Education in today's democratic society is in a dangerous state, as can be seen from the degradation of the sexual morality of youth, the frequent occurrence of school violence, and so on. Yet, a suitable theory of education to overcome this confusion is not to be found anywhere, and present-day education has lost its sense of direction. The proper relationship between teacher and student is collapsing. That is to say, students do not respect their teachers, and teachers have lost their sense of authority and enthusiasm. In consequence, the relationship between teachers and students has become one in which the teachers are selling knowledge and the students are buying it, so that schools have turned into places for buying and selling knowledge. Communism has infiltrated these circumstances, turning schools into places teeming with disturbances. In the absence of clear ideas for education, it has been very difficult to thwart the Communist offensive.
Communists have made the following accusation: "In class society, can the ruling class ever respect the rights of laborers and farmers? To fulfill one's own duty and mission in class society means to be a loyal servant to the ruling class, does it not? That is not true democracy. True democracy is the democracy of laborers and farmers, in other words, people's democracy. Therefore, true democratic education should be education for the sake of the people. It should help to overthrow capitalist society and construct socialist society."
This accusation of capitalism by Communism will not lose its persuasiveness as long as exploitation, oppression, injustice, corruption, and so on remain in capitalist society. Therefore, these social evils must be eliminated at all cost. To do this, a movement for a new view of value based on God's love must be launched. Along with it, a new theory of education must be established.
The new theory of education should be established on the basis of the standards that God originally intended to establish for human growth. Such a theory will give proper direction to today's education, which is in confusion, and will provide a vision of education for future society. In other words, it is a theory of education that makes preparation for the future, ideal society. The Unification Theory of Education presented here is precisely such a theory of education.
Theories of education usually have two aspects. One is concerned with the ideals, goals, methods, and so on, of education, and corresponds to what is called the philosophy of education. The other deals with education as an objective, observable phenomenon, and is called the science of education. The science of education inquires into school curricula, student evaluation and testing, learning techniques, student counseling, school administration, educational management, and so forth.
These two fields are in the relationship of Sungsang and Hyungsang. The philosophy of education is the Sungsang of education, whereas the science of education is the Hyungsang of education. While the science of education has made great advances under the modern tendency to think highly of science, the philosophy of education is being neglected and is steadily declining. The fact that education today has lost its direction implies the absence of a philosophy of education. Therefore, what is urgently needed today is the establishment of a new philosophy of education. Therefore, to fill the need for a new philosophy of education, the Unification Theory of Education is hereby proposed.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Monday, March 23, 2009
Educational excellence?
BY SHYAM K.C.
Last week's student elections in colleges across the country were miniature versions of state and local elections. What with the political heavyweights, including ministers, joining in the canvassing campaigns, one can conclude that political parties and their leaders unabashedly use students for their political ends. The scenes we watched on television were similar to those from non-student political elections. Many campuses witnessed violence, which is never a part of free and fair election. There were also reports that attempts were made to capture ballot boxes. Counting of ballots were put off at a few campuses due to tension between student groups aligned to different political parties. The violence took a more serious turn in east Nepal when one student was killed in police firing. The state run television reported that four persons including a college principal were abducted in west Nepal. It seems for political parties, the student elections are as important as other elections in obtaining political offices and seats. No wonder there were allegations that the students who used subsidised transport and other facilities spent lots of money on elections. The open involvement of political parties in student body elections gives rise to suspicions that the aim of student elections goes far beyond improving the quality of education in colleges.
Most students go to college to pursue higher education and become able citizens of the country and the world. But there are others who, in the guise of students, are there to indulge in politics and to keep the banners of their parties afloat by winning in union elections. And this kind of student power is seen mostly in least developed countries like Nepal and also in developing countries like India. It is not that students do not take part in politics. They do. For instance, in Nepal they were active in the pro-democracy movements of 1990 and 2006. During the Vietnam War, the usually peaceful college campuses in the United States erupted against the establishment. In other countries too, students have been a potent force in the change of governments or even political system. But once these goals are achieved, the primary concern of students is education and it is here that they need to concentrate. Places of learning should be kept away from power politics. The disturbance caused by elections based on party lines cannot bode well for the future of the students. But it is true that student bodies must be elected by the students to ensure that their academic life is not marred by poor quality education, incompetent teachers, absence of extra-curricular activities, and other distractions such as unnecessary politicisation of student bodies. Student unions work for the welfare of students in their respective campuses and should try to keep politics away from academic affairs.
The way political leaders, including top Maoist ministers, went on to campaign in campuses to ensure the victory of panels loyal to their parties is a development that must be deplored in no uncertain terms. The general feeling as this writer perceived in the course of talks with ordinary people was that this kind of political interference in student affairs should not set a precedent for the future. This puts at stake academic freedom which is necessary in all academic institutions worth the name. Student unions, apart from working for the welfare of students, can help their respective institutions strengthen their reputations and stand alongside the world's best institutions so that their graduates are respected everywhere and their degrees and diplomas not considered inferior, as they are today in many countries.
Students alone cannot and should not be blamed for what has happened to our present education system. Political parties that unscrupulously use students through their student wings are more to blame. Our political parties are a bane to our students' quest for educational excellence. The parties lack vision and do not seem to realise the long term implications of their present actions. Otherwise they would not be using students for their own political ends despite knowing that students would best serve themselves, their families, their country and even their parties by concentrating on studies and on campus activities instead of party-driven student politics. Student politics during the recent elections took a violent turn. Curfew had to be imposed in some places. And votes could not be counted in a few campuses till Sunday afternoon. But this is less a reflection on the students themselves than on the parties that condone and encourage such activities. Things are not going to improve unless political parties make it a point to stay away from student affairs and not to use students in any political activities designed for short term gains. But it would be futile to expect our leaders to take decisions that would benefit the nation in the long run at the cost of their short-term party interests. But unless this kind of decision is taken by political parties, we are doomed to see students used by political parties even for petty political activities. Educational excellence will remain a distant dream for us until party politics is kept away from college campuses.
Last week's student elections in colleges across the country were miniature versions of state and local elections. What with the political heavyweights, including ministers, joining in the canvassing campaigns, one can conclude that political parties and their leaders unabashedly use students for their political ends. The scenes we watched on television were similar to those from non-student political elections. Many campuses witnessed violence, which is never a part of free and fair election. There were also reports that attempts were made to capture ballot boxes. Counting of ballots were put off at a few campuses due to tension between student groups aligned to different political parties. The violence took a more serious turn in east Nepal when one student was killed in police firing. The state run television reported that four persons including a college principal were abducted in west Nepal. It seems for political parties, the student elections are as important as other elections in obtaining political offices and seats. No wonder there were allegations that the students who used subsidised transport and other facilities spent lots of money on elections. The open involvement of political parties in student body elections gives rise to suspicions that the aim of student elections goes far beyond improving the quality of education in colleges.
Most students go to college to pursue higher education and become able citizens of the country and the world. But there are others who, in the guise of students, are there to indulge in politics and to keep the banners of their parties afloat by winning in union elections. And this kind of student power is seen mostly in least developed countries like Nepal and also in developing countries like India. It is not that students do not take part in politics. They do. For instance, in Nepal they were active in the pro-democracy movements of 1990 and 2006. During the Vietnam War, the usually peaceful college campuses in the United States erupted against the establishment. In other countries too, students have been a potent force in the change of governments or even political system. But once these goals are achieved, the primary concern of students is education and it is here that they need to concentrate. Places of learning should be kept away from power politics. The disturbance caused by elections based on party lines cannot bode well for the future of the students. But it is true that student bodies must be elected by the students to ensure that their academic life is not marred by poor quality education, incompetent teachers, absence of extra-curricular activities, and other distractions such as unnecessary politicisation of student bodies. Student unions work for the welfare of students in their respective campuses and should try to keep politics away from academic affairs.
The way political leaders, including top Maoist ministers, went on to campaign in campuses to ensure the victory of panels loyal to their parties is a development that must be deplored in no uncertain terms. The general feeling as this writer perceived in the course of talks with ordinary people was that this kind of political interference in student affairs should not set a precedent for the future. This puts at stake academic freedom which is necessary in all academic institutions worth the name. Student unions, apart from working for the welfare of students, can help their respective institutions strengthen their reputations and stand alongside the world's best institutions so that their graduates are respected everywhere and their degrees and diplomas not considered inferior, as they are today in many countries.
Students alone cannot and should not be blamed for what has happened to our present education system. Political parties that unscrupulously use students through their student wings are more to blame. Our political parties are a bane to our students' quest for educational excellence. The parties lack vision and do not seem to realise the long term implications of their present actions. Otherwise they would not be using students for their own political ends despite knowing that students would best serve themselves, their families, their country and even their parties by concentrating on studies and on campus activities instead of party-driven student politics. Student politics during the recent elections took a violent turn. Curfew had to be imposed in some places. And votes could not be counted in a few campuses till Sunday afternoon. But this is less a reflection on the students themselves than on the parties that condone and encourage such activities. Things are not going to improve unless political parties make it a point to stay away from student affairs and not to use students in any political activities designed for short term gains. But it would be futile to expect our leaders to take decisions that would benefit the nation in the long run at the cost of their short-term party interests. But unless this kind of decision is taken by political parties, we are doomed to see students used by political parties even for petty political activities. Educational excellence will remain a distant dream for us until party politics is kept away from college campuses.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Too Much Politics in Nepal!
Raj
It is too much in Nepal. If not, how much is too much? We have anarchists both in government and outside. If the men in government make frightening comments at times then the men outside the government framework too contribute to create panic among the already panicked population.
The rhetoric of State Capture that we have been listening since a month or so is what has been sending spine chilling waves in the body of the common men considering what will eventually happen to this nation-state if and when such a capture gets materialized.
Ministerial suggestions that each and every Nepali citizen must carry weapons for their personal safety must not be taken as a joke as it tells the very mindset of those who forwards such hair-raising propositions.
Even the Nepali media men were suggested February 8, 2009 by a sitting minister to keep weapons with them as the state may not be able to provide needed and the adequate security to the media men on an individual basis. A brilliant idea but equally a dangerous one in essence.
The media men are being killed on a frequent basis with no probability of receiving security from the nation-state. Thus the media is in a panicked state. The innocent civilians are being kidnapped in a broad day light. Cases of arson and loot continue unabated. The entire security system in the country appears to have become either lenient or defunct.
The entire Terai or say Madhesh is in turmoil with mind boggling demands unheard of. The Bundhs and closures of the national high ways have become a regular feature. If such Bundhs and closures bring in chaos in the industrial sector then those who are engaged in this domain, the industrialists and the workers, too have been feeling the brunt. If the industrialists now prefer to shift the capital to some, comparatively, safer places outside the country then the innocent workers who earn their living by spending their energies each day for two meals a day too have become jobless which surely has a multiplier effect.
Consider a poor worker who earns one hundred rupees by extending his personal services to any one factory will have no money to feed his children and other family members if the factories are told to close down under one pretext or the other by some groups, politically motivated or otherwise.
The repeated bundhs and the closures in effect are hitting the poor section of the Nepali society instead what is being given to understand.
The culture of Bundhs and Closures, a new phenomenon for Nepal indeed but it appears that such phenomenon have already taken deep roots in our country.
Who benefits or for that matter who or which section of the society is hit hard by such sad events is any body’s guess.
The Bundhs and closures continue but the government in Kathmandu has no time to look into the mater seriously. The government at best is busy in calculating the numerical numbers on how to continue in power. This is a cheat. This is unacceptable. No sane person on earth will praise such a government that remains averse to the plight of its own population.
The culture of Bundhs and Closures must come to an end. If the demands are political ones then the government must try to handle it politically. If the bundhs and the closures are made by miscreants then the state must deal with the emerging situation accordingly.
Alas! The nepali people haven’t felt that there is the presence of the government. Neither the government is present nor the State?
If so then we the people are left to the mercy of the Almighty who prefers not to speak when we need him to speak in our favor.
Perhaps this explains the situation prevailing in this country. That’s all.
It is too much in Nepal. If not, how much is too much? We have anarchists both in government and outside. If the men in government make frightening comments at times then the men outside the government framework too contribute to create panic among the already panicked population.
The rhetoric of State Capture that we have been listening since a month or so is what has been sending spine chilling waves in the body of the common men considering what will eventually happen to this nation-state if and when such a capture gets materialized.
Ministerial suggestions that each and every Nepali citizen must carry weapons for their personal safety must not be taken as a joke as it tells the very mindset of those who forwards such hair-raising propositions.
Even the Nepali media men were suggested February 8, 2009 by a sitting minister to keep weapons with them as the state may not be able to provide needed and the adequate security to the media men on an individual basis. A brilliant idea but equally a dangerous one in essence.
The media men are being killed on a frequent basis with no probability of receiving security from the nation-state. Thus the media is in a panicked state. The innocent civilians are being kidnapped in a broad day light. Cases of arson and loot continue unabated. The entire security system in the country appears to have become either lenient or defunct.
The entire Terai or say Madhesh is in turmoil with mind boggling demands unheard of. The Bundhs and closures of the national high ways have become a regular feature. If such Bundhs and closures bring in chaos in the industrial sector then those who are engaged in this domain, the industrialists and the workers, too have been feeling the brunt. If the industrialists now prefer to shift the capital to some, comparatively, safer places outside the country then the innocent workers who earn their living by spending their energies each day for two meals a day too have become jobless which surely has a multiplier effect.
Consider a poor worker who earns one hundred rupees by extending his personal services to any one factory will have no money to feed his children and other family members if the factories are told to close down under one pretext or the other by some groups, politically motivated or otherwise.
The repeated bundhs and the closures in effect are hitting the poor section of the Nepali society instead what is being given to understand.
The culture of Bundhs and Closures, a new phenomenon for Nepal indeed but it appears that such phenomenon have already taken deep roots in our country.
Who benefits or for that matter who or which section of the society is hit hard by such sad events is any body’s guess.
The Bundhs and closures continue but the government in Kathmandu has no time to look into the mater seriously. The government at best is busy in calculating the numerical numbers on how to continue in power. This is a cheat. This is unacceptable. No sane person on earth will praise such a government that remains averse to the plight of its own population.
The culture of Bundhs and Closures must come to an end. If the demands are political ones then the government must try to handle it politically. If the bundhs and the closures are made by miscreants then the state must deal with the emerging situation accordingly.
Alas! The nepali people haven’t felt that there is the presence of the government. Neither the government is present nor the State?
If so then we the people are left to the mercy of the Almighty who prefers not to speak when we need him to speak in our favor.
Perhaps this explains the situation prevailing in this country. That’s all.
Nepal: Rearming of the Himalayas?
Dr. Upendra Gautam
In addition to Nepal Tarai, clandestine supply and use of arms have systematically been on rise in Nepal's northern mountain and Himalayan frontier. Latest news reports (7 February, 2009) had it that an armed group mounted an assault on Syaulibang police post, located on the border of districts of Pyuthan and Rolpa. It killed policeman Suman GC. It looted all 10 weapons including five 3-knot-3 rifles from the post. High mountain district of Rolpa was known for its "red base" during ten (1996-2006) years of Nepali Maoists' "war of liberation." In the words of Rita Manchanda, "Rolpa is the heartland of the 'People's War' launched by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists)."Strangers who come, we arrest. And if it's an Army-police patrol, we melt away into the fields and jungle and wait it out," Manchanda wrote quoting a 'People's Army' guerilla (Frontline, 31 August-13 September, 2002).
Girija Prasad Koirala, the then prime minister, earned accolades from Chinese leadership for his initiative in ensuring security of the Mt. Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) area from the Nepali side during (April-May, 2008) ascent of the special Olympic torch to the Everest summit. China's profound concern about this historic event was well reflected in its elaborate security preparedness for this area. According to AFP 2 April, 2008 report, Hao Peng, deputy governor of Tibet, carried out a personal inspection of the Everest base camp in Tibet. He was joined by top officials from regional military, police and border security headquarters. Hao was reported to have said that the Everest leg of the Olympic torch was a target for the Dalai Lama following March 2008 deadly unrest in Tibet. The visiting Chinese foreign minister Yang Jiechi did repeat China's appreciation of Nepal's alertness and role in controlling anti-China protests from Nepali soil during his meeting with prime minister Prachanda in Kathmandu (3 December, 2008).
Arming of Nepal's northern Himalayan frontier has its long-drawn out history. The history is linked with the governance change in China in 1949 and the ideological Cold War, which influenced Dalai Lama to flee from Tibet in 1959 and help "legitimize" establishment of "Tibetan government-in-exile" in the newly created Republic of India. Even then more than 40 years ago, Ajit Bhattacharjea, borrowing extensively from an article written by George Patterson in weekly the Reporter had this separatist story to tell: Khampas and other Tibetan troops are being quietly recruited and trained in modern arms in north-east India…Today almost the entire Khampa force in Tibet is still intact except for about 4,000 who either died or were imprisoned in 1959. It totals perhaps as many as 150,000 or 200,000 able-bodied fighting men. The majority have guns…The shortest line of supply for the greatest number of Khampas is from Assam through NEFA… through Wa-long... But it is from Nepal that the most serious threat to China could be launched. For in northern Nepal, where great numbers of Tibetan refugees have settled, there are some 5,000 Khampas.
After meeting with these Khampas through Nepal route in March, 1964, in company with two British television co-workers, Patterson gave these details of the planned raid: “Twenty-three men were selected to take part in this raid, including the three of us, and we all would have to leave the valley without arousing suspicion…The arrangements were the responsibility of the underground organization in Tibet — the Mimang Tsongdu — which would also post guards at all exits of the valley, prepare food and supply guides.”
Now about the raid: A convoy of four green, three-ton military vehicles, each flying a red flag on its nearside mud-guard, appeared on the road. Tendar’s (the Khampa leader) shot rang out the signal for the others to fire. The driver slumped at the wheel. In the rising fusillade the second and third trucks were also stopped in their tracks and the drivers killed. The fourth driver and the other Chinese soldiers leaped out and took cover under the trucks. “The Khampas were merciless. With rifles, hand-grenades and machine-guns they kept up a withering fire until all the Chinese except one, who made a desperate run for the boulders beneath our ridge, were dead” (Hindustan Times, 18 March, 1965).
The history of externalized insecurity in the Himalayas has further been instigated now by the agents of the New Cold War. These agents use Nepali soil for anti-Chinese activities in complete violation of Nepal's policy and laws; thus undercutting in effect Nepal's sovereign standing from within. The Himalayas extending to Afghanistan in the west, Sikkim and Assam in the east with the south-north Trans-Himalayan passages in between render them more vulnerable to the New Cold War agents. The impetus of new US administration in Afghanistan against anti-US forces and Chinese concerns to have safeguards in Afghanistan against "the “East Turkistan separatist force" (The Rising Nepal, 20 January, 2009) together add unprecedented angle to the Himalayan continuum.
China, which used to typically describe Sino-Nepali relations in terms of "the traditional friendship," appears to have recognized the added angle in the continuum. In a meeting with Nepal's visiting foreign secretary Gyan Chandra Acharya in Beijing Chinese foreign minister Yang Jiechi gave expression to this recognition when he said, China always viewed "dealing with and developing ties with Nepal from a strategic and long-term perspective" (Xinhua, 18 February, 2009).
About the same time around the US secretary of state Hilary Clinton was in China that was also the start of her inaugural year and the 30th anniversary of Sino-U.S. diplomatic relations. She described her engagement with China as "the beginning of a new era" of cooperation in the Sino-US relations. Chinese leadership and the new US secretary of state seem to have clicked well with each other leading to forge an initial common understanding between them on "the complicated and ever-shifting international political and economic situation" (read US war in Afghanistan and global economic recession). So much so that in the new era of bilateral cooperation they are not only prepared to "cross the river in a common boat," but also to "progress together hand in hand" (China View reports, 21 February, 2009). The post-Bush Sino-US relations appear to be inspired by proverbial strategies contained in "The Art of War." This book is China’s oldest treatise extant on the principles of warfare. Sun Tzi, a Chinese military strategist, wrote this book more than 2500 years ago. Given the pragmatism flourishing between the two countries, one can be hopeful that the Sino-US joint strategy of cooperation will have positive impact on enabling peace in the Himalayas.
In addition to Nepal Tarai, clandestine supply and use of arms have systematically been on rise in Nepal's northern mountain and Himalayan frontier. Latest news reports (7 February, 2009) had it that an armed group mounted an assault on Syaulibang police post, located on the border of districts of Pyuthan and Rolpa. It killed policeman Suman GC. It looted all 10 weapons including five 3-knot-3 rifles from the post. High mountain district of Rolpa was known for its "red base" during ten (1996-2006) years of Nepali Maoists' "war of liberation." In the words of Rita Manchanda, "Rolpa is the heartland of the 'People's War' launched by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists)."Strangers who come, we arrest. And if it's an Army-police patrol, we melt away into the fields and jungle and wait it out," Manchanda wrote quoting a 'People's Army' guerilla (Frontline, 31 August-13 September, 2002).
Girija Prasad Koirala, the then prime minister, earned accolades from Chinese leadership for his initiative in ensuring security of the Mt. Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) area from the Nepali side during (April-May, 2008) ascent of the special Olympic torch to the Everest summit. China's profound concern about this historic event was well reflected in its elaborate security preparedness for this area. According to AFP 2 April, 2008 report, Hao Peng, deputy governor of Tibet, carried out a personal inspection of the Everest base camp in Tibet. He was joined by top officials from regional military, police and border security headquarters. Hao was reported to have said that the Everest leg of the Olympic torch was a target for the Dalai Lama following March 2008 deadly unrest in Tibet. The visiting Chinese foreign minister Yang Jiechi did repeat China's appreciation of Nepal's alertness and role in controlling anti-China protests from Nepali soil during his meeting with prime minister Prachanda in Kathmandu (3 December, 2008).
Arming of Nepal's northern Himalayan frontier has its long-drawn out history. The history is linked with the governance change in China in 1949 and the ideological Cold War, which influenced Dalai Lama to flee from Tibet in 1959 and help "legitimize" establishment of "Tibetan government-in-exile" in the newly created Republic of India. Even then more than 40 years ago, Ajit Bhattacharjea, borrowing extensively from an article written by George Patterson in weekly the Reporter had this separatist story to tell: Khampas and other Tibetan troops are being quietly recruited and trained in modern arms in north-east India…Today almost the entire Khampa force in Tibet is still intact except for about 4,000 who either died or were imprisoned in 1959. It totals perhaps as many as 150,000 or 200,000 able-bodied fighting men. The majority have guns…The shortest line of supply for the greatest number of Khampas is from Assam through NEFA… through Wa-long... But it is from Nepal that the most serious threat to China could be launched. For in northern Nepal, where great numbers of Tibetan refugees have settled, there are some 5,000 Khampas.
After meeting with these Khampas through Nepal route in March, 1964, in company with two British television co-workers, Patterson gave these details of the planned raid: “Twenty-three men were selected to take part in this raid, including the three of us, and we all would have to leave the valley without arousing suspicion…The arrangements were the responsibility of the underground organization in Tibet — the Mimang Tsongdu — which would also post guards at all exits of the valley, prepare food and supply guides.”
Now about the raid: A convoy of four green, three-ton military vehicles, each flying a red flag on its nearside mud-guard, appeared on the road. Tendar’s (the Khampa leader) shot rang out the signal for the others to fire. The driver slumped at the wheel. In the rising fusillade the second and third trucks were also stopped in their tracks and the drivers killed. The fourth driver and the other Chinese soldiers leaped out and took cover under the trucks. “The Khampas were merciless. With rifles, hand-grenades and machine-guns they kept up a withering fire until all the Chinese except one, who made a desperate run for the boulders beneath our ridge, were dead” (Hindustan Times, 18 March, 1965).
The history of externalized insecurity in the Himalayas has further been instigated now by the agents of the New Cold War. These agents use Nepali soil for anti-Chinese activities in complete violation of Nepal's policy and laws; thus undercutting in effect Nepal's sovereign standing from within. The Himalayas extending to Afghanistan in the west, Sikkim and Assam in the east with the south-north Trans-Himalayan passages in between render them more vulnerable to the New Cold War agents. The impetus of new US administration in Afghanistan against anti-US forces and Chinese concerns to have safeguards in Afghanistan against "the “East Turkistan separatist force" (The Rising Nepal, 20 January, 2009) together add unprecedented angle to the Himalayan continuum.
China, which used to typically describe Sino-Nepali relations in terms of "the traditional friendship," appears to have recognized the added angle in the continuum. In a meeting with Nepal's visiting foreign secretary Gyan Chandra Acharya in Beijing Chinese foreign minister Yang Jiechi gave expression to this recognition when he said, China always viewed "dealing with and developing ties with Nepal from a strategic and long-term perspective" (Xinhua, 18 February, 2009).
About the same time around the US secretary of state Hilary Clinton was in China that was also the start of her inaugural year and the 30th anniversary of Sino-U.S. diplomatic relations. She described her engagement with China as "the beginning of a new era" of cooperation in the Sino-US relations. Chinese leadership and the new US secretary of state seem to have clicked well with each other leading to forge an initial common understanding between them on "the complicated and ever-shifting international political and economic situation" (read US war in Afghanistan and global economic recession). So much so that in the new era of bilateral cooperation they are not only prepared to "cross the river in a common boat," but also to "progress together hand in hand" (China View reports, 21 February, 2009). The post-Bush Sino-US relations appear to be inspired by proverbial strategies contained in "The Art of War." This book is China’s oldest treatise extant on the principles of warfare. Sun Tzi, a Chinese military strategist, wrote this book more than 2500 years ago. Given the pragmatism flourishing between the two countries, one can be hopeful that the Sino-US joint strategy of cooperation will have positive impact on enabling peace in the Himalayas.
Iran, the Jews and Germany
ROGER COHEN
So a Jerusalem Post article says that I'm “hardly the first American to be misled by the existence of synagogues in totalitarian countries.”
The Atlantic Monthly's Jeffrey Goldberg finds me “particularly credulous,” taken in by the Iranian hospitality and friendliness that “are the hallmarks of most Muslim societies.” (Thanks for that info, Jeffrey.)
A conservative Web site called American Thinker, which tries to prove its name is an oxymoron, believes I would have been fooled by the Nazis' sham at the Theresienstadt camp.
The indignation stems from my recent column on Iranian Jews, which said that the 25,000-strong community worships in relative tranquility; that Persian Jews have fared better than Arab Jews; that hostility toward Jews in Iran has on occasion led to trumped-up charges against them; and that those enamored of the “Mad Mullah” caricature of Iran regard any compromise with it as a rerun of Munich 1938.
This last point found confirmation in outraged correspondence from several American Jews unable to resist some analogy between Iran and Nazi Germany. I was based in Berlin for three years; Germany's confrontation with the Holocaust inhabited me. Let's be clear: Iran's Islamic Republic is no Third Reich redux. Nor is it a totalitarian state.
Munich allowed Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland. Iran has not waged an expansionary war in more than two centuries.
Totalitarian regimes require the complete subservience of the individual to the state and tolerate only one party to which all institutions are subordinated. Iran is an un-free society with a keen, intermittently brutal apparatus of repression, but it's far from meeting these criteria. Significant margins of liberty, even democracy, exist. Anything but mad, the mullahs have proved malleable.
Most of Iran's population is under 30; it's an Internet-connected generation. Access to satellite television is widespread. The BBC's new Farsi service is all the rage.
Abdullah Momeni, a student opponent of the regime, told me, “The Internet is very important to us; in fact, it is of infinite importance.” Iranians are not cut off, like Cubans or North Koreans.
The June presidential election pitting the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, against Mohammad Khatami (a former president who once spoke in a synagogue) will be a genuine contest as compared with the charades that pass for elections in many Arab states. No fire has burned the Majlis, or parliament, down.
If you're thinking trains-on-time Fascist efficiency, think again. Tehran's new telecommunications tower took 20 years to build. I was told its restaurant would open “soon.” So, it is said, will the Bushehr nuclear power plant, a project in the works for a mere 30 years. A Persian Chernobyl is more likely than some Middle Eastern nuclear Armageddon, if that's any comfort.
For all the morality police inspecting whether women are wearing boots outside their pants (the latest no-no on the dress front) and the regime zealots of the Basiji militia, the air you breathe in Iran is not suffocating. Its streets at dusk hum with life --not a monochrome male-only form of it, or one inhabited by fear -- but the vibrancy of a changing, highly educated society.
This is the Iran of subtle shades that the country's Jews inhabit. Life is more difficult for them than for Muslims, but to suggest they inhabit a totalitarian hell is self-serving nonsense.
One Iranian exile, no lover of the Islamic Republic, wrote to me saying that my account of Iran's Jews had brought “tears to my eyes” because “you are saying what many of us would like to hear.”
Far from the cradle of Middle Eastern Islamist zealotry, she suggested, “Iran --the supposed enemy -- is the one society that has gone through its extremist fervor and is coming out the other end. It is relatively stable and socially dynamic. As my father, who continues to live there, says, 'It is the least undemocratic country in the region outside Israel.' ”
This notion of a “post-fervor” Iran is significant. The compromises being painfully fought out between Islam and democracy in Tehran are of seminal importance. They belie the notion of a fanatical power; they explain Jewish life.
That does not mean fanaticism does not exist or that terrible crimes have not been committed, like the Iran-backed bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires 15 years ago.
But the equating of Iran with terror today is simplistic. Hamas and Hezbollah have evolved into broad political movements widely seen as resisting an Israel over-ready to use crushing force. It is essential to think again about them, just as it is essential to toss out Iran caricatures.
I return to this subject because behind the Jewish issue in Iran lies a critical one --the U.S. propensity to fixate on and demonize a country through a one-dimensional lens, with a sometimes disastrous chain of results.
It's worth recalling that hateful, ultranationalist rhetoric is no Iranian preserve. Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's race-baiting anti-Arab firebrand may find a place in a government led by Benjamin Netanyahu. He should not.
Nor should racist demagoguery -- wherever -- prompt facile allusions to the murderous Nazi master of it.
Courtesy : The New York Times
So a Jerusalem Post article says that I'm “hardly the first American to be misled by the existence of synagogues in totalitarian countries.”
The Atlantic Monthly's Jeffrey Goldberg finds me “particularly credulous,” taken in by the Iranian hospitality and friendliness that “are the hallmarks of most Muslim societies.” (Thanks for that info, Jeffrey.)
A conservative Web site called American Thinker, which tries to prove its name is an oxymoron, believes I would have been fooled by the Nazis' sham at the Theresienstadt camp.
The indignation stems from my recent column on Iranian Jews, which said that the 25,000-strong community worships in relative tranquility; that Persian Jews have fared better than Arab Jews; that hostility toward Jews in Iran has on occasion led to trumped-up charges against them; and that those enamored of the “Mad Mullah” caricature of Iran regard any compromise with it as a rerun of Munich 1938.
This last point found confirmation in outraged correspondence from several American Jews unable to resist some analogy between Iran and Nazi Germany. I was based in Berlin for three years; Germany's confrontation with the Holocaust inhabited me. Let's be clear: Iran's Islamic Republic is no Third Reich redux. Nor is it a totalitarian state.
Munich allowed Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland. Iran has not waged an expansionary war in more than two centuries.
Totalitarian regimes require the complete subservience of the individual to the state and tolerate only one party to which all institutions are subordinated. Iran is an un-free society with a keen, intermittently brutal apparatus of repression, but it's far from meeting these criteria. Significant margins of liberty, even democracy, exist. Anything but mad, the mullahs have proved malleable.
Most of Iran's population is under 30; it's an Internet-connected generation. Access to satellite television is widespread. The BBC's new Farsi service is all the rage.
Abdullah Momeni, a student opponent of the regime, told me, “The Internet is very important to us; in fact, it is of infinite importance.” Iranians are not cut off, like Cubans or North Koreans.
The June presidential election pitting the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, against Mohammad Khatami (a former president who once spoke in a synagogue) will be a genuine contest as compared with the charades that pass for elections in many Arab states. No fire has burned the Majlis, or parliament, down.
If you're thinking trains-on-time Fascist efficiency, think again. Tehran's new telecommunications tower took 20 years to build. I was told its restaurant would open “soon.” So, it is said, will the Bushehr nuclear power plant, a project in the works for a mere 30 years. A Persian Chernobyl is more likely than some Middle Eastern nuclear Armageddon, if that's any comfort.
For all the morality police inspecting whether women are wearing boots outside their pants (the latest no-no on the dress front) and the regime zealots of the Basiji militia, the air you breathe in Iran is not suffocating. Its streets at dusk hum with life --not a monochrome male-only form of it, or one inhabited by fear -- but the vibrancy of a changing, highly educated society.
This is the Iran of subtle shades that the country's Jews inhabit. Life is more difficult for them than for Muslims, but to suggest they inhabit a totalitarian hell is self-serving nonsense.
One Iranian exile, no lover of the Islamic Republic, wrote to me saying that my account of Iran's Jews had brought “tears to my eyes” because “you are saying what many of us would like to hear.”
Far from the cradle of Middle Eastern Islamist zealotry, she suggested, “Iran --the supposed enemy -- is the one society that has gone through its extremist fervor and is coming out the other end. It is relatively stable and socially dynamic. As my father, who continues to live there, says, 'It is the least undemocratic country in the region outside Israel.' ”
This notion of a “post-fervor” Iran is significant. The compromises being painfully fought out between Islam and democracy in Tehran are of seminal importance. They belie the notion of a fanatical power; they explain Jewish life.
That does not mean fanaticism does not exist or that terrible crimes have not been committed, like the Iran-backed bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires 15 years ago.
But the equating of Iran with terror today is simplistic. Hamas and Hezbollah have evolved into broad political movements widely seen as resisting an Israel over-ready to use crushing force. It is essential to think again about them, just as it is essential to toss out Iran caricatures.
I return to this subject because behind the Jewish issue in Iran lies a critical one --the U.S. propensity to fixate on and demonize a country through a one-dimensional lens, with a sometimes disastrous chain of results.
It's worth recalling that hateful, ultranationalist rhetoric is no Iranian preserve. Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's race-baiting anti-Arab firebrand may find a place in a government led by Benjamin Netanyahu. He should not.
Nor should racist demagoguery -- wherever -- prompt facile allusions to the murderous Nazi master of it.
Courtesy : The New York Times
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Unity in catastrophe
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.
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.
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)
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Scholarship for Nepali Students
Nepali students have become able to pursue international education at a Nepali price. In a Joint press release on Monday Aug 7, The Global Nepali Student Council (GNSC) coordinated by Mr. Khagendra Dhakal and Dr. Warren A. Shipton president of Mission College, a nonprofit college in Thailand, presented the result of successful negotiations. According to the statement released to the press, as a result of the GNSC/Mission College negotiations Nepali students will be elevated to “favored student” status as of Aug 27, 2007 in coordination with the new academic year 2007-2008.
“Not only does this new status open the door for average Nepali students to seek international education but also gives direct benefit to the around a dozen Nepali students currently studying at Mission College,” said GNSC coordinator Mr. Dhakal. He further added “instead of paying a western standard 15 lakh Rs for one year of an international degree program we have negotiated a quality transferable bachelors degree for approximately 1.5 lakh Rs per year with Mission College, Thailand.” “The beauty of this negotiated plan is that it includes accommodation, food and tuition fees” said Mr. Seth Leamon a Mission College lecturer speaking on behalf of Dr. Shipton while answering parent questions following the press release. Later he said “Mission College is a Gateway Institution, providing quality international education that is easily accessible to the Nepali people”
This decision enables the middle and lower classes to have access to international education at a Nepali cost by reducing the previous standard fees up to 70%. This 70% is comprised of a new financial plan specially designed for Nepali students that takes in to consideration the socioeconomic realities of Nepal as well as an optional work/study scholarship program. The press release took place at the hotel Vaishali Conference hall. In attendance were media personnel, lecturers, parents and students.
Speaking at the press conference Trivuwan University Lecturer and the Principal of Capitol Hill Academy Mr. Bikash Sharma said he believed Mission College was a “good chance to have an international educational experience closer to home and culture”. At the same time he recognized the work that the GNSC has done the behalf of Nepali students. Speaking at the same program, Mr. Thakin Gurung Cofounder of Kathmandu Model College urged Nepali students to take advantage of the fruits of the GNSC’s hard work. To close Mondays conference Ashmita and Kirtika, two top Nepali students from Mission College, shared their experiences of studying abroad while encouraging their fellow students to consider Mission College as a viable option for quality affordable international education.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Disappointment at the Postponement of Nepal's CA Elections
(Courtesy: Satyajeet Nepali)
The news of suspension of the CA polls has to be taken with deep gravity. While EPA-supporters must be busy scraping together another typical apologist explanations and regular warnings of regressive conspiracies, the EPA-bashers are reveling at having been proven correct about the SPA-M alliance's inability to deliver.
Amidst all this, one is eerily reminded of Russia's October Revolution and our very own Lenin, Prachanda, threatening a similar one in Nepal last year. There was no October Revolution last year, only threats. But could those threats be played out this year? The CPN-M has reportedly called for a 'jana-dabab karyakram' on the day of the special session of the parliament. What do we make of this?
At this critical juncture, Nepalis need to remind themselves that, in 1917, Russia too had a Provisional Government set with the mandate of forming a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution for Russia. However, before this could be done, Lenin and his Bolshevik Party organized disgruntled soldiers, workers, and peasants to stage a coup and take over the government. Of course, this could only be successful because the Provisional Government had already lost much of its credibility.
Could the suspension of polls, and reports of a Maoist initiative to seek a vote-of-no-confidence against PM Girija be the casting to further erode the government's credibility and unleash further disturbances later in the month? Given the Maoists' past activities and the recent fiasco they created at Kantipur using their trade union, Nepalis need to be wary of such sinister plans.
Fortunately, incredible as it may seem, our state is still not as weak as Russia's in 1917. The Nepali monarch, though detested and weakened, is not in bad enough a position to be forced to abdicate like Tsar Nicolas II of Russia. The Nepali Army, despite numerous attempts to humiliate it, remains a disciplined and intact force. These two pillars should make the Maoists balk at the prospect of enacting a Russian-style October Revolution in Nepal. Nevertheless, the Nepali Army needs to be ready for any eventuality now.
The SPA, if it wishes to retain even a modicum of respect and credibility from the people, has to resist attempts by the Maoists to create any kind of power-vacuum, including a pre-election abolition of the monarchy. The Maoists cannot be given any opportunity to further undermine the state.
The news of suspension of the CA polls has to be taken with deep gravity. While EPA-supporters must be busy scraping together another typical apologist explanations and regular warnings of regressive conspiracies, the EPA-bashers are reveling at having been proven correct about the SPA-M alliance's inability to deliver.
Amidst all this, one is eerily reminded of Russia's October Revolution and our very own Lenin, Prachanda, threatening a similar one in Nepal last year. There was no October Revolution last year, only threats. But could those threats be played out this year? The CPN-M has reportedly called for a 'jana-dabab karyakram' on the day of the special session of the parliament. What do we make of this?
At this critical juncture, Nepalis need to remind themselves that, in 1917, Russia too had a Provisional Government set with the mandate of forming a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution for Russia. However, before this could be done, Lenin and his Bolshevik Party organized disgruntled soldiers, workers, and peasants to stage a coup and take over the government. Of course, this could only be successful because the Provisional Government had already lost much of its credibility.
Could the suspension of polls, and reports of a Maoist initiative to seek a vote-of-no-confidence against PM Girija be the casting to further erode the government's credibility and unleash further disturbances later in the month? Given the Maoists' past activities and the recent fiasco they created at Kantipur using their trade union, Nepalis need to be wary of such sinister plans.
Fortunately, incredible as it may seem, our state is still not as weak as Russia's in 1917. The Nepali monarch, though detested and weakened, is not in bad enough a position to be forced to abdicate like Tsar Nicolas II of Russia. The Nepali Army, despite numerous attempts to humiliate it, remains a disciplined and intact force. These two pillars should make the Maoists balk at the prospect of enacting a Russian-style October Revolution in Nepal. Nevertheless, the Nepali Army needs to be ready for any eventuality now.
The SPA, if it wishes to retain even a modicum of respect and credibility from the people, has to resist attempts by the Maoists to create any kind of power-vacuum, including a pre-election abolition of the monarchy. The Maoists cannot be given any opportunity to further undermine the state.
The State Of The Nation
Vikram Singh Basnyat
National depression and apathy is dangerous. It breeds nonchalance in a nation which acts like a beacon in and to neighbouring states necessitating strategic initiatives to pre-empt similar action by others. Sadly, Nepal is such a country where any tectonic shift towards either of her neighbours results in retaliatory action from the other as a geopolitical necessity.
Kissinger has written in his book Diplomacy “The irony was that, after a certain point, expansionism no longer enhanced Russia’s power but brought about its decline. In 1849, Russia was widely considered the strongest nation in Europe. Seventy years later, its dynasty collapsed and it temporary disappeared from the ranks of the Great Powers. Hegemony in Asia is not in America’s interest. But the overwhelming concentration in hindering the emergence of another superpower in the post Cold War years might have led to the overlooking of the rise of the hydra headed menace of terrorism and another Vietnam style debacle in Iraq.”
Robert D. Kaplan writes in his book The Coming Anarchy “In moderate doses, apathy is not necessarily harmful. I have lived and travelled in countries with both high voter turnouts and unstable politics; the low voter turnouts in the United States do not by themselves worry me. The philosopher James Harrington observed that the very indifference of most people allows for a calm and healthy political climate. Apathy, after all, often means that the political situation is healthy enough to be ignored. The last thing America needs is a more voter – particularly badly educated and alienated ones – with a passion for politics.”
When a nation no longer has the choice of different state policy options and decisions are made or unmade and countered in foreign capitals, national leaders become objects of ridicule, shame and helplessness is perceived as a national malaise which leads to national depression.
How often is it required for foreign envoys to keep on meeting the Prime Minister? The effect in reverse order could have a sad outcome on the morale of the nation, let alone the retaliatory affirmation by the other neighbour. This could be even more dangerous if it is not tolerated. After all, if they cannot respect us because of the corruptibility of our leaders, let them at least contest over us.
The Nepalese are suffering anyway. Armed struggle is a way of life. Agreements are made only to be broken. The United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) has little to do, yet enjoy the hospitality of the Nepalese allowing them to lunch in Dhulikhel, supper in Nagarkot and enjoy late night dancing in Thamel. And yet, what hurt the thinking public are the pictures of Maoist cadres carrying modern weapons with UNMIN stickers on them. Does Nepal have a foreign policy at all?
Suffice is to state that the rise of terrorism has become a source of great concern to all related nations and none of the earlier major players are totally happy with their own past policies. Driving stumps in marshy lands would make Nepal an international playground and somewhat like Austria during the Cold War. A nation and her people have to be proud of it. But the situation is like “the Gaul is at the gate”- (Soon her pride shall kiss the ground, Hark! The Gaul is at the gate). The fast deterioration of mental verve has to be arrested and pride restored as soon as possible. This does not seem to be happening and worse still is that the promises for a brighter future is nowhere in sight. Who decides whether or when the Constituent Assembly (CA) elections would be held or not?
Thus internationally, we have become insignificant and simply a playing field. Politically, where do we stand? CA elections have been postponed three times. Any disinterested spectator or political novice can observe that none of the major political players were really interested in this exercise. The Prime Minister keeps on repeating his assurances that the CA elections would be held on the decided date, but simultaneously the Maoists keep on adding preconditions which make it virtually impossible for the elections to take place. But the bottom line is: people do not believe the CA elections would be held at the appointed time. People have also observed that with few days left, the political cadres of any party have not been able to go to the villages, like earlier on, and are yet hanging around Kathmandu.
Politics must be participatory and certainly comprehensible. In the present arrangement of the Seven Party Alliance and the Maoists (SPAM) elaborate ruling without any Parliamentary opposition, the domination of the Maoists is starkly delineated. Indeed, there are questions in people’s minds whether the Maoists ever intended to play by multi-party rules, or whether their real objective is to capture state power by force, a tool with which they have been successfully utilising in the form of the Young Communist League (YCL) in the context of all their atrocities continuing unabated.
Two other seemingly obdurate issues on the political scenario are the Terai and indigenous groups. While there can be no two opinions about the need for inclusiveness, there must also be an urgent feeling for all Nepalese with a sense of belonging. But then the Terai sentiments tend to be reflected on the desire of other ethnic groups to have their own distinctive homeland, that too in the context of a federated structure. Moreover, 59 indigenous groups want one representative each in the new legislature. With the last census figures as: Kshetris 15.18%, Brahmins 12.47%, Magars 7.14%, Tharus 6.75%, Tamangs 5.64%, Newars 5.48%, Muslims 4.27%, Kamis 3.94%, Yadavs 3.94%, Rais 2.79% and Gurungs 2.39% - would not there be a possibility of a reverse discrimination scenario in future?
But sadly, the most worrisome factor still remains, and has been the fact that a new form of expressing dissent which encompasses violence of a different nature from lethal to disruption of normal life. The Maoists success of using arms to achieve political ends has resulted in many smaller armed groups emulating this route to power. This route is a sure path towards anarchy, leaving the state in paralysis with the end result being an ungovernable one. At the same time, the Maoists intransigence in returning earlier seized property is tempting others to follow a similar pattern. Thus the law and order situation has become the greatest worry of the common man.
No doubt, this has also affected the industrial sector as well. Many industries have closed down, extortion and shootings of industrialists continue and now cross border gangs are effectively active. Tourism is affected and capital flight is rampant. On top of this, the government budget has to have an outlay for the costly CA elections. We cannot also forget the additional cost of 23,000 Civil Service promotions and 7,000 new schools that the government has announced which it will fund and run. One cannot set aside the fact that the parameters and conditions of the World Bank have not changed. Far too many political groups including the Maoists, are still surviving on government largesse, yet continue to employ mafia and terrorist tactics of intimidation and extortion. Therefore, it is quite evident that Nepal’s economy would be in the doldrums in the coming year.
Traffic disruptions alone, which have become a way of life, extract so much economic and psychological toll. For any group with a grievance, causing traffic disruption, organising Bandhs and clashing with the Police is an every day occurrence. Civil servants organise strikes for putting forth their demands within the premises of the central secretariat, the judicial sector padlocks law courts, university teachers protest for enforcing a fourteen month old agreement that envisages all earlier appointed university officials be sacked forthwith. Confusion seems to be the name of the game.
During this period, the security situation and the morale of the security forces are being eroded continuously.
The above is not meant to be a negative comment on the advent of democracy, but just a reflection of the opinions of the people. Except those who stand to gain directly from the present circumstances, all the rest are somehow or the other disappointed. This includes those who strongly believe that the practise of democracy should be given ample time.
It is not that the situation is grim now; it is that the immediate future holds no promise. The nation is becoming ungovernable, the economy is heading for uncertainty, electoral politics is taking a back seat to violence prone activism and the nation cannot hold its head high in the community of nations. What bothers the intellectuals most is whether Nepal is still a valid focus for international diplomatic attention, what bothers the man on the street is that not only his present but also his future looks bleak and insecure. Is it not time to analyse our immediate past and re-evaluate the role of time honoured institutions of stability? Above all, hopefully, the Nepalese should not end up regretting the dismal application of their democracy.
(The views expressed by the author are his own. The author can be reached at e-mail: basnyat10@hotmail.com)
National depression and apathy is dangerous. It breeds nonchalance in a nation which acts like a beacon in and to neighbouring states necessitating strategic initiatives to pre-empt similar action by others. Sadly, Nepal is such a country where any tectonic shift towards either of her neighbours results in retaliatory action from the other as a geopolitical necessity.
Kissinger has written in his book Diplomacy “The irony was that, after a certain point, expansionism no longer enhanced Russia’s power but brought about its decline. In 1849, Russia was widely considered the strongest nation in Europe. Seventy years later, its dynasty collapsed and it temporary disappeared from the ranks of the Great Powers. Hegemony in Asia is not in America’s interest. But the overwhelming concentration in hindering the emergence of another superpower in the post Cold War years might have led to the overlooking of the rise of the hydra headed menace of terrorism and another Vietnam style debacle in Iraq.”
Robert D. Kaplan writes in his book The Coming Anarchy “In moderate doses, apathy is not necessarily harmful. I have lived and travelled in countries with both high voter turnouts and unstable politics; the low voter turnouts in the United States do not by themselves worry me. The philosopher James Harrington observed that the very indifference of most people allows for a calm and healthy political climate. Apathy, after all, often means that the political situation is healthy enough to be ignored. The last thing America needs is a more voter – particularly badly educated and alienated ones – with a passion for politics.”
When a nation no longer has the choice of different state policy options and decisions are made or unmade and countered in foreign capitals, national leaders become objects of ridicule, shame and helplessness is perceived as a national malaise which leads to national depression.
How often is it required for foreign envoys to keep on meeting the Prime Minister? The effect in reverse order could have a sad outcome on the morale of the nation, let alone the retaliatory affirmation by the other neighbour. This could be even more dangerous if it is not tolerated. After all, if they cannot respect us because of the corruptibility of our leaders, let them at least contest over us.
The Nepalese are suffering anyway. Armed struggle is a way of life. Agreements are made only to be broken. The United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) has little to do, yet enjoy the hospitality of the Nepalese allowing them to lunch in Dhulikhel, supper in Nagarkot and enjoy late night dancing in Thamel. And yet, what hurt the thinking public are the pictures of Maoist cadres carrying modern weapons with UNMIN stickers on them. Does Nepal have a foreign policy at all?
Suffice is to state that the rise of terrorism has become a source of great concern to all related nations and none of the earlier major players are totally happy with their own past policies. Driving stumps in marshy lands would make Nepal an international playground and somewhat like Austria during the Cold War. A nation and her people have to be proud of it. But the situation is like “the Gaul is at the gate”- (Soon her pride shall kiss the ground, Hark! The Gaul is at the gate). The fast deterioration of mental verve has to be arrested and pride restored as soon as possible. This does not seem to be happening and worse still is that the promises for a brighter future is nowhere in sight. Who decides whether or when the Constituent Assembly (CA) elections would be held or not?
Thus internationally, we have become insignificant and simply a playing field. Politically, where do we stand? CA elections have been postponed three times. Any disinterested spectator or political novice can observe that none of the major political players were really interested in this exercise. The Prime Minister keeps on repeating his assurances that the CA elections would be held on the decided date, but simultaneously the Maoists keep on adding preconditions which make it virtually impossible for the elections to take place. But the bottom line is: people do not believe the CA elections would be held at the appointed time. People have also observed that with few days left, the political cadres of any party have not been able to go to the villages, like earlier on, and are yet hanging around Kathmandu.
Politics must be participatory and certainly comprehensible. In the present arrangement of the Seven Party Alliance and the Maoists (SPAM) elaborate ruling without any Parliamentary opposition, the domination of the Maoists is starkly delineated. Indeed, there are questions in people’s minds whether the Maoists ever intended to play by multi-party rules, or whether their real objective is to capture state power by force, a tool with which they have been successfully utilising in the form of the Young Communist League (YCL) in the context of all their atrocities continuing unabated.
Two other seemingly obdurate issues on the political scenario are the Terai and indigenous groups. While there can be no two opinions about the need for inclusiveness, there must also be an urgent feeling for all Nepalese with a sense of belonging. But then the Terai sentiments tend to be reflected on the desire of other ethnic groups to have their own distinctive homeland, that too in the context of a federated structure. Moreover, 59 indigenous groups want one representative each in the new legislature. With the last census figures as: Kshetris 15.18%, Brahmins 12.47%, Magars 7.14%, Tharus 6.75%, Tamangs 5.64%, Newars 5.48%, Muslims 4.27%, Kamis 3.94%, Yadavs 3.94%, Rais 2.79% and Gurungs 2.39% - would not there be a possibility of a reverse discrimination scenario in future?
But sadly, the most worrisome factor still remains, and has been the fact that a new form of expressing dissent which encompasses violence of a different nature from lethal to disruption of normal life. The Maoists success of using arms to achieve political ends has resulted in many smaller armed groups emulating this route to power. This route is a sure path towards anarchy, leaving the state in paralysis with the end result being an ungovernable one. At the same time, the Maoists intransigence in returning earlier seized property is tempting others to follow a similar pattern. Thus the law and order situation has become the greatest worry of the common man.
No doubt, this has also affected the industrial sector as well. Many industries have closed down, extortion and shootings of industrialists continue and now cross border gangs are effectively active. Tourism is affected and capital flight is rampant. On top of this, the government budget has to have an outlay for the costly CA elections. We cannot also forget the additional cost of 23,000 Civil Service promotions and 7,000 new schools that the government has announced which it will fund and run. One cannot set aside the fact that the parameters and conditions of the World Bank have not changed. Far too many political groups including the Maoists, are still surviving on government largesse, yet continue to employ mafia and terrorist tactics of intimidation and extortion. Therefore, it is quite evident that Nepal’s economy would be in the doldrums in the coming year.
Traffic disruptions alone, which have become a way of life, extract so much economic and psychological toll. For any group with a grievance, causing traffic disruption, organising Bandhs and clashing with the Police is an every day occurrence. Civil servants organise strikes for putting forth their demands within the premises of the central secretariat, the judicial sector padlocks law courts, university teachers protest for enforcing a fourteen month old agreement that envisages all earlier appointed university officials be sacked forthwith. Confusion seems to be the name of the game.
During this period, the security situation and the morale of the security forces are being eroded continuously.
The above is not meant to be a negative comment on the advent of democracy, but just a reflection of the opinions of the people. Except those who stand to gain directly from the present circumstances, all the rest are somehow or the other disappointed. This includes those who strongly believe that the practise of democracy should be given ample time.
It is not that the situation is grim now; it is that the immediate future holds no promise. The nation is becoming ungovernable, the economy is heading for uncertainty, electoral politics is taking a back seat to violence prone activism and the nation cannot hold its head high in the community of nations. What bothers the intellectuals most is whether Nepal is still a valid focus for international diplomatic attention, what bothers the man on the street is that not only his present but also his future looks bleak and insecure. Is it not time to analyse our immediate past and re-evaluate the role of time honoured institutions of stability? Above all, hopefully, the Nepalese should not end up regretting the dismal application of their democracy.
(The views expressed by the author are his own. The author can be reached at e-mail: basnyat10@hotmail.com)
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Nepal loses independence the next day monarchy is gone: Balkrishna Neupane
ImageLegal expert and advocate Balkrishna Neupane is a noted patriotic personality, who has pleaded many cases related to nation’s sovereignty, independence and interests as well. BN Dahal interviewed to Neupane on contemporary political issues. Excerpts; Q. The present political situation is chaotic, how does this situation come up? A. It is not only the political situation that is chaotic, the country’s sovereignty and integrity is in danger. The culprits are the eight political parties and they are being handled from behind the curtain by India. India’s gross interference in the internal affairs of Nepal is clearly evident. Take for example the 12-point agreement among the eight parties. One of those who signed the agreement has even accepted that the agreement was in Hindi. That time, the Maoists were taken as a terrorist group in India. When India mediated or involved itself in bringing the Maoist it had declared as terrorist with the seven parties, it was the first interference to create this anarchy. Then after the frequent visit of Indian politicians and the game plans of the Indian embassy was against the internationally accepted principle of non-interference on one another’s internal affairs. It is not India’s concern when there will be election in Nepal or who is talking what with the Maoists. But our Prime Minister takes the advice of the Indian ambassador on every internal issue. It is for everyone to see the Indian Ambassador meets the prime minister before every, no matter how small, decision is made and the Prime Minister follows the Indian advice. To say it frankly, it is India which is ruling over Nepal and India is taking Nepal as its colony. The eight parties claim that they are making Nepal a sovereign country, but they are making Nepal more dependent. None of the decision about the country is taken from here. So, it is the eight parties and India which have created this situation. Q. Is it our weakness or outside interference? A. Firstly, it is our weakness. What our political leaders said is, elevate us to power and we will do everything you say. This is because these political leaders are only for power and not for the country. If not, they should have sought consensus within the country. Our leaders believe that their road to power is impossible without the blessing of India. This has put our nationalism at great risk. India’s interest is in our water resource not the well being of Nepal, and our political leaders are serving the interest of India. The extent of India’s interference can be gauzed after the Maoist chairman Prachanda openly said that their armed conflict would not have succeeded without the support and help of India. The result of that support is that 15,000 Nepalese died and thousands others injured. This support for terrorism is also totally against international law. So, India has the primary role for this situation of Nepal. Q. Nepalese communists in the past looked like they were against Indian expansionism, but, those in the present play to the tune of India. It was the communists who shouted the hoarsest on nationalism but they are keeping mum now, why? A. All the parties harboured the wrong concept that they need the blessing and support of India to reach to power. That is why they talk about opposing Indian to expand their organization because many people are against India’s wrong policies towards Nepal. So outwardly, they shout slogans against India to get support of the people and then seek India’s support to gain to power. This is what is seen with the Maoists and earlier it was the same with the UML and congress. The Nepalese politics takes a tremble when the Indian foreign secretary came and leaders of all political parties wait in queue for his ‘darshan’. When the Prime Minister himself reaches Indian Foreign Secretary to the gate, where has our nationalism reached? Nepal is an independent country and we are also a member of the United Nations. But now, Nepal is like a colony of India. Their leaders of various hues come and give different instructions. There are two main interest of India. One is the citizenship. More than four million Indians have already taken Nepalese citizenship. In no country around the world, citizenship is given for living in the country. But this happened in Nepal. India wants to make Nepal another Fiji by increasing its population here and another by increasing the stake of about less than 20 per cent area to 48 per cent in national politics. The result is here too, person like Mahendra Narayan can become prime minister. So, the policy is to obliterate Nepal both in terms of population and secondly politically and to take control of everything in Nepal. Now, the headquarters of all political parties of Nepal is Delhi and here they only have branch offices. All leaders of the political parties are Indians; none of them have the iota of claim that they are leaders of a sovereign country. None of the political leaders could fulfill the role of independent leaders of an independent country. Q. Then why are the nationalists keeping when the country’s nationalism is in such a grave danger? A. It is like the old saying when there is a flood, one should cling on to a big tree and one should look for one’s land and property only after the flood is over. This is the situation now. Q. We might already become Indian citizens, like you said, by that time? A. It is not like that. The fact is if there were no China, Nepal would have ceased to exist by now. This country will remain because we are between China and India. If China wants to take over, India will stop it and if India wants to take over China will stop it. And India will ultimately suffer from its interference in Nepal. More and more Nepalese will be anti-Indian. Can Nepalese leaders say when they want election in Kashmir and how to establish peace in Kashmir? Q. What should be done to stop the blatant interference by India? A. First, all Nepalese should be united and then Nepal should be able to tell the world that ours is a small country and a bigger neighbour is interfering in our affairs. Q. Now, the Maoists have withdrawn from the government, what will be its effect on Nepalese politics? A. Now, the Maoists have raised the issue of King. It is only the king which can stop Nepal from becoming another Sikkim. Sikkim was an independent country until there was king. India must remove the king first if it wants Nepal to become its province. This country will lose its independence the next day monarchy is removed from here. But it will not become a Sikkim and India is trying to make it another Bhutan. Q. What does India want from Nepal? A. It wants total control over Nepal’s vast water resources. The way the Iraqis are suffering because they have oil, we, Nepalese will also suffer because of our water resources. Q. India has already taken almost all our water resources, what is there for it to take? A. There are still a lot. The leaders say all our water flows into water, but what is important is the space. If India can build dams at or near Nepal’s border, it can irrigate its land and produce electricity, or have water for drinking. These things are not possible if it is far from Nepal’s border. We still have vast water resources which are not in the hands of India but India has already cast eyes on them. We had never thought that one day we will have to buy water. There will be a day when we can sell water the way Arabs are selling oil. We have water like Arabs have oil and we can earn a lot by selling water and India is all out to get that resources. Otherwise, if India really wanted Nepal’s interest it should not have abolished the constitution of 2047. Nepal had gained democracy in 2047. This proves that India does not want democracy in Nepal rather it wants Nepal to become its pawn. India had wanted to do that when Birendra was king. It had proposed that it would end the agitation in 2046 if the king complied with its conditions. Q. Will all of the problems be solved by the constituent assembly elections like the eight parties are saying? A. There will be no election of the constituent assembly. If the election were possible why would the Maoist that had raised the issue of the constituent assembly back off from it? So, the constituent assembly is only the teeth to show off. India organized a three-day conference where our big leaders and human rights activists went. That means, here the constitution made by the people would not apply here. Only that made by India is applied. It is even said that the original draft of the interim constitution was in Hindi. This was proved by Narayan Man Bijukchhe, the NWPP leader, who was present at the Delhi agreement. I have even heard that the parliamentary announcement after the April movement was the brought by Indian communist leader Sitaram Yichuri and here the leaders only read it out. That means, our leaders degrade Nepal lower than the states in India. There the state governments do not obey everything the central government says, but our leaders follow without question what India says. Q. It is said people in Nepal blame India to hide their mistakes. For example, you always speak against India, what is the reason? A. There are 20, 30 ambassadors of foreign countries. Not every ambassador meets our prime minister every week. But the Indian ambassador meets our prime minister every week. Every decision in Nepal takes place after consultation with the Indian ambassador. Is the Indian ambassador our ruler that Nepalese people should go to him for advice every time? What is the use of UN Mission here if India is to do everything? So, I am speaking against India for nothing, it is because of what India is doing to Nepal.
(Courtesy: People's Review)
(Courtesy: People's Review)
Thursday, September 27, 2007
"Education May Be Expensive But It Is Expensive Not to Be Educated at All"
Roshee Lamichhane
The significance of education is undisputed because life without education is unimaginable in this modern world. Education is viewed as an investment in human capital that has both direct payoffs to the educated individual as well as external benefit for society as a whole. What if this education becomes exclusive privilege of the elite masses while the rest teeming thousands can't get through good colleges and universities or even forced to discontinue their studies just because they can't afford to pay for their studies?
Is it not unfair that students with strong academic background fail to attend good schools and colleges just because they are unable to pay for their tuition fees? Do they not have the right to education?
Many students in abroad countries are working more hours at part-time jobs and becoming mired in debt to pay for their colleges and high schools. The rising cost of education is making it ever more difficult for people who do not have sound financial backing to support their education on their own.
Rising education costs certainly aren't a problem for the wealthiest families who can afford to send their children to expensive schools and colleges. But for the poor it takes up the largest proportion of their earnings. Life can be very bleak for those families who have spent every spare penny on sending their child to a decent school and have nothing left for their own comforts.
Many students in abroad countries are working more hours at part-time jobs and becoming mired in debt to pay for their colleges and high schools. The rising cost of education is making it ever more difficult for people who do not have sound financial backing to support their education on their own.
And this is the reason why exactly the gulf between those studying in private schools and students in public schools in developing countries is increasing. The reason is self- evident. It is true that private schools/colleges have done much to eradicate the defects of public schools. They highly raised the standard of teaching and with good management produced excellent results. A large number of students were sent annually to different countries in quest of quality education investing a huge amount of money. Private schools/colleges put a stop to this tremendous national loss by providing equally good or in many ways better schooling to children right inside the country.
The only problem with the private schools/colleges has been that they are not affordable and accessible to every sect of our society. There are so many students who'd like to go to schools/colleges but aren't going not because of their abilities, but because of a lack of financial resources.
High price has indeed proved a major hurdle in acquiring education. High cost of education is daunting. College fees are surging and climbing to the moon. With this heavy price tag many foreign students in abroad countries are already in debt. And it is not just tuition fees that is rising but the increasing cost of textbooks, living cost and so on. A lot many students in developing countries want to go abroad for study. This trend of abroad education not only creates problem of brain-drain but also the capital flight is immense which is not beneficial to the country. Every child should have the access of education, no matter whether his/ her parents are rich or poor, or whether the cost of education is high or low.
Last but not the least, education should be under the reach of the common masses. Poor people should not be denied of the equal chances of education and schooling. If it happens then we might have to pay a heavy price for that. Regulations must be made to stop schools/colleges from charging excessive fees in the name of quality education in developing countries. Government should make an effort to provide equal and quality education to the poor all over the country.
The significance of education is undisputed because life without education is unimaginable in this modern world. Education is viewed as an investment in human capital that has both direct payoffs to the educated individual as well as external benefit for society as a whole. What if this education becomes exclusive privilege of the elite masses while the rest teeming thousands can't get through good colleges and universities or even forced to discontinue their studies just because they can't afford to pay for their studies?
Is it not unfair that students with strong academic background fail to attend good schools and colleges just because they are unable to pay for their tuition fees? Do they not have the right to education?
Many students in abroad countries are working more hours at part-time jobs and becoming mired in debt to pay for their colleges and high schools. The rising cost of education is making it ever more difficult for people who do not have sound financial backing to support their education on their own.
Rising education costs certainly aren't a problem for the wealthiest families who can afford to send their children to expensive schools and colleges. But for the poor it takes up the largest proportion of their earnings. Life can be very bleak for those families who have spent every spare penny on sending their child to a decent school and have nothing left for their own comforts.
Many students in abroad countries are working more hours at part-time jobs and becoming mired in debt to pay for their colleges and high schools. The rising cost of education is making it ever more difficult for people who do not have sound financial backing to support their education on their own.
And this is the reason why exactly the gulf between those studying in private schools and students in public schools in developing countries is increasing. The reason is self- evident. It is true that private schools/colleges have done much to eradicate the defects of public schools. They highly raised the standard of teaching and with good management produced excellent results. A large number of students were sent annually to different countries in quest of quality education investing a huge amount of money. Private schools/colleges put a stop to this tremendous national loss by providing equally good or in many ways better schooling to children right inside the country.
The only problem with the private schools/colleges has been that they are not affordable and accessible to every sect of our society. There are so many students who'd like to go to schools/colleges but aren't going not because of their abilities, but because of a lack of financial resources.
High price has indeed proved a major hurdle in acquiring education. High cost of education is daunting. College fees are surging and climbing to the moon. With this heavy price tag many foreign students in abroad countries are already in debt. And it is not just tuition fees that is rising but the increasing cost of textbooks, living cost and so on. A lot many students in developing countries want to go abroad for study. This trend of abroad education not only creates problem of brain-drain but also the capital flight is immense which is not beneficial to the country. Every child should have the access of education, no matter whether his/ her parents are rich or poor, or whether the cost of education is high or low.
Last but not the least, education should be under the reach of the common masses. Poor people should not be denied of the equal chances of education and schooling. If it happens then we might have to pay a heavy price for that. Regulations must be made to stop schools/colleges from charging excessive fees in the name of quality education in developing countries. Government should make an effort to provide equal and quality education to the poor all over the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
