Politics stands still

Yubaraj Ghimire

As hopes fade of an early election that is free and fair, Nepal’s crisis shows no signs of abating. What can India do?

External recognition, it seems, is a much more important factor in Nepal’s politics than internal legitimacy. In October 2002, the international community including India, endorsed King Gyanendra when he sacked an elected prime minister for his failure to hold elections to Parliament on schedule. But in April 2006, the international community decisively rejected King Gyanendra’s complete takeover bid.

In fact, this turned into a major morale booster for the demoralised political parties that came together and mobilised people against the king. G.P. Koirala, who became prime minister after April 2006 following the success of that mass movement, is now fast losing crucial international support as he has missed two deadlines to hold elections to the Constituent Assembly (CA). Besides, the country’s law and order situation is in a shambles.

In the absence of an election in the near future, international support has become all the more crucial for Koirala’s survival. So long as key international players — India, US, China, European Union and United Nations — were agreed about assisting in charting out Nepal’s future political course (through the CA elections), things seemed to be moving in the right direction. But there are visible differences in the approach of international players towards Koirala’s failure to hold elections, though they are all clear that a fair and fearless election is urgent.

In the last few days, Koirala has intensified his meetings with diplomats, following Shyam Saran’s visit as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s special envoy, soon after the CA polls were postponed indefinitely. His advice was simple enough -- an early election, as early as December. But given Nepal’s poor law and order situation, it is hard to swallow. It also implies that the prime minister should be prepared to go for polls without the Maoists if they continued to insist on their ‘unreasonable demands’. Their new demand for abolition of the monarchy immediately and a complete switch to the proportional representation system of elections for the CA polls, barely a fortnight before the nomination process, was clearly intended to derail the entire election process.

Yet, going to the polls without the Maoists will minimise, to a large extent, the prospect of a foreseeable end to the 12-year old Maoist-led insurgency that has taken a toll of 13,000 lives. It’s equally challenging to hold them to their earlier pledge in Delhi, under a government initiative (in which Saran played the key role), that they would renounce the politics of violence and partake in competitive parliamentary politics. In the current context, however, it was as much a failure on the part of Indian government to not be able to assess that elections were not going to take place on November 22.

India’s Nepal policy seems to have failed. Similarly, there is a debate going on about whether the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN), headed by the Secretary General’s Special Representative Ian Martin, should be allowed to stay (with an enlarged mandate) beyond January 22, when its current tenure ends. While the government of Nepal is likely to write to the security council to have its tenure extended by another year, it is unlikely this will happen. UNMIN has been involving itself in Terai problems, where apart from peacefully agitating groups, more than a dozen armed groups, most of them based across the border, are demanding more political rights and inclusion in the decision making process.

India has backed the demands of the Terai groups, but the lack of consensus among the political parties in Nepal has delayed any action by the government. At the same time, China has been warning Nepal that the threat to the country’s stability because of the failure of the peace process will be a matter of special concern in the northern neighbourhood.

A delicate imbalance in the approach of the key international players, coupled with total domestic failure, has the potential to point Nepal in a new direction. But its destination is more confused than ever before.

Source: The Indian Express, October 30, 2007

Republican State And Democracy

Lakshman Bahadur K.C.

Modern states or govern ments have been classified under various forms such as monarchy, republican, dictatorship, democracy, unitary federal and presidential, parliamentary. It does not mean that the various forms of governments which are practised presently in various countries of the world are of recent origin. In fact, forms of government with different names have been in existence since the days of Aristotle in ancient Greece 2,500 years ago.

Classification of governments

Aristotle's classification of government has been considered as authoritative among the early classifications. In modern times, several eminent western political writers have made attempts to classify governments. Among them, Dr. Stephen Leacock's classification of governments has been accepted as being more comprehensive and the best.At first, Leacock divides states into two classes - despotic and democratic. Despotism is another name for dictatorship. In a despotic state, the ruler enjoys absolute and supreme power totally disregarding the wishes of the people. In a democracy, the sovereign power is vested in the general people who exercise it through their elected representatives in the parliament.He further subdivides democracies into limited monarchies and republics. In a limited monarchy, the monarch doesn't enjoy real political power.

He or she is just a nominal or ceremonial head. It is the elected parliament responsible to the people which exercises the real authority. In a republic state, it is the elected representatives headed by an elected president that govern the state for a fixed term.Each of these types of states is again subdivided into unitary and federal forms of government on the basis of concentration on the distribution of powers. In a unitary state, power is concentrated in the central government whereas in a federal state, the government's powers are divided between the centre and the units. The federal system is based on the concept of a dual set of government.The unitary and federal states are further subdivided into parliamentary and presidential forms of government on the basis of relationship between the legislature and executive. In the parliamentary form of government, the executive headed by the prime minister is responsible to the legislature. The head of state (a monarch or president) has only a nominal authority in such a system. Whereas in the presidential form of government, which is based on the doctrine of the separation of power, the chief executive, i.e., the president is not responsible to the legislature and is independent of it though the president may be removed by the process of impeachment.

Thus, we can put the formal classification of governments into broad categories as monarchy, dictatorship and democracy and their subsidiary forms like constitutional monarchy, republics, unitary and federal, parliamentary and presidential governments or a mixture of them. Any form of government may be practised on the basis of the political requirement of the country. No form of government, therefore, can be described as pure or exclusive as well as static.The political system of a country represents harmonisation of the different forms of government. For example, the political system of Great Britain is based on the concept of constitutional monarchy, unitary and parliamentary democracy.

On the other hand, India is a republic and a federal state. It has an elected president with functioning parliamentary democracy under the leadership of an elected prime minister, whereas the USA is a federal republic and democratic state with a presidential form of government, which is based on the doctrine of separation of powers.Another form of government is monarchy. It is the oldest form of government and is prevalent in several states of the world. In fact, the monarchial system having hereditary succession symbolises autocracy, feudalism and exploitation. But with the growth of democracy, which is based on the universal concept of liberty, equality, fraternity and welfare state, the system of absolute monarchy declined in modern times and was replaced by the republican state. But some European countries like Britain, Belgium and the Netherlands have retained the monarchial system as ceremonial heads under a democratic set up.Thus, we find that several countries of the world have removed monarchical system and established a republican system through violent political change. The republican state is now the prevalent system around the world. But the establishment of republicanism does not automatically usher in plural democracy. Republicanism is practised with different forms of government with or without plural democracy.

There are several countries which have adopted the republican concept with different principles of state governance. Just take the example of Korea. The divided Korea - North and South - though they are republican states, the principle of governance for their respective countries is fundamentally different from one another. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North) is governed by a single party ideology of communism whereas the political system of the Republic of Korea (South) is based on the concept of plural democracy with presidential form of government. The president in South Korea is elected by the people in free and fair democratic competitive elections.There is also another form of republican state, which is related to religion and the army doctrine.

For example, Iran proclaims itself an Islamic republic, which means its whole system is guided by Islamic law. In the case of Iraq, it was ruled by military dictator Saddam Hussein for a long time though it was a republican state. Thus, several countries practise dictatorship under the banner of a republican state. The establishment of a republic state is, therefore, no guarantee that multiparty democracy would be established unless it is backed by full commitment to the functioning of constitutional democracy based on the rule of law, periodic competitive elections among the political parties, liberty, equality, fraternity and a welfare state.Nepal is now on the verge of great political change. The successful popular uprising of April 2006 in which millions of people had participated against the autocratic royal regime under the leadership of the seven party alliance and the CPN Maoist opened the door for a change of great magnitude in the political, social and economic fields.With the introduction of the interim constitution 2063 B.S., an interim government and an interim legislature, the Nepalese people have now started to experience a new wave of political change.

One of the basic features of this change is that Nepal is positively heading towards the achievement of new multiparty democracy based on the concept of federal republic with the aim of ending the centralised feudal monarchical system. But Nepal's march towards establishing a new Nepal through state restructuring and creating a new political set up based on political pluralism, rule of law, inclusiveness, fundamental rights, freedom of the judiciary and the press and the welfare state cannot be materialised unless and until we sincerely realise the imperative of framing and introducing a new and stable constitution by the elected Constitution Assembly.The constitution of the elected Constitution Assembly will certainly be a major and historical step towards institutionalising the achievements of the April movement and ending the political transition of Nepal, which will guide the new political set up based on democratic values.

But contrary to the arrangement as provided in the interim constitution 2063 for holding the Constitution Assembly elections, the postponement of the CA polls twice has raised doubts about the sincerity of the political stakeholders of the present political set up. The postponement of the CA polls due to the controversy raised by the CPN Maoist leaders on the methods of the CA polls at a time when the CA polls were scheduled to be held on November 22 is itself a breach of the provisions of the interim constitution, which is a common and legal document of the eight political parties.LegitimacyThus, inability to hold the Constitution Assembly elections means maintaining the status quo and prolonging the transition period, which is definitely not in the interest of Nepal and the Nepalese people. So without wasting time, the political parties and their leaders must come forward to create a conducive environment throughout the country for holding the CA polls successfully and peacefully within this year, otherwise the legitimacy of the present interim set up will be questioned.

Source: The Rising Nepal, October 31, 2007

Nepal needs a close look

Ashok K Mehta

In the case of Nepal, historically India's foreign policy has been driven by its security concerns, but the policy planning has been patchy. Cognisance is still taken of a British foreign policy document as old as 1919, which noted: "Nepal is in a position to exercise powerful influence over India's internal stability and if it were to become disaffected, the anarchy would spill over...."
The 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship (TPF), together with the accompanying letter which is derived from the 1923 security treaty Nepal signed with Britain, has provisions impacting on mutual security concerns: "Neither country will tolerate threat to the other... devise effective countermeasures..."

In 1959, Jawaharlal Nehru equated aggression on Nepal or Bhutan with aggression on India. This resulted in a furore in Nepal for being bracketed with Bhutan. While BP Koirala welcomed Nehru's security commitment, he asserted Nepal's independence. Nepal takes pride in its independence, being the only country other than Bhutan and Thailand in the region not to be colonised, but it paid a different price for it.

India has been associated directly with all the major changes in Nepal starting with the overthrow of the Ranas in 1950, advent of multi-party democracy in 1959, restoration of democracy in 1990 and the virtual end of monarchy in 2006. Two companies of Indian Infantry were poised to land in Kathmandu in 1950 in case there was "anarchy", but the force was not needed. In 1959, during Nepal's first multi-party election, Indian Army Gorkha signallers were deployed for communications.

The military-to-military connection between the two Armies is also historic. In 1952, King Tribhuvan requested for an Indian military mission to train the Royal Nepal Army (RNA). In 1960, 21 border checkposts were established in the north with Indian security personnel. In 1965, King Mahendra requested India for reorganising and re-equipping the Army. In 1970, on Nepal's request both the checkposts and training teams were withdrawn but the military cooperation continued unabated without any physical presence of Indian Army trainers. The special military relationship was symbolised by the Army Chiefs of the two countries being made honorary Generals of each other's Armies.

The bulk of Army training is handled by India under the special aided programme of the MoD and maximum training vacancies on training courses go to Nepal and Sri Lanka. In 1990, after the restoration of democracy, yet another request was made to modernise the Nepal Army and that programme is still going on. At the height of Maoist insurgency, when the Army was under pressure and ill-prepared to meet the Maoist challenge, Indian Army's counter-insurgency experts trained and guided the Nepal Army to defeat the Maoists. Massive contingents of equipment were rushed to ensure military posts were defensible.

In 2003, for the first time after 1970, a Bilateral Security Consultative Group was established for channelling equipment and expertise to Nepal Army. The military assistance was provided on specific request from the Government of Nepal in the spirit of past agreements and understandings. In 2004, when the Maoists besieged the Kathmandu Valley for a week, the Directors General Military Operations consulted each other on possible help that India could provide. National Security Adviser JN Dixit held a special meeting with the Indian Army and Air Force Chiefs to evolve contingency plans in case of any adverse situation.

Contingency planning is at the core of national security; it includes humanitarian and military assistance requested by friendly countries. India is guided by treaty obligations and security commitments in the neighbourhood. It dispatched the IPKF to Sri Lanka following a request made by President JR Jayewardene after the India-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987. Similarly, the Government of Maldives asked for -- and received -- military assistance to defeat a serious mercenary threat.

India has either planned or dispatched military succour to Seychelles, Mauritius and Fiji. It has repeatedly stated that it is committed to the "sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka", which is diplomatese for deterring the LTTE from a military takeover of the north-east or declaring the Eelam. The ISLA of 1987, like the 1950 TPF, is still in place, though both are dated.

Like the Southern Command in Pune is responsible for contingency planning and tasks in the island countries like Sri Lanka and the Maldives, Lucknow's Central Command has for long been involved in planning possible missions in the north, including Nepal. Military training institutions and think tanks are forever wargaming scenarios in the region so that, unlike their political masters, they are not caught napping. Exercise Tribhuvan was a study carried out in the late 1970s to assess the possibilities of a Communist takeover of Nepal. Shades of what is being currently played out by the Maoists and their associates in Kathmandu and the countryside were reflected in the exercise.

Over the years, India's security concerns were focussed on the activities of the ISI in Nepal, culminating in the hijack of IC-814 in Kandahar. The raid on the ISI stronghold by Nepal Police in Kathmandu's Hotel Karnali in 1994 revealed the scale of Pakistan's anti-India activities, but Kathmandu chose to deny most of it till the Kandahar episode. Nepal's sensitivity about its sovereignty and territorial integrity is manifest in the ladder-point security check of Indian Airlines flights at Tribhuvan Airport. Indian security staff frisk passengers on an elevated platform, avoiding use of Nepalese soil.

In the early 1990s, the first GP Koirala Government requested New Delhi for help to search for survivors of two major air crashes in the Valley. Nepali media ran banner headlines: "IAF helicopters invade Nepali airspace..." The Madhuri Dixit and Hrithik Roshan non-incidents created an avoidable anti-Indian stir in Nepal. Many Nepali friends say India is hypersensitive to anti-India sentiments which are dutifully shed by Nepalis before crossing the open border with India. They ask: "How can India become a regional -- leave alone an Asian -- power, if it loses sleep over such incidents?"

Leaders of the Seven-Party Alliance are privately, and some even publicly, saying that Maoists are afraid of facing an election; and, their hardliners could be preparing for a power grab. The Maoists have consistently accused royalists of conspiring against the "people's revolution" and the Army of planning a coup. These may not happen but are all part of future scenarios which warrant contingency plans.

The Maoists have the capability and the hardliners the intent to skirt the electoral process and seize power. India does not have to be apologetic about voicing its security concerns and priorities in Nepal and taking necessary action in shaping the environment. Moreover, being prepared for the unexpected, the political class would then no longer be equated with "headless chickens". National interest might prevail over political survival.

Source: The Pioneer, October 31, 2007

MUSLIMS of NEPAL: Becoming an assertive minority

R. Upadhyay


Hindu Monarchy with Hinduism as State religion ruled Nepal for centuries. The system of governance was also based on Hindu scriptures. As Buddhism was accepted as a part of Hindu society, the followers of this religion had no problem in the kingdom. But Muslims, the third religious group in the kingdom was allowed to practice their faith under certain restrictions. They were debarred from propagation of Islam or to follow the Islamic code Shariat in respect of dissolution of marriage by oral pronouncement of the word 'Talaq' thrice. In case of inheritance also they were to follow the Hindu-scriptures based code of Nepal. Any violation of Hindu scriptures based Nepal Code was a punishable offence. The situation therefore, was not congenial for the Islamic community to settle there. Even during Muslim rule in India Muslim migration to this country was insignificant. Perhaps strict implementation of Hindu scriptures based code was the main reason behind the indifference of the community towards settling in Nepal. In spite of such restrictions, it is unusual for the Muslims to become a significant third religious group in this Hindu kingdom.
The study of the religion-political sociology of the Muslims of South Asia has been the hot subject for historians for over last two decades but its scope in the Hindu Kingdom of Nepal is found to be proportionately minimal. Historically, it is difficult to come to any definite conclusion on the issue of migration but some reports suggest that Bakhtiyalr Khilji invaded Tibet in 13th century and some of its soldiers sneaked into Nepal. Another report says that first arrival of Muslims in Kathmandu valley was in late fifteenth and early sixteenth century during the reign of Ratna Malla, when Kashmiri traders from Tibet came here via Tibet for their trade in carpets, rugs and woolen garments. Soon after them some bangle sellers locally known as Churaute also arrived in the valley. It is also said that the rulers of Nepal invited a few dozens of Muslim army personnel from neighbouring Indian Territory to train the soldiers in fire arms. The Muslim rulers could not annex Nepal due to the fighting capability of Gurkhas. Shamsuddin Ilyas, Muslim ruler of Bengal had raided the Kathmandu valley in 1349 but returned without success.
Major penetration of Muslims in Nepal was in its Terai region during and after Sepoy mutiny of 1857. Jung Bahadur, the first Rana Prime Minister was the ally of the British but he gave protection and shelter to the Begum of Oudh . This was not possible without the consent of the British. It was a deliberate political move of the British to keep away the Muslim ruling family from its Indian Territory to avoid any mobilisation of Muslim masses around it. Knowing about the migration of the Begum, the Muslims from the border area also started migrating to the Terai region. They were mostly farm labour and small traders. British atrocities in the Ganges valley forced them to flee to the Terai region of Nepal to save their lives. The Hindu landlords were in need of the farm labour for cultivation and the rulers of the kingdom interested for more revenue from agricultural produce, placed no restriction for such migration of the Muslims. However, there was no relaxation in 1853 Code for the migrant Muslims. The descendants of the Muslims settled in the hills still constitute only 3 % of the total Muslim population of Nepal. Rest of 97 % is settled in Terai region mostly bordering India along Bihar and U.P.
Although Muslim conquest of northern India had undermined the centuries old rigid anti-Muslim policy in the kingdom to some extent, the sliding decline of Mogul Empire prompted successive rulers to maintain its Hindu character. Prithvi Narayan Shah during his regime (1743-1775) unified various independent hill kingdoms into modern Nepal. A few months before his death in 1775 he recorded the 'Divya Sandesh' (Divine message), which was a part of the guiding principles for state administration. In his divine message he "had envisaged his kingdom as a land of Hindus, contrasting with 'Mughlana' (India), the land polluted by the rule of the Mughals and their successors". (A History of Nepal by John Helpton, Cambridge, 2005, page 56). This contemptuous language about India because of Muslim-rule over it remained a permanent mental load of Nepali masses. India was known as Moghalan as a common language of Nepalese. It is said that the people of Nepal made it a custom not to drive out the cow, the national animal from their field in south direction to stop its entry in Moghlana, where there was no state restriction on cow-slaughter.
Jang Bahadur, the first Rana Prime Minister in the kingdom expanded the 'Divya Sandesh' and framed 'Mulki Ain' (Law of the Land) 1853 for strict implementation of the caste order based on Hindu social code, which listed the Muslims in the category of impure and untouchables. In fact the people of Nepal tolerated the Muslims known as 'Mlechchhas' (barbarians) with restrictions to the extent that only "raw and dry eatables" were acceptable from their hands. (Article of Marc Gaborieau 1972 in 'Muslim community of South Asia', Edited by T.N.Madan, Manohar, 2001, page 209.).
The Muslims of Nepal strictly followed the Nepal Code of 1853 and accepted their lower social status as loyal citizens and accordingly maintained a very low and profile under the Hindu Monarchy system of governance. It may be interesting to note that even after their long presence in Nepal during the monarchy there was hardly any significant communal problem in the kingdom. Living in Hindu scriptures-based cultural milieu and related social environment for centuries they accepted the situation as it was.
The end of Rana regime in 1951 and establishment of Monarchy-led multi-party coalition government hardly made any change in the social status of the Muslims. The situation more or less remained the same even after 1959 promulgation of constitution and the formation of democratically elected government with B.P. Koirala as Prime Minister. In 1960 King Mahendra dismissed this government and introduced Monarchy-led party less Panchayat system. He replaced the 1853 Code new Code in1963, which provided equal citizen status to the Muslims. Although, the new Code allowed the Muslims to practice their religion freely, the ban on conversion or dissolution of marriage etc remained as it was in 1853 Code. Any attempt to convert people remained a punishable offence with three-year imprisonment. The King however, nominated one Muslim in his National Panchayat and there was no restriction on opening of madrassas.
Even though the 1963 code did not alter the social status of the Muslims it opened a floodgate for the various Ismamist groups from across the boarder to expand their activities in Nepal. With the support of the ISI and financial support from Muslim world there was a speedy growth of madrassas and mosques in both sides of 1751 k.m. Indo-Nepal boarder particularly along the Indian states of U.P. and Bihar.
Some reports suggest that the ISI of Pakistan with a view to make Nepal its hide out for exporting terrorism to India also financed some NGOs to bring demographic imbalance in Terai region by infiltration of Bangladeshi Muslims. The report said, "The official figures show that the strength of the Muslim community in Nepal has grown from 2% of the population in 1981 to 3.5 in 1991. Data compiled by the Nepalese Election Commission in connection with the recent general elections indicates that this figure could now have crossed 5% and more even be close to 10%. Steady migration of Bangladesh Muslims to the Terai considerably contributed to this increase". (India Today, June 12, 2000). Today there are 300 madrassas and 343 mosques within 10 k.m. of the boarder in Indian side while 181 madrassas and 282 mosques are in Nepal side. (Dastider). It is said that the Islamist world is quite liberal in financing the NGOs to the insidious growth of the Islamist fundamentalist net work in Nepal.
As per 1991 Census Report Muslims constitutes 3.4 % of the total population of Nepal, though the figure claimed by the Muslim organisations of the country is between 8 to 10 %. (The figure is based on the source: HMG, CBS, Population monograph, Kathmandu, 1994 as quoted in Understanding Nepal by Mollica Dastider, Har-Anand Publication, 2007, page80).
Since the government of Nepal did not contest such claim of the Muslim organisations, the figure of 10% appears to be nearer to the factual position. The ethnic structure of Terai region as suggested by Dastider also corroborates it. Today four districts of Terai namely Banke, Kapilbastu, Parsa and Rautahat with over fifty percent of Muslim population are now Muslim-majority districts. In five districts namely, Bara, Mahottari, Dhanusha, Sirha and Sunsari Muslims are the second religious majority and in two districts namely Rupandehi and Sarlahi they constitute as a significantly third religious group.
Whatever may be the correct figure of Mislims in Nepal, it is something amazing to see how this significant followers of Islam compromised with anti-Shariat (Islamic laws) un-Islamic Hindu environment and lived there peacefully for centuries. Socio-political scientists might have their own analysis but it gives credence to some views that Shariat could be made flexible if it serves the interest of political Islamists.
By and large Muslims of Nepal had a feeling of better security of their life and properties under the Monarchy led party-less Panchayat system in comparison to their counterparts in secular and multi-party democratic India. They apprehended that Hindu-majority parliamentary rule would endanger even their present identity. Such feeling made them complacent and accordingly, their participation in the pro-democracy movement of early 1990 was minimal. However, taking advantage of the democratic movement some of the fundamentalist organisations like Millat-e-Islamia and Muslim Seva Samiti were found expressing concern over the state sponsored drive for Nepalisation of the people. The Muslim youths took this move as Hinduisation of Muslims.
Political transformation of Nepal from absolute Hindu monarchy to multi-party parliamentary democracy in 1990 was a landmark development in the history of the kingdom. The interim constitution declared Nepal as a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, democratic, independent, indivisible, sovereign Hindu and constitutional monarchial kingdom. It also said, "The state shall not discriminate among citizens on grounds of religion, race, sex, caste, tribe or ideological conviction or any of these".
The end of political discrimination among the citizens on the ground of religion prompted 31 Muslim leaders to contest in the first general election in 1991 after the promulgation of interim constitution from different parties and five of them got elected including three from Nepali Congress and one each from Communist Party of Nepal and Sadbhavana Party. Sheikh Idris of Nepali Congress was also included in the cabinet.
The sudden rise in political profile of the Muslims not only boosted the morale of this centuries old suppressed community but also provided them an opportunity to raise an assertive voice for sharing political and administrative power. Accordingly they raised demands like 10% reservation in constituent assemblies, reserved seats in Parliament and government holidays on Muslim festival. Similarly the radical Islamists also became active to spread their net work in the kingdom to assertively fight for their separate identity. Immediately after the promulgation of interim constitution, the Imam of the Jama Masjid of Kathmandu led a delegation and submitted a 14-points charter of demands to the then Prime Minister K.P.Bhattarai.
Although Muslims were not fully satisfied due to Hindu character of the interim constitution, they had no problem in their socio-political and religious activities. Muslim organisations like Islami Yuva Sangh, Millate Islamia and Ittehadul Muslimeen, which were operating as socio-religious organisations became aggressive in challenging their centuries old subordinate status. This led to communal conflict in some of the Terai regions, where Muslims are in competitive strength.
Spread of the network of Islamist terrorists in post-1990 Nepal became a security problem for India. The infamous hijacking of IC- 184 from the capital of the kingdom in early 2000 suggested that political transformation made this country a safe hide out for the Jehadis to export terrorism in India. ISI might have masterminded this operation but was it possible without the support of local Islamists? According to a report a Nepali national Nayeem Shah arrested in Kathmandu in 1998 for possession of fake Indian currency of 3.5 lakh disclosed that the notes were given to him by Nepalese politician Mirza Dilshad Beg before his assassination. On November 4, 2006, India's Union Home Minister of State Sriprakash Jaiswal said Pakistani Militants had found safe hide-outs In Nepal …"(Outlook.com, November 20, 2006).
The Interim Parliament declared Nepal as a secular state on May 18, 2006, which was incorporated in the interim constitution on May 2007. It says, "Nepal is an independent, invisible, sovereign, secular, inclusive and fully democratic state". Constituent Assembly is to approve this interim constitution after its election in November this year.
How far the Muslim masses of Nepal would integrate in the national mainstream and join the nation building programme under a new political environment only time will say but if the Islamists are not kept under check and political parties imitate the vote-seeking politics of their Indian counterparts, they will remain as backward as they were for centuries. The growth of madrassas in stead of schools for modern education and wide network of Islamist terrorists would only add to their misery. Mushroom growth of Islamic organizations having links with the Radical Islamists of the world has not only become the concern of the people of Nepal but it is also a security risk for India.
On September 1, 2004, thousands of demonstrators stormed the main mosque in Kathmandu, the capital of Nepal, sets furniture and carpet on fire, tore up a copy of Quran and chanted "Down with Islam'. They were protesting against the killing of 12 Nepalese labourers in Iraq. Police had to open fire to control the crowd. The incident was a signal for the future relation between Hindu and Muslims of the country, who were living peacefully for centuries.


Source: Ocotber 4, 2007

China’s New Assertiveness in Nepal

Bhaskar Roy

In an interview (June 17) to the publication “Nepal” the new China Ambassador to Nepal, Zheng Xialing, said “China shall not tolerate any foreign intervention in Nepal”. Ambassador Zheng explained, “Whenever the Nepali people face any problem or difficulty, China shall treat them as our own especially when the problems pertain to sovereignty or territorial integrity (emphasis added).

A reading of the text of the interview leaves no doubt that it was carefully prepared in advance by the interviewer and the Chinese Embassy in Kathmandu to convey certain messages to India and, also, apparently to the USA. For example, the interviewer recalled Chinese Vice Premier Marshall Chen Yi had said China would not tolerate foreign interference in Nepal, and asked whether that policy had changed.

Other important questions included China’s concerns on Free Tibet campaigners’ activities in Nepal, acceptance of Nepal as a republic and US views of Maoists as terrorists. This interview can be considered as glimpses into China’s readjusted foreign policy towards Nepal after the fall of King Gyanendra and the monarchy. Zheng Xialing’s observations are not idle statements of a senior diplomat, but highly significant and meaningful.

Nepal has been one of the important elements in China’s Indo-Himalayan strategy to ultimately push the de facto Sino-Indian border from Kashmir to Bhutan closer to India’s heartland. Nepal is one of the “five-fingers” strategy of late Mao Zedong. It spells Beijing’s influence and control over Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and Arunachal Pradesh. To the “five fingers”, there are indications that a “toe” is being added. Some of the Tibetans who have been won over by the Chinese are locating along the Indo-Himalayan belt from Ladakh to Sikkim. Kathmandu is one of the very important centers for meetings between China operatives and their Tibetan contacts from India.

Returning to Ambassador Zheng Xialing’s assurance to protect Nepal’s sovereignty and territorial integrity including from foreign intervention in Nepal, the hardline from Beijing is unmistakable. To this was the added reference to Marshall Chen Yi’s similar statement of assurance in 1962.

Reference to 1962 is of particular importance. The Chinese propaganda machinery frequently claims that India’s “illegal” incursion deeper into Chinese territory was dealt a humiliating blow by the Chinese army, the PLA. In the context of Nepal, Zheng’s statements, obviously cleared by Beijing, does border on not so camouflaged warning to India over Nepal’s affairs.

There is a territorial problem between India and Nepal over Kalapani, which is with India. The matter was thought to have been a settled issue, till Chinese President Jiang Zemin reportedly encouraged the Nepalese governement and Palace to reopen the issue during his official visit to Kathmandu in December, 1996. Almost immediately following President Jiang’s visit the Nepalese reopened the issue with India both officially and through public protests. According to reports, the Kalapani issue has not gone away and friendly Chinese delegations visiting Nepal allegedly remind the Nepalese periodically. The policy is to keep the fire burning slowly till the time comes to raise the intensity and get it raging.

Nepal had three main pillars, and a fourth one was growing. Beijing nurtured all the three i.e. the Palace, the Royal Nepalese Army (now Nepalese Army), and the Nepali Congress (NC). Given the historic importance of the monarchy, especially the belief among the common people that the king is the reincarnation of the God Vishnu on earth, the Palace was Beijing’s first choice for friendship. The army leadership was with the Palace and, hence, scripted for Chinese coalition. The NC was a different issue, with its traditional linkages with India, but NC leaders tried to maintain a balance between Beijing and New Delhi. The CPN (UML), among the left parties became particularly close to the Chinese. The CPN (Maoist) had a problem, having gone underground, fighting the monarchy from 1990. That, however, does not mean the Chinese Embassy in Kathmandu did not have any contact with the Maoists. They did, but very carefully.
During the people’s uprising led by the Maoists from 2000, Beijing made a strategic policy mistake, something uncharacteristic for them. They believed the Palace with the army would prevail again, and remained openly pro-Palace. But unlike India, China had already set up some controlled institutions in the country through their old friends, but fully controlled by Beijing through their embassy in Kathmandu.

The Nepal – China Study Centers (NCSC) and fully funded by China and locally supervised by Madhav Nepal, CPN (UML) leader. While the head office of NCSC in located in Kathmandu, the branch offices numbering now more than seven are located close to the Indian border. These centers are involved in anti-India influence peddling, collection of information, promoting China etc. But the NCSC members can be much more damaging. Their potential to create mischief in the Terai region is enormous, and they can remain undetected. The Terai region is already restive, with no united stand even among the Madhesis.

Another Chinese institution is Nepal-China Mutual Co-operation Society (NCMCS). Again funded through the Chinese Embassy, the co-ordination has been entrusted to Prof. Ballab Mani Dahal. The main task of the NCMCS is to promote China and denigrate India and other US as colonialists and exploiters.

The perception in India that it has come up on top in Nepal is all very well. Maoist supremo Prachanda is on record to thank India for its support to the anti-monarchy movement. India is also mediating in the political crises in Nepal, which would be construed in China’s strategic calculations as “intervention”. This is exactly what Ambassador Zheng said in his interview that China would not allow in Nepal.

During the end months of turmoil and the initial stages of return of democracy, China decided to allow India to take the front position. China was in no position to put its foot in the swirling political waters in Nepal. It decided to nourish its constituencies, including firming a better relationship with the Maoists. This is expected to be a totally new relationship.

The China-Nepal railway in the making needs to be viewed in terms of a new strategic advantage for China. The railway project should be operational next year, providing greater connectivity both for passengers and goods between the two countries. It would be a handle for the anti-India Nepalese factions, and would erode to some extant Nepal’s total dependence on India for access to sea ports, notwithstanding the cost difference. It may also be kept in mind China is always capable of providing “friendship” prices to “friends”.

The new political crises in Nepal with the indefinite postponement of the Constituent Assembly (CA) polls for a second time on October 5 could create a fertile ground for Chinese covert intervention. China’s friends, the CPN (UML) and the Nepal Majdoor Kisan Party (NMKP) opposed the postponement of the polls, thus dividing the original seven party coalition. The Maoists reneged on the earlier agreement, demanding the country be declared a republic before the CA elections. The reunited NC is sitting rather ineptly in the middle without taking a firm position. Under these conditions India’s leading role in Kathmandu to bring about a reconciliation and emerge as the chief arbitrator in Nepal’s politics goes against Chinese strategic interests.
Ambassador Zheng’s interview portends not only China’s hard-line policy in Nepal vis-à-vis India, but this is likely to extend in their policies to other countries in South Asia to further compress India in its immediate neighborhood. An inimical neighborhood would hamper India’s development and some of the countries of South Asia may be more than willing to play China’s game. It appears a major foreign policy challenge is coming up. It will not do to sweep things under the carpet. The issue will be too big to hide anywhere. The only answer can be a proactive foreign policy.

Source: South Asian Analysis Group, October 8, 2007

Parties Pushing Nepal To Failed State Status

Yuba Nath Lamsal

The seven politi cal parties have mutually agreed to defer the Constituent Assembly election scheduled for November 22 this year. This is the second time that the election has been postponed. Earlier, the election was to take place in June. But it was postponed as the government failed to make the necessary preparations for holding the election. The government and the seven-party (now six-party) alliance were responsible for the election postponement in June.

Blame

Now the blame has now been put squarely on the Maoists by the six-party alliance for the postponement of the November election. However, the Maoists have denied the accusation and say that the government is responsible as it could not create the necessary conditions for holding free and fair polls.The peace process is intact as all the constituents of the six-party alliance and the Maoists apparently seem to be committed to the peace process. However, the political process on which the peace process has hinged appears to be tumultuous and shaky. The political process that was initiated to institutionalise the peace process is heading towards collapse.

The bottom-line of the political process is to establish a democratic federal republic and total restructuring of the state through an elected Constituent Assembly. This was clearly mentioned in the comprehensive peace agreement (CPA) reached between the then seven-party alliance government and the Maoists. The interim constitution and the interim parliament were also made in the same spirit.With the twice postponement of the Constituent Assembly election, a sense of doubt has crept in the minds of the voters that the Constituent Assembly election may not take place at all. It shows that all the political actors and forces are not committed to holding the Constituent Assembly election. It is so because these forces are not confident of their strength and position in the election.The problem started with the non-compliance of the comprehensive peace agreement and also the spirit of the interim constitution. The interim constitution had clearly stated that Constituent Assembly election should be held in the June of 2007. The government did not make any preparations to meet the deadline of the election set by the interim constitution.

The violation of the constitution and the CPA and breach of promise began right from this point. Later the constitution was amended to suit their interest in which the dates for the Constituent Assembly election were rescheduled for November 22.When it comes to non-compliance of the promise and agreement, the government again is in the forefront. It was agreed that several measures would be taken before going to the polls. The first responsibility of the state was to ensure perfect law and order so that the people could freely and fearlessly participate in the election. But the law and order situation continued to deteriorate. Several armed groups appeared in the Terai, and some hill-ethnic groups also sprang up threatening to take up arms if their demands were not met.The government has not been able to tackle these issues effectively and maintain law and order. The other issue of non-compliance is related to the allowances and conditions of the Maoist combatants living in the cantonments. The government did not release the allowances in time. The condition in the camps is so inhuman and poor that even UNMIN has raised this issue several times.

As far as the Maoists are concerned, they, too, cannot escape blame. They were part of the government and they failed to exert pressure on the cabinet to take necessary measures for the creation of a conducive atmosphere for the election. If the government failed, the Maoists, too, have a share in it. Their withdrawal from the government is not a solution.Moreover, there are certain things the Maoists have done that are not compatible with the CPA. On the eve of the election, the Maoists suddenly raised two political issues that ultimately caused the postponement of the election. The issues the Maoists have raised are genuine and they must be adhered to. However, the timing does not seem to be appropriate.The issue concerning a full proportionate electoral system was first raised by the CPN-UML when the interim constitution was being drafted. The provision of a proportionate election system could have been incorporated in the interim constitution, and the issue would have been solved long ago, if the Maoists had raised this issue when the constitution was being drafted. But the Maoists failed to realise it earlier, and they have raised this issue now which shows their political immaturity.

Moreover, the other parties were not fully prepared to go to the polls, although they had publicly expressed their commitment to hold the election on time. Had the parties been fully prepared and committed, they would have gone to the people with their election programmes. But the Maoist move has given an opportunity to other political forces to blame the Maoists for the postponement of the election.Internally, the other parties, too, are happy with the election deferral. The postponement of the election is a move to block the smooth political process. Although the Maoists appear to have blocked the November 22 election, all the political forces are in one way or the other responsible for this.Nepal has already suffered very badly due to political instability. The frequent postponement of the election and breach of promises by the political parties have raised serious questions about the legitimacy and credibility of the government in the international community.In the same way, people at home are slowly losing faith in the ability of the parties and their leaders. If the election is postponed frequently and the country is governed without a popular mandate, the chaotic situation will continue to grow, which would ultimately push Nepal towards the status of a failed state.

By agreeing to postpone the Constituent Assembly election, the seven political parties have agreed to make Nepal into a failed state. No political force can escape from the blame. All constituents of the seven parties as well as the Maoists are equally responsible. This situation has only benefited the Monarchists and regressive elements that do not want the election at all as the election, if held, would eliminate the monarchy from Nepal.The Constituent Assembly election was aborted in 1951 by the king. Now there is sufficient ground to raise the question whether the election would be held at all. It is the process of making a people's constitution and involving the people in the process. In the present political equation, the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and the Maoists are the chief actors.

Dignified presence

Making a constitution without the active participation of all these three forces would be a futile exercise. In this constitution making process, the parties must not think who will win or lose in the election. But arrangements should be made so that all these forces have a dignified presence in the Constituent Assembly. For this, the leaders of Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and the Maoists must act in a more responsible, liberal and rational manner.

Source: The Rising Nepal, October 17, 2007

Election Detour in the Himalayas

Brenda Norris

The Maoists were polite, but firm: no civic or voter education activities could be conducted until their national political demands were met. Hours of negotiation succeeded only in convincing the young men not to burn the voter education materials that our local partners intended to distribute. For the previous two hours we had watched our partners complete a two-day voter education training of facilitators and a mock election in the small classroom in Nepal’s Rasuwa District. The trainers were dedicated and professional, and were visibly excited to educate their fellow villagers about the upcoming Constituent Assembly election. With the memory of violence from Nepal’s ten-year-long Maoist insurgency still fresh in their minds, they watched as the Maoists ripped posters from the walls and carted all the voter education materials away. As we learned later, this heartbreaking scene in Rasuwa was being played out in districts all across Nepal, with voter and civic education activities being disrupted in scores of localities.

The Maoists succeeded in their goal of delaying the election. On October 5th, the Chief Election Commissioner announced that the Constituent Assembly election, scheduled for November 22nd, would be impossible. Nepalis were understandably baffled: Maoist insurgents had fought their guerilla war for a decade, and holding a Constituent Assembly election to redraw the country’s constitution and framework of governance had always been one of their central demands.

So why were the Maoists opposed to a November election date? In part, because they feared what many communist parties have traditionally feared: that they might not do very well in a free and fair election. They stated that two demands must first be resolved: replacing the mixed electoral system with full proportional representation, and declaring the country a republic prior to the election. But their reasons were also deeper. The Maoists have taken an increasingly hard-line approach in part, it appears, because they feel the government is not sincere in delivering on commitments it made in a series of peace agreements to downsize the army, integrate former Maoist combatants, and tackle difficult issues such as land reform and caste discrimination.

Now Nepal’s peace process stands at a crossroads. Before the country can begin voter education and related activities, the political parties, including the Maoists, must resolve their disputes about the electoral system and forming a republic. Those steps are crucial, but even they will not be enough to ensure a free, fair, and safe election. All parties need to take a hard look at themselves, and begin implementing the agreements they have already committed to. The Maoists need to leave their habits of violence and intimidation behind, just as the government must demonstrate that it is willing to change how it does business in a country that remains one of the most profoundly discriminatory – on the basis of gender, language, class and caste – anywhere in the world. In Rasuwa, and across Nepal, the people are eager to have their voices heard.

Source: The Asia Foundation, October 17, 2007

Nepal revolutionaries call on mass support to end monarchy

David Hoskins

Nepal’s communist revolutionaries walked out of that country’s interim government in mid-September and announced immediate plans to launch street protests. The walkout followed the government’s rejection of a 22-point set of demands by the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-M) that were meant to ensure free and transparent polls for planned Constituent Assembly elections in November.

Three weeks later, on Oct. 5, the government announced the November elections would be postponed.

The Nepali Congress Party and other reformist parties objected to two key points in particular. These basic points would have declared Nepal a republic before the polls, to ensure that the monarchy does not interfere with elections, and would have established a proportional representation-based election system. Nepal still has a king, despite massive protests against the monarchy last year.

The government’s rejection of these demands, say the revolutionaries, risks providing cover to the criminal supporters of King Gyanendra in the army and among underground terrorist units, allowing them to disrupt elections, and has created an unnecessary crisis in election preparations.

Other organizations have voiced support for the CPN-M’s electoral demands. Amik Sherchan, chair of the People’s Front Nepal, has stated that the 22 prerequisites were legitimate and that “the Maoists were left with no option but to launch a program of strong protests to establish a republic.” People’s Front Nepal is a semiunderground leftist organization and a member of Nepal’s interim government.

The CPN-M remains in Nepal’s interim parliament, where it has become the second-largest party since pulling out of the government. Three other groups, including the militant Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist), have merged with the CPN-M since it withdrew from the cabinet. The CPN-M has emphasized the need for a single revolutionary communist party to fulfill the aspirations of Nepal’s workers and oppressed.

Maoists call street protests; student organizations join

After all four Maoist ministers announced their resignations from the government, the CPN-M called for street agitation to begin on Sept. 25. Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, a leading party official, declared that, “Efforts to declare a republic from the parliament have failed. Now we will declare a republic from the streets.” The CPN-M has promised to hold actions in all of Nepal’s 4,000 villages and at every district administration office in order to advance their people’s agenda. The actions are being unrolled in carefully crafted phases. The first phase was held from Sept. 19 to 21, when the Maoists held a door-to-door public awareness campaign surrounding their demands. A week of rallies began in the capital on Sept. 22 and was planned to spread geographically. The revolutionaries are preparing to launch an exposure campaign to reveal corrupt government officials and business people.

Students, too, vowed mass participation in the street protests. The All Nepal National Independent Student Union-Revolutionary (ANNISU-R) laid out its own protest agenda. Public hearings in schools and universities began on Sept. 19 and were expected to continue until Oct. 3. Motorcycle rallies across the country began Sept. 29 and torch-lit rallies were to follow. More than 4,000 soldiers in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) had earlier walked out of their cantonments to protest in favor of the 22 demands raised by the revolutionaries. The PLA is the armed wing of the CPN-M and has voluntarily confined itself to a U.N.-monitored cantonment during the peace process initiated by the revolutionaries. More than 30,000 PLA soldiers are stationed in 28 cantonments around the country.

Revolutionaries champion people’s needs

Many of the government’s ruling parties fear an embarrassing setback in the polls at the hands of the revolutionaries. The popular program advocated by the Maoists and the revolutionary student and youth organizations has done much to earn the support of Nepal’s oppressed workers and peasants. The revolutionaries have consistently exposed corrupt landlords and held them accountable in People’s Courts set up around the country. For many of Nepal’s poor, this is the only system of justice available to them.

The revolutionaries have been in the vanguard of the fight to abolish Nepal’s brutal feudal monarchy. The CPN-M initiated 10 years of armed struggle which, combined with the street protests it helped coordinate, brought an end to King Gyanendra’s absolute rule late last year. He had clung to power with the support of the U.S., Britain and India. The revolutionaries continue to be the most consistent force advocating the total abolition of Nepal’s monarchy and the establishment of democratic republicanism with fair elections. Additional campaigns have established free health care in poor districts and the creation of a Health Team Project coordinated by the PLA’s medical department to create units of medical specialists and support staff in rural areas. In August the Young Communist League (YCL) mobilized 600 cadres over a course of three days to collect tons of garbage from the streets of Kathmandu.

Nepal’s poverty cries out for revolutionary change

Nepal is an impoverished country of 29 million people that until recently was ruled by a feudal monarchy dominated by the huge capitalist state of India to its south. Only 10 percent of Nepal’s population has access to electric power. More than 85 percent of the people live in rural areas without running water or basic sanitation. Malnutrition is rampant among children and at least one-third of the population lives below the official poverty line. While literacy runs a little less than 50 percent, it is only 39 percent among women. Meanwhile, Nepal’s infant mortality rate currently exceeds 63 deaths per 1,000 live births.

Nepal ranks among the 50 poorest countries in the world. The poor living conditions have fueled the militant consciousness of the masses and paved the way for revolutionary forces to enjoy a mass base of support for the armed struggle launched by the CPN-M in 1996. In light of the accomplishments of the revolutionary forces in providing for the basic needs of Nepal’s suffering people, it comes as no surprise that many in Nepal’s ruling parties are hesitant to compete with the CPN-M at the polls on a level playing field.

Source: Workers World, October 14, 2007

INDIA-CHINA PERSPECTIVE: NEPAL’S FALTERING PEACE PROCESS

Jan Sharma

India’s long-standing policy towards Nepal seeks to:

(a) Engage all political forces, including the CPN-M as well as the monarchy,
(b) Install a government friendly to India,
(c) Forestall any government unfriendly to India,
(d) Promote Indian political, economic and security interests,
(e) Thwart any attempt to challenge Indian supremacy and domination in Nepal, and
(f) Prevent Nepal diversifying sources of arms other than India. India’s interests in Nepal are extensive – from security to water resources for irrigation.

Nepal also shares a 1,880 km border with India to the east, south and west, and the best military talents among the Nepali hill people are recruited in the Indian Army estimated to be over 100,000. India has also refused to recruit a single Madhesi Nepal in their army obviously on grounds of their inferior military qualities. In addition, there are over 115,000 Indian government pensioners in Nepal whose welfare is the responsibility of the Indian Army Ex-Servicemen Welfare Organization (IEWON). It’s a huge network, given the number of family members and dependents, most of them in remote hills where CPN-M has its sway. The conflict-induced exodus of young Nepalis in India is estimated at 4 million and rising.

Top CPN-M leaders operated from India, giving credence to popular perception that the so-called “people’s war” was in fact a tool of Indian diplomacy. The meeting between Prachanda and leaders of communist parties represented in Parliament at Champasari near Siliguri in India in August 2001 and again in Lucknow on November 20, 2003 and March 29, 2004 was a huge embarrassment to India. In the context of the 9/11, Minister for External Affairs Jaswant Singh of India in September 2001 described the Maoists as “terrorists,” and pledged full support to Nepal to fight it. His successor Yashwant Sinha during his visit to Nepal in August 2002 expressed “concern over the clandestine use of the Nepali soil by Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence for anti-Indian activities.” Indian Chief of the Army Staff General N. C. Vij visited Nepal in April 2002 to discuss military cooperation.

India nabbed Chandra Prasad Gajurel, Maoist Politburo member, at Chennai airport in India on August 19, 2003 and formally charged him of traveling under a fake document to Europe. Some saw it as a “major rethink” of India’s policy [Josse, 2004]. Unlike Gajurel, Matrika Prasad Yadav and Suresh Ale Magar arrested in Lucknow in India on February 8, 2004 were handed over to Nepal without formal charges. The arrest of Mohan Vaidya, second highest ranking in party command after Prachanda, in Siliguri on March 29, 2004 was described as a “consequence of the alliance and bargaining between the Indian and Nepali feudal rulers against Nepal’s rivers and other natural resources” [Prachanda, 2004]. Indian security officials seized important documents, including maps outlining planned Maoist attacks on security targets in Nepal.

It was reported that CPN-M was creating bases in Bihar to target security forces in Nepal and that international terror group and “a country hostile to India” may use them to create disturbances in the area and thus had “security implications” for India [TOI, 2003]. Instead of a military solution, India wanted a political solution, as indicated by its suggestion in November 2003 for the formation of a national government in Nepal to resolve conflict:

The Prime Minister of India expressed concern over the serious security situation prevailing in Nepal and stressed the need to take up urgent broad-based measures to deal with it. In this context, the Prime Minister reaffirmed India’s consistent position that a national consensus needs to be evolved based on the principles of multi-party democracy and constitutional monarchy. This would require both the institution of monarchy as well as the political parties to demonstrate flexibility and reach a consensus to address the challenges posed by the Maoist insurgency. A representative government with the participation of all parliamentary parties, working in close cooperation with the monarchy, would assist in evolving a national response to the situation [Sarna, 2003].

The Indian policy has undergone subtle shift since a Left-backed Congress-led coalition of Manmohan Singh was installed in May 2004. Minister for External Affairs Natwar Singh of India visited Nepal in June 2004 even as Prime Minister Deuba had not even formed his Cabinet. Singh gave an unsolicited advised to Nepal: “It is only a representative multiparty government, working in close concert with the institution of constitutional monarchy, which can restore political stability in Nepal. This would also pave the way for holding elections to new parliament and tackling the insurgency through peaceful negotiations” [EoI, 2004].

After the royal coup in February 2005, India suspended arms supplies and asked China to refuse arms to Nepal. New Delhi also successfully worked on a strategy to unite Prachanda and Bhattarai within the CPN-M, then cemented the SPA to oppose the king, and finally engineered SPAM “understanding” in what was a tactical shift to an alternative to the king from its earlier stand that constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy [India Today, 2005]. There was also suspicion that a prolonged freeze on military assistance would dilute traditional military cooperation between India and Nepal.

An Indian pro-establishment scholar argued for a “practical engagement” with the CPN-M to ensure Nepal’s stability, a “democratic monarchy” and “its internal autonomy preserved from the growing Western and other undesirable influences” [Muni, 2003]. India has been successful in pleading that “no arms should be given to Nepal which are more sophisticated than those in the Indian armoury” because India does not want “the level of conflict in Nepal to be upgraded” [Outlook, 2003]. India after the royal takeover of February 2005 was no more talking about constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy but was seeking “alternative” to the king [India Today, 2005].

India in a sense punished King Gyanendra not because of his assault on democracy and freedom but because of his audacity to challenge India’s supremacy at the summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in Dhaka where it threatened to veto entry of Afghanistan as a new member unless China was simultaneously invited to join as an observer. The summit concluded with Afghanistan became the eighth member, and both China and Japan admitted as observers. China without even being present at the summit just tore up India’s Monroe doctrine [Mohan, 2005]. The summit declaration noted that “small states require special measures for support from all concerned for safeguarding their sovereign independence and territorial integrity” and that “protection of small states should be firmly rooted in scrupulous adherence to the UN Charter, rule of law, the strict adherence to universally accepted principles and norms related to sovereign rights and territorial integrity of all states, irrespective of their size” [Dhaka Declaration, 2005].

China

China has traditionally lent strong and unequivocal support to the monarchy but is likely to have friendliest of relations with anyone in the saddle of power. China would like to have a stable and strong regime in Nepal because it borders Tibet, its soft underbelly. China is wary of hostile environment in the neighborhood, and is watching closely the activities of a large Tibetan population in Nepal. It has also been recently stressing on integrating the economies of Nepal and Tibet. It is for these considerations that Beijing described the royal coup as Nepal’s “internal affair.” At the same time, it has categorically disassociated itself with the CPN-M, saying “neither the communist party nor any entity of the government of the People’s Republic of China has any link with and support for the terrorists of Nepal.” The official Chinese position has always been that the Nepal government would “properly handle its domestic issues” [Zhang, 2001]. It subsequently accused self-styled Maoists, which it described as “anti-government forces” of “usurping the name of the leader of the Chinese people. China supports Nepal’s fight against the anti-government forces and hopes for peace, stability and economic development for its neighbour” [Liu, 2002].

During his first state visit to China in July 2002, King Gyanendra reassured President Jiang Zemin that Nepal “will not allow the emergence of elements ruining against the development of Nepal-China ties. It will not permit within its borders any activities that undermine China’s interests” [People’s Daily, 2002]. The reference was clearly Tibet, which Nepal recognizes as an inalienable and integral part of China. Beijing, which shares a 1,400 kilometer border with Nepal, is worried by the presence of an estimated 35,000 Tibetans in Nepal who have fled from Tibet and could launch anti-China activities from Nepal, as was the case with the Khampa insurgency in the 1960s and crushed by the Nepal Army in 1974. It is for this reason that it has been maintaining a close watch on the movement of Tibetans in Nepal, especially since the flight of Karmapa to India in the summer of 2000. In a major policy departure, the royal regime arrested 18 Tibetans, including eight minors, fleeing China into Nepal and handed over to the Chinese authorities in Kathmandu in July 2003.

Beijing welcomed the move but Washington deplored Nepal’s handling of the issue which “not only violates international norms and practices regarding the humane treatment of asylum seekers, but also tarnishes the Government of Nepal’s long-standing and well-deserved reputation for tolerance and hospitality.” Nepal subsequently closed down the office of the Dalai Lama’s Representative in Kathmandu near the royal palace. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also stopped providing travel documents it had been providing since 1990 to Tibetan and Bhutanese refugees for third country travel. Nepal gave “unequivocal” support for the Chinese anti-secessionist law in 2005 authorizing the use of force against Taiwan [People’s Daily, 2005].

President Hu Jintao visited South Asian capitals in February 2005 but skipped Nepal. Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing visited Nepal March 31-April 1, 2005 when he described the king’s direct rule as Nepal’s “internal matter which has nothing to do with China. Nepali people have full authority to tackle their internal politics and development.” Li quoted the king as saying, “Nepal appreciates and supports the important role that China has been playing in the international affairs” [Xinhua, 2005]. China and Nepal also agreed to promote military cooperation. An agreement was signed on military cooperation under which China was to provide Nepal eight million yuan (Rs.72 million) to promote “stability, development and peace in Nepal” and “combat internal and external terrorism.” The Sino-Nepal military cooperation alarmed India.

Since the regime change in 2006, the Office of the Dalai Lama is back in business, as are pro-Tibet rallies. For example, in March 2007 a free-Tibet protest rally was held at Bouddha and Swayambhu, the two areas with a heavy concentration of Tibetan refugees, and a group set ablaze the Chinese national flag at Bhat Bhateni close to the Chinese Embassy. Celebrated Hollywood star Richard Gare, a well-known free-Tibet campaigner, addressed the Tibetan community to urge them to liberate Tibet. Then there was an American Everest Expedition, which demonstrated a banner urging solidarity for the "liberation" of Tibet. While the Nepal government has maintained a total silence on these developments, Chinese are worried by the changes and currently engaging major political parties.

Source: Telegraph Nepal, October 17, 2007

Nepal Maoists start anti-Dalai Lama campaign

In a significant development, Nepal's Maoist guerrillas are mounting a campaign against the Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama. The Janadisha daily, the Maoist mouthpiece that reflects the party's views, said that a secret meeting had taken place in the Kathmandu valley to plan strategies for an anti-China secessionist movement from Dharamshala. Dharamsala, in Himachal Pradesh state in India, is where the Dalai Lama has his government-in-exile, which is not recognised by any country. The front-page report Monday, with a photograph of the red-robed Dalai Lama, said China's growing interest in Nepal's political developments had made "some forces" apprehensive, and they were trying to foment anti-China activities. It said that last month Christian groups from nearly 20 countries had held a nine-day conference at a resort in the valley.

It alleged that though the conference was ostensibly called to discuss religious issues, it meant to add momentum to the movement to free Tibet from China. Buddhist monks from India, Nepal, Japan, the US, Britain, Germany, Uganda, France, Israel, Argentina, Chile, Iraq and Tibet took part in the meet, it said. According to the report, the participants discussed fomenting a secessionist movement in Tibet so that Beijing would become preoccupied with retaining the annexed kingdom. This would enable India and the US to intervene in Nepal. Despite pledging commitment to multi-party democracy, Nepal's Maoists remain anti-religion, following the way of northern neighbour China. Maoist chief Prachanda has ruled out allowing the office of the Dalai Lama's representative in Kathmandu to re-open, saying his party would not condone any action that could displease China. Ironically, it was King Gyanendra, whom the Maoists opposed, who ordered its closure. The new government adheres to the China policy formulated by the royal regime even while it has overturned the king's other policies.

Last year, when the Maoists signed a peace pact mediated by India, they said they wanted the same harmonious relations with both their immediate neighbours, China and India. But since they quit the government, the Maoists have started hardening their stance towards Nepal's southern neighbour. They have flayed the recent visit to Kathmandu by India's special envoy Shyam Saran, who asked the government to hold the stalled general election at the earliest and not to abolish monarchy through a vote in parliament. The rebels have called his comments naked intervention by India. India's diplomatic policy towards Nepal has been floundering since it helped a multi-party government end King Gyanendra's regime and come to power. China, on the other hand, enjoys the best possible relations with Kathmandu though it supported the royal regime and sold it arms and ammunition to hunt down the Maoists.

Source: Hindustan Times, October 16, 2007

Erosion of our Democratic Values and Unconcern of Political Parties

Chaturanan Mishra

Despite the fact that more and more downtrodden people have begun to exercise their right of casting votes and there is a new consciousness among Dalits, tribals, women and Other Backward Castes which deepen the roots of our democracy, this in itself does not result in strengthening the rights of the people. More Dalits are killed in India than what happened to the Blacks in South Africa during the apartheid period. Even elected Dalit Presidents of village Panchayats in Tamil Nadu are not allowed to function. Untouchability persists. Now the OBC people are launching more offensives against Dalits. Something new has happened in UP: Brahmins accepting the leadership of Mayawatiji; but it is too early to assess how far the Brahmins in general agree to end untouchability and give social respect to the Dalits. This has to be watched. More girl children in pregnancy are killed. There is no political movement for social reform though the society itself is reforming slowly. Gandhiji mixed political movement with social reform also to some extent.

The bureaucracy is uncontrollable. The colonial tradition of bureaucrats as the rulers and people as the ruled is continuing. Corruption even at the local level of administration has increased so much that people do not get even one-fourth of what is budgeted in Parliament and Assemblies for them. Rajiv Gandhi said people get only 16 per cent of what is allotted in the Budget for them. People are unable to check it. It has spread even to village Panchayats. The police has become more tyrannical. Lathicharges and shootings by the police are quite common. Even the Left Government of West Bengal is now no exception after what happened at Nandigram. In 2005 alone, 44 persons were killed in police firings. Between 1990 and 1999 the police opened fire 5994 times resulting in 1753 deaths and 6886 injuries. The same police is unable to check criminals who rule in cities also. Children are kidnapped and killed if firauti is not paid to them. Even in the central Capital of Delhi women are not safe. The days of Pattam Thanu Pillai, when he was forced to resign for firing, are gone. Politicians are party to it. There is a general feeling that all politicians, barring a few, are for making money. The old respect for politicians is no longer there. Similar is the feeling about political parties since now they don’t go to the people to solve their problems. This is the most dangerous feature since healthy political parties and politicians are a must for the strengthening of democracy. Members of Legislatures change parties for personal benefit. Politicians behave in such a manner as to prove that they have no ideology.

Though in our Constitution every citizen has the right to be elected to Parliament and Assemblies, as the election now costs a crores of rupees ninetyfive per cent of our citizens can’t think of contesting elections. Our janatantra is becoming dhanatantra. Though the Election Commission has recently taken some strict reformist measures, political parties are voicing their protest. Due to casteism, fear and communalism more and more veteran criminals are elected to Parliament and Assemblies as candidates of political parties. It is not safe to oppose such criminal candidates. Parliament is helpless in the case of Gujarat where thousands of Muslims, including women and children as well as even pregnant women, were massacred and so our janatantra is becoming gun-tantra.

Courts can help to provide some remedy and in fact the Supreme Court acted sometimes but courts are so much overburdened with a number of cases that it takes years to have a final judgement. It is so time consuming and costly that the mass of people don’t go there. Rich people use it to harass the poor. It is happening since the days of British rule and continues till today.

Political parties are a must for democracy. The old national parties are getting weakened and caste based regional parties are coming up. This gives us coalition governments. Though the formation of regional parties take democracy to so far unawakened people, the absence of a national party can weaken the Centre. This danger is there. However, so far regional parties have helped to strengthen federalism.

National parties failed to understand the new feeling of the caste people. Different castes of people want their development through their own caste or group of castes. National parties are dominated by high-caste leaders and they run the government. Backward castes united to change this and this they did through caste or group of castes organisations. While Hindu castes were earlier based on religious faith, now they are based on politics and they are changing their position from time to time. This may lead to weakening of the caste system. This problem needs to be tackled in the national interest. Now Dalits strongly protest and what happened in Rajasthan for reservation of Gujjars as tribal people is a serious warning. The tribal people’s position is worse than even the Dalits and poor Muslims. All over India except the North-East they are coming under the influence of Maoists. Very often policemen are killed by them. Terrorised government officials, contractors, truck owners pay them levy. They are equipping themselves with modern arms. They are spreading now in the plains too. Farmers are also paying them do kathia, that is, the produce of two kathas per acre. With its present policy towards the poor the government cannot stop this development.

The poor people are unable to maintain themselves in the rural areas due to the agricultural crisis; they are coming to cities and get shelter in slums making jhopris. Now the government and even the courts are evicting them without giving shelter. No political party takes up their cause and ultimately they may go over to the Maoists. Farmers are in a serious crises. According to 59th National Sample Survey, a majority of small and marginal farmers are unable to make both ends meet. In the post-liberalisation period and after India joined the WTO, production and productivity of agriculture has been heavily reduced. The growth of agriculture has reduced from 3.08 per cent in 1980-90 to 2.65 per cent in 1991-2000 due to reduction of the Plan outlay in agriculture and also in public sector work in agriculture like irrigation and scientific research etc. While the input price of agriculture has heavily increased, the price of agricultural produce has been reduced. Because of this condition, 40 per cent of farmers have desired to leave agriculture if they get an alternative job. As many as 48.6 per cent of farmers are debt-ridden; of them 42.3 per cent are indebted to moneylenders at high interest and forcible realisation. We are again dependent on import of food at higher prices. Starvation and malnutrition have become commonplace for a long time. Now thousands of farmers commit suicides every year. No political party takes up their cause seriously to force the government to act. On the nuclear agreement with the USA political crisis has been created but on the issue of peasant suicides or for unorganised workers or against price rise no such political crisis was engendered.

There is a vast and big population in the poverty zone of Bihar, Jharkhand, UP and Orissa etc. Despite our high national GDP growth, they are becoming poorer. Every year floods from Nepal destroy them. Nepal being a foreign land it is the Central Government’s constitutional responsibility to tackle the problem but it does not. One can be certain that a time will come in the near future when this poverty zone will rise against the Centre and the Centre will be unable to suppress it.

Our people have deep faith in democracy but such issues as mentioned here are fast eroding that faith. It is time that political parties reform themselves to restore the people’s faith in democracy. At present people are highly frustrated and angry. Frequent spontaneous violent outbreaks are taking place. The police is the target. This has no backing of any party. If these violent outbreaks are coordinated which the Maoists can, then it will result in a countrywide or Statewide violent attack directed against the democratic set-up.

Source: Mainstream, October 16, 2007

Electoral system : Slight modifications can get results

Birendra P Mishra

It would have been a miracle if CA polls could have been held on Nov. 22 without implementing the commitments stipulated in the Comprehensive Peace Accord,such as making public the status of people taken in government custody as well as the names and addresses of the people disappeared by both sides (and also killed during the war), returning land and property seized by the Maoists to the victims of the insurgency, constituting the national Peace and Rehabilitation Commission, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a high-level Recommendation commission for Restructuring of the state, verification of People’s Liberation Army (PLA), removal of combatants recruited after signing of ceasefire and proper maintenance of the PLA in their cantonments.Ironically, the election has been postponed to sort out the differences on two issues — declaration of republic and the adoption of full Proportional Representation.

Similarly, the Interim Parliament has been summoned to solve the political problems that need be solved by the seven party alliance outside the House, not inside it.The clear mandate of Jana Andolan II was to establish a federal republican democracy in Nepal. Accordingly, there should not have been any hitch on the elected CA declaring the country a republic or even the Interim Parliament doing so. Similarly, the adoption of Mixed System or the full Proportional Representation system should not have been turned into hot issues as the present controversy can be solved by bringing slight modifications in each of the two systems.

It reminds one of Immanuel Kant, who, while propounding his critical philosophy for reconciling the two conflicting epistemological theories of Rationalism and Empiricism, asserts that both are right in what they affirm and both are wrong in what they deny. The Maoists are right when they insist on proportionality of votes and electoral seats. But, they are wrong when they deny the close relationship between the voters and the elected representatives. Similarly, the Nepali Congress leaders are right when they insist on the close relation between the voters and the elected representatives. They are wrong when they ignore the importance of proportionality of the votes received by any political party and the seats won.

The above controversy has been stretched far, threatening the very peace process. Ironically, the Interim Constitution (IC) has provided for Mixed Electoral system for holding CA polls without specifying about its two variants — Parallel system (PS) and Mixed Member Proportional system (MMP). Since the CA Members Election Act does not mention the adoption of MMP system, PS was adopted compulsorily.In PS, First-Past-the-Post system (FPtP) and List Proportional Representation (LPR) system operate simultaneously and independently.

Therefore, the greatest demerit of this system is the increased disproportionality in the votes translated into seats elected. The gap betweenthe votes polled by a political party and the total number of seats it gets in return is unbridgeable. But, in the case of MMP the gap between the votes received and seats won is bridged through compensation. Since this system too has two electoral systems operating simultaneously but dependently, the votes polled under PR component compensate for the loss the party suffers under FPtP component.

Keeping these facts in clear view, the Maoist demand of replacing the Mixed system with full PR system can be addressed if MMP system is accepted. Since disproporionality can be compensated in MMP, the final result will be proportionate — of course, not fully proportionate.Moreover, there are some inherent demerits in LPR system as well. It should not be adopted with a national list in a country like Nepal, home to more than 100 castes and ethnic groups.

The national list system also makes for weak bond between the electors and the elected. Also, since the size of ballot papers sometimes becomes very big, it has to be shortened to facilitate the voter, especially, the illiterate ones in identifying their favourite symbols without wasting much time. These reasons warrant the adoption of Regional list system in place of national list system.There should be 21 to 25 regions, purely for electoral purposes, each consisting of no more than 12 to 15 seats, which can be further lowered to 10 to 13 seats by clubbing together three to four small districts or two to three big districts. The regional boundary should be drawn based on language, ethnic composition, accessibility and development status of the area. The existing administrative boundaries of the districts will remain intact. Local people will be represented by those in their midst, thus giving political identity to ethnic and cultural groups. This will, indeed, be the first step towards state restructuring.

Source: The Himalayan Times, October 16, 2007

Challenges Ahead for CA Polls

Somnath Ghimire

Nepal is edging through the long process of normalization and reform, following a 10-year Maoist declared "People's War", which cost more than 12,000 lives. Now the Maoists are part of the peace process and a constituent assembly will be elected in November 22 to design Nepal's future democratic constitution. But the CA elections could be derailed by a number of factors, including the lingering influence of a king who still dreams of a return to feudal absolutism and, crucially, the willingness of Army Chief, Rukmand Katuwal to lead his army into a democratic future. The Eight Party alliance must move cautiously and united with a single agenda now to hold the CA elections on time. Let us not make the CA elections an individual party's agenda; this is our agenda, the people's agenda. We are in the process of making a "New Constitution" of Nepal, which will sort out all political issues and empower Nepali citizens.

After a "spontaneous and unprecedented" uprising in Nepal in April 2006, King Gyanendra was reduced to the status of a figurehead, providing the people of Nepal a historic opportunity to "get rid of the monarchy" and establish a true, genuine, and people-centered democratic order i.e. a republic state with federalism. Yet elections for the constituent assembly, which were supposed to occur in June, have already been pushed back to November 22. "Cultural mistrust" abounds—"nobody is confident" that the elections will actually occur. If the elections don't take place in November, it will be "disastrous" for Nepal and its future as a democratic state. Let us be united to hold the Nov 22 CA elections.

Nepal's transformation is dependent on a credible peace process. Although the Maoists declared a cease fire on June 2006, they continue to use intimidation, violence and extortion. The upcoming elections offer the Maoists an opportunity to transform themselves into a responsible political party. The CA elections must be held in November, then the new constituent assembly will have two years to create and adopt a new constitution. The constitution should ensure: a republican state, a democratically accountable military, inclusiveness, human rights, an effective judiciary and a federalist structure.Considering Nepal's history, a king and a democratic assembly cannot coexist. In the 1950s, 1960s and 1990s, such an experiment failed, and the king used his traditional authority to dismantle the constitution. Instead, Nepal's new constitution should call for a democratically elected head of state, which will make nepali citizens sovereign. We cannot accept that some people are born superior to others, with a natural right to rule.

The constitution should also guarantee that the military is accountable to the democratically elected assembly. The military has to be restructured so that it is more professional and politically neutral, and so that it doesn't dismantle the democratic process. We want more "inclusive, broad-based" participation in the democratic process. Exclusion is the biggest issue in Nepal and the process of developing a new constitution should seek to empower indigenous, dalits & marginalized groups. Broadly defined human rights, ranging from prototypical civil and political rights to economic, social and cultural human rights and protection of the environment should all be included in the new constitution. Human rights should be a kind of lighthouse, or central theme of the new constitution.

The new constitution should define the judiciary as the guardian or protector of the supremacy of the constitution, so that it cannot be as easily dismantled as Nepalese constitutions have been in recent history. The new constitution must create a federal state. Many would not think of Nepal as requiring a federalist structure because it's relatively small, but federalism is a matter of diversity, not size. Nepal is much diversified, and needs federalism to create local autonomy and ensure better access to resources.We need to be very careful that there is credence to concerns about Monarchists and Maoists during this democratic transformation. There is cause for serious doubt that the king and the military will accept a legitimate democratic transformation. And there is some evidence that the military did not fight wholeheartedly against the Maoist insurgency, bringing into question the Maoists' commitment to participating as a democratically elected political party.With these concerns, international support and pressure, especially in the form of media and civil society presence, are crucial to Nepal's current democratic transformation. Nepal got an opportunity to become a "new model" for legitimate democratic transformation. The behavior of monarchists and Maoists and the involvement of the international community will largely determine the success of Nepal's push for a democratically elected constituent assembly and its drafting of a new constitution.

On behalf of the North America Nepali Community, I urge the leaders of the Eight Parties to strengthen their unity and build an election atmosphere across the country to conduct CA elections fairly and peacefully. This is not the time to blame and quarrel each-other, leave your petty and self interests aside and work for the people's interest.

Source: The Kathmandu Post, August 1, 2007