to the PLA; Soldiers who have been drenched in orthodox Marxism and risking their lives for it’s goals over 10 years. He is convincing them that insisting on elections is not a strategic retreat but an offensive for the achievement of the revolution’s goals. This is something that the Maoists have not concealed from the public in the slightest. It is only the other parties (as well as detractors within international Maoist circles) that have been insisting the Maoists are being defeated by accepting multi-party democracy. Still, Prachanda admits that the Maoists have artificially inflated the number of PLA in the cantonments, and these credibility shattering revelations could be something the Maoists do not actually have a contingency plan for, and will no doubt hurt their ability to organize opposition to the new government. It will drive moderates away from them and distract from the issue of civilian supremacy, while sapping the morale of their base. Just how much it hurts them remains to be seen. The next move is their’s.
Organising press conference over a videotape of his lecture to PLA commanders some 16 months ago, which has caused quite an uproar in the political circle, outgoing Prime Minister and Maoist chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal Wednesday said his party had three tiers of armed forces – central and regional as regular armed forces and militia that numbered well over 100,000.
Out going Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal speaking at a press conference organised to clarify the contents of the video tape that surfaced yesterday, Wednesday, May 06 09. nepalnews.com/rh
Out going Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal speaking at a …Dahal said what he mentioned in the tape that real strength of the PLA was 7,000 to 8,000 was only the number of the ‘central regular armed force’.
This is playing it about as best as it could be played. It’s true, the Maoists did have many more Militia than they had PLA. However, there were widespread reports of them waging recruitment drives back when they were entering the camps, so the credibility gap is still going to be there. The fact that this tape was released to damage their credibility and the peace process is a forgone conclusion. Who ever held on to this tape for a year and then released it at exactly this time, was obviously either waiting for the right opportunity or knew one was coming. Of course, this is avoiding the issue of their dishonesty, because they probably don’t have much to say to defend themselves. Meanwhile, doing little to diminish the plausibility of the Maoist conspiracy accusations:
… main opposition Nepali Congress, which is said to be in talks with CPN-UML and other parties to form a new coalition government sans the Maoists, has said that the Maoists have now lost the right to lead the government following the leakage of the video in which the former rebel’s chairman is seen sharing his plans of establishing complete control over Nepal Army and seizing state power .
19 Comments
May 4, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Hi Neil, I was so happy to come across your blog and thoughts. I am writing a thesis about motherhood experiences of Maoist women. If you have any suggestions regarding the materials or resources, please share it with me. hope to hear from you.
May 4, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Quite interesting situation……
May 6, 2009 at 12:04 am
No way to be sure of anything from here or at this stage, but for what it’s worth here’s my instant punditry:
1. The other parties cannot govern without the Maoists and know it. (Though they also have unbelievably myopic and stupid leaders who are no match for Maoists tactically and seem unable to avoid doing things that they must know wont work).
2. Nor is the army in any position to take over. They know it and are not stupid.
3. Nor is any external force in a position to intervene or having any interest in doing so.
4. So it’s mainly “drama”. “Situation desperate but not serious”.
5. Worst case a non-Maoist government might be able to hold out till August when the Chief of Staff is supposed to retire anyway and then have a “no losers” agreement on Maoists returning to lead government.
6. Even in that case the Maoists emerge with enhanced credentials generally (especially re commitment to multi-party democracy and rule of law) as well as breathing space to deal with internal problems and others get blamed for failure to meet various deadlines.
7. More likely any alternative government would collapse quickly if formed at all. Nepal Congress already completely discredited. UMLs forming coalition with them against Maoists would accelerate already looming UML split and ongoing loss of both mass base and cadres to Maoists. Madheshi forum joining would also weaken or destroy their mass base by openly lining up with the basically Bahunabad parties and the Army that are all hostile to federalism. All 3 plus a dozen or so minor squabblers parties would be needed to out vote Maoists and close allies in Constituent Assembly. They would be certain to fight each over both issues and sheer greed. Then Maoists return to lead government as winners and things move faster.
BTW The news reports of the video make it sound like as though Prachanda was boasting lying about numbers. I wonder whether it was more like boasting about decision to ACTUALLY expand numbers after the ceasefire (beyond what could be sustained long term from “donations”) so that they would be included in the future integrated army. Transcript would be interesting.
May 7, 2009 at 11:06 am
BTW I don’t agree that “the next move is theirs” (ie the Maoists take the next initiative).
They are in a position to sit back for a while as the others flounder around unable to govern without Maoists…
Bringing them back will obviously require civilian control and integration of the two armies. The alternative to that has already been tried so the status quo forces have no reason to believe it can be maintained by civil war.
An interesting aspect that I haven’t seen mentioned is that the (drastically weakened) Nepal Congress could be brought back within a national unity government as originally agreed and demanded by the Maoists but rejected by Congress establishing itself as an obstructionist opposition. This could be presented as a trade off for establishing civilian control.
May 9, 2009 at 7:07 am
[...] no sign of violence so far. But whatever happens, as Nepalese expert Neil Horning points out at Neil’s Nepal, it is likely the Maoists have some contingency plan. “They didn’t survive 10 years underground [...]
May 9, 2009 at 9:25 am
Even Voice of America doesn’t express much sympathy for the Chief of Army Staff!
May 9, 2009 at 10:29 am
It’s an interesting point to highlight. Barack Obama has been admitting recently that American values and policy often contradict. I would readily say that my strong desire for civilian supremacy comes far more from being an American than anything else. It’s one of the many things the U.S. government has done well.
May 9, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Hello Neil,
I discovered your blog yesterday and read through some of your posts. I can see the logic in your thought processes, however I am quite surprised at how pro-Maoist you are – in fact it comes across so strongly that you lose credibility with most of your Nepali readers. I find that you constantly make excuses and justify the Maoist’s actions, which will no doubt make most Nepali people suspect that you are in their pocket.
As for the issue of Prachanda lying about the number of PLA combatants for undue compensation – those are not the actions of someone who honors and is committed to the peace process. These kind of shenanigans are the exact sort they railed against the Nepali Congress for doing. Yet here they are indulging in the same corruption practices they decry.
You can pass it off as catering to the crowd, to his radical base. However the fact stands that the Prime Minister was revealed to be admitting on tape to a strategy to dupe the Nepali People and carry through with a full takeover of the country. The foul play that is evident in his speech – is that something we should sit idly by and forgive – or should an investigatory committee be formed to look into whether the power of the office was abused.
From a legal standpoint, the ink on the paper would dictate that an unruly army commander be relieved of his position. However, the situation is not black-and-white. The chain of events leading up to the actions of Katawal will show that the Maoists have been trying very hard to oust him from Day One. They have been forcing his hand and maneuvering him into tight corners, hence the ‘disobedience’.
The recruitment issue/proposal was left unattended by the Defense Department, and their silence on the matter allowed Katawal to continue with the process. Only when it was too late and costly to stop the process they finally spoke up (and only because of Ian Martin who brought up the issue – so that they could point a finger and say “it’s not us saying this – he’s the one who brought it up”). You can’t order a Boeing to land when its front wheel has already left the runaway.
As for the National Games, Prachanda did what he would normally blame the ‘evil Nepali Congress’ for doing – misusing his authority. What about his audacity to call and induct the PLA into the games after it’s been started ? This went again the rules and ethics of the tournament and screwed up the brackets. Katawal did the proper thing and withdraw, as what Prachanda did was against the rules. He could have politicized the issue and been ‘really’ disobedient, but he chose to withdraw instead. Yet he is the one being blamed for this ? Where’s the logic in that ?
Nepali Congress hasn’t done as much good as it could have in its 17 years, that’s a given. There has been corruption – but where isn’t ? America has its scandals too (e.g. John McCain – Keating Five, Dick Cheney – Haliburton). It’s a given that as long as politics exists, there will always be corrupt politicians, no matter the country or political affiliation.
A thing I would like to mention is the Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Baburam Bhattarai are both Brahmins. If you look at the governing members of the Maoist Party, you will find a lot of upper-caste members. Sure, we can say that it’s a coincidence. However, the President Yadav is of the Nepali Congress and from the lowest caste – Baishya.
These are just a few of the issues I care to mention here that flitted across my mind as I read your posts. I find your posts entertaining to read, and sometimes informative – however I find a critical aspect lacking in your viewpoint. I cannot quite as yet put a handle on it, but perhaps it is that though you have a good grasp of how government works, you put everything into black and white categories and take the Maoists at face value.
Secularism and Equal Rights are long overdue in Nepal. Yes, the Nepali political scene has been a stagnant, repetitive and slow-moving mechanism for the last two decades. However, we should not confuse “progress” for a Maoist-Authoritarian-Regime. Because that is their ultimate goal – as Prachanda himself once mentioned ‘There is no need for other political parties in Nepal. There just needs to be one – the Maoist Party’.
I think what surprises me about your posts is that you seem to consider the Maoists the ‘good guys’.
Nepali Politics is a shit-show. Keep trying to make sense of it all. I think we’re all knee-deep in this together – no matter our political affiliation.
May 10, 2009 at 2:36 am
Nirajan, yours is a well thought out and articulate post with many valid points. A while back I created the Criticism page(^above^)to combat the very perception that you outline here. If you read the comments, you will find that most of my debates have been disagreements with those to my left rather than to my right.
What I hope to do here is not necessarily justify Maoist actions, but explain them in order to facilitate understanding. Often, in the course of these explanations I must point out the inaccuracy of some common views regarding them. For instance, it was a common belief among conservative elites and even some NGO’s that the Maoists had no real public support and what support they had was gained though intimidation. I found this to be a self-serving and inaccurate interpretation that ultimately resulted in a stunning electoral loss on the part of those who held it.
As stated, you have many valid points, but I would like to address a few.
The Maoists have always said they are trying to take over the country. I’ve always said they were trying to take over the country. The issue is not whether they try to take over the country, but what the final state of their takeover looks like and what the negative impacts of the transition are. For what it’s worth, the Maoists have internalized the idea of a loyal opposition within their proposed socialist state. Loyal opposition is similar to the status the other parties, the NC in particular, thought they were going to relegate the Maoists to when they stood for elections.
While It’s obvious now that the Maoists were being deceptive (I’ve added to my criticism section based on this), any investigatory committee with legitimacy would have to be formed based on Prachanda’s actions in office and their legality. It couldn’t be formed based on a private rationale for his actions given to his supporters one year prior.
Katawal had been giving speeches against army integration for some time. In a country with real civilian supremacy, he could have, and would have, been replaced for that fact alone. Army integration is a fundamental principle of the peace agreement. Breaking that principle may be an option for the other political parties, but it was not an option for a figure that serves at the behest of the elected government.
It would seem to me that the Chief of UNMIN stating that something is a violation of the peace process would be excuse enough to “land the plane.”
This statement fails to grasp the underlying causes of the conflict. It reflects what I believe is a widespread attitude of the conservative forces, and one that has led to their downfall. It’s not that Conservative Nepali politicians are corrupt,(they are) It isn’t that they are incompetent in their administrative roles (which is also true). It is that they have consistently and actively acted beyond rational limits to preserve a social structure the vast majority has increasingly found intolerable. I refer you to Chalmers Johnson in my articles section:
“True guerrilla revolutions are the mark of the most hopelessly intransigent opposition to change; they ought never to occur. Any form of revolution testifies to the failure of politics, but guerrilla revolutions signify the perversion of politics, the need to resort to warfare in order to oust a social group blocking change ”
Precisely, and the Maoists have unwaveringly stood for those principles, and others which Americans like me take as self -evident, in the face of intractable opposition from both royal and “democratic” forces for the last decade and a half. Which is why I hope you excuse me when I sometimes confuse them for the “good guys” because a large segment of the Nepali population obviously does as well.
This confusion is helped along when those who should have learned their political lessons by now continue to obstruct much needed social reforms in an effort to restrict Maoist influence. If they wish to avoid a Maoist dictatorship, which I admit is a real possibility (because after all, they could be lying about changing their ideology to accommodate multi-party democracy), what they should be doing is working as fast as possible to implement the reasonable elements of the Maoist social agenda, and thus eliminate the reasons for the Maoists’ continued support. However, as I’ve stated earlier, I think they find themselves unable to do this, because even reasonable social reforms stand in direct opposition to both their individual and class interests. Nepali politics is indeed a shit-storm, and there are few who are free of the stench. If there were clearcut “good guys” and “bad guys” I would likely not find the situation nearly as interesting, and would not have devoted an undue section of my life to obsessing over it.
May 11, 2009 at 3:57 am
please do not see nepals situation with foreign eye…..please consider Geo-political situation….and history….if you know where democracy was born… if you know what the forefather of democracy have said then you should also know that democracy will only succeed if majority is literate…and this is obviously not the case…..one more thing Maoist are not in the house of representative because they are popular but because nepalese want peace at any cost…
May 11, 2009 at 3:58 am
*unliterate
May 11, 2009 at 10:33 am
So, when the Maoist led government launches a nation wide adult literacy campaign your response is… what?
http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=4629
Literacy is not a prerequisite of democracy, but it tends to lead toward democracy. This is why the aristocracy banned education until the 1950’s. Postponing democracy because people are illiterate gives very little incentive to elites to make people literate. I would instead propose that you focus on making the country more literate rather than less democratic.
May 14, 2009 at 3:59 am
Another interesting aspect is that the Madheshi parties are insisting that UML and Congress accept Madheshi demands before they will join a government. These demands are now “One Madhesh One Province” rather than previous “One Madhesh, One Pradesh” which implied Nepal would be divided into only Plains and Hills ignoring most communities. This still has continuity with previous demand for Madheshi control of whole of the Terai plains despite other nationalities such as Tharu, but is obviously moving towards accepting Madheshi autonomy for only that part of the Terai with Madheshi majority and other autonomous provinces in both Hills and Plains for various other communities. That corrresponds to Maoist policy, which UMLs and Congress have blocked.
So another plausible outcome is that the UMLs and Congress will be forced to stop blocking ethnic federalism in order to establish a majority government with the Madheshi parties.
That would defuse a lot of the problems in the Terai and unblock many of the obstacles faced by the Maoist government.
May 14, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Reading the masses of hostile commentary in Nepali english newspapers I finally came across one hostile commentator who seemed to actually show some insight on Maoist strategy.
Re thinking Maoist exit
Essentially he’s arguing that the evil Maoists vicious tactics are cleverly designed to discredit the other parties and capture state power by winning the next elections!
The enthusiastic commentary from others equally appalled at such a prospect is quite amusing.
The abuse at the end about totalitarian plans following the elections come naturally from those feudal elements feeling their state power slipping away. But unlike the others engaged in an orgy of both denunciation and celebration this guy at least seems to grasp that his side is losing, not winning.
May 21, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Hey again,
Thanks for your detailed and enjoyable reply to my post. I found your thoughtful debate very entertaining.
I disagree with the sentiment that “The issue is not whether they try to take over the country, but what the final state of their takeover looks like and what the negative impacts of the transition are.” I full well understand your academic approach to this, but predetermining the fate of the country as a foregone conclusion only helps alienate your readers. There might have been a significant segment of society which voted for the Maoists this past election season, however the greater majority did not. That is something to note as well. We should also factor in the ‘benefit of doubt’ vote that was handed to the Maoists by many. Nepali people, specifically in the rural areas, have had enough of bloodshed and strife. The desire to have peace at any cost, and the sentiment “let us see what they can do – let us give them a chance” also contributed to their victory. Most Nepali people, though admit it they will not, are relieved that the Maoists won the election, for this was a needed outcome for peace to be maintained. Therefore, I do not buy the idea that the Maoists represent the voice of Nepali people. 40%, sure … but I will wait until the next election to garner a fair assessment of their support devoid of these factors.
Prachanda, a sitting president, only a few days ago in an open-address to his supporters, claimed that the coalition parties are trying to make him the next Velupillai Prabhakaran. It is no secret that the Maoist leadership lacks diplomatic skills, but for a sitting president to make such incendiary remarks is paramount to slander. With the attempted assassination of CPN-UML General Secretary Ishwor Pokharel by Maoists two days ago, the true nature of the Maoist philosophy is plain for all to see – ‘peace as long as we retain power, else, bloodshed’.
I would like some credible proof of this following statement, as they are heavy accusations which imitate Maoist talking points: “It is that they have consistently and actively acted beyond rational limits to preserve a social structure the vast majority has increasingly found intolerable.”
As I have mentioned earlier, President Yadav is from the lowest caste while those at the top tier of Maoist command happen to be of the highest. That fact in itself should invalidate this argument, however I am willing to reconsider should you be able to cite credible sources. Furthermore, let it be remembered that before the fall of monarchy, a significant number of House and Parliament members were appointed by the King and not through general elections. Thus it was not a true democracy, and had the Maoists been a political party at the time, they too would have been obligated to bow and ‘grovel’ to the king. It is easy to criticize Nepali Congress and UML and the many parties ‘after the fact’. History shows that the Nepali Congress itself gained legitimacy and democracy through guerilla warfare and personal sacrifice. The only difference being, the first People’s Revolution was not conducted with a decade-long legacy of murder, rape, extortion, torture, solicitation of innocent Nepali citizens and destruction of families and livelihood. The Nepali Congress is not complicit in preserving a social structure as you accuse it of. The truth is that Hindu Culture itself is responsible, its traditions are to blame – and as long as the country remained a Hindu one, the social structure would remain intact. Case in point; how American Politicians pander to the Christian bedrock values and pretend faith – is not ’separation of church and state’ a clause in the constitution ? Have a look at Richard Dawkins’ speech on ‘Militant Atheism’ on Ted.com, it’s quite fascinating. In the same way that American politicians must parade this charade of being religious in order to get anything done, and are victims of societal pressure, so was the same with Nepali Congress (and other parties) under the Shah Dynasty.
This is not a scene from Rocky, where the underdog is in the right. The Maoist party will break up into further segments, it is guarenteed. Give an illiterate child a gun and tell him that the people to blame for his sorry condition are the existing political parties (and the monarchy), and he will gladly decapitate anyone he is fed to believe is his enemy. Should we then give all subway beggars a gun and tell them Obama is to blame for their misfortunes, because he rolled back earmarks for the homeless (due to the financial crisis)? This is obviously not true, however to an illiterate person it might as well be true. Propaganda. Brainwashing innocent children to support your cause so that you can sleep on a bed worth NRS. 1,00,000 ($US 1,250) is not “change I can believe in”.
Maoist or no Maoist, the second people’s revolution would have come about and Gyanendra would have been ousted. That was to come, so I give no credit to the Maoists for being responsible. They were part of a movement much larger than them, and the vote to nullify the monarchy came from all parties except the staunch king’s loyalist party. So with or without them, change was in the air as soon as Prince Dipendra went on a shopping spree for dead royals. As much credit as they would like to claim for this, I give them their due – they were but one of many.
It is easy for observers to take a birds-eye view of the situation and enjoy the fray. However, it is the Nepali people who suffer the consequences of each action, each turn of events. Those of us who remember receiving the murder threats linked to ransom money are not very keen on revisiting those times. So while we argue politics, it is important to remember that for the Nepali people, this shit is real.
It is a boon to be in your position, that you can afford to be wrong and suffer no consequences. It is for this reason that you have an optimistic approach to the Maoists, while the majority of Nepal chooses pessimism.
I will end this long post by pointing you towards this article that encapsulates some of my feelings regarding the situation.
……………………………..
THE JURY IS OUT
===================
What an irony that a party that hasn’t renounced violence and keeps its own army wants “civilian supremacy”
– By Kul Chandra Gautam
There has been much debate and public activism of late on President Ram Baran Yadav’s action of overturning Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s decision to fire the Nepal Army chief and appoint a replacement. Curiously, the constitutionality of the prime minister’s action has come under less stringent scrutiny as it is cloaked under the seemingly populist slogan of “civilian supremacy”.
The Supreme Court will soon decide if the president’s actions were constitutional. The case could also be taken to the CA, which has the power to even impeach the president. But his detractors have no patience or use for such constitutional and democratic remedies. They have already pronounced him guilty through a self-serving interpretation of the constitution backed up by street pressure and intimidation.
Lost in the hype is the constitutionality of the decision taken by a coalition government during a cabinet meeting boycotted by over half its ministers and objected to by all coalition partners.
Is it not the constitutional duty of the president then to take account of the views conveyed to him in writing by 18 political parties representing the majority of the membership of the CA? And shouldn’t the prime minister have responded to the president’s constitutionally valid request to reconsider his decision, having failed to secure a consensus support for his action as required by the interim constitution?
It is ironic that the one political party that has not renounced violence, that keeps a private army of its own, and that still subscribes to an ideology of “power comes from the barrel of the gun”, claims to stand for “civilian supremacy”. All other political parties with a much longer and consistent record of following democratic norms are castigated as supporting militarisation, and being feudal, reactionary, anti-people, lackeys of foreigners.
No political party in Nepal currently matches the paramilitary youth organisation and other fraternal groups aligned with the Maoists in terms of their capacity to organise demonstrations, agitation, intimidation and even “physical action” which means killing and maiming opponents.
The Maoist cause has been greatly aided by a group of supposedly “neutral” civil society leaders, some of whom had played an important role at the time of the 2006 people’s movement, but who seem to have aligned themselves (perhaps inadvertently) with the Maoists since then.
The one-sided vitriol coming from some members of this civil society cohort is breathtaking and reminiscent of Stalin’s hired propagandists. A well-known and thoroughly partisan leftist writer known for his poison-pen activism characterises Ram Baran Yadav as “an evil president who is tempted by greed for power, and is desperately seeking a crown and a throne”. No one with an iota of objectivity would characterise Yadav, a humble son of a farmer and a life-long democrat, in such hyperbolic terms.
There is something deeply disturbing about civil society members not even granting the benefit of doubt to a president with a life-long record of commitment to norms of democracy, while granting carte blanche credibility to unilateral decisions of a party that waged a violent insurgency against parliamentary democracy.
This is not to blindly defend the Nepal Army or its chief. There are many documented cases of unprofessional behaviour, human rights abuses and impunity perpetrated by the army in the past. But the Maoist army is no less guilty of its own brutalities, forced recruitment, including that of minors, and other violations of human rights and impunity.
One can speculate about the president’s intentions, but the Maoist intention to infiltrate the army, destabilise other independent institutions and to capture state power need no speculation. The official pronouncement of the recent Maoist party convention in Kharipati, Dahal’s video-taped message to his party cadres in January 2008, and a consistent pattern of follow-up actions ever since, are all there in the public domain.
Yet, it is the humble and decent Ram Baran Yadav, circumscribed by the decorum of his office, and mindful of his constitutional duties, who is being portrayed as the villain. Yadav possibly helped prevent a major national disaster by his difficult but thoughtful decision not to lend constitutional legitimacy to a seemingly unconstitutional and unilateral act of the ruling political party on 3 May.
Yadav demonstrates one quality rarely found in his self-serving detractors: he has been a consistent champion of what he believes to be in the best interest of Nepal as a nation. The Supreme Court and history of Nepal will judge whether he was a hero or a villain.
(Courtesy: Nepali Times)
May 25, 2009 at 12:41 am
I especially loved this bit:
This “consistent record of following democratic norms” expresses the sheer obliviousness of the pre-modern mindset of Nepal’s semi-feudal “elite”.
In a modern society any insubordinate general would simply be sacked. It is precisely because Nepal’s “elite” is so feudal, reactionary and anti-people that these parties rely on the army as their only hope against the people and rush to the defence of an insubordinate general.
However the accusation of being lackeys of foreigners seems a little unfair. It seems to be more a matter of “wannabee” lackeys. They hope that the bourgeois elites of modern societies will come to the rescue of a social system so backward we got rid of it several hundred years ago. But most Western “donor” governments have found the more modern mindset of the Maoists a welcome relief from having to deal with bahunabad word spinning from people completely incapable of developing the country.
May 27, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Ha! anti-people ??
Enough with the partisan hackery, already. What are you, a talking mouthpiece for the CPN-Maoists ?
these parties rely on the army as their only hope against the people
So basically Nepal under the Nepali Congress is an Orwellian Society based on oppression and stifling of free thought ? And the Maoists are the second coming of Christ to save us all from the hellhole that is Nepal and deliver us into the glorious hands of the 21st century !
Nepal under the Maoists will turn into a junior China should they take full control. Now, I wonder how the US feels about China. Hmmm… I wonder.
I like the Maoists to some extent. Their differing views bring a welcome (and lacking) drive to politics that is benefiting the country. However, I do not endorse any one party to assume full control of the country. It’s just healthy to have serious competition for both sides.
Take Apple, Microsoft, and Linux. Or take the iPhone, Palm Pre, HTC Android. Or take Google, Yahoo, and MSN Live. The diversity in their offerings and their desire to monopolize only helps the end user. It is in this way that I endorse all parties – the commonalities found among them all get passed through congress, and the radical views are left out in the dust.
Where did you get your Nepali History from ? Not a Maoist spokesperson, I hope. All parties have contributions to offer this country, and all parties have elements with which I strongly disagree. However it is the practices of the Maoist Party that I disagree with the most, as they have put innocent civilians in the line of fire to achieve their goals.
Nepali government was only free to govern within the confines of a monarchy and a Hindu society. Thus it is not a fair evaluation of the conditions before/after the People’s Revolution.
I see nothing wrong with the statement made by Gautam. Indeed, the UML and Nepali Congress have long been tried and tested in democratic governance. What have the Maoists to offer ? 8 months of shoddy diplomacy and incendiary remarks threatening to wage armed resistance.
If you have a beef with Mr. Gautam, I suggest you kindly take it up with him. He’s not the oppressive backwards anti-people personality you might think him to be. This guy studied at both Princeton and Harvard – which speaks for his intellect. Here’s his bio and record:
http://www.kulgautam.org/
Mr. Kul Chandra Gautam is a former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, and Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF. He has extensive experience in socio-economic development, humanitarian assistance, human rights and international diplomacy.
As a senior UN official, Mr. Gautam provided leadership for strategic planning, policy guidance and programme management. He coordinated inter-agency collaboration and public-private partnerships for child rights and human development among UN agencies, donors and civil society organizations.
In his long and distinguished career with the United Nations, spanning over three decades, Mr. Gautam had extensive dealings with senior levels of donor governments, development agencies, NGOs and the corporate sector in policy dialogue, advocacy and resource mobilization.
At the global level, Mr. Gautam dealt with the highest levels of policy making at the United Nations, including the General Assembly, Security Council, ECOSOC and the UNICEF Executive Board. And he oversaw UNICEF cooperation in over 150 developing countries.
Mr. Gautam had hands-on experience at the field level, serving UNICEF in positions of increasing responsibility and leadership in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Haiti and India. He also served as Chief for Latin America and the Caribbean, as Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific, and as Director for Planning and Programme at UNICEF Headquarters.
Mr. Gautam was the key senior UNICEF officer responsible for drafting the Declaration and Plan of Action of the 1990 World Summit for Children, the largest gathering of world leaders in history until that time. In 2002 he led the organization of another major United Nations conference – the Special Session of the General Assembly on Children – attended by 70 world leaders and thousands of child rights activists and civil society leaders, including celebrities and Nobel Prize Laureates.
Mr. Gautam served as Chair or member of the Boards of several international development organizations and public-private partnerships, including the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (PMNCH), the Micronutrient Initiative (MI), the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI), the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), the Global Network of Religions for Children (GNRC), Inter-faith Council for Ethics Education, etc. He is the winner of several awards, including the Audrey Hepburn Humanitarian Award – 2008.
Mr. Gautam was the highest-ranking Nepali in the UN system. During the decade-long civil war, he worked hard informally to secure the support of the UN and other key players to promote peace and reconciliation in Nepal. He spoke forcefully against violence, impunity and violation of human rights by all parties in the conflict.
Mr. Gautam has spoken and written extensively on post-conflict reconstruction and development in Nepal, and has offered his expertise to develop an ambitious plan and help mobilize international support for Nepal to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Personally, he has supported several local development activities in his native village and district, especially in the areas of health and education, child development and women’s empowerment.
Mr. Gautam, a citizen of Nepal, received his higher education in international relations and development economics at Dartmouth College, Princeton University, and Harvard University in the United States of America. Born in December 1949, Mr. Gautam is married and has a daughter and a son.
June 2, 2009 at 5:52 am
I have very little understanding of Nepali history but a book I found most helpful in grasping the peculiar mindset that lies behind the style of “argument” used by Nirajan, including the appeal to authority by citing the resume of the person he quotes as one of “our people” is Fatalism and Development by Dor Bahadur Bista.
This mindset of Bahun pundits is quite useless for actual development and suited only to employment by NGOs, INGOs and the UN.
I will take up only one point from the punditry as that point probably does reflect a quite widespread misconception rather than mere pointless wordspinning.
The US does great business with the one party dictarship in China and would be quite happy to deal with a similar regime in Nepal. They could buy cheap imports and borrow money rather than have to contribute multilateral aid to a nation whose rulers were incapable of developing it. However they have no say in the matter whatsoever and neither does China.
There probably are significant elements in the mass base of the Maoist party, with some support among leaders who would incline towards a one party system like China. After all multi-party democracy is still not the norm among countries with comparable levels of underdevelopment – ie the kleptocracies of sub-saharan Africa as well as the usual result of revolutions in more developed societies like Russia, China and for that matter Cromwell’s England and Jacobin France.
But the Maoist commitment to multi-party democracy is not for the purpose of impressing Westerners or India or fooling the other parties in Nepal. (Nor even to irritate China indeed they go out of their way to smooth over deep insult to the Chinese regime implied by naming themselves in honour of its most notorious opponent).
It is based on their own careful, and in my view correct, analysis of what is actually needed for the revolution to continue developing in Nepal based on a review of the historic defeats of communism in Russia and China and the development of democratic norms in the 20th century.
The pundits were quite shocked at Prachanda simply resigning to let the opposition discredit themselves in their own names instead of continuing to obstruct.
They will be equally shocked at the Maoists “capturing state power” by continuing to win elections, implement the peace agreements and restructure the state exactly as they have publicly committed to do.
It is precisely the old, smaller and now badly split and declining parties who simply don’t grasp how multi-party democracy actually works in a modern society.
June 13, 2009 at 6:46 pm
I would just like to take this opportunity to say that I regret not having replied to Nirajans most recent posts myself. He seems to be quite a reasonable person, with an understanding of nuance that is sorely lacking in the Nepali “blogosphere” and press. He deserves a point by point address that I simply haven’t had the wherewithal to provide. I hope I’ll have a chance in the future.