Lessons from Barcelona

The Kathmandu Post, Jan.03.2009

The street passes through a treasure trove of historical places. Towards the end of the street on the side of the Mediterranean Sea is a tall monument of Christopher Columbus marking the centennial of the discovery of America.

As we were passing by the monument, we ran into a protest programme organized by the local transport union. From the look of it, it was an after work gherao program of the transport office. We could not make sense of the slogans they were chanting, but for tourists, it was music to the ears. For us, it was something that reminded of home, a déjà vu feeling, but only that these protests were civil, and as far as I can see, it had an entertainment value for tourists. I was wondering why our peaceful protest programmes are scenes for violent skirmishes. Why do our protest programmes quickly descend into a chaotic, disruptive and imposing form?  Maybe years of insurgency and its destructiveness have taken a toll on our sensibilities.

Read more

Mr. Prime Minister

It seems everyone, including you Mr. Prime Minister, has embraced a role of victim to escape responsibility, while few others with an exaggerated sense of being wronged continue to hijack this nation.

Two weeks ago we saw how incapable you are Mr. Prime Minister of keeping your word. Despite your repeated assurances for the protection of press freedom, Himalmedia was attacked again, the third time in as many months, by thugs associated with your party’s labor wing. Absurdly enough your leaders had the temerity to suggest that responsible journalist who work there were the ones who attacked the union workers. Yet you have stood silent amid the excesses committed by the cadres repeatedly linked to your party. The best answer you and your party have given thus far to any of these assaults is to deny that the cadres belonged to your party, or to feign ignorance, or victimhood to shed responsibility.

Let us face it Mr. Prime Minister, you have the intelligence on who is involved, if not before the fact, at least after the fact. The question is are you willing to take action. So let us cut the chase on the political niceties. Our measure of your sincerity hinges on whether you take actions immediately.

In the past we could have overlooked such incidents and may possibly have rationalized as pangs of party that is mainstreaming and correcting itself. It has been almost two years since. A lot has changed in this period. You have become the leading party in the government. While circumstances have changed, the criminal and militant hangover within your party has remained intact. Now you have both the power and resources to curb the unruly and criminal activities of your party cadres. But it seems you lack will, and are happy to condone the very acts you as the Prime Minister are responsible for controlling.

You have repeatedly cited lack of cooperation from other parties for your inability. But for dismantling the youth wing of your party, you need nothing but a strong will and decisiveness to go through with it. I understand not everyone may like your decision within the party, but for that purpose you have the Home Ministry and friendly Minister (who seems equally anxious to dismantle his party’s terror wing) to reign in those who defy the will of the state. Such an act on your part will put moral pressure on the UML to disband Youth Force as well.

But if you choose to bet too much on the usefulness of the YCL and your labor unions both for the purposes of winning next election and ‘carrying out development works’, most of us can foresee that you are doing that at not only yours and party’s own peril, but to the very nation you say you care so much about.

As you have recently admitted that running an insurgency is far easier than running a country, similarly you may have also realized that guerrilla warfare does not work in open politics. Unless you intend to be swept away in next election, your best bet would be to win hearts and minds of the people, not terrorize them.

You and many leaders from your party have admitted occasionally publicly and mostly privately that criminal elements have infested both the party and youth wing at the lower level. Some of your leaders have even privately spoken about a purge.

If the frequency of the criminality attributed to your cadres is any indication, the problem has gotten worse. We all admire your candidness in admitting problems, but your are not doing any better unless you start acting on them. As we all reckon this is a very sensitive period, and the country needs a bit of vision and a whole lot of decisiveness to deal with the problems head on. No doubt, we are all going to criticize you if you fail, but at least you will have the satisfaction of having tried.

We understand that it’s not easy to be the head of the government with so much cynicism and negativity around—where people repeatedly question your plans and actions, where even friends and colleagues do not offer solutions but rather discourage you with a can’t do refrain, and where experts highlight the loss and gloss over the benefits. But if it were that easy, won’t everyone and just anyone do the job.

The decisiveness we expect of you is not only limited to how you reign in your party cadres, but how you solve the problems of the country at large. The frequency of bandh has destroyed any sense of normalcy that any peace process must allow. A few people with exaggerated sense of being aggrieved have hijacked the whole country in the name of redress, while the most aggrieved sit helplessly when they can’t sell their vegetables, or can’t take their sick ones to the hospitals. The culture of taking the matters to the street has proliferated beyond control. The question is what you as the prime minister are going to do about it. We have seen that you have in many occasions invited the aggrieved and negotiated with them successfully. These endless bandhs and strikes should come to an end at least for the period of next two years, if this country is to move ahead. Else we all see that it is descending into more violence, chaos and darkness with an incremental load shedding.

Everyone in this country has embraced a sense of victimhood to escape their responsibilities. Ministers criticize the very government they are in. It is certainly not candidness, but shamelessness that is so prevalent in our politics. We had hoped that your government will be different, and that it would take responsibility rather than shifting the blame.

I really hope that our hope in the peace process and on you as the prime minister is not misplaced. And I really hope that you would come clean on these attacks and punish the guilty.

DAHAL’S DELHI RUN

Prime Minister Dahal

BY JOHN NARAYAN PARAJULI

 

 

 

The second elected communist prime minister in the history of Nepal, Pushpa Kamal Dahal returned home on September 18, buoyed by the success of his much-anticipated visit to India. His visit took place amid the shadow of diplomatic soup over Dahal’s alleged China card and a series of explosions that rocked New Delhi.

By visiting China, Prime Minister Dahal had broken the tradition of Nepali leaders making India the first port of call. His objective was clear: he wanted to signal an end to business as usual, not an end to India-Nepal relations. And to put an end to what he describes as the “old cycle of politics and diplomacy.” In other words, it was a symbolic move intended to offset old diplomatic traditions, which clearly represented unequal footing for Nepal.

For years, the Maoists have been calling for a fresh look at the India-Nepal relations, scrapping all “unequal treaties” and formulating a new basis for equitable relations.

“We want a fresh start on every front between India and Nepal,” Prime Minister Dahal told reporters in Delhi, following his meeting with his Indian counterpart, a stand he has reiterated with more subtlety since his swearing in. Despite his party’s anti-India rhetoric during the heydays of the insurgency, Dahal understands that without getting Indian establishment on board, there is very little he can achieve in Nepal.

India’s stand on Nepal is also clear: it does not want Nepal to steer away from its sphere of influence and fears that any burgeoning interaction with China could be subversive for its security interests. Perhaps India’s point of view was best reflected in India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s speech before the Indian parliament in 1950. “…as much as we appreciate the independence of Nepal, we cannot allow anything to go wrong in Nepal or permit that [Himalayan] barrier to be crossed or weakened, because that would be a risk to our own security.”

In receiving Dahal, Delhi has welcomed the leader of a party that once had vowed to spearhead a “proletarian revolution” in India as well. But things have changed drastically in the last two and a half years and despite apprehensions, both sides are keen on getting along.

New Delhi was eager to welcome Prime Minister Dahal for one particular reason, among others. Former Indian ambassador to Nepal Deb Mukharji puts it  succinctly in an a article in Nepali Times puts: “There have been visits by eminent prime ministers in the past, but they represented an established order in Nepal and some had been well known to their Indian counterparts and others, at times even from before India’s independence.”

The new prime minister represents the new order in Nepal that is in the process of being established, and New Delhi was keen on listening to the new Nepali leader. India had been unsure as to how the Nepali side wanted to review or replace the contentious treaties. Nepali politicians have not presented a unanimous voice on the issue.

Cashing on the tragedy

The breaching of Koshi embankments, a tragedy, also may have provided an impetus to arguments in favor of reviewing and upgrading Nepal-India treaties. Following the tragedy, the Indian government is under pressure to work out a solution to this perennial problem. Nepal can use this sense of urgency on both sides to its advantage to push the agenda through.

But the new government faces a Herculean task at home, not in New Delhi. Creating a consensus among the major parties in Nepal is an uphill task. Perhaps there will be a race to take the credit among the major parties. And the usual politicking that follows any India visit by a Nepali prime minister. Moreover, the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) have issues of trust, partly compounded by revenge politics the former has chosen to play.

Confidence building measures

There is also considerable apprehension about the Maoists in some segments of the Indian establishment. Although Maoist leaders are not unknown quantities in New Delhi, yet they have been unpredictable and tenacious in the execution of their roadmap. Delhi has as much trouble deciphering the Maoist roadmap as the press and politicians in Nepal. Dahal has earned a reputation of a shrewd operator in Nepal. Such a view about the Nepali prime minister definitely makes Nepal watchers nervous in India.

But the prime minister believes that he has successfully clarified the situation to his Indian counterpart. He seems to have clearly articulated the importance Nepal attaches to Nepal-India relations, by describing it as “beyond comparison.”  Perhaps for now, the India has been assured of Nepal’s intentions. But these achievements have to be regularly accentuated at the ministerial and secretarial levels.

Foreign Minister Upendra Yadav has played a significant part in allaying Indian fear about Nepal’s northward tilt. During the BIMSTEC conference, which preceded the prime minister’s visit, he did much of the groundwork, and deserves the credit for a job well-done. Perhaps, Yadav may better understand the Nepal-India dynamics, and could successfully steer relations between the two countries out of the usual clouds of mutual suspicion.

Nepal-India ties needs a boost of confidence once in a while. Mutual paranoia and mistrust have shadowed the positive potential of this relationship for far too long. India needs to be assured that Nepal has no intention of seeking an alternative to India, and that it clearly understands the geopolitical reality.

Often during moments of frustration, Nepali leaders have sent mixed messages about seeking an alternative to India. The 1989 blockade has shown how unfeasible and unrealistic that option really is. If the new prime minister wants to inject fresh dynamism and vigor in the relations between Nepal and the two giant neighbors, he needs to reach out more, both diplomatically and politically to ensure that Nepal is not being misunderstood by its neighbors.

Published in The Kathmandu Post on 19 September, 2008   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘The end of history’ re-visited

A new rhetoric is taking hold in Europe in the aftermath of the financial crisis that signals an end to the American-style free market capitalism. Are we living through a redefining moment in our history? And what does it mean for Nepal?

By John Narayan Parajuli

The end of history, declared Francis Fukayama in his 1992 book, buoyed by the collapse of Soviet Union. “not that the historical events would stop, but that History understood as the evolution of human societies through different forms of government had culminated in modern liberal democracy and market-oriented capitalism.”

In last fifty years, liberal democracy and free market economy has evolved as the biggest tools, or rather truths, to many, in the pursuit of life, liberty and prosperity. Against that backdrop, Fukayama argued that evolution of forms of government had reached the culmination point, and that modern liberal democracy and market-capitalism is inevitably the ultimate answer to the quest for better solutions to the issues of governance and prosperity. He saw that rise in the number of democracies in last 100 years as an irrefutable proof that liberal democracy and the capitalism was on the march.

Similar rhetoric about another defining moment in the history is getting vociferous in Europe. Heads of the government are leading the charge. Only this time it is caused by the demise of a financial system that Fukyama’s initial triumphalism over history was based on. An overly deregulated and runaway financial market went haywire, essentially causing pain and suffering for many worldwide and busting the myth among the market-believers that the market was capable of correcting itself.

The crisis has hit hard mostly the vibrant economies connected to the grid of global capitalism, America being the epicenter and the worst-hit. Many evolving or mixed economies have been spared the worst brunt of the fallout.

Mixed economy and Nepal

Countries that had mixed elements in their economy have been better able to cushion the pangs of the financial crisis. For instance, Denmark is better equipped to cope with the crisis than many other countries. Despite being part of EU, a protective Danish government had negotiated three opt-outs from EU on common currency, defense and foreign policy.

Nevertheless there are psychological effects on stock market and consumer spending. Still Europe at large was relatively more shielded from the fallout than America. The European governments were spearheading the bailouts plans much prior to America, evidently the Europeans are more at ease with trappings of socialism.

There is a strong aversion to even a hint of socialism in America. Although the federal government is partially nationalizing the banks, albeit for a short-term, it is eschewing the usage of the term. But even in the bastion of free-market capitalism, there is a realization that the fundamentals of doing business have gone awfully wrong. The massive bailouts are a departure from the current system that pretty much believes in leaving the markets alone. So are the times changing?

As two times Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz puts it, a new era of capitalism has dawned—meaning public-private partnership will be the new way of doing business. There are different variants, but basically part of it means that the government will also be involved in business. Does it sound familiar?

The new Maoists led government has put a significant emphasis on public-private partnership (PPP) in its budget. Perhaps, in perspective, the focus of the Nepal government seems timely and wise. Not that the current financial crisis should be used as an excuse to retreat from the path of liberalization. But perhaps it should be used as a caveat against excess privatization and too much faith in the markets. For Nepal, it supports the argument in favor of PPP, a departure from unchecked privatization efforts of the past, all based on donors insistence.

In the aftermath of restoration of democracy, Nepal saw a rush to privatization, consequently many profit-making state-owned enterprises were sold for cheap, not all of them in good hands.

Our foreign dependence for aid, also somehow made us overly dependent for ideas on donors. Often what donors come up with is a ‘one-size fits all’ approach, and clearly that doesn’t work.

Nepal should take cue from Denmark and steer away from a condition that doesn’t suit its interest. The fallout of the financial crisis should provide some bargaining leverage while dealing with Bretton Woods Institutions (the IMF and the World Bank).

New architecture

As extent of the crisis becomes slowly clear, a new kind of rhetoric is taking hold in Europe that signals an end to the American-style free market capitalism. Are we living through a redefining moment in our history? Does Fukayama’s assertion still stand true?

History has shown us that it takes rather a tragedy to reach a new level of understanding. In that sense, Fukuyama’s understanding built on the American triumphalism with the demise of the Soviet Union was rather untimely. What it seemed like an end during 90s was only the beginning. The current crisis is largely a making of too much deregulation of American markets that were running on the adrenaline of the post 90s.

As things stand now, major European leaders have openly floated the idea about the need to install a new financial architecture to avoid repetition of the current crisis.

The world needs a new “Bretton Woods” pact to shore up the global financial order in the 21st century, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said. German Chancellor and the French President have already echoed similar sentiments.

No one knows for sure what the new financial architecture would look like or what the long-term consequences of the current crisis will be. But what is for sure is that free market capitalism is certainly not the end. Instances like the current financial crisis are acute reminder of imperfection of human ideas.

Poll-itical solution

For a credible election , the government must fix the tarai’s security mess

JOHN NARAYAN PARAJULI 

The political agitation in the tarai is being overtaken by criminal elements. The government is floundering on negotiable issues, missing chances to talk, and can’t keep up with the fluid situation. This is a serious bottleneck on the road to elections.

Most of the twelve armed groups identified by the Home Ministry are operating in the tarai’s highway belt, frequently crippling Nepal’s economic artery. Insec records 76 conflict-related deaths in tarai since January. The East-West highway is regularly shut down—in the three weeks from 15 June-5 July, some parts of the eastern tarai were closed for up to 18 days. The six serial bomb blasts that rocked Birganj last week weren’t a surprise.

It is difficult to imagine an election being held under these circumstances, says Purosottam Dahal, of the Human Rights and Peace Society. Dahal and his team recently returned from a 20-district assessment tour.

The situation will only change if political progress is made. Madhesi groups are willing to talk, and it is a positive sign that the announcement of an electoral system giving madhesis 31 percent representation in the CA was not met with a public outcry from any side. But madhesis, like other underrepresented groups, were not consulted during the drafting of the law, and want to be assured it will work. They also see the law as a starting point for talks on institutional, and not just electoral, reforms.

SHRAWAN KUMAR

The government, particularly the Home and Peace and Reconstruction ministries, are treating the situation largely as a problem of law and order. Home Minister Sitaula is sending out the APF to deal with groups that, even if they are armed, have a political core. Ram Chandra Poudel invites the armed groups in the tarai to the table through television interviews, but sources close to some of the groups, including JTMM-Goit, say these offers are never followed up off-screen. A recent attempt at behind-the-scenes negotiations with the JTMM-Jwala failed because the government talks team refused to provide safe passage to the talks to Singh and his team, who are under threat from the Maoists, or waive the murder charges against Singh.Every new or splinter group, such as the Bisfot faction of the JTMM and the Tarai Cobras, is taking a hardline position on autonomy and threatening secession.

Moderate madhesis see this position as a bargaining chip. “The secessionist talk by the armed groups is an articulation of pent-up frustration about continuing discrimination. But the gist of madhesi demand is: treat us like Nepali, we don’t want to be Indians, or anything else,” says Vijay Kant Karna, a political analyst and activist with Jaghrit Nepal. He is convinced that even the radical groups will sit down to talk if they feel the government is honest about righting the wrongs.
The government has been conducting stop-and-go negotiations with the MJF on proportional representation and a federal set-up with the right to self-determination, but these have hit a roadblock, says Sarita Giri of Nepal Sadhbhawana Party (NSP), adding that there have been no meetings for over a month in part because Minister Poudel is overstretched.

In any case, the home and peace ministries can’t kept up with the changing situation on the ground. The Forum has weakened in recent months, and analysts say talks will only be productive if all groups, armed or not, are engaged with.

Madhesi analysts concede that the lack of a unified front and credible leadership is a problem, as is the inability of the moderates to fill the vacuum created by the eroding political bases of the main parties, including the Maoists and the MJF.

There is no critical player in the tarai and that the situation could tip in any direction, says a researcher. Most madhesi factions, including the armed groups, met in Patna last month to build an alliance. So far, the idea has not taken off.

The government looks set to push ahead with election preparations, whether or not all of the tarai is on board. The onus lies on the government to send fresh peace missives to the various madhesi factions if it wants to be able to conduct an election anytime soon, says Giri.

The election has to be credible. “The whole point of the CA is to write a people’s constitution, and if the government cannot ensure the participation of people from all over the country, who can be sure what kind of constitution that will

Going nowhere

Processing of refugees for resettlement is being delayed due to fear and confusion

JOHN NARAYAN PARAJULI 

The third-country resettlement plan for Bhutani refugees has been stalled due to fear and intimidation in the camps. The Home Ministry sent its directive approving the plan to Jhapa last week, but the International Organisation of Migration (IOM), which will administer the process, has not yet set up an office in Jhapa. Following the riot last month during the attempted ‘long march home’, debate in the camps has died down, largely due to the strong-arm tactics of the Bhutan Communists Party-Marxists Leninists and Maoists (BCP-MLM). Ordinary refugees tell us they are scared to speak out for fear of retaliation and so publicly are noncommittal about the resettlement plan, where even a month ago there was spirited discussion (‘Long way home,’ #353). A recent report by the New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) says refugees risk being castigated by the group for not being patriotic enough or diluting the prospect of repatriation. A UNHCR official in Jhapa says many now refuse to speak even in private. In a meeting with Foreign Minister late last month refugee leader Ratan Gazmere, who has spoken in favour of repatriation, asked the government to intervene to prevent the security situation from further sliding. Both the Nepal head of UNHCR Abraham Abraham and Home Ministry spokesman Daman Nath Neupane say things are gradually improving. The government is to marginally increase the presence of security forces around the camps next week, says Neupane. In May, the BCP-MLM manhandled Hari Adhikari Bangale, chairman of the Refugees Durable Solution Coordination Committee, for making pro-resettlement statements. The group was briefly in the news in mid-2004 when one refugee was arrested with a pistol. The group claims to have hundreds of members inside Bhutan and in the camps. Last month Bhutan’s official daily Kuensel reported the arrest of 30 people charged with providing training in the use of arms and explosives to start an armed communist rebellion in Bhutan. Observers in Damak say that anti-resettlement groups such as the BCP-MLM are playing on genuine concerns among the refugee community about life in a third country. In the camps, rumours are spreading that leaders in favour of resettlement have made backdoor deals with the US government for favours in return for quieting criticism of the Bhutani government. Some refugees are even told that they will be killed once they are in America. About 70,000 refugees are to be resettled in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Norway over the next five years. The political leadership among the refugees hold to the line that repatriation with dignity must be the priority, though some concede that many refugees would opt for third-country resettlement. “We cannot stop those who want to go to a third country, but as Bhutani citizens we should first insist on our right to return,” says Tek Nath Rijal. Bill Frelick, refugee policy director at HRW, says. “Until the government of Bhutan is ready to guarantee the rights of returnees, repatriation cannot be promoted as a durable solution for the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal,” he said recently. Supporters of resettlement point out that this would be a temporary move, as the right to return will remain sacrosanct. Opponents argue that political momentum will be lost once the refugees are dispersed. The fight to hold Bhutan accountable for its previous and any future depopulation exercise and promises of democracy will benefit when refugees move to western countries, instead of festering in the camps (‘Replacement population’, #348). In the meantime, UNHCR and the governments that have offered to accept refugees wait for the government of Nepal to provide security in the camps and create conditions for the refugees to understand what resettlement does and and does not entail.

Abraham Abraham has been UNHCR’s Representative in Nepal for four years. He spoke with John Narayan Parajuli of Nepali Times about the importance of individuals deciding for themselves on resettlement.

Nepali Times: There is a climate of fear and intimidation in the camps. How do you assess the security situation right now? Abraham Abraham: I think it is relatively calm at the moment. We had a little bit of upheaval few weeks back. We are working closely with the government to ensure safety and security in the camps at all times. The government is dealing with beefing-up security in the coming days. This is fundamental to creating an environment free of intimidation and threats, so the refugees are not fearful of whatever decisions they may have to take with regard to their future. What is the role of UNHCR in the resettlement process? Resettlement is not unique to Nepal. Worldwide, UNHCR has to deal with referrals of cases to resettlement countries. Is the Home Ministry moving forward on resettlement? I believe the Home Ministry is dealing with this as we speak. They should also issue a policy directive on resettlement. We are in close contact to ensure that this policy statement also reaches ordinary refugees, so all know that this is a decision of the government of Nepal to move forward with third-country resettlement. Has UNHCR been working with ordinary refugees on this? Not yet. We have developed a communication strategy and a plan of action to communicate very clearly to the refugees what resettlement entails and what it is all about, including their personal interest in knowing more about resettlement. We will deliver such messages so all refugees can make an informed decision. Are you encouraging refugees to opt for resettlement? We don’t encourage or tell anybody what decision they should take. This is the decision of individuals. All we do is inform them about voluntary repatriation. In this case the door has not yet been opened. Local integration is not an issue because nobody has, in a broad sense, requested that as a solution. The only door really open is that of third-country resettlement. As long as there is this option, we’d like the refugees to decide whether or not they’d want to be resettled. But we are not going to force them. We have not started this process of determining their interest, [we will wait] until we have worked out the modalities for taking this forward with the Nepal government. Will the polarisation in the refugee leadership affect the quest for a durable solution? I think this is free, democratic expression. I would not see it as polarisation. There are people who want to be repatriated, some want to be resettled, some would like to stay here. I see it more as individual interest and individual conviction. To that extent we have no problem at all. But didn’t the tense security situation in the camp result from this difference of opinion? Maybe. That’s why we say there is no need to intimidate and threaten. I think everywhere refugees should have the right to make their own decisions about their future. We don’t want to influence them in any way. We inform them about their rights as refugees, what they can expect in terms of solutions, and what these solutions mean so they can take their own individual decisions.

Nepal’s white gold

Boost for midwest Nepal

eglected for so long, Nepal’s midwestern Seti-Mahakali region is expected to benefit from two large dams being planned there.

The Upper Karnali which will need a 150m dam at Asare in Surkhet-Dailekh is relatively accessible, and is nearest to Indian markets. In adjoining Doti, the $1.2 billion West Seti is the prototype export project with Australia’s SMEC as a partner.

West Seti is the only one among the new projects besides Norway’s SN Power which is not Indian. It is this dominance that is raising misgivings about India getting regulated water from power projects in Nepal for free. It is also said to be side-stepping a constitutional provision (Article 156) that requires 50 percent house ratification.

Water Resource Minister Gyanendra Bahadur Karki argues that electricity is not a “resource” and that regulated water also benefits Nepal. “There is no resource sharing across borders,” he told us. This is hotly contested by former minister and water expert Dipak Gyawali, who says: “When regulated water crosses an international boundary, there is resource-sharing.”

After nearly 11 years of often-tortuous negotiations, West Seti is now set to go ahead with investments from SMEC (26 percent), the Asian Development Bank (15 percent), Nepal government (15 percent), India’s ILFC (15 percent) and Nepali investors. Negotiations are underway with two Chinese banks for the loan component. The other complication left to iron out is an original deal on 10 percent free power that West Seti was supposed to give to Nepal, but which was later negotiated to four percent of profit.

MPs have raised the issue of resettlement of the approximately 1,700 families that will be affected. “We want to make sure the government looks at the national interest and also the welfare of those affected by the project,” says Siddhi Raj Ojha, NC MP from Doti. The Maoists have more fundamental objections, but Minister Karki says: “West Seti has already been endorsed by cabinet and we need to remember that there are also Maoists in this cabinet, which means that they endorsed it as well.”

SMEC’s Himalaya Pande is confident that his project is finally taking shape: “When everyone else was fleeing the country, we stayed, we never gave up, and now we can finally begin work on a project that will benefit the country and the people of an impoverished region.” 

John Narayan Parajuli

Youthful rivalry

JOHN NARAYAN PARAJULI 

With election dates announced and as turf wars begin, clashes between the youth wings of the Maoists and other political parties are intensifying across the country.

The mainstream political parties and their student unions say they fear the YCL’s systematic intimidation will increase in the run-up to the elections. Deployment of student unions by their parent parties could spur violence in the run-up to the elections.

Already, run-ins between the league and the NC-affiliated Nepal Student Union (NSU), in particular, are escalating. On 15 June the NSU’s former president, Guru Raj Ghimire, was assaulted by the YCL. “I just spoke out against the YCL’s anti-political anarchy,” says Ghimire.

Popular NSU leader and former general secretary Gagan Thapa says there have been four attacks on NSU members in Kathmandu in recent days and accuses the Maoists of provoking his group. The Maoist leadership has denied involvement in Ghimire’s beating.

The NSU’s just-elected president Pradip Poudel warns of retaliation, while other senior members we spoke with say they are starting a “peaceful” offensive against YCL excesses. They understand the sensitive nature of transitional phase, they say, but echo Ghimire’s caveat that, they “will not be silent spectators for too long”. Some of this posturing is the result of tensions between the Tarun Dal and the NSU after former Home Minister Khum Bahadur Khadka proposed that the two NC-affiliated groups be merged to form a ‘Peace Army’. The NSU is scheduled to hold a gathering at Basantapur on Friday and NC president and Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala is to address the meeting.

In the early days of the peace process, the YCL and Maoist militia were attacking workers of the UML-affiliated All Nepal National Free Student Union (ANNFSU). But now the UML’s union seems to have made peace with the YCL. Former ANNFSU general secretary Thakur Gaire says his group and the YCL have been meeting to sort out problems as they arise. He dismisses chances of unity with the NSU against the Maoist YCL.

But though most party leaders speak out against the YCL in public, we are told that in eight-party meetings this does not translate into pressure on the Maoists to rein in their cadre as no one wants to alienate the Maoists or weaken the alliance.

Before leaving Nepal last week, the UN’s Office of the High Commmission on Human Rights, Lena Sundh, handed a damning report on the YCL to Maoist chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal. “The human rights abuses committed by the YCL are contributing to a climate of fear and intimidation,” the report said, expressing worries that the threat of violence would poison the atmosphere for elections.

As a November date starts to look possible and parties plan their return to the districts, everyone agrees the threats have to stop. And the frontline of the campaign might well be skirmishes between the YCL and the party-affiliated students.

I THINK WE SHOULD TALK TO THE MAOISTS: US CONGRESSMAN WALSH

 

Pix/JNP 

Congressman James T Walsh, a republican, has been in the Congress for last 18 years. Perhaps, he’s the only member in the Congress who speaks fluent Nepali and keeps a close tab on
Nepal. He was instrumental in drawing considerable Congressional attention to
Nepal last year and the years before. As the Chairman of the United States Congress’ Friends of Ireland, he was closely involved with the
Northern Ireland peace process. He’s an influential member of House Appropriations Committee of the Congress that controls the power of the purse. Journalist John Narayan Parajuli spoke to Mr. Walsh in his office in Washington, D.C. about his experience in the Congress, his connection to Nepal and his take on
Nepal’s peace process. 

 

 Tell us about your experience in the new Congress. 

 It’s not as much fun as it was. Being in the minority, I don’t get to make the decisions, I made before. I have to work with my new [Democratic] Committee Chairman and Subcommittee chairman. I have been here for 18 years, and I think I have the respect of my colleagues. And in areas where I am knowledgeable, I think I am still able to help make policy, and certainly will continue to follow issues of importance to me, and certainly
Nepal is one of them. 

 

It’s my impression that the Republican Congress held more hearing on
Nepal last year than the new Congress. Is it party politics, or just the timing of the events? 

I think it’s probably timing and probably priorities. I was in a position where I can get other members to hold hearings because it was timely with the revolution and the ceasefire and there was lot happening in
Nepal in last couple of years. And probably people think things are quieter now. But also I think there were Republicans members like myself, who wanted to get more public attention to what was happening in
Nepal. Hopefully the Democrats will also do that. 

Now you keep a close tab on
Nepal. What is your connection with
Nepal? 

It goes back a long time. When I was just finishing up my college, I applied for the Peace Corps, and I was accepted in an agriculture program, which surprised me because I had very little practical agriculture experience. I was sent to
Nepal. I lived in Nijgarh, Bara. Our district capital was Kalaiya.We had a dera in Birgunj, four, five of my Peace Corps friends, we shared. When we went to the distict krishi bikas meeting, we would stay in the dera, and would take the bus back and forth to Kalaiya. It was a very bumpy ride. I worked with farmers in Nijgargh Pachayat. I worked with people who moved down from hills and people who were indigenous in the terai, tharus. I grew wheat, corn, rice vegetables. I did a little bit of everything. I was able to see a lot of
Nepal while I was there. I traveled to the West: Pokhara and
Annapurna, and to Namche and the Everest region. I try to, as best I could, maintain my ties with friends whom I lived with. I email back and forth. I obviously follow the politics and the recent changes in
Nepal. 

I understand that you are planning to go back to
Nepal. Have you planned anything specific yet? 

Actually my hope is that I could go and observe the elections. That would be ideal. I think the elections are the critical event in the near term history of
Nepal. But when I first came back here in 1991, and the government changed and democracy was established, we wrote to the king, and asked the king to respect the students and people who went to streets asking for democracy. And I saw the impact that the
United States had, and I think that the United States continue to play a positive role encouraging democracy. So if I could go for the election, that’s when I would go. 

The Maoists have joined the government. What’s your take on it? 

I think it’s very significant that they have decided to participate in democracy. It should now be a contest of ideas and not weapons. I am pleased to point that they have relinquished their weapons. I think it is very important that they honor that commitment; that they not continue to threaten violence. 

They should forswear weapons, put them aside forever and participate in democracy truly and fully. 

Do you agree with the administration’s policy of isolating the Maoists as long as they don’t swear-off violence? 

I don’t know if I would be as strict as the administration. The Maoists have set aside their weapons, if that continues, that builds confidence. And their should be other confidence building measures for the Maoists, if they continue to respond in a positive way, I think we should engage them. I think the international community should engage them. But they have to continue to keep their word and swear-off violence, and not use the threat of violence. But the fact that they still have guns does make one pause. 

You have been closely involved with the
Northern Ireland peace process, what’s your experience? Is there a lesson
Nepal can learn from it? 

I think there are some parallels. In
Northern Ireland, people think it’s about religion. It was not really about religion. It was more about national aspirations. There is a group of people who align themselves with England; others align themselves with the

republic of
Ireland. 

Basically there is a difference of opinion amongst people. The Republican and the Loyalists paramilitaries fought for 30 years, killed thousands of people. But they came to the conclusion that it would never be resolved militarily. They decided to work things out through ceasefire, elimination of weapons, what they referred to as “putting weapons beyond use,” confidence building, dialogue, and comprise. And it has taken a lot time—13 years since the ceasefire and they still don’t have a government. But very soon they will. And it is going to require the same process [in
Nepal]: patience and persistence. And it will require the international community to stay engaged, to watch what’s happening. Just as the United Nations has steeped-in in Nepal, a group of countries involved themselves in the
Northern Ireland. 

Critics say the
United States was rather soft on the Irish Republican Army (IRA), and that it is unwilling to be equally flexible on the Maoists. Does ideology play a role in such considerations? 

There‘re subtle differences. My view is that if, as I said, if the Maoists continue to perform and keep commitments, we should engage them, we should talk to them. This is somewhat different than the administration. The administrations under President Clinton and President Bush, there were time when they would not deal with the IRA. They continued to consider them terrorists even after the ceasefire. I have always been of the opinion that you have to engage, you have to talk, break down barriers and build confidence. 

I think the fact the Maoists are communists is more of a problem, although the IRA is very much a socialist organizations.  

As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, will you be willing to sponsor a bill to increase funding for Nepal, if the
Nepal government requests, or on your own initiative? 

Yes. I have always supported the additional funding for
Nepal. I think we need to be helpful with the election process. 

I would very much like to see the United States working with international organization like the World Bank help Nepal to create and harness the hydroelectric power that it has. Nepal has vast hydro electric potential. Before the Maoists revolution began, there was some real movement on harnessing some of the rivers in Nepal. It’s somewhat environmentally controversial. But there ways to harness that power that would make Nepal energy independent, in fact an energy exporter. 

 

State Department officials say they don’t want to been seen as competing with India—in terms of assistance. Is that a fair benchmark? 

India is certainly much closer to Nepal, physically, culturally and spiritually. But I think that the United States can play a positive role working with Nepal’s neighbors in helping to coordinate activities. When I was there, you had Soviet Union, India and U.S. building the east west highway. Everyone was building a section. We should be able to continue to do that sort of thing. 

How optimistic are you about the peace process? 

So far so good. I really want to see the elections; I want to see the elections run fairly. I don’t want to see any ballot intimidations by the Maoists or anyone else. I think Prime Minister Koirala is a remarkable man. I have met him a number of times. I think he has got the country headed in the right direction, but there are lots of pitfalls between here and there. But I very hopeful that once the elections are over, the people of Nepal, who this is really ultimately about, will have the confidence that the government they elected is the government they wanted. 

Anything you would like to add? 

Just dherai namaskar and namaste to mero daju bhai, didi bahini, and I miss Nepal, and I am looking forward to coming back.

‘I-Can-Do-No-Wrong’ Oppositional Syndrome

The election process needs to be expedited, but rushing too soon with too little spadework could very well result in a farce.

Amid calls for expediting the ongoing peace process, some of those voices have started to bug me. Either some of them trying to put pressure on the government are too naïve or are doing the Maoists bidding, without clearly saying so. What bothers me is not so much that they are voicing it, but the claim that they make that it is the voice of the people. Hello: how many of them have you spoken to? Where is the rest of the Civil Society? Where is the outrage? This eerie silence will only strengthen the criticism that the Nepali Civil Society is overly pro-Maoists. Or is it a part of “Oppositionstruckness”—that everything oppositional is fine and dandy?

There is a syndrome that afflicts our national politics as well as popular perception. A syndrome that puts the onus on the state for virtually everything—and everyone outside the government is presumed good and is without obligation. The state and its agencies are not allowed to act while synchronically they are expected to deliver—an existential conundrum of the Himalayan proportion comes to life.

The source of such affliction goes back to the lopsided political orientation process that somehow paints a state as a fountain of eternal goodness that requires no obligatory citizen action to refill it. In other words, a state exists to offer unconditional rights and can expect no duty in return. The whole notion of a social contract somehow seems to be missing.

At least that’s what I make of the unending rounds of protests and demonstrations. Granted that it is a transitional phase, and such occurrences should be expected, yet in recent days it has exceeded what could be sanely labeled as normal during these abnormal times. It is not my intention to brush aside the legitimate grievances as a farce, but there are more than few that calls for such a description: the diversity visa victims’ association, the Maoists protest proclaiming the “right to life” against Saddam’s execution, and the echoes of “long live Saddam!” slogans. I would rather chant long live Gyanendra for I believe our own dictator was better-off in many ways than the Iraqi dictator: first, he was our own; second, he was conscious of both national and international opinion—who ultimately wasn’t willing to order a large-scale bloodshed. My point is that we should not forget our own state of affairs while going global.

At the risk of sounding an apologist for Girija let me put the bottom-line bluntly: you can’t expect the government to deliver while you continue to paralyze it by your absurd stands and demonstrations. If the intention is to provide comic relief, now is not the time. What is even more outrageously comical is that some in the civil society have decided to let the Maoists have the cake and eat it too. What is wrong with you people? Agreed that the promulgation of the interim constitution should be expedited, but that can only be possible if the Maoists give up their resistance to re-reestablishment of police posts and village and district level bureaucracies. It may not be essential but it is symbolic of the peace process and would beam an important signal that the rebels are willing accept a central government authority. We can’t afford to have Maoists overlords running amok in the countryside. We surely don’t want mob justice and hooliganism to be the style of governance. But unfortunately some very intelligent people in the civil society, who no doubt contributed greatly to the success of the recent uprising, have chosen to believe that the Maoists are the noblest of all creatures.

Koirala’s warning to the Maoists on the issue of timely conclusion of the election for the Constituent Assembly was long over due. Prachanda has finally tried to come clean by issuing instructions to his cadres. Nevertheless as a disclaimer, Prachanda claimed that it wasn’t part of the deal. The Maoists and the other parties involved in the peace process ought to realize that there is a significant difference between the revolutionary fervor and the reality of translating those goals in to something tangible. Setting a goal is not process laden, but its actualization is.

Agreement on papers doesn’t always reflect the actual scope of requirements to fulfill those agreements. Beside, it’s easy to play the role of opposition, especially in Nepal. As always the government gets the guilty verdict, and the opposition goes guilt free. But the April Revolution was not about business as usual. So let’s stop playing holier than thou game and change our modus operandi; instead strengthen the hands of this transitional government to expedite the induction of Maoists in it—in order to comply with the SPA-Maoists agreement.

Compliance to the details is very important. If only we overlook one detail, and rush to the Constituent Assembly now, we run the risk of making the whole exercise a farce. The most important detail as I see is the Maoists cooperation in restoring a semblance of order—in restoring a sense of trust among people and among parties. It shouldn’t be only an eight party show, nor should the Maoists and the Civil Society hijack the process.

 No one wants to entirely give up their bargaining chip. That’s understandable, yet what is not understandable is why Maoists would want to hit dead-end in terms of the ultimate goal— by holding on to some of those chips. The current peace process will result in utter disappointment if the parties renege and start to focus on their petty political expediencies rather than the larger than life goal—the goal of transforming a nation and its history.

There is reason to believe that the SPA, the Maoists and the Civil Society have the same goal. Understandably, the means might be different. Yet it provides comfort to see that Prachanda and Koirala both have displayed statesmanship, although both have a tendency of succumbing occasionally to their lesser sides. But both men understand that this is bigger than them or their respective parties. We have seen more than a flicker of that zeal in Prachanda and Koirala to go down in history as the great guys. But that would require more of their better sides. Petty partisan interest and reining in the rest of the gang for the greater good is a perquisite. But to begin, the mother of all ills, the self-presumption of innocence—come what may “I-can-do-no-wrong” oppositional syndrome needs to be overcome. And finally can someone go over and politely tell those stand-up or sit-in guys to issue a disclaimer—when they say they speak for the people.