A Mechi/Koshi Zonal Bandh has been declared by Kirat National Front, Madhese Liberation Front and Kochila Liberation Front for 31 March 2005 as a build up to the Nepal Bandh from 02 ? 12 April.

****

There are many types of Tharus, and Kochila Tharus make up one type.

Among the Tharus of Nepal, the Kochilas (who live in Eastern/Central Nepal tarai) appear to be the most successful -- in terms of educational attainment and higher incomes.

It's one thing for Dangaura Tharus, or Rajatiya Tharus or Rana Tharus to rise up for 'liberation', for they make up some of the most oppressed Nepalis when you look at their relationships with the State.

But it's hard to understand -- at this point -- what Kochila Tharus are to be
'liberated' from.

oohi
ashu

is this a hoax?????????

looks like hoax to me too....

why in the world they are beiing vocal about racism???

anyway... even if they think they (kirat, tharu or madhise) can not live together or asking for new state hehehehe...... why dont they think if they can come up with the idea of nepal bandh together .. then why dont they give a try to live together and forget the issues of bs racism to divide the already divided nation

just a thought.. if they can work gother for a nepal bandh .. then why they dont work gether to uproot racism????

Thanks to our politicians and their Indian influence. I remember the phrase that 'Little knowledge is dangerous' and this proves it. Sometimes i feel what king did is good because how can anyone run our country otherwise.

With my little experience in Kailali, the tharus i know are very earnest and hardworking people. The women are so creative that they make their own clothes and jewelry and they are mindblowing. One should see their multi colored dresses and tunics. But then this so called Non- Governments and our Netas from the terai have manupulated them really well and taken advantage of their innocence. I really wish few Brave Nepalis will help our country and the innocent people of the villages and lead them.

May God save Nepal...........

1. Even though they may be ahead of other Tharus in terms of education and economics, how many Kochilas can we find in Nepal's (on a national level) inner circles of political, social and economic lives?

2. How many Kochilas, if there are any at all, are enlisted in the Royal Nepal Army?

3. Are the Kochilas spared from obvious discriminations in various forms in a society that still thrives in a medieval concept of classism and casteism?

4. Would a Kochila be spared from racial slurs and other forms of prejudices at the hands of more "pahade-looking" Nepalis?

5. If an educated Kochila refused (rightly so) to assimilate into, and adopt various social practices of, the ruling class -- particularly that of Chhetris/Thakuris/Brahmans -- how difficult would it be for him to rise above a certain level of success, be it economic, social or politcal?

6. and so on and on...

Regardless of whether some are more successful than the other or not, the deprived ethnic groups of Nepal as a whole are still prone (to an alarming degree) to prejudices and discriminations that would only make sense to someone who would have a primitive sense of social relations.

To some, their (the oppressed) agitations may look like a threat to national unity. But, my friends, individual loyalty to the State, therefore national unity, is not something that can/should be demanded -- the State has to EARN it through total inclusiveness of ALL ethnic groups into EVERY aspect of Nepali social, political and economic lives. Fundamental right to be free from all forms of discrimination is not something that is handed out by the ruling class on partial/incremental basis whenever they (the ruling class) deem fit -- it, like any other fundamental rights of the people, should be readily available, without ANY reservations, in totality, to whoever, wherever, and whenever.

I mean, I hold strong apathy to the idea of BANDHS -- I wish the disgruntled mass sought other creative ways to voice their grudges, rather than resorting to BANDHS, which obviously affects a lot of innocents, and gravely damages the already-imperiled national economy. But to question their right to demand improved equality, no matter where they stand on an economic ladder within the composition of various ethnic groups, is to weaken the very unity that some fear is at stake.

Only the maximization of total and unhindered EQUALITY and policies of INCLUSIVENESS will herald a sustainable national unity -- unity based on coersion is not only temporary, but is easily faltered.

poonte .. i read ur posting too.....

ofcourse everybody should get equal opportunity and none of us is favoring racism either.... but how good it is to show your dis-satisfaction about racism or discrimination again in the street.. feri nepal bandh garnai parch ho????

nepal bandh baheka aru kunai baato chaina ta .. dissatisfaction dekhauna lai?????

no body is in nepal bandh's mood anymore.

everybody should comdemn it!!!

plzz lets find alternatives to nepal bandh.. in such a way that will not hamper public's life at the same time they will be able to display their dissatisfaction too.

For me I am against racism. But some of the issues raised by these maoists affiliated associations are ridiculous which gonna divide the Nepalese society.

I do not like the idea of using the local language for local administatrtion. This will divide the Nepalese. Thats why also I hate stupid Padma Ratna. Dumbas* is no good just trying to create problems. He is toatly with maoists than anybody else. He thinks that the KTM administartion need Newari. This will just divide the people. Nepal is a small country. We need to get rid of racism. THese things will increase racism rather than preventing it.

"I mean, I hold strong apathy to the idea of BANDHS -- I wish the disgruntled mass sought other creative ways to voice their grudges, rather than resorting to BANDHS, which obviously affects a lot of innocents, and gravely damages the already-imperiled national economy. But to question their right to demand improved equality, no matter where they stand on an economic ladder within the composition of various ethnic groups, is to weaken the very unity that some fear is at stake."

coffee3333...bihana alik coffee pugena ki ke ho? ;) You might be better off reading the posts in their entirety before jumping into rash comments about them. :)

hehehehe abu coffee ni sakkiye jasto cha.... hehehehehehehehe

lajja ta ma pani nepal banda garnu parla.. alchi laagyo kya malai!!!

Poonte,

Do you know for SURE what the Kochila (Tharus) are seeking liberation from?

I don't.
Hence, I asked that question above.

Still, I am struck that you could easily slide into this "Well, since they sound like an ethnic minority, they must be fighting for the same rights for inclusion and representation
that minorities worldwide fight for" type of thinking.

What's your basis for making that sort of an assumption?
Do all minorities always fight violently for inclusion and representation?

Would your thinking change if you were told that this particular group is a murderous
splinter group from the larger Tharuwan Morcha, and that it's hellbent on causing destruction and mayhem all around?

****

Poonte further wrote:

"I mean, I hold strong apathy to the idea of BANDHS -- I wish the disgruntled mass sought other creative ways to voice their grudges, rather than resorting to BANDHS, which obviously affects a lot of innocents, and gravely damages the already-imperiled national economy. But to question their right to demand improved equality, no matter where they stand on an economic ladder within the composition of various ethnic groups, is to weaken the very unity that some fear is at stake."


Well, to use an inelegant Texan expression, let's not go peeing down both legs here.
Let's be clear: Calling for Nepal Bandhs because one group didn't get what it wanted is stupid and khattam kaam. There is no excuse for this.

Democracy -- let's be clear (and I paraphrase here) -- is NOT about getting everything we want. It's about NOT getting everything we want. It's about seeing our opponents win and get what we hoped to have, and of accepting that outcome, knowing fully well that we will have another chance to get what we want.

As such, democracy is all about making compromises; giving up some now, knowing that we may be able to gain that back in future.

The trouble with the Maoists and the this Kochila group is that these are guys are UNWILLING to make compromises . . . so assured are they about the purity of their half-baked doctrines that they see no contracdiction in their pushing for their version of 'democracy' through utterly undemocratic means.

That is why, we should question their tactics and their arguments, without, of course, trading blows.

oohi
ashu

ho tehi bhara mero gyanendra sarkar le newpaper ma censor gareko................yesto yesto halla garera nacaine kura pani sacho hunhca.........mula yesto samachar nai na aaye pachi bhutro banda...........

garo cha babu banda garna..........kunai pani nepali priya janta ho bhane banda gardainana...........plus tyo madise font haru sabai ta moabadi ko against ma cha.......tini haru to ho ne lumbini ma moabadi lai kutera bhagako.

Ashu,

You obviously would know much, much more than I do about the specifics of conflict dynamics in Nepal, be it with regards to the Maoists, their affiliates, or the ethnic minorities' struggle for 'liberation'. Therefore, I am afraid I can only engage in a debate with you on a broader concept of the conflict(s), rather than on specifics.

Having said that, what I understood from your original post in this thread, which obviously lacked the new specifics that you introduced in your subsequent post, was that you were not at all attacking Kochilas' raison d'etre, but their very right to protest the status quo simply because they "...appear to be the most successful -- in terms of educational attainment and higher incomes" than the other Tharus. Once again, it is one thing to express your disgust at who some groups are, or what they stand for, or what methods they use to attain their goals, where I willingly have given you the benefit of the doubt vis-a-vis Kochilas, but it's quite another to attack ANY groups' very right to protest just because they enjoy relatively better standings than other minorities, specially when it's all too clear that blatant discriminations are still prevalent in Nepal, be it against the Kochilas or other Tharus, who, as you probably know very well, don't happen to be a "minority" in Nepal in terms of population to begin with.

On BANDHS, I don't think sympathizing with anyone's right to protest -- specially when one sees a legitimate cause -- while vehemently disagreeing with the way they protest is what you've called "peeing down both legs". RIGHT to protest and the WAY to protest are different issues, albeit subtly.

Finally, on democracy and the need to make compromises, I absolutely agree with you that it (democracy) is about "seeing our opponents win and get what we hoped to have, and of accepting that outcome, knowing fully well that we will have another chance to get what we want." HOWEVER, this notion of democracy applies only to politcal issues; and the issues of basic, fundamental rights of the people -- the rights to RECOGNITON and EQUALITY being two of the aspects pertinent to our discussion -- are far above and beyond politics, and are absolutely uncompromisable whatsoever.

On a similar vein, I have noticed in your other postings that you'd prefer to remain grey with regards to King G's proclamation of the February 1st. Again, Ashu, when it is about uncompromisable, basic, fundamental rights of the people, the issues are raised far above and beyond politics -- they become issues of HUMANITY, not just of politics. Therefore, when it is about uncompromisable rights of the people, there is no grey area -- either you believe in power to the people, or you don't; either you believe in absolutism, or you don't; either you stand for the rights of the people, or you don't. Poltics can be black or white or grey, but fundamentals of humanity are only either black or white.

Once the fundamentals are in their appropriate place, steadily fastened, then, of course, we can begin to talk about the process of negotiations, compromises, and so on.

Ashu,

I lived in Texas. Texans are my friends. Sir, you ain't no Texan.

In jest,

Riten.

Riten,

Agreed, I ain't no Texan.
But here is one source of that expression. :-)

http://bibliocracy.blogspot.com/2004/07/on-writing-well.html

***

Poonte,

I think we have a fundamentally different ways of looking at things.
Let me explain.

In my spare time, I follow economics research (please note: I don't do research
myself, for my job is NOT hard-core academic research-oriented, and that's fine
for someone of limited intelligence like myself.)

What I have noticed in economics is that you don't get brownie points for stating what everyone knows. You get respected for showing how and why the 'standard model' doesn't work under certain conditions, and then formulating hypothesis (that can be verified through data and evidence) to argue your version of what might be the truth.

Similar trends are also found in political science and other social sciences, where reputations are made NOT by repeating what everyone knows but by devising
clever ways of analyzing social-science puzzles, anomalies and perplexities.

Coming to the issue at hand:

OF COURSE, democracy is the greatest thing since sliced bread. OF COURSE, everyone should have equality before the law and a right to live in a discrimination-free society, and that they should have a right to protest and so on and so forth.

These things are so OBVIOUSLY TRUE that, let's have faith, we are all mature enough
to understand that merely repeating them like Radio Nepal news broadcasts does NOT add anything to our particular understanding of Nepal.

Some questions (to which answers can be very complex) could be: In the real world, and in Nepal in particular, why is it that DEMOCRATIC ideals -- which everyone from the Maoists to the Monarchists to the Parties claim to love -- are so very hard to follow and practice for our elected and unelected governments? What would make both kinds of governments more responsive to follow those ideals?

More specifically, another question could be: When there is clear anecdotal evidence that calling for Nepal Bandhs has NOT led to a single change in any policy and that Nepal Bandhs are widely unpopular with the janata, why do political and rebel parties keep on starting them?

These are all "wonder aloud" questions about issues that do not appear to fit the "standard model" of democracy, and I don't claim to have answers to these questions.

But it's disappointing to see someone as educated as you are -- doing your studies in international relations, no less -- to come running to say, in earnest tones, "Well, you know what, democracy is this and democracy is that", as if you were parroting a passage out of a primer on democracy.

Look, we ALL -- unless some of us are anarchists -- agree on the ideals of democracy. What we might not agree are about ways to achieve those ideals . . . and that's where forums like this can play a role. Rushing in to add the usual stock phrases about democracy is something you can well do, but, in the process, unfortunately we learn nothing from your wisdom. And that's sad, because there is much we can learn from you than these platitudes.

More later.

As for your charge that I "prefer to remain grey with regards to King G's proclamation of the February 1st", well, nothing could be further from the truth.

Unlike most Nepalis, I happen to think that Nepal's governance problem -- when
placed in a global context -- is a GENERAL one and NOT a unique one.

That is why, before shooting my mouth off about Nepal about this and that, I prefer
to look around the world and see what's been done where.

As such, I have been -- on my own -- reading up a lot about Africa and Latin America
to see what had happened there, what worked and what didn't, and see whether we
can draw broad lessons for Nepal. I have presented some of these lessons in my
pieces for The Nepali Times.

True, I can't cover the world in that small a space, and that some of the arguments have to be necessarily reductive . . . but, hey, I have learnt that "the Peru model" (Shining Path and Fujimori) wouldn't work in Nepal, the Chile model too (Pinochet
and Chicago Boys) wouldn't do. But possibly the El Salvador model (a negotiated
peace settlement) might just work in Nepal.

But my learning remains incomplete, and it continues.


oohi
ashu

Ashu,

When the very basic tenets of democracy are either questioned (Nepali pariprekchhya maa maattra bhayeni) by you on this forum, or threatened by KingG's supporters, or traunced by him, I, as someone who steadfastly believes them, would obviously try to counter by repeating the same very basics, regardless of whether they may seem obvious and/or redundant to some. Sometimes perhaps redundancy is the best instrument to make people believe in basic and fundamental rights of the people. Claiming that you believe in the basic democratic principles while questioning them is (NOW) what you referred to as "peeing down both legs".

From the UN Declaration of Human Rights: "...the right to personal liberty, justice, freedom from discrimination, freedom of movement, free elections and a free press."
[My personal footer: free press implies freedom of expression (also), and free elections can be considered relative to condusive environment.]

I am glad that we both agree that the affore-mentioned ideals are what we both believe in and stand by. Yes, disagreements can arise when we begin to discuss HOW we go about achieving those principles. More often than not, the problem is, Ashu, some people tend to question those very principles when discussing ideas on how to achieve them -- they seem utterly unable to realize the irony within the concept of achieving democracy through democracy. In democracy, the means and the ends are, and should be, one and the same. So, when people argue that authoritarian means are justified by the possible democratic ends, I cringe, for I believe in my heart that this is a classic case of if means and the ends are not the same, we shall never enjoy the fruition of our dreams.Therefore, all I want from you and others is to leave those democratic principles in an umimpeachable sacred place while discussing how to achieve them. Really, that's all.

As for the notion of "guided democracy," to which I think your arguments on whether Nepal is actually ready for democracy or not are leaning towards, I say, I am fine with it IF, and ONLY IF, PEOPLE are allowed to guide it, not an INDIVIDUAL. Once again, if we supposedly are to let an individual (in the current Nepali context, obviously the King) guide democracy, then we are attacking the sacred ends itself.

Nepal ko example ma...the so-called "guided democracy" during 30 years of Panchayat rule failed us miserably. Not only it failed while it lasted, but it had vast and negative implications well into the post-Panchayat years, hence the problems of weak democracy in the past 15 years or so. The "guidance" of an autocratic ruler, ironically, renders people helpless in terms of having self confidence -- they learn nothing but to RELY on someone else to deliver; leaves them bitterly unprepared to handle independence and freedom. The ONLY way, therefore, to prepare people for responsibilities that freedom should entail is to set them free, so that they can learn form their mistakes and, at least, know what it actually means to be free.

So, what about nuisances such as BANDHS? They have acted as good learning experiences for Nepalis. When they first started, perhaps, fewer people, the likes of you and I, loathed them; now, because of their obvious negative effects, many more wish we could do away with BANDHS altogether. Eventually, as people become better educated through democratic experience, there will come a point when enough people will loathe them that they will have no place in Nepali political process. Same goes for other social ills that plagues our country. For instance, corruption cannot be tackled properly unless there is a pratice of greater transparency, which can only be made possible through an open society; narrow and suppressed conditions, which are inevitable under autocratic rule, only exasperates the problem of less transparency, hence unsovable problem of corruption.

I agree we have had terrible experience with what was a weak and incomplete democracy in Nepal after the fall of Panchayat. However, at least that weak democracy held the basic mantras of freedom as it's principles, albeit some of them in paper only. At least we had a base on which we could argue, vibrantly debate, therefore help people become critical and independent thinkers, all of which is not going to happen under authoritarian rule. Simply put, KingG's move is, or any notion of a "guided democracy" would be, a huge step backwards.

Poltical parties ko dysfunctional process ma, at least if you went and asked an ordinary gaamle what he thought of the situation, he could have answered, "Khai baa, aafulai ta ke? Jun jogi aayeni kaanai chireko!" Ahile ko awastha ma kosaile yo jogi ko kaan chireko bhanos ta! Lagera thundela, pitdela, maardela bhanne dar!

I am sure some of you might be thinking what about "guided democracy" in Singapore, or someplace else. I have written enough for now, and have a lot more to do with regards to other obligations, so I will respond to those questions if and when they are raised.

Poonte bro,

Very well written, very welkl argued, but as always, I beg to differ.

1. You foucs more on political rights, not on subsistence rights. You assuem that political rights include subsistence rights and or both are detachable. I disagree. I believe these two righst can be detached.

2. If political rights were the preconditions for having a healthy, equal society/egalitarian(?) then how do you view singapore's progress?

3.YOu did not include the disagreements among the third world countries with the UN declaration and their own regional agreements that follow more holistic appraoch than the individualistic appraoch of the UN declaratuion and also puts a high emphasis on subsistence rights.

I will greatly benifit from your reply because I have a paper due on this soon.

3.YOu did not include the disagreements among the third world countries with the UN declaration and their own regional agreements that follow more holistic appraoch than the individualistic appraoch of the UN declaratuion and also puts a high emphasis on subsistence rights.

Read this as:

3.You did not include the disagreements among the third world countries with the UN declaration and their own regional agreements [Banjul declaration being the m,ost famous one] that follow more holistic appraoch than the individualistic appraoch of the UN declaratuion, and also put a VERY high emphasis on subsistence rights than political rights.

ISO,

It's 6:20 am now. After a long evening of work, I have been up all night, frantically trying to finish a project -- which I had told you about -- that is due later today. And now my eyelids are stubbornly refusing to stay awake, so I will respond to you later after I wake up, hai? Tyo pani time bhyayo bhane...

In the mean time, during the short breaks that I took from my project, I tried to do quick research on Banjul Declaration, for I obviously was ignorant of it. All I could find was that it was a declaration against female genital mutilation in Africa! I am not sure how that woud relate to our discussion. :s Can you enlighten me on this? Perhaps my sleepy mind wasn't capable of doing extensive research that would have produced different results.

Thanks!

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii...aiya ba baaaaaaaa...narayana! aaja ta thyakkai ulto bhayechha...jhandai jhandai timro sutne time maa ma sutna gai raa chhu. ;)

Poonte bro,

Banjul declaration is not only about female circumcision, it has more to it. It's more about African nations coming together to come up with their own human rights agreement which is a bit different than the UN declaration on human rights. It focuses more on "collective" approach and African identity. Also it focuses more on subsistence rights (second generation rights) than political rights.

I hope this helps.

For more, please see, Globalization of World Politics [ John Baylis and Steve Smith EDs./ OUP] or Human Rights and IR [R J Vincent, RIFA/CUP].

Come on poonte dai, IR grad student saying he doesn't know about banjul agreement is hard to believe k... :-)