I am as ordinary prabasi Nepali as anybody else in this forum or elsewhere and I share the same limitation or obligation as others have.
And I do not think I am left behind any pro-active prabasi activist. If I am, I will gladly reach there and follow the lead.
Anybody ?
That said, I have not missed opportunities to share my views and hopefully to influence whatever it’s worth with people I communicate privately and in groups.
I am sharing here a message posted to Nepal Democracy Forum recently.
In it, I am basically arguing that among two opposite ideas floating in Nepal’s civil societies regarding how to deal with Maoist for their incompetence (one, put forward by NC and other older powers sympathizing society, of creating socalled “democratic alliance” against Maoist, and the opposite one, prevalent among the left leaning civil society, of continuing to give “benefit of doubt” to Maoist), both are flawed and probably harmful or ineffective.
Instead, I was suggesting that a nation-wide massive popular demonstration against Maoist incompetence right now would be a better option and a necessity as well.
If that became a reality, I am sure Prabasi Nepalis will come forward to show their solidarity to Nepali people’s andolan just as they did in the past gathering in DC and NY. Why not ?
But मुख्य कुरा स्वदेशी नेपालीहरु नै तात्नुपर्यो पहिला । ताप्के भन्दा बिंड पहिले तात्ने कुरा त आउँदैन नि ।
Nepe
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
WHAT TO DO ABOUT MAOIST INCOMPETENCE ?
From: DK
To: nepaldemocracy@googlegroups.com
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 11:06:19 -0800 (PST)
Local: Mon, Dec 8 2008 2:06 pm
Subject: Re: Maoist's version of democracy?
X Ji,
With practically zero accomplishment in most urgent areas of peace,
order, good governance, economic reform and constitution making during
100 days of Maoist government’s honeymoon (which indicates that they
do not have a good/competent team on board) and then this kind of
empty rhetoricism (which indicates that they now are for distraction,
denial and aatma-rati), I think the time for quietly hoping or keep
giving too much benefit of doubt to Maoist is over.
It’s time for Nepali voters to be pro-active to remind Maoist where
they are failing.
I think it’s about time for a nationwide popular demonstration for
demanding Maoist:
1. not to belittle democratic republic
2. to establish and promote rule of law (start with disbanding YCL)
3. to make Constituent Assembly start it’s work
4. to give a good governance until next election
That is minimum and that is all. Forget about long-term vision for
Nepal.
Last Saturday, there was a talk show hosted by Sushil sharma on BBC
Nepali service on the theme of “Adhinayakbad Ko Khatara”. Two familiar
journalists, Shyam Shrestha and Dev Prakash Tripathy were the guests.
Dev Prakash Ji was for a pro-active democratic coalition against
Maoist’s dictatorial aspiration and Shyam Shrestha was for a benefit
of doubt and a strategic cooperation/engagement with Maoist.
While listening to them and finding that their goal was the same but
the approaches were different (with enough reasonable arguments), I
was hoping that they might find a middle common path. But I was
disappointed in that they did not. Nor they cared to.
I think what I proposed above (a nationwide popular demonstration
against Maoist incompetence) could be that common middle path for all
groups voicing the voice of common Nepalis.
It is not just a middle path but also a justifiable and full-proof
approach.
Tripathy’s approach of a political coalition is useless in my view,
simply because the non-Maoist parties are not on a higher moral
ground, to begin with.
Then Shyam Shrestha’s approach of cooperation/engagement is also not
working already. What more cooperation/engagement than this could be
done ? And as for his fear that the peace process could be jeopadised
by non-Maoist political coalition, he is most probably right. That’s
exactly why I think a popular demonstration is a better option over
the political coalition suggested, at least so at this point.
Link to the BBC talk show:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/nepali/meta/dps/2008/12/081206_naya_nepal_dec6?size=au&bgc=003399&lang=ne&nbram=1&nbwm=1
best,
DK
On Dec 7, 1:08 pm, X wrote:
> Y-ji/Z-ji:
> I was trying to make sense from Ram Thapa's bhaasan excerpts as reported by the Kantipur article Y-ji kindly posted. Ram Thapa states five basic principles of constitution building.
> The First:
> New constitution will end the dominance of strong people in democracy and will define competitive politics in a new way....
> "... People of the same status will compete with one another," said Thapa. "We will not allow it to be a democracy of landlords, corrupt and feudal people."
> The Second:
> The new constitution will rule out the establishment of any form of monarchy.
> The Third:
> The CPN (Maoist) would not let foreign powers have any influence on decisions to be made in new Nepal, Thapa said.
> "We don't need a country where we have to implement the decisions of foreign powers," Thapa said. "We want to bring a nationalist constitution where Nepalis themselves will make decisions for the country."
> The fourth: He said his party would not let any dictatorial rule in the country and is in favour of democracy.
> Thapa said that the fifth feature of the meet was ending the centralized structure and establishing a new federal structure to ensure the rights and identities of people from various castes, languages, classes and geographical regions.
> Rhetorically speaking from a hard core communist point of view to a similar audience, the first principle does not sound out of line. Though not so clearly stated in the article, it does reiterate the ideology/vision of the Maoist revolution - the principle of dividing the society into feudal and proletariat classes and releasing the forces of intra-class struggle to level the playing field. While we agree on the undue influence of power and money in politics, this is the part of the communist doctrine that we all dread the most. While all the Maoists and UML for that matter agree on this ideologically, this also seems to be at the core of the intra-party and inter-party tactical conflict within the Maoist party and between the Maoists and UML. The communist movements around the world have failed in the management of this aspect of social engineering. There is no reason to believe that this can succeed in Nepal.
> The remaining four principles have common meeting ground with the rest of non-communist and non-royalist liberal democrats.
> The second principle on Monarchy -- does any other party in Nepal -- except for RPP, want to bring back Monarchy? Except for tactical election time proclamations during the last CA election, the NC and UML have not categorically stated their stance on monarchy. Many within NC and UML clearly harbor constitutional monarchy or cultural monarchy point of view.
> The third principle on nationalism -- given the independent character of Nepali psyche -- does any party in Nepal dare to disagree with this concept of non-interference from foreign interests in Nepal? I think this is where the Maoists and the royalists have a stronger bond!
> The fourth principle on autocracy or dictatorship -- Any problem here for anyone? The Maoists and the royalists are the prime suspects to go authoritarian. If they state that they want to be democratic -- they should be held responsible to their commitments and the other parties should work with the Maoists to institutionalize the fundamentals of democracy.
> The fifth one -- the principle of decentralization -- who can disagree with this one? For decades -- since Mahendra's experiment on decentralization -- planners have recognized that decentralization is the key to Nepal's progress. What Maoists are doing is trying to extend this politically so that the centralized power in Kathmandu (which is corrupt at the feudal core) is weekend while strengthening the ethnic and regional power at the countryside.
> While the danger of decentralization (federal structure) is fragmentation of the country of Nepal as we know it, the opportunity to disintegrate and regroup from the bottom up to build a New Nepal remains a challenge. This is where the intent of the regional parties, specifically the Madhesi parties' right of self-determination of 'ek Madhesh ek Pradesh' needs to be clarified within the context of remaining within or, if needed, seceding from the federal structure of the nation of Nepal.
> We are witnessing a socio-revolutionary process at work in Nepal. Nepotism, corruption, and age-old discriminatory practices (I collectively call them 'khaoist' practices) are at the core of power structure in Kathmandu. Until this termite is under control (it would will be an egalitarian dream to eliminate them completely), no political power in Kathmandu can serve the people and sustain the growth of Nepal. Until constitution is developed and practiced by involving all citizens of Nepal, besides the elitists and corrupt politicians in Kathmandu, human rights, democracy, socio-political stability, and the national integrity of Nepal will always be at risk.
> My dui cents
> X
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Z
> To: Nepal Democracy Group in NA
> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 9:43 AM
> Subject: [ND] Re: Maoist's version of democracy?
> Y-ji,
> I think that the Maoists are too engraved into their own contradictions and are KIM KARTABYA BIMUDH!
> The reality is too far from what they had perceived earlier. I have been always saying that they aught to turn around 180 degree from the position they were having when they were in the jungle. The enertia factor is one and realization of the reality is another.
> With best wishes,
> Z
> > On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:29 AM, Y wrote:
> > > We have heard of "guided democracy", "people's democracy" and other forms of
> > > qualified democracies. Maoist leader Mr. Thapa now envisions that the new
> > > constitution will require "democracy of equals" in Nepal - see below. Does
> > > this mean separate elections from among the rich, poor, strong, and weak in
> > > Nepal? Is this the Maoist utopia? Or is this the democracy of the
> > > proletariat?
> > > One can continue to plan social and political engineering, but unless there
> > > is an open process that respects the freedom and liberty of everyone, the
> > > ideal stage may never be reached. I think there is no shortcut to a journey
> > > towards an egalitarian society and a robust democracy. To get better, a
> > > society must go through many years of democratic practice and incremental
> > > improvements in the process, policy and programs. There is no ideal or
> > > final state.
> > > http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=169456
> > > --
> > > Y
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
