By Alankar Khanal
People of any country may have to face Nature's wrath and a deadly strike some times without warning. This time the people of eastern Nepal have become the victims of Nature's ferocious fury. It has resulted in woeful plight of many people, individuals and families of our country. At the same time, a lot of finger-pointing and blame game has started over the issue whether this was a natural calamity or the one resulting from authorities' irresponsibility and negligence. Whatever the case may be, the fact remains that our people in the flood-affected areas are in dire straits and in need of massive aid.
But amidst the affliction, there's something to be proud of. The way Nepali people have started helping the survivors of the disaster with open arms is laudable. With each passing day we are hearing that the relief materials and necessary assistance are being received. All including Nepal Army, policemen, doctors, locals have been exerting their efforts on finding survivors, treating them, and accommodating the displaced.
These courageous and generous individuals have happily volunteered their skills and efforts in order to save as many people as possible by rescuing them and providing them with necessary assistance. Without a doubt they're doing a fantastic job of providing humanitarian assistance with dignity and respect. All seem to be united for one noble cause.
As the flood did not discriminate when it tore its way through the homes of these people dismantling everything on its way without regard for race, caste, culture, religion, age or income level, I am glad to see we are helping the victims of the flood the same way, without discrimination.
Our national unity is crucial for our national development. Therefore, I always get very agitated with issues that separate us as people of one country. I have always marveled at what it would take to create an intimate bond between all citizens of our country. I have always wondered, whether facing a national disaster or calamity could stimulate our sense of oneness and patriotism. Unfortunately, that is true. Such a bond is visible only at times of sorrow and mourning. Our national unity and nationalism has been exemplified mostly at times of grief, tragedies and catastrophes only. Rest of the times we are busy fighting for some trifling issues completely discounting the issues that are more pertinent.
I just want to put across my thought as to why such sense of humanity, unity and belongingness pops out only during times of adversity? Do we have to wait for a missile to strike us, an earthquake to shake us or a flood to sweep us to stimulate our love, affection and respect for our people or should we all stand together all the time to promote peace and love over violence and hatred and live happily in an indivisible Nepal? It's high time all Nepalis contemplated about this.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Friday, August 1, 2008
A Note to Arati
I am now going to ask you a favour which sounds quite crazy, and which I should regard as such, were I the one to receive your lovely denial. It is also the very greatest test that even the kindest person could be put to. Well, this is it.
Speak to me or not. Write to me or not. Think of me or not. I cannot endure your response at all. I am incapable of enduring that. To answer one of your line I lie in bed in apparent calm, but my heart beats through my entire body and is conscious only of you. The feelings belong to you; there is really no other way of expressing it, and that is not strong enough. But for this very reason I don't want to know what you are thinking of me; it confuses me so much that I cannot deal with life; and that's why I don't want to know that you are fond of me. If I did, how could I, fool that I am, go on sitting in my office, or here at home, instead of flying in a plane to ktm with my eyes shut and opening them only when I am with you? Oh, there is a sad, sad reason for not doing so. To make it short: I’ve just heard about you. I don’t know you. My heart is just good enough for myself alone now, not good enough for others. Yet when I heard your sweet words on me, I feel I could overlook even what cannot possibly be overlooked.
If only I had your answer now! And how horribly I torment you, and how I compel you, in the stillness of your room, to hear your fragrant words, as a nasty collection, as has ever lain on your mind! Honestly, it strikes me sometimes that I prey like a specter on your felicitous name! If only I had responded on your Friday morning’s words, in which I implored you never to listen my name again, and in which I gave a similar promise. Oh God, what prevented me from answering you straight away? All would be well. But is a peaceful solution possible now. Would it help if we agreed to speak once in a lifetime? No, if my suffering could be cured by such means it would not be serious. And already I foresee that I shan't be able to endure even the Friday words. And so, to compensate for lost opportunity, I ask you with what energy remains to me at the end of this note: If we value our lives, let us abandon our ego.
Raj
Speak to me or not. Write to me or not. Think of me or not. I cannot endure your response at all. I am incapable of enduring that. To answer one of your line I lie in bed in apparent calm, but my heart beats through my entire body and is conscious only of you. The feelings belong to you; there is really no other way of expressing it, and that is not strong enough. But for this very reason I don't want to know what you are thinking of me; it confuses me so much that I cannot deal with life; and that's why I don't want to know that you are fond of me. If I did, how could I, fool that I am, go on sitting in my office, or here at home, instead of flying in a plane to ktm with my eyes shut and opening them only when I am with you? Oh, there is a sad, sad reason for not doing so. To make it short: I’ve just heard about you. I don’t know you. My heart is just good enough for myself alone now, not good enough for others. Yet when I heard your sweet words on me, I feel I could overlook even what cannot possibly be overlooked.
If only I had your answer now! And how horribly I torment you, and how I compel you, in the stillness of your room, to hear your fragrant words, as a nasty collection, as has ever lain on your mind! Honestly, it strikes me sometimes that I prey like a specter on your felicitous name! If only I had responded on your Friday morning’s words, in which I implored you never to listen my name again, and in which I gave a similar promise. Oh God, what prevented me from answering you straight away? All would be well. But is a peaceful solution possible now. Would it help if we agreed to speak once in a lifetime? No, if my suffering could be cured by such means it would not be serious. And already I foresee that I shan't be able to endure even the Friday words. And so, to compensate for lost opportunity, I ask you with what energy remains to me at the end of this note: If we value our lives, let us abandon our ego.
Raj
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Nepal: The Royal Massacre & the Mystery Unfolding
Ashutosh Shrivastav
USA
“Monarchy is over in Nepal”. The same title is being used in fashionable ways by many media in this world. The biggest stake holder and the director of Nepal’s devastation is Nepal’s closest neighbor, India. Even though the intellectuals are familiar with this direction, I would like to show why the world remains anonymous of the India’s sponsorship of terrorism in Nepal. Quite surprisingly, the actors have created a huge mass of junior actors in the hope to make them a lead actor one day. Let’s trace back when the director thought to direct this inhuman movie that might not leave the director an option of bankruptcy if the truth is exposed.
As known to the world, Nepal was a Kingdom and the most peaceful country in this chaotic earth. The Indo-Nepal friction started when the then Prime Minister of Nepal—Jung Bahaur Rana—supported the British India to suppress the Sepoy mutiny. In 1857, India could have born, but since the Rana prime ministers of Nepal were strong allies of British, they supported British in their mission to crush any independence revolution. In fact, Nepal had already become an enemy of Indians by then. Moreover, the strength of Gurkha army was the biggest obstacle for the Indians to overcome. Because of Rana’s support for British India, later known as India could not gain independence until 1947. Many of us forget to note, immediately after India was born, the Rana Empire was thrown out in Nepal in the year 1950. Until 1950, Ranas were the prime rulers of Nepal and the monarchy was only symbolic.
There was another family who was fighting for the Indian state with the Indians—the Koiralas. Koiralas were Indians who were born in the Northern Province of British India –modern day of Bihar or Uttar Pradesh in India. Koiralas’ were three brothers who were born and raised in India. The family claims to be originally from Nepal, however, their roots and bushes have been found only in India. Even today, much of Koirala family resides in India—respecting the motherland. The Koirala brothers joined struggled to give birth to India. During the later years when India was about to born, Koiralas were suggested to form Nepal Congress Party within India. Finally India was born in 1947. Most of the princely states were to join the Union of India. One of the biggest Kingdoms was the Kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir. Raja Hari Singh decided not to surrender his Kingdom to either of the countries. However, using coercive measures, India annexed the Kingdom into its Union. It is interesting to see how Indian text books claim this beautiful Kingdom a part of India. In the last days of 1948, a ceasefire was agreed under UN auspices demanding plebiscite. Nehru never proceeded with the UN resolution and hence, the authenticity of the instrument of accession is questionable. The Kingdom— falsely claimed by India and Pakistan as their territories—is still considered as the international disputed territory. Then India annexed the Kingdom of Gwalior, and the Kingdom of Hyderabad. By all means, they were illegal annexation. India’s vulture eyes were gazing the Kingdom of Sikkim and the Kingdom of Nepal. The Indian Congress had helped create Nepali congress because they had foreseen their fortune in Nepal. The Koiralas were assured by the Indians that they would help Nepal merge into India if the Indians help throw the Rana regime in Nepal. In 1950, King Tribhuwan fled to India to seek refuge from the Ranas. The only Royal member left was the 3 year old, the then prince Gyanendra. The Indians had thought to end the monarchy in 1950, but the Ranas, moving a mile ahead, crowned the 3 year old as the King of the Kingdom of Nepal. The Koiralas’ and the Indians’ dream shattered. Even though the Ranas were able to save Nepal’s monarchy, unfortunately, their Empire was brought down. Since Ranas were the true Nationalists, their downfall encouraged India to envision a possibility to annexing Nepal into India.
Not that easy as the Indians had presumed. The King in Nepal was considered the reincarnation of Hindu God, and replacing the institution of Monarchy was their far dream. Nevertheless, India did not stay quiet, and offered Sikkim and Nepal to sign the instrument of accession and join the Union of India . Nepal’s the then King Mahendra got infuriated with the proposal, whereas the “Koirala equivalent” prime Minister of Sikkim offered Sikkim in the hands of India, only to be slaughtered. The three Koirala brothers became the prime ministers of Nepal on the recommendation and pressure from India. This paved an easy way for the Indians to observe Nepal more closely. King Birendra declared Nepal as the Zone of Peace in the early 1970s. This was endorsed by more than 116 countries of the world, except India. King Birendra’s popularity almost made India’s dream a nightmare. Moreover, the future King Dipendra was one of the most popular figures of Nepalese monarchy in the history.
As a next move, India helped launch a Maoist revolution in Nepal to break Nepal. The Maoists’ top demand was the abolition of Monarchy. Since the year 1996, India started funding Nepal Maoists to fight against state. As the Maoist party was formed in 1996, their leaders were backed up by the Indian government. Most of the Maoists leader lived in Darjeeling, Lucknow, and Delhi in India and masterminded their plan. In other words, India created Communism in Nepal. They also were supported by the Indian Communist leaders and other Naxalite groups who are fighting against the Indian government for communism. Surprisingly India never helped Nepal government in arresting those leaders and extraditing them in Nepal. Hence it is evident that India never wanted peace in Nepal. At the same time, international media was busy defaming the King Gyanendra.
The interesting chemistry was all political parties held discussions in India with the Maoists in the Indian authority’s presence. The irony was Maoists were able to kill Inspector General of Police of the Royal Nepalese Government, but were not able to kill any leaders. This does not digest well. These Maoists and leaders were in agreement not to kill each others leaders. Although India was successful in proving why they did not endorse “Zone of Peace”, they were unable to offer prayers to King. Then India played the worst game with the help of its own citizens—Koiralas, and Maoists to end the Nepalese monarchy—which the world today knows as the Nepal’s Royal Massacre.
After the Royal Massacre, many speculations were in the air. However, immediately after the incident, media, which are funded by India, started to air against Gyanendra, who was the only heir left to the throne. India’s, Koirala’s and Maoists’ strategy was to defame monarchy and most importantly, the monarch who was unknown to the world. India knew that King Birendra was most popular and if the blame could be dumped on Gyanendra, it would be the easiest way to uproot monarchy. India had a sound plan to kill the Royal Family so that no one else would remain alive to keep the monarchy breathing. However, the massacre happened when King Gyanendra was out of town and presumably was on the way back to the massacre site for the dinner. Gyanendra was crowned again as the King of Nepal, and India, once again, could not prove to be a successful director. The love and respect for the King was then seen by the shaved head of all the Nepalese—who respected Nepalese Monarch as their father. Noticeably, the present Prime Minster, Girija Prasad, the same Indian Citizen, was the Prime Minister of Nepal during the Royal Massacre. He helped India facilitate the killings. Later, he also facilitated King Gyanendra, to be removed from the palace. In other words, the Koiralas were well aware of the killings, but instead of stopping India to kill the royals, the old traitor helped them successfully execute the plan.
The King wanted the then prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba to hold the elections but even after he was granted to extend the date of election twice, he was never motivated to hold the election. The underlying political reason was that he continuously wanted to be in his office by postponing the election. As the Head of the State, King Gyanendra could not wait to see his country devastated. Subsequently, in October 2002, King Gyanendra dismissed the prime minister and his cabinet. The King, citing dissatisfaction with the government, dissolved the government in 2005 and declared a state of emergency. However, monarch retained absolute power until April 2006.
When King Gyanendra ascended throne in 2002, Nepal has been going through civil war since a decade or so. Politicians of Nepal, as an easy excuse to take benefit from inexperienced King imposed blame on him. While most of Nepalese were pleased to see the progress under Royal rule, the corrupted people became unemployed. The leaders of Nepal are barely educated to find a job, if they do not engage themselves into politics. These led the politicians ally together and form a coalition to fight against the King. Countable 10-15 people gathered for to restore democracy and started protest. It was not until April 2006, when Maoists joined the movement to fight against king. Truck loaded Maoists entered the capital city to revolt. As a way to spread violence, Maoists attacked on Maoists in the revolution process and charged King for their deaths. After 30 people were killed, the King gave up all the powers and reinstated the parliament. Hence, the King who wanted to make the country progress was iconized as a dictator.
Now that the monarchy is gone, common Nepalese who are die hard fans of King are looking for their God. However, Hinduism and Buddhism have not taught violence to the Nepalese. Maybe that’s why common Nepalese are not on the streets yet. I remain unanswered, is Hinduism’s patience tested? Is Gurkhas’ blood being tested? Are the Nepalese tested? Nepal has so far witnessed the Maoists crowd, not the Nepali crowd, there will be a day when Gurkhalis will be on the streets to show the bravery of Amar Singh Thapa, Bir Balbhadra Kunwar, Bhimsen Thapa, or another Jung Bahadur Rana…and who knows, another Prithvi Narayan Shah to Unify the breaking Nepal.
USA
“Monarchy is over in Nepal”. The same title is being used in fashionable ways by many media in this world. The biggest stake holder and the director of Nepal’s devastation is Nepal’s closest neighbor, India. Even though the intellectuals are familiar with this direction, I would like to show why the world remains anonymous of the India’s sponsorship of terrorism in Nepal. Quite surprisingly, the actors have created a huge mass of junior actors in the hope to make them a lead actor one day. Let’s trace back when the director thought to direct this inhuman movie that might not leave the director an option of bankruptcy if the truth is exposed.
As known to the world, Nepal was a Kingdom and the most peaceful country in this chaotic earth. The Indo-Nepal friction started when the then Prime Minister of Nepal—Jung Bahaur Rana—supported the British India to suppress the Sepoy mutiny. In 1857, India could have born, but since the Rana prime ministers of Nepal were strong allies of British, they supported British in their mission to crush any independence revolution. In fact, Nepal had already become an enemy of Indians by then. Moreover, the strength of Gurkha army was the biggest obstacle for the Indians to overcome. Because of Rana’s support for British India, later known as India could not gain independence until 1947. Many of us forget to note, immediately after India was born, the Rana Empire was thrown out in Nepal in the year 1950. Until 1950, Ranas were the prime rulers of Nepal and the monarchy was only symbolic.
There was another family who was fighting for the Indian state with the Indians—the Koiralas. Koiralas were Indians who were born in the Northern Province of British India –modern day of Bihar or Uttar Pradesh in India. Koiralas’ were three brothers who were born and raised in India. The family claims to be originally from Nepal, however, their roots and bushes have been found only in India. Even today, much of Koirala family resides in India—respecting the motherland. The Koirala brothers joined struggled to give birth to India. During the later years when India was about to born, Koiralas were suggested to form Nepal Congress Party within India. Finally India was born in 1947. Most of the princely states were to join the Union of India. One of the biggest Kingdoms was the Kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir. Raja Hari Singh decided not to surrender his Kingdom to either of the countries. However, using coercive measures, India annexed the Kingdom into its Union. It is interesting to see how Indian text books claim this beautiful Kingdom a part of India. In the last days of 1948, a ceasefire was agreed under UN auspices demanding plebiscite. Nehru never proceeded with the UN resolution and hence, the authenticity of the instrument of accession is questionable. The Kingdom— falsely claimed by India and Pakistan as their territories—is still considered as the international disputed territory. Then India annexed the Kingdom of Gwalior, and the Kingdom of Hyderabad. By all means, they were illegal annexation. India’s vulture eyes were gazing the Kingdom of Sikkim and the Kingdom of Nepal. The Indian Congress had helped create Nepali congress because they had foreseen their fortune in Nepal. The Koiralas were assured by the Indians that they would help Nepal merge into India if the Indians help throw the Rana regime in Nepal. In 1950, King Tribhuwan fled to India to seek refuge from the Ranas. The only Royal member left was the 3 year old, the then prince Gyanendra. The Indians had thought to end the monarchy in 1950, but the Ranas, moving a mile ahead, crowned the 3 year old as the King of the Kingdom of Nepal. The Koiralas’ and the Indians’ dream shattered. Even though the Ranas were able to save Nepal’s monarchy, unfortunately, their Empire was brought down. Since Ranas were the true Nationalists, their downfall encouraged India to envision a possibility to annexing Nepal into India.
Not that easy as the Indians had presumed. The King in Nepal was considered the reincarnation of Hindu God, and replacing the institution of Monarchy was their far dream. Nevertheless, India did not stay quiet, and offered Sikkim and Nepal to sign the instrument of accession and join the Union of India . Nepal’s the then King Mahendra got infuriated with the proposal, whereas the “Koirala equivalent” prime Minister of Sikkim offered Sikkim in the hands of India, only to be slaughtered. The three Koirala brothers became the prime ministers of Nepal on the recommendation and pressure from India. This paved an easy way for the Indians to observe Nepal more closely. King Birendra declared Nepal as the Zone of Peace in the early 1970s. This was endorsed by more than 116 countries of the world, except India. King Birendra’s popularity almost made India’s dream a nightmare. Moreover, the future King Dipendra was one of the most popular figures of Nepalese monarchy in the history.
As a next move, India helped launch a Maoist revolution in Nepal to break Nepal. The Maoists’ top demand was the abolition of Monarchy. Since the year 1996, India started funding Nepal Maoists to fight against state. As the Maoist party was formed in 1996, their leaders were backed up by the Indian government. Most of the Maoists leader lived in Darjeeling, Lucknow, and Delhi in India and masterminded their plan. In other words, India created Communism in Nepal. They also were supported by the Indian Communist leaders and other Naxalite groups who are fighting against the Indian government for communism. Surprisingly India never helped Nepal government in arresting those leaders and extraditing them in Nepal. Hence it is evident that India never wanted peace in Nepal. At the same time, international media was busy defaming the King Gyanendra.
The interesting chemistry was all political parties held discussions in India with the Maoists in the Indian authority’s presence. The irony was Maoists were able to kill Inspector General of Police of the Royal Nepalese Government, but were not able to kill any leaders. This does not digest well. These Maoists and leaders were in agreement not to kill each others leaders. Although India was successful in proving why they did not endorse “Zone of Peace”, they were unable to offer prayers to King. Then India played the worst game with the help of its own citizens—Koiralas, and Maoists to end the Nepalese monarchy—which the world today knows as the Nepal’s Royal Massacre.
After the Royal Massacre, many speculations were in the air. However, immediately after the incident, media, which are funded by India, started to air against Gyanendra, who was the only heir left to the throne. India’s, Koirala’s and Maoists’ strategy was to defame monarchy and most importantly, the monarch who was unknown to the world. India knew that King Birendra was most popular and if the blame could be dumped on Gyanendra, it would be the easiest way to uproot monarchy. India had a sound plan to kill the Royal Family so that no one else would remain alive to keep the monarchy breathing. However, the massacre happened when King Gyanendra was out of town and presumably was on the way back to the massacre site for the dinner. Gyanendra was crowned again as the King of Nepal, and India, once again, could not prove to be a successful director. The love and respect for the King was then seen by the shaved head of all the Nepalese—who respected Nepalese Monarch as their father. Noticeably, the present Prime Minster, Girija Prasad, the same Indian Citizen, was the Prime Minister of Nepal during the Royal Massacre. He helped India facilitate the killings. Later, he also facilitated King Gyanendra, to be removed from the palace. In other words, the Koiralas were well aware of the killings, but instead of stopping India to kill the royals, the old traitor helped them successfully execute the plan.
The King wanted the then prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba to hold the elections but even after he was granted to extend the date of election twice, he was never motivated to hold the election. The underlying political reason was that he continuously wanted to be in his office by postponing the election. As the Head of the State, King Gyanendra could not wait to see his country devastated. Subsequently, in October 2002, King Gyanendra dismissed the prime minister and his cabinet. The King, citing dissatisfaction with the government, dissolved the government in 2005 and declared a state of emergency. However, monarch retained absolute power until April 2006.
When King Gyanendra ascended throne in 2002, Nepal has been going through civil war since a decade or so. Politicians of Nepal, as an easy excuse to take benefit from inexperienced King imposed blame on him. While most of Nepalese were pleased to see the progress under Royal rule, the corrupted people became unemployed. The leaders of Nepal are barely educated to find a job, if they do not engage themselves into politics. These led the politicians ally together and form a coalition to fight against the King. Countable 10-15 people gathered for to restore democracy and started protest. It was not until April 2006, when Maoists joined the movement to fight against king. Truck loaded Maoists entered the capital city to revolt. As a way to spread violence, Maoists attacked on Maoists in the revolution process and charged King for their deaths. After 30 people were killed, the King gave up all the powers and reinstated the parliament. Hence, the King who wanted to make the country progress was iconized as a dictator.
Now that the monarchy is gone, common Nepalese who are die hard fans of King are looking for their God. However, Hinduism and Buddhism have not taught violence to the Nepalese. Maybe that’s why common Nepalese are not on the streets yet. I remain unanswered, is Hinduism’s patience tested? Is Gurkhas’ blood being tested? Are the Nepalese tested? Nepal has so far witnessed the Maoists crowd, not the Nepali crowd, there will be a day when Gurkhalis will be on the streets to show the bravery of Amar Singh Thapa, Bir Balbhadra Kunwar, Bhimsen Thapa, or another Jung Bahadur Rana…and who knows, another Prithvi Narayan Shah to Unify the breaking Nepal.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Fall of Greed Emperor Girija Prasad Koirala
Fall of Greed Emperor Girija Prasad Koirala Girija Prasad is gone. Congratulations to all patriots and democrats. Today is the victory day for the people wishing to see Nepal, a prosperous and democratic. Girija Prasad Koirala, as you all know has been playing dirty politics since long. He ousted Ganesh Man Singhji and Kishunji from Nepali Congress. This person tried to defame the great leader, BP Koirala saying he forced the Nepali Congress youths of the time for money laundering, smuggling and so on. This Girija Prasad Koirala along with Ram Chandra Poudel, Krishna Sitaula and Nara Hari Acharya forced to follow the principles of Maoists thereby turning Nepali Congress, a party without principle. The moral-less, ethic-less, corrupt Girija Prasad Koirala is the one who saw his kins and relatives are more important than Nepal and Nepalese. This person never valued the democratic norms and values. It is because of this person, Nepal is approaching towards the failed state status. Nepal's development infrastructures have completely been destroyed because of Girija Prasad Koirala and his stooges who enjoyed powers throughout the post 1990 movement. Under the leadership of this power monger leader Girija Prasad Koirala, Nepali Congress was divided. He is trying to divide Nepali Congress once again by saying he made a grave mistake by accepting the unification of Nepali Congress. It should be the lesson for Nepali Congress party members to relieve Girija Prasad Koirala for good. Failure might see the division in Nepali Congress very soon and every high ranking party positions will be occupied by his close relatives as if Nepali Congress is the party of Koiralas. We request all who follow democratic values and norms to ask for the relieve of Nepali Congress Party President Girija Prasad Koirala and bring back Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, Tara Nath Ranabhatt and others in Nepali Congress. At the same time, we also request Nepali Congress members to rejuvenate the real principles of Nepali Congress i. e., Constitutional Monarchy, Hindu Nation, Rule of Law, Multi-party polity based on fair competition and people's sovereignty. These are the principles upon which Nepali Congress relied for sixty years and could withstand left extremisms. To withstand left extremisms in future, there is no alternative to Nepali Congress than to follow its own principles. The borrowed philosophy, 'Federal Democratic Republic Nepal', should be discarded by the Nepali Congress and demand for the referendum on important issues and this will ultimately show Nepali Congress as pro-people party. People will start taking it as the party that hears their voices. Lastly, we once again congratulate all patriots and democrats for the fall of power monger leader of Nepali Congress, Girija Prasad Koirala.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Monarchy is a Must
Bishal Shah
The Nepali Nationalists Organization (NNO) USA, believes that Nepali People should always think about to keep their royal institution for long. It is the symbol of Nepali national unity. It is the prestige and pride for the Nepali people. No one can imagine that the killer like Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda), Girija Koirala who has masterminded to hijack twin-otter plane in 70s which carried a huge national revenue and still he did not have answered whereabouts of that wealth, Madhav Kumar Nepal whose height is barely above 5 feet with no charm at all and Sher Bahadur Deuba who does not understand himself what he spoke or Pashupati SJB Rana, Surya Bahadur Thapa, Lokendra B. Chand, Regional Madhesi leaders -anyone can present Nepal's image outside Nepal. As far as inside Nepal, except His Majesty King Gyanendra, there is no one who can unite a nation and bring all Nepali together. Every people within their deep heart has a place for King Gyanendra. Whoever speaks whatever, still, inside their heart there is a love and respect towards King Gyanendra. It is the foreigners who wish Nepal being turned into Christian nation or who wants to hijack all natural resources love to see Nepali people without their guardian, Monarchy. Therefore, true patriots of Nepal are completely right when they say Nepal is no more sovereign and independent nation. Nepal will have lesser status than Bhutan without King. One of Nepal's well-wishers, the Political Science Professor Dr. Jenny Curzine from France always argues in favor of monarchy. She always says: we have no Monarchy now. Our Monarchs were projected as villains in the history but that is not hundred percent true. During their rule France used to be the number one nation. We were powerful and richer than the United States of today. There is no country will ever be as equal as France during the rule of our Monarchs. We had prestige, power and in fact, we reached the height of progress. Nepal was also moving towards progress during Kings rule. I am not against the democracy, but the democratic leaders ruined Nepal. They stagnated country and they put Nepal under the feet of India. King Gyanendra is sacrificing everything for the people of Nepal. If he wanted the Nepalese people would have swept away the Jana Andolan II very easily. If he had just requested the people to stop, Jana Andolan II would have gone in a thin air. At last, King is a must for Nepal otherwise, expect Nepal, a federal state of Greater India or federated nations of different names and with different flags. And then, definitely, there will be no four star flags, no flags with sun or Cow or something else. People will be greeted with the flags of Tiranga (Indian Flag) or with the flag of hammer and sickle (international communist's flag) or with different regional flags like in former Yugoslavia. No matter how the Constituent Assembly election gives the result, Nepali leaders must unite themselves and save Monarchy for the sake of Nepal's future. The leaders must think that the result of CA is not an end in itself. It has a big responsibility of drafting a new Constitution. The people must be given the final say on a new Constitution through the referendum. Lacking this will lead towards the real revolution that Nepal has never witnessed in its history, nationalists defending Constitutional Monarchy and Hindu Dharma at one side and the parties defending India's interests and imported religions at the other. The result is evident. (On behalf of the Nepali Nationalists Organization NNO), USA, Chairman, Bishal B. Shah)
The Nepali Nationalists Organization (NNO) USA, believes that Nepali People should always think about to keep their royal institution for long. It is the symbol of Nepali national unity. It is the prestige and pride for the Nepali people. No one can imagine that the killer like Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda), Girija Koirala who has masterminded to hijack twin-otter plane in 70s which carried a huge national revenue and still he did not have answered whereabouts of that wealth, Madhav Kumar Nepal whose height is barely above 5 feet with no charm at all and Sher Bahadur Deuba who does not understand himself what he spoke or Pashupati SJB Rana, Surya Bahadur Thapa, Lokendra B. Chand, Regional Madhesi leaders -anyone can present Nepal's image outside Nepal. As far as inside Nepal, except His Majesty King Gyanendra, there is no one who can unite a nation and bring all Nepali together. Every people within their deep heart has a place for King Gyanendra. Whoever speaks whatever, still, inside their heart there is a love and respect towards King Gyanendra. It is the foreigners who wish Nepal being turned into Christian nation or who wants to hijack all natural resources love to see Nepali people without their guardian, Monarchy. Therefore, true patriots of Nepal are completely right when they say Nepal is no more sovereign and independent nation. Nepal will have lesser status than Bhutan without King. One of Nepal's well-wishers, the Political Science Professor Dr. Jenny Curzine from France always argues in favor of monarchy. She always says: we have no Monarchy now. Our Monarchs were projected as villains in the history but that is not hundred percent true. During their rule France used to be the number one nation. We were powerful and richer than the United States of today. There is no country will ever be as equal as France during the rule of our Monarchs. We had prestige, power and in fact, we reached the height of progress. Nepal was also moving towards progress during Kings rule. I am not against the democracy, but the democratic leaders ruined Nepal. They stagnated country and they put Nepal under the feet of India. King Gyanendra is sacrificing everything for the people of Nepal. If he wanted the Nepalese people would have swept away the Jana Andolan II very easily. If he had just requested the people to stop, Jana Andolan II would have gone in a thin air. At last, King is a must for Nepal otherwise, expect Nepal, a federal state of Greater India or federated nations of different names and with different flags. And then, definitely, there will be no four star flags, no flags with sun or Cow or something else. People will be greeted with the flags of Tiranga (Indian Flag) or with the flag of hammer and sickle (international communist's flag) or with different regional flags like in former Yugoslavia. No matter how the Constituent Assembly election gives the result, Nepali leaders must unite themselves and save Monarchy for the sake of Nepal's future. The leaders must think that the result of CA is not an end in itself. It has a big responsibility of drafting a new Constitution. The people must be given the final say on a new Constitution through the referendum. Lacking this will lead towards the real revolution that Nepal has never witnessed in its history, nationalists defending Constitutional Monarchy and Hindu Dharma at one side and the parties defending India's interests and imported religions at the other. The result is evident. (On behalf of the Nepali Nationalists Organization NNO), USA, Chairman, Bishal B. Shah)
Sunday, April 6, 2008
As He Prepares To Speak…
It finally looks like King Gyanendra is ready to divulge the details of the agreement that catapulted the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) and Maoist rebels to power two years ago.
Reports of an agreement primarily committing the SPA and the Maoists to the continuance of the monarchy have been circulating from the start. The king had made an oblique reference to the existence of such an undertaking in his conversation with journalist Hari Lamsal earlier this year. He had promised to speak in greater detail at the opportune time.
That time seems close at hand. Regardless of whether the constituent assembly elections are held on schedule this month, the monarch is expected use his Nepali New Year message to tell his side of the story.
Admittedly, it is unclear whether the agreement was oral or written. In the first case, the monarch would have a far greater challenge in providing credible evidence. In the latter, the resultant questions are no less vital. Was a formal agreement signed? If so, who were the signatories? If not, did the contracting sides depute representatives with full powers of attorney? Did General Pyar Jung Thapa, army chief at the time, do all the legwork? Or was royal secretary Pashupati Bhakta Maharjan the pointman? Were there witnesses, such as, say, foreign ambassadors who were active during the height of the April Uprising?
Clearly, the answers would have to come from the king. The response of SPA and Maoist leaders would then help to clarify a vital phase of current history. For now, we must rely on the king’s comment to Lamsal as well as a public comment Girija Prasad Koirala made on April 17, 2006.
Speaking to newslinenepal.com, Koirala provided what must be the most explicit undertaking that the Nepali Congress could get the Maoists to agree on a ceremonial monarchy if King Gyanendra reinstated the House of Representatives.
The fact that the 12-point agreement the Indians mediated between the SPA and the Maoists merely pledged to end an “autocratic” monarchy buttresses that reality. The same proviso underpinned the formula brought by Karan Singh, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s special representative.
Now, as premier, Koirala and other partisans could argue that events overtook that pledge. However, it cannot diminish the fact that political events were spurred by that undertaking. Clearly, there was little else in terms of clarity than the continuance of the monarchy in New Delhi’s initiative. For proper context, it is essential to step back a couple of weeks.
King Gyanendra’s prolonged absence from Kathmandu was scorned as a stark symbol of royal aloofness. While at the royal retreat in Pokhara, the monarch certainly wasn’t donning “Christian Dior sunglasses and military uniforms, listening to Indian love songs and consulting astrologers,” as The Washington Post’s John Lancaster had us believe. If he “greeted supplicants in a ceremonial tent” and “boarded a French-made Puma helicopter for forays around the countryside,” it was part of his consultations.
More importantly, King Gyanendra sought to give the Indians time to get their act together. Consider the context. Washington, impatient with New Delhi’s deepening ambivalence on the crisis, was prepared to start its own initiative. The Bush administration had just created a wider South and Central Asian Bureau in line with its national security strategy.
Richard Boucher, the new assistant secretary of state, was in Delhi in the first week of April. While his public comments focused on the “failure” the royal takeover had proved to be, Boucher was vexed by the stranglehold Indian communist parties had on the Singh government’s Nepal policy. Sitaram Yechury & Company, for their part, were anxious to mainstream our Maoists before India’s own Naxals acquired enough fervor to choke the Kolkata communists.
The National Security Advisory Board saw mainstreamed Maoists in a more sinister light but was unable to come up with a credible roadmap. (The board continues to be headed by former foreign secretary Maharaja Krishna Rasgotra – who as ambassador to Nepal very discreetly oversaw B.P. Koirala’s return on a plea of national reconciliation and, before that, had served as King Tribhuvan’s liaison during his brief exile in India. He, along with another former ambassador, Krishna V. Rajan, had met with King Gyanendra before the October 4, 2002 dismissal of Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba.)
The Indian defense and home ministries were still having a hard time persuading the external affairs ministry of the Maoists’ capacity for mendacity in the democratic process. The palace knew that Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran had struck inextricable ties with the Kolkata Reds as a journalist long before he became India’s ambassador in Kathmandu.
The Bharatiya Janata Party, irked by the Singh government’s unwarranted indebtedness to Yechury & Co, announced it was sending former foreign minister Jaswant Singh for talks with King Gyanendra and the mainstream parties. Prime Minister Singh and his Congress party grasped the implications of that mission, especially since U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Dennis Hastert – third in line to the presidency – and former president Jimmy Carter had announced plans to visit Kathmandu. The Chinese, meanwhile, were already delivering military supplies to the royal regime, undercutting New Delhi’s leverage.
The Singh government had to do something. It dispatched Karan Singh as an envoy to the king, who had returned to Kathmandu in the expectation of substantive Indian proposals.
Karan Singh, who had Shyam Saran and Pankaj Saran, the Nepal desk chief, in tow during each of his meetings with political and military leaders in Kathmandu, met the king alone.
The message of reconciliation the Indian envoy brought was not new. Karan Singh’s family ties to the Nepali royal family may have allowed him to hold candid discussions. However, he wasn’t able to assuage King Gyanendra’s concerns vis-à-vis the Maoists, particularly those relating to India’s real stance.
After all, the complications gripping the 2003 peace process were clearly rooted in India’s double game. The Nepali public, including those flooding the streets in April, had no way of knowing that. (Could India’s decision in 2003 to arrest Maoist leader C.P. Gajurel as he prepared to board a flight to London at the time King Gyanendra happened to be in the British capital have been coincidental?)
Nor were Nepalis familiar with the pressures India exerted on the palace to de-link the Maoist peace dimension from a royal takeover. It was precisely in anticipation of India’s double dealing that King Gyanendra chose to name himself head of government as well. Having failed to place their own confidante in the premiership, the Indians peddled the line that they had counseled the king against a takeover.
At Jakarta, three months after his takeover, King Gyanendra saw the necessity of personally explaining the contents of his talks with Prime Minister Singh. The monarch’s announcement in a television interview that New Delhi had agreed to lift the arms embargo may have bordered on diplomatic indiscretion. The palace considered more important the urgency of limiting the Indian establishment’s opportunities to play foul.
The next opportunity for a breakthrough arose when Rao Inderjit Singh, India’s junior foreign minister, arrived in Kathmandu to seek Nepal’s support for New Delhi’s bid to become a permanent member of the United Nations. The significance of Nepal’s support could be discounted only by those who did not understand the U.N.’s region-wise mechanism on building agendas.
Naturally, the palace sought – unsuccessfully – Indian support on resolving the Maoist insurgency. The royal regime told New Delhi it would put the request “under consideration.” In their disappointment, the Indians, in characteristic fashion, spun the story in an entirely different way.
Remember the Indian media hype that Prime Minister Singh was going to deliver a stern lecture to King Gyanendra on the sidelines of the Dhaka SAARC summit on the need to restore democracy? Well, the palace pre-empted that virtuous poppycock by spearheading the campaign to tie China’s inclusion as an observer with Afghanistan’s full membership of the South Asian organization.
From the Indian media as well as our own partisan outlets, this seemed like little more than a royal snub to New Delhi. Of course, the fact that Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka rallied behind Nepal was unpalatable to the Indians for a host of reasons.
After the April Uprising, the palace must have anticipated the frequency with which the goal posts would be shifted throughout the peace process under Indian inspiration. Ceremonial monarchy, baby king, the republic-amendment to the interim constitution are different manifestations. The Nepali media, which can catch Maoist leader Prachanda inside the Indian Embassy, won’t report on the Indian ambassador’s forays into the palace with various overtures.
In his state of virtual suspension, King Gyanendra must have found it easy to decline offers of Indian hospitality – under such diverse covers as medical treatment for Crown Prince Paras and wedding invitations – because of his conviction that a positive Indian role would always remain central to Nepal’s well-being.
(Courtsy: Nepali Netbook)
Reports of an agreement primarily committing the SPA and the Maoists to the continuance of the monarchy have been circulating from the start. The king had made an oblique reference to the existence of such an undertaking in his conversation with journalist Hari Lamsal earlier this year. He had promised to speak in greater detail at the opportune time.
That time seems close at hand. Regardless of whether the constituent assembly elections are held on schedule this month, the monarch is expected use his Nepali New Year message to tell his side of the story.
Admittedly, it is unclear whether the agreement was oral or written. In the first case, the monarch would have a far greater challenge in providing credible evidence. In the latter, the resultant questions are no less vital. Was a formal agreement signed? If so, who were the signatories? If not, did the contracting sides depute representatives with full powers of attorney? Did General Pyar Jung Thapa, army chief at the time, do all the legwork? Or was royal secretary Pashupati Bhakta Maharjan the pointman? Were there witnesses, such as, say, foreign ambassadors who were active during the height of the April Uprising?
Clearly, the answers would have to come from the king. The response of SPA and Maoist leaders would then help to clarify a vital phase of current history. For now, we must rely on the king’s comment to Lamsal as well as a public comment Girija Prasad Koirala made on April 17, 2006.
Speaking to newslinenepal.com, Koirala provided what must be the most explicit undertaking that the Nepali Congress could get the Maoists to agree on a ceremonial monarchy if King Gyanendra reinstated the House of Representatives.
The fact that the 12-point agreement the Indians mediated between the SPA and the Maoists merely pledged to end an “autocratic” monarchy buttresses that reality. The same proviso underpinned the formula brought by Karan Singh, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s special representative.
Now, as premier, Koirala and other partisans could argue that events overtook that pledge. However, it cannot diminish the fact that political events were spurred by that undertaking. Clearly, there was little else in terms of clarity than the continuance of the monarchy in New Delhi’s initiative. For proper context, it is essential to step back a couple of weeks.
King Gyanendra’s prolonged absence from Kathmandu was scorned as a stark symbol of royal aloofness. While at the royal retreat in Pokhara, the monarch certainly wasn’t donning “Christian Dior sunglasses and military uniforms, listening to Indian love songs and consulting astrologers,” as The Washington Post’s John Lancaster had us believe. If he “greeted supplicants in a ceremonial tent” and “boarded a French-made Puma helicopter for forays around the countryside,” it was part of his consultations.
More importantly, King Gyanendra sought to give the Indians time to get their act together. Consider the context. Washington, impatient with New Delhi’s deepening ambivalence on the crisis, was prepared to start its own initiative. The Bush administration had just created a wider South and Central Asian Bureau in line with its national security strategy.
Richard Boucher, the new assistant secretary of state, was in Delhi in the first week of April. While his public comments focused on the “failure” the royal takeover had proved to be, Boucher was vexed by the stranglehold Indian communist parties had on the Singh government’s Nepal policy. Sitaram Yechury & Company, for their part, were anxious to mainstream our Maoists before India’s own Naxals acquired enough fervor to choke the Kolkata communists.
The National Security Advisory Board saw mainstreamed Maoists in a more sinister light but was unable to come up with a credible roadmap. (The board continues to be headed by former foreign secretary Maharaja Krishna Rasgotra – who as ambassador to Nepal very discreetly oversaw B.P. Koirala’s return on a plea of national reconciliation and, before that, had served as King Tribhuvan’s liaison during his brief exile in India. He, along with another former ambassador, Krishna V. Rajan, had met with King Gyanendra before the October 4, 2002 dismissal of Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba.)
The Indian defense and home ministries were still having a hard time persuading the external affairs ministry of the Maoists’ capacity for mendacity in the democratic process. The palace knew that Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran had struck inextricable ties with the Kolkata Reds as a journalist long before he became India’s ambassador in Kathmandu.
The Bharatiya Janata Party, irked by the Singh government’s unwarranted indebtedness to Yechury & Co, announced it was sending former foreign minister Jaswant Singh for talks with King Gyanendra and the mainstream parties. Prime Minister Singh and his Congress party grasped the implications of that mission, especially since U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Dennis Hastert – third in line to the presidency – and former president Jimmy Carter had announced plans to visit Kathmandu. The Chinese, meanwhile, were already delivering military supplies to the royal regime, undercutting New Delhi’s leverage.
The Singh government had to do something. It dispatched Karan Singh as an envoy to the king, who had returned to Kathmandu in the expectation of substantive Indian proposals.
Karan Singh, who had Shyam Saran and Pankaj Saran, the Nepal desk chief, in tow during each of his meetings with political and military leaders in Kathmandu, met the king alone.
The message of reconciliation the Indian envoy brought was not new. Karan Singh’s family ties to the Nepali royal family may have allowed him to hold candid discussions. However, he wasn’t able to assuage King Gyanendra’s concerns vis-à-vis the Maoists, particularly those relating to India’s real stance.
After all, the complications gripping the 2003 peace process were clearly rooted in India’s double game. The Nepali public, including those flooding the streets in April, had no way of knowing that. (Could India’s decision in 2003 to arrest Maoist leader C.P. Gajurel as he prepared to board a flight to London at the time King Gyanendra happened to be in the British capital have been coincidental?)
Nor were Nepalis familiar with the pressures India exerted on the palace to de-link the Maoist peace dimension from a royal takeover. It was precisely in anticipation of India’s double dealing that King Gyanendra chose to name himself head of government as well. Having failed to place their own confidante in the premiership, the Indians peddled the line that they had counseled the king against a takeover.
At Jakarta, three months after his takeover, King Gyanendra saw the necessity of personally explaining the contents of his talks with Prime Minister Singh. The monarch’s announcement in a television interview that New Delhi had agreed to lift the arms embargo may have bordered on diplomatic indiscretion. The palace considered more important the urgency of limiting the Indian establishment’s opportunities to play foul.
The next opportunity for a breakthrough arose when Rao Inderjit Singh, India’s junior foreign minister, arrived in Kathmandu to seek Nepal’s support for New Delhi’s bid to become a permanent member of the United Nations. The significance of Nepal’s support could be discounted only by those who did not understand the U.N.’s region-wise mechanism on building agendas.
Naturally, the palace sought – unsuccessfully – Indian support on resolving the Maoist insurgency. The royal regime told New Delhi it would put the request “under consideration.” In their disappointment, the Indians, in characteristic fashion, spun the story in an entirely different way.
Remember the Indian media hype that Prime Minister Singh was going to deliver a stern lecture to King Gyanendra on the sidelines of the Dhaka SAARC summit on the need to restore democracy? Well, the palace pre-empted that virtuous poppycock by spearheading the campaign to tie China’s inclusion as an observer with Afghanistan’s full membership of the South Asian organization.
From the Indian media as well as our own partisan outlets, this seemed like little more than a royal snub to New Delhi. Of course, the fact that Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka rallied behind Nepal was unpalatable to the Indians for a host of reasons.
After the April Uprising, the palace must have anticipated the frequency with which the goal posts would be shifted throughout the peace process under Indian inspiration. Ceremonial monarchy, baby king, the republic-amendment to the interim constitution are different manifestations. The Nepali media, which can catch Maoist leader Prachanda inside the Indian Embassy, won’t report on the Indian ambassador’s forays into the palace with various overtures.
In his state of virtual suspension, King Gyanendra must have found it easy to decline offers of Indian hospitality – under such diverse covers as medical treatment for Crown Prince Paras and wedding invitations – because of his conviction that a positive Indian role would always remain central to Nepal’s well-being.
(Courtsy: Nepali Netbook)
Enigma Of Electoral Arithmetic
If – and it’s still a big if – the constituent assembly elections are held as scheduled on April 10, it will be because of our two neighbors’ fervor to bid farewell to the United Nations mission in Nepal. If a contrived culmination of a nation’s quest for reinvention is what it takes to keep out international peace-mongers from the region for good, it’s worth every bit of artifice.
The latest bomb blasts in Kathmandu Valley – like other acts of violence in the run-up to the polls – can be conveniently blamed on a palace desperate to avoid the denouement. Harder to ignore is the anxiety of the leading political parties, which are in search of an excuse to postpone the imponderables of the polls.
Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, facing a fractious party, is reportedly waiting until April 8 to make a final decision on whether to go ahead with the polls. The Unified Marxist-Leninists are intent on preventing the Maoists from claiming the mantle of the left. The Maoists, for their part, are flabbergasted as to why the UML feels so threatened.
Prachanda, whose marauders once proudly claimed to control 95 percent of the country, is forced to confine himself to the capital. The Maoist chairman can paranoically rail all he wants against everyone else, because this much is clear: death has come to haunt its greatest purveyor.
In his moments of reflection, Prachanda probably recognizes how easily he could have staked a middle ground between the Indians and Chinese and prospered. Unable to swim in clear waters after decades of subterraneous existence, he took the easy way out. He froze his feet on both boats. Neither neighbor trusts him to replace the king in the game of triangulation. For all their rivalry in Nepal, Beijing and Delhi believe they are better off keeping their brawl in the neighborhood. That’s the nub of the polls-at-all-costs credo.
The power equations and the second amendment to the interim statute – more than public opinion – makes a republic a foregone conclusion. Kamal Thapa’s Rastriya Prajatantra Party (Nepal) – the only organization advocating a monarchy – won’t be able to tap into the pro-monarchy sentiment most opinion polls see prevailing in half the country.
Surya Bahadur Thapa’s Rastriya Janashakti Party and Pashupati Shamsher Rana’s Rastriya Prajatantra Party are silent on the type of head of state they envisage. Recently, Thapa stunned many by proclaiming the end of the monarchy. But, we are told, he has made repeated representations to the palace claiming that he was misquoted.
Pashupati Rana would probably want to avenge the Shahs’ usurpation of his birthright to the Shogunate. The Chandra Shamsher-Juddha Shamsher bad blood ostensibly raises the stakes here. But with the Maoists and other lefties waging war on feudalism the proper noun, there is a chance that Rana would go further back in history to seek reconciliation. King Gyanendra and the RPP chief, after all, are great-great-grandsons of Dhir Shamsher.
Yet the two Thapas and Rana would be hard-pressed to match their united RPP’s showing in the 1994 mid-term elections, when it displaced the Maoist forerunner, United People’s Front, as the third largest group in parliament. The Madhesi parties are already royalists, we are constantly reminded. Since the Madhesis would make the same claim on the other parties, this dimension must be discounted as a variable. So officially, the numbers don’t add up for the palace.
And the palace has set its terms. Clever questioners may have sought to make a distinction between the person and the institution, but they can’t fool ordinary Nepalis. No one gets to choose a king. The construction of the line of succession in Nepal has made that an even stark no-no. If a majority of Nepalis want to throw the crown away with the wearer, fine. Lok sammati predates loktantra. Still, to quote Kamal Thapa, King Gyanendra believes he will be wearing the crown next year and after that. What does the monarch know that the rest of the country doesn’t?
Clearly, a Maoist boycott of the first session of the constituent assembly might give the Nepali Congress and the UML some voting leeway. But will that much-anticipated royal address on the real deal behind the reinstatement of the House of Representatives be enough for them to vote for the monarchy?
There are other imponderables. Take the proportionally elected members. Can they be held accountable to the republican manifestoes in the same way those directly elected are? Let’s say they’re off the whip. How will the Chaudharies, Murarkas and Tibrewallas vote? Will they remember a businessman prince whose regalia gave him an edge in all matters commercial? Or will they exhibit some kind of solidarity for a taxpaying king who would be fully immersed in the trade, barring the episodic ceremonialism he may be called upon to exercise? And let’s not even begin talking about the war-chest the Japanese have purportedly promised to open to save the king. (To save theirs in 1945, lest we forget, they let the Americans write their constitution.)
The directly elected representatives may not be set in so much concrete, either. The Nepali Congress and the UML could blame each other and the Maoists for faltering on the road to a republic and vote for a Koirala-introduced resolution on keeping the monarchy. If the Dixits, Pandeys and Pahadis would be unable to maintain civility in society, they can go back to wearing those black arm bands in and around Ratna Park.
So why is King Gyanendra confident? Because he knows that in politics, mathematical precision doesn’t always count. If it did, Hillary Clinton would have conceded the Democratic Party nomination for the US presidency to Barak Obama long ago. Maybe former president and super-delegate Jimmy Carter might want to go to Narayanhity Palace to compare notes for the Denver Convention.
(Courtsy:Nepali Netbook)
The latest bomb blasts in Kathmandu Valley – like other acts of violence in the run-up to the polls – can be conveniently blamed on a palace desperate to avoid the denouement. Harder to ignore is the anxiety of the leading political parties, which are in search of an excuse to postpone the imponderables of the polls.
Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, facing a fractious party, is reportedly waiting until April 8 to make a final decision on whether to go ahead with the polls. The Unified Marxist-Leninists are intent on preventing the Maoists from claiming the mantle of the left. The Maoists, for their part, are flabbergasted as to why the UML feels so threatened.
Prachanda, whose marauders once proudly claimed to control 95 percent of the country, is forced to confine himself to the capital. The Maoist chairman can paranoically rail all he wants against everyone else, because this much is clear: death has come to haunt its greatest purveyor.
In his moments of reflection, Prachanda probably recognizes how easily he could have staked a middle ground between the Indians and Chinese and prospered. Unable to swim in clear waters after decades of subterraneous existence, he took the easy way out. He froze his feet on both boats. Neither neighbor trusts him to replace the king in the game of triangulation. For all their rivalry in Nepal, Beijing and Delhi believe they are better off keeping their brawl in the neighborhood. That’s the nub of the polls-at-all-costs credo.
The power equations and the second amendment to the interim statute – more than public opinion – makes a republic a foregone conclusion. Kamal Thapa’s Rastriya Prajatantra Party (Nepal) – the only organization advocating a monarchy – won’t be able to tap into the pro-monarchy sentiment most opinion polls see prevailing in half the country.
Surya Bahadur Thapa’s Rastriya Janashakti Party and Pashupati Shamsher Rana’s Rastriya Prajatantra Party are silent on the type of head of state they envisage. Recently, Thapa stunned many by proclaiming the end of the monarchy. But, we are told, he has made repeated representations to the palace claiming that he was misquoted.
Pashupati Rana would probably want to avenge the Shahs’ usurpation of his birthright to the Shogunate. The Chandra Shamsher-Juddha Shamsher bad blood ostensibly raises the stakes here. But with the Maoists and other lefties waging war on feudalism the proper noun, there is a chance that Rana would go further back in history to seek reconciliation. King Gyanendra and the RPP chief, after all, are great-great-grandsons of Dhir Shamsher.
Yet the two Thapas and Rana would be hard-pressed to match their united RPP’s showing in the 1994 mid-term elections, when it displaced the Maoist forerunner, United People’s Front, as the third largest group in parliament. The Madhesi parties are already royalists, we are constantly reminded. Since the Madhesis would make the same claim on the other parties, this dimension must be discounted as a variable. So officially, the numbers don’t add up for the palace.
And the palace has set its terms. Clever questioners may have sought to make a distinction between the person and the institution, but they can’t fool ordinary Nepalis. No one gets to choose a king. The construction of the line of succession in Nepal has made that an even stark no-no. If a majority of Nepalis want to throw the crown away with the wearer, fine. Lok sammati predates loktantra. Still, to quote Kamal Thapa, King Gyanendra believes he will be wearing the crown next year and after that. What does the monarch know that the rest of the country doesn’t?
Clearly, a Maoist boycott of the first session of the constituent assembly might give the Nepali Congress and the UML some voting leeway. But will that much-anticipated royal address on the real deal behind the reinstatement of the House of Representatives be enough for them to vote for the monarchy?
There are other imponderables. Take the proportionally elected members. Can they be held accountable to the republican manifestoes in the same way those directly elected are? Let’s say they’re off the whip. How will the Chaudharies, Murarkas and Tibrewallas vote? Will they remember a businessman prince whose regalia gave him an edge in all matters commercial? Or will they exhibit some kind of solidarity for a taxpaying king who would be fully immersed in the trade, barring the episodic ceremonialism he may be called upon to exercise? And let’s not even begin talking about the war-chest the Japanese have purportedly promised to open to save the king. (To save theirs in 1945, lest we forget, they let the Americans write their constitution.)
The directly elected representatives may not be set in so much concrete, either. The Nepali Congress and the UML could blame each other and the Maoists for faltering on the road to a republic and vote for a Koirala-introduced resolution on keeping the monarchy. If the Dixits, Pandeys and Pahadis would be unable to maintain civility in society, they can go back to wearing those black arm bands in and around Ratna Park.
So why is King Gyanendra confident? Because he knows that in politics, mathematical precision doesn’t always count. If it did, Hillary Clinton would have conceded the Democratic Party nomination for the US presidency to Barak Obama long ago. Maybe former president and super-delegate Jimmy Carter might want to go to Narayanhity Palace to compare notes for the Denver Convention.
(Courtsy:Nepali Netbook)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
