GP-ji and friends from Sajha and beyond,

Thank you for your concerns and emails.

At present, I am somewhere in South Asia and out of Nepal; so, I am as clueless as any one of you re: the real latest happening. Just managed to log in; hope this gets posted.

I just got this in from Kanak Dixit, who is in KTM.
Here it goes.

oohi
ashu
************

Royal Takeover in Nepal: Drastic and Ill-Advised

By Kanak Mani Dixit

When King Gyanendra sacked the prime minister and began direct rule
on 1 February 2005, he said he did so under a constitutional provision
which enjoins the monarchy to uphold and protect the Constitution. While he
repeated many times in the royal address his commitment to
constitutional monarchy and multiparty rule, the king?s drastic action on Tuesday
went patently against those principles.

Firstly, he was taking over as executive
monarch on the basis of a personal decision. Secondly, the royal
address was replete with castigating references to political parties, who are the
intermediaries for pluralism and democratic practice anywhere in the
world.

King Gyanendra?s antipathy towards the political parties is well
known and has been often-expressed, but by sidelining them completely and
planning to rule as well as reign, the king has removed a buffer between himself
and the rough and tumble of politics. To that extent, he has taken a great
risk and put the institution of monarchy in the line of fire. Clearly, the
king believes that the risk is worth taking.

Which brings us to the matter of whether Narayanhiti Royal Palace has
a trump card vis-?-vis the raging Maoist insurgency. If such is indeed
the case and there is rapid movement towards tranquility, with the
insurgents being routed or laying down arms, the royal palace may be able to
overcome the turbulence it has introduced into the Nepali polity. Peace and an
end to the insurgency would put the monarchy back on the pedestal as a
respected institution, but everything depends on how soon that would happen. At
one time, the Maoists did announce that they would negotiate only with
Prime Minister Deuba?s ?master?, so are we to hope that now with the king
directly in-charge the Maoists will extend a hand? We can hope.

Further, the Royal Nepal Army?s fight against the highly motivated
and increasingly brutal insurgents thus far has been lackluster. Will the
royal palace?s direct control of national affairs mean that the military
will now put up a spirited fight, and also that its human rights record will
improve from current levels? We will have to see.

What is clear is that this has been a radical step exposing the
institution of kingship to flak, when other approaches could have been tried.

Such as using the inherent powers of kingship to cajole the political parties
to work together and put up a political front against the insurgents.
But the king?s deeply held feelings towards the parties seems to have blocked
off this avenue towards resolution. The calls made since King Gyanendra
took over informally in October 2002 for an all-party government or
revival of the Third Parliament, all of which would have provided political
challenge to the Maoists on their home ground, are now for naught.

King Gyanendra?s announcement of a takeover for ?up to three years?
provides a long window in which Nepal?s highly successful experiment with
democracy of the last dozen years may be eroded. Unless there is a rapid move
towards resolution of the insurgency, it is also likely that the Maoists will
try to make common cause with the political parties. Although it is not
likely that the above-ground parties will go with the insurgents as long as they
hold on to the gun, it is certain that the royal action will add strength to
the insurgents? demand for a king-less republican constitution and
government, a call that has been taken up with alacrity lately by many politicians.

It is inexplicable how the royal palace plans to attend to the
criticism that is bound to erupt in the domestic political arena as well as in
the international community. In castigating the political parties, King
Gyanendra preferred to hark back to the Parliament dissolved three
years ago, while keeping silent over interim period and rule through
palace-appointed prime ministers. This is the period when the peace
and security of the country?s populace plummeted more than previously.

In the speech, King Gyanendra highlighted the great contribution of
the Shah dynasty to the creation of the nation and ventured that he was
speaking for the ?janabhawana?, i.e. the Nepali people?s feelings. While it is
true that the desire for peace overwhelms all other political desires among the
people, the question arises whether the royal takeover was the proper
way to address the ?chahana? (desires). Rather than remonstrate at the
political parties? inability to work together and opt for the takeover, it
would have been a much more popular and realistic move for the king to have used
his prerogative as head-of-state to bring the bickering parties together
at this critical juncture.

In the end, unless King Gyanendra is able to come up with the trump
card of peace vis-a-vis the Maoists in the near term, one can conclude that
his unprecedented action of the First of February has exposed the
historically significant institution of Nepal?s monarchy to the vissictitudes of
day-to-day politics and power play. Did the Nepali monarchy deserve
this at this late a date in history?

Endnote: As I write this on Tuesday evening, the significant
political leaders are all under house arrest, the media (press, television,
radio) is under censorship, the fundamental freedoms have been suspended, a
state of emergency has been announced, telephones (landlines and cellular) as
well as Internet are down, and the Tribhuvan International Airport is closed.

By Kanak Mani Dixit in Kathmandu

I as a novice of politics think, the King as taken extreme measure by removing all the buffers between himself and political parties.

Will he succeed?

or should he fail ..., his days are close to end.

I personally think its a dangerous move and could prove fatal to himself and the country.

Well planned though.

Is it Friday yet?

Does not he do things on Friday?

I respect Mr. Dixit as Nepal's senior most journalist, and have learned a lot reading his pieces here and there, every once in a while. However, being a novice in politics, and almost a late-started in Nepali politics, I have some questions based on reading this emailed piece.

"What is clear is that this has been a radical step exposing the
institution of kingship to flak, when other approaches could have been tried. "

What othera pproaches are/were there? Of course, its easy to blame the King. But do you believe we had other options?

The only option was: The political parties and the King work together to resolve the crisis.

I think this is what the King wanted in 2002, but the political parties were not willing to coopearate with the king then, or in the aftermath of Oct. 14, 2002. Furthermore, the parties were divided themselves. The King had no option than to appoint a govt. of his picking, and that's what he did.

The political parties instead of supporting teh Chand- govt. decided to go against it. The Chand govt. was making some progress (thanks to Mr. Pun) with the maoists, but the political parties through their street nataks, forced the King to oust the Chand-govt.

Then came other govt.s and finally Deuba again. Again the political parties failed to unite for a common national cause. Politics is not what "it should be" it is, how can I maximize my interest in the present scenario. First you learn how to maximize your interests in the given circusmtances then try to find the ways to folloow up on your ideals. Our political parties and leaders just wnated to skip the "interests" part for the "ideal" part. So they turned out to be bad players. In this context, the King did what he thought he could do: You have adivision among the parties, people want peace than voting rights, and the political parties because of their insistence on voting rights but not living rights of the people of Nepal were alienating themselves from the masses. This is why the King could take over.

The other option, which I think you have been proposing, i.e., resintating the parliament is making a mockery of the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Nepal which gave its approval to the dissolution of the house by the PM. The Pm was exercising his constitutional rights, and the Supreme Court, which alone ahs the rights to interpret the constitution, found it very much in line with the constitution. Isn't it practicing double stanbdard when on teh one hand we say, the Oct. 14 was unconstitutional, on the other hand, we say, reinstate the parliament (reinstatement of the parliament is also uncosntitutional because there's no provision for this in the constitution).



"King
Gyanendra preferred to hark back to the Parliament dissolved three
years ago, while keeping silent over interim period and rule through
palace-appointed prime ministers. This is the period when the peace
and security of the country?s populace plummeted more than previously. "

I am not well versed in Nepali politics but as far as my little understanding goes, we lost a gloden oppurtunity because of the constant intra-party and inter-party feuds and sadak nataks in the last 3 years. If the Political Parties had put their ideals to rest for a short period and had collaborated with the King to solve teh maoist problem, instead of staging Sadak/Galli nataks, the Maoist problem would have probably solved by now. So instead of blaming the King, I blame the political parties, their corrupt leadership and their unpolitical ways that led to both Oct. 14 and Feb. 1.

The success of this takeover will be determined by the results King Gaynendra can produce. I still wonder why the Maoists who thought of democratically elected parties as pillars of a fuedal system would want to lay down arms infront of a King who they consider the heart of that fuedal system and who does not seem very enthusiastic about sharing power with anyone.

-------------------------------------------------
"Honey, I hit you because I love you"

Is this the Grand Design that Girija used to refer?

yeah, seems like the same grand design girija used to refer to.

Mohamad Mohsin hinted this.

But Girija had no brain to take action how not to be the victim this grand design.... shame on him.

Prem_dai dude

Dont you know that once B.P. Koirala advised his close friends in Nepali Congress that they should never ever put Girija to important decision making position in his party.
When somebody asked why B.P. Koirala answered,"Girija has gotta brains like haawaldar."

Please don't try to humiliate Hawaldar by comparing with Girije.

And Bp showed his disrespect to the post of Hawaldar (occupation). With that mentaliy within BP, how to consider his a leader??????????? Forget about Girije!!

Premdai
You are funny.
Rajech KC ko comment haru ni garna napaine bho aba.

A nice article on the matter from "Financial Times":
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/7d6e7afc-7475-11d9-a769-00000e2511c8.html


Gyanendra's gamble stokes fears for future of monarchy
Published: February 1 2005 18:34 | Last updated: February 1 2005 18:34

Nepal?s King Gyanendra was an enthusiastic conservationist of the Hindu kingdom's, before he was crowned in the wake of a 2001 royal massacre.

Most of those wild Himalayan areas are now under the control of Nepal's increasingly ominous Maoist insurgency.

Many believe that Tuesday?s move, in which Gyanendra announced he was suspending democracy in order to save it, will only add grist to the Maoist mill.

The king is likely to seek direct talks with the Maoists, without having to consult what he sees as Kathmandu's incorrigibly venal political class.

Nevertheless, the palace coup is only likely to enhance the credibility of the Maoists, one of whose demands is abolition of the monarchy.

Many among Nepal's population in the Kathmandu Valley and its Buddhist and Hindu hill tribes, will see the king?s move as a transparent attempt to aggrandise power for its own sake.

Scepticism about Gyanendra?s attitude to power dates from the moment his brother, Birendra, was killed by crown-prince Dipendra (who then allegedly turned the gun on himself) in June 2001. Many in Nepal still give credence to the rumours that King Gyanendra himself, or Paras, his deeply unpopular son, who was present at the palace massacre, were in some way involved.

"It doesn't matter whether the conspiracy theory is true or not - and there is not much evidence to support it," says S.D. Muni, an academic of modern Nepal, based in New Delhi. "What matters is how many people believe it - Gyanendra and his son are deeply disliked among large sections of Nepalis."

There is little doubt that the standing of the monarch in Nepal has plummeted since Gyanendra took the throne. Whereas Birendra's portrait was hanging in almost every home, King Gyanendra's likeness is notable in its rarity.

The monarch?s dwindling popularity has not been assisted by the antics of Paras, his only son and official heir, whose reputation for drunken thuggery is undisputed. "The Most Feared Man in Nepal", is the cover story headline on this month's issue of one magazine in New Delhi.

But Nepal's media, which, during the reign of King Birendra, had been reluctant to indulge in any criticism of the monarchy, has published regular accounts of incidents in which Paras has allegedly beaten up people in Kathmandu nightclubs and, in one case, killed a motorcyclist in a drink-driving accident.

As a royal, Paras can only be prosecuted by consent of the king. "Paras is a bad apple, plain and simple," said a Nepalese businessman close to the family. "He has done incalculable damage to the royal family."

But any such fall-out pales in comparison to the monarch?s gamble in suspending democracy for three years.

According to friends, the king is an intelligent man who would have anticipated international condemnation of the move. Furthermore, many sympathise with King Gyanendra's frustration over the corrupt character of Nepal's political parties.

But to justify his action, the king will need to settle with the Maoists and build a "genuine" democracy in Nepal.

Even assuming it were possible to accomplish either of these tall orders, doing so would risk the abolition of what traditional Nepalis believe is his family's divine right to rule.

According to tradition, Nepal's king is seen as an incarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu - the preserver. After yesterday, some will jest Gyanendra would be a more fitting avatar of Shiva - the destroyer.

The recent'?predicted' action by king shows his frustration with current political leaders of Nepal. Thanks to musharraf's strategy; king finally took a bold step to save Nepal from falling from the edge. This is obvious in politics; if one can't, the other does. Our political leaders were failures that made king to act himself.

India's current reaction is kinda 'flying your own kite'. At least, I won't be surprised to see India's full support to the king in upcoming political drama. King very well knows how to tackle India. So far he has only one obstacle i.e. Maoist. For this all the other international actors have to cooperate. So far This is not happening yet.

My opinion; It would be foolish to label 'ill- advised' until next political play.

During the last State of Emergency who scored the maximum amount of victory ?

tapai jasto neta haroo lay...

Thank you NepaliKoMaya, you said it right.... Netaji timilai laj pani lagdaina hagi? timi ra GP, you 2 should realize how important it is for our country to be stable , but you are a Neta what do you care, afno duno sojo banuna paye vai halyo hoina????
The more the country is unstable the more you guys benefit hoina ra???? that is why I am supporting the King because he has everything to loose and the politicians have nothing to loose, that is they still prefer to keep the country in turmoil and King g wants to restore peace, and bygod peace will be restored,

long live the king
long live nepal

Ashu, thanks for posting, especially, Kanak's writing.

Kanak did a great job by writing that piece and bringing to us,
the insight of the situation.

In last 2 years plus, KG tested the strength of Nepali Political
Parties. They could not gather any strength, it got deteroirated.
Primary reason for that was they lost respect from public because
they indulged themselves in corruption, Makune: Rawal kanda and
the way he supported Rawal, Girija: his deputies in NC: Arjun Narsingh
KC, the two most corrupted guys ruled the NC and his own daughter.
All these showed that NC and UML had no strenght to campaign
against KG, so his advisors in RNA possibly advised him to take a U turn
in Nepali politics. NC and UML fighting over revival of lower house or
local bodies clearly showed their indifference to people's welfare.
They should have realized this scenario. Last night when I read that
King G was going to give a speech, I asked myself will Deoba be sacked
again, I thought it can not happen. But, it happened. Now, if the
political parties wants revival of their status "working for the people",
they should walk and disobey the the order and if required get killed,
but make sure the internationa lnews media are around them. But,
last two years have shown that they are scared to return to their life
style before 1990. Now, they can not go to that stage. So, KG realized
its a right time to catch the opportunity and he did what he wanted.
Musharaff had already shown that when leaders are too corrupted,
the public will not follow these corrupt leaders.

Bidambana. Can Patrioits do something? Most of the patrioits who stay
in USA are middle class: have jobs of bread earning category, they don't
have any capability to raise issues in Nepal in mass scale other than
writing short articles in these discussion forum. If there was someone
without huge money, they could have funnelled to Nepal to move the
political campaigns, without money what can you do?

Finally, 2017 returned.

GP

yo ashu, gp, pp, gpp, npp sabai ko lekhai, hidai, bolai anee chalai eutai hola? kasto uccha bichardhara ko sampadakiya garnoo huncha wahaharoolay. yastai huncha, hamra bhabisyako netaa_jee ko jhalak. dhoti tanayra ghisarna naparosh 2099 sambat ma hai.


Jai Desh Jai Naresh

Jai Nepal

An ill advised move? Well who is to determine it as "ill advised"? Or any move by anyone in Nepal is an "ill - advised"? Time shall be the judge.

As of me, I dejectedly welcome the recent bloodless coup by Gyane. I reckon we all know, Nepal, at this juncture is between a rock and a hard place, and on top of that a naked sword hanging by a (thin) thread on top of it. Now at this point, I welcome anything that's different, and can give us hope for, if not better, ATLEAST some peaceful days.

Peace is the mother of all democracy. In essence, what i am saying is, peace is essential for any democracy to flourish. Clashes/arguments/discussions and/or even mild pugnacity would all be tolerated in different degrees, but enough of this barbaric killings of the fellow Nepalese. If Gyane can give us that, hail to him. But, well, what would he have NOW, that he did not earlier, that stopped him to earn peace for the fellow Nepalese for so long that Nepal and he, silently watch the butchering of humans and humanity for this long?

Anything that keeps me away from this STUPID, SELFISH, better be doomed politicians and these fawking maoist, with the hope that this another asshole gyane will not rape our dignity in the years to come.

In brief, I am cautiously optimistic. Could this the time that final Nepal can say farewell to woebegoneness or is it just another delusion?

Meanwhile, let me just pray/hope that Nepal once again will not be the victim of Sod's law, while even more distressingly being prepared for one.

Anyways, hope floats,
IndisGuise:)