Summary of report:

The unilateral ceasefire announced by the Maoists could lead to
resolution of Nepal's worsening civil war, but only if the international
community changes its approach, especially towards the ineffective and
divisive monarchy. In the seven months since the royal coup, there has
been a significant increase in violence. The international policy of
encouraging cooperation between the palace and the political parties is
at a dead end. However, the coup also unintentionally prompted a
tentative dialogue between the political parties and the Maoist
insurgents, which is making progress towards developing an agenda for
negotiations. There may still be a place for the monarchy in a new
Nepalese political constellation, but efforts should now be concentrated
on restoring peace and democracy, not preserving or defining the royal
role.

You can find the full report at
- http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3664&f=1

____________________________________________________

International Crisis Group is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental
organisation working to prevent and resolve deadly conflict around the
world. Please take a moment to visit its website at www.crisisgroup.org,
where you can access all Crisis Group publications as well as many other
conflict prevention resources. While on the site, you may enter your
email address to receive free email notification from Crisis Group of
its reports on conflicts around the world.

The report is upbeat but I don?t want to see monarchy system in any form???.it is outdated system and need to abolish totally??..I strongly believe only elected person has right to be head of country???no matter where

I strongly recommend reading the entire report... it is very well written and gives a good summary of the current state of affairs...

I found it quited biased, i.e., it is unncessarily critical of the King. I am not saying the King is always right and should not be offered constructive criticism for his actions, but being unnecessarily harsh towards the institution for taking a stand against the insurgency is, in my humble opinion, reflection of the western biases towards the monarchy, and their sheer ignorance of the Maoist ways. For example, the report suggests that the governmnet reciproacte the ceasefire and work towards resolving the crisis. But, who knows for real waht is cooking inside the Maoist camp? What is this 'sudden" ceasefire for? is there anyway to find out that they (the Maoists) are not using this time to regroup/rearm or restructure their party and army? Unless the Maoists are open about their activities and a little more democratic in their dealing with the outsiders, I don't think the governmnet has to believe in whatever they (the Maoists) feed to the press and the outside world.

Also the whole ceasefire decision by the Maoists is contradictory to their policy. They said they will fight the Royal governmnet till the end, and they have repeatedly rejected holding talks with this Post Feb 1 govt. And all of a sudden there's a unilateral ceasefire. There's something more to it that meets the eye. And I don't think the governmnet should be blamed for not reciprocating the ceasefire because the Maoists haven't laid down their arms and have agreed to enter into negotiations with the governmnet. In this scenario, the governmnet has to be cautious because, as I wrote above, its hard to tell waht is happening inside the Maoist camp. Maybe the Maoists are honest (it is difficult to comment on their honesty), but they do need to prove it to the HMG and the world.

Regarding the civil society's opposition to the King. Look at who makes our civil society. Its all those frustrated Congressis and UML supporters and some disappointed Royalists who didn't get good offices after the Feb 1 takeover. Does Nepal have an impartial civil society? No. Its either NC civil society or UML civil society or swantantra buddhijibis affiliated with one of the two parties. So I won't take the civil socity's or whatever it is, opinion seriously because it does not reflect the view of the majority of the people.

Democracy is not the optipon, remedy/solution at this time. What we need is the rule of law and a clear stand vis-a-vis the Maoists. Our nation, as Arnico wrote for the nation a year ago, needs a national consensus regarding the Maoists. Either we all support the Maoists or we all support the King. Will the Maoists turn democratic in the sense we understand the word today or they will try to impose their People's Democratic Dictatorship? The Maoists have to be clear on what their objective is, hoina? Unlike some janne sunne people here, I don't see the Maoists settle for anything less. They will want their state, and I don't see how they can afford to be different from their Cambodian, Chinese, Russian predecessors. Do they have an alternative way of imposing and implementing their economic, political strategy without becoming "totalitarian"? If they have that, they have to tell us just how they will go about managing the state once they take control in a clear, sensible, jargon free, simple language that we can understand. Unless they don't do it, I have my doubts and fears reagrding the Maoists and the future of Nepal.


I don't see the situation taking any good turn any time soon, whether we implemt those ICG reccomendations or not. Things will keep on getting messy. The political parties, not the KING, should be blamed for the mess that Nepal is in right now. If the Parties make their stand clear, i.e., whose side they support and have either a clear stand against the King or the Maoists, it is impossible to make any progress. The nation is in for a long civil war, and that's that! As I see it, only Bhagwaan Pashupatinath can save Nepal from sliding into further chaos..

. Unless they don't do it, I have my doubts and fears reagrding the Maoists and the future of Nepal= unless they do it,

Just for the record, IF, in the article in the Nation magazine, I did NOT write that Nepal needs a "national consensus regarding the Maoists. Either we all support the Maoists or we all support the King."

PLEASE DO NOT MISQUOTE ME. I NEVER NEVER NEVER SUGGESTED THAT WE ALL SUPPORT THE MAOISTS OR ALL SUPPORT THE KING.


I wrote an article suggesting ways to build a national concensus about the country's future... a future that is promising for all Nepalis, and that includes the best of each side's goals...but I also listed concessions and compromises that each side needs to be willing to make in order build trust and be able to start talking. And one of the points I included was the king showing a willingness to step down.

I will try to find a copy of that article and post it here... although I doubt that it is still relevant in its entirety. Ironically Gyanendra Shah's unwillingness to make compromises (and the message he has given the country through events like February 1st and the appointment of people like Tulsi Giri and Jagat Gauchan) has facilitated the task of building of a concensus in the rest of the country outside the fences of Narayanhiti and Nagarjun.

oops... that list of concessions was not part of that Nation article but of a different article. But, the rest of my points hold, and I was still misquoted.

Here is the text of the article that I submitted to The Nation magazine in early November 2004, shortly after the Dashain ceasefire ended:


Peace by Concensus

By Arnico K. Panday


Once again Nepal?s common citizens are yearning for peace, while the warring parties have just ended another, albeit brief, period when they were not shooting at eachother. The hope that the Dashain ceasefire would bring peace talk is shattered. Since the failed peace talks of Summer 2003 thousands of people have died, tens of thousands more have been orphaned, widowed or displaced, billions of rupees of property has been damaged, and even more rupees have been diverted away from essential development activities into militarization. We don?t know when the next peace talks will be, it is time to start thinking about how to structure them so that they succeed.

To date Nepal?s peace talks have been preceded by and dominated by presenting lists of demands and at best arguing about them. They have been dominated by points of disagreement that have polarized the participants? disagreements about the best form of government for Nepal, and how to choose it. That has distracted attention away from something much larger ? something that may hold the seed for a resolution of the conflict: We are all fighting to create and to protect a better future for Nepal and its citizens. We should focus on clarifying and then achieving that shared goal rather than fighting about the means to achieve it.

Compared to many other countries experiencing civil war, Nepal is lucky that it is not torn apart along religious or ethnic lines. Our war is among groups fighting about how to structure the government that builds a better Nepal, and that too in a country of citizens who mostly don?t take sides and just want peace and a better Nepal. During the next round of peace talks, let us not get bogged down by starting with lists of demands that we immediately and irreconcilably disagree about, but instead step back and start to talk about what we do agree about. Let us start by building a widening concensus about the features of the better Nepal that we have been fighting for. Once we have a fairly comprehensive shared picture of the better Nepal, it will be easier to agree about the most suitable form of government.

I suggest that when we sit down for the next round of peace talks, let us all ? royalists, maoists, democrats -- face a big blackboard upon which we together brainstorm one statement at a time that we AGREE about, working together to find ways to phrase them such that they are agreeable to all of us. Let us start with the most obvious and undisputable ones. What might these be? Let me suggest a few examples:

? Nepal should continue to exist as a sovereign nation.

? Nepal should have a government that is transparent, not marred by
corruption, as well as chosen by and accountable to the people.

? Every citizen should be able to live safely, without fear for life or property.

? No citizen should face discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, or religion.

? The government should work hard to provide every citizen with opportunities to pursue a better life. Thus equitable and environmentally sustainable economic growth, as well as massive improvement in healthcare, education and infrastructure are essential.

As the pool of such concensus statements grows, we can start moving towards slightly more challenging, slightly more controversial issues whose phrasing might require more discussion. For example:

? Past injustices, neglects and inequalities must be righted. Areas that were neglected or under-represented in the past should receive increased development investment.

? Nepal needs to move towards more decentralized governance and decisionmaking.
? Integration into the world economy is important, but it has to happen in ways that we don?t get trampled upon.
? We need to promote mirrors that are not shy to point out problems: citizens and the media should be free to speak out about any issue.
? All sides of the current conflict must demilitarize, and defense budgets should be cut and returned to healthcare, education and infrastructure development.
? We need to recognize the trauma that has been endured by many people during the past decade, and to allow sufficient healing such that pain, suffering and revenge don?t undermine the task of rebuilding.
And so forth?

As a common vision for the shape of the country?s future emerges, let THAT guide policies, institutions and governance frameworks. Instead of beginning peace talks by arguing who should be head of state, or whether we need a new constitution or not, let us start by creating the shared image of future Nepal, and then together search for the best ways to make that happen.

The last decade has seen huge sacrifices, all in the hopes of defending and building a better Nepal. We have to stop the violence generated by disagreeing about how to build it by first focusing our attention on the features and attributes that we all agree such a Nepal should have. Let the suffering of the past decade not have been in vain. Let every family that lost a loved one, let every person who got mained, physically or psychologically, be able to look back and proudly say that the losses were not in vain. Let them have given what they did in order to build a better Nepal.

Arnico ji,

My apologies. I didn't intend to misquote you. When I was typing the message I tried to access the nation's archives, but couldn't. Now that you have pasted the whole article, and I see where I made my mistake, I will be more careful in quoting you or anybody else.

Thanks much for clarifying the matter and my apologies for any inconvenience it might have caused you.

IF, thanks for the reply. No worries.

My unvarnished impression of ICG reports is that:

a) They are well-written.

b) They make suggestions that everyone in Nepal politely ignores. If you go through
the past few reports, it becomes clear that hardly any of ICG's recommendations
have ever come to pass. This is partly, I would think, due to the fact that that ICG-Nepal is staffed by journalists and (left-wing) 'soft' social scientists (not that anything's wrong with either group!) and NOT by case-driven lawyers, poker-faced strategists
and number-crunching economists who specialise, say, on the economics of conflicts. (OK, maybe that's just my bias creeping up here!)

c) Among certain Nepali intellectuals, it's fashionable to start some sentences like this, "As the ICG report says . . ." or "As I read in the ICG report . . ."
They then say whatever it is that they want to say, whether that's in the report
or not.

Alternatively, if you want to be taken seriously in Nepal, stroke your chin, look far into the horizon, and start your sentences by saying, "I was reading this ICG report last night, and what I found really interesting is that . . . "

d) The reports are good as archived recent political history.

e) Talking about incentives, ICG needs Nepal to be in a perpetual crisis. Why? Reporting about Nepal's crisis is one way how International Crisis Group (ICG) earns its keep. No crisis in Nepal, no ICG in nepal. [hemce, ICG could be an employer of choice to those Nepalis with degrees in 'conflict management.']

f) That said, all thinking Nepalis should welcome ICG reports as another additional data-points to understand what's going on in Nepal.

oohi
ashu

Ass-hu, some good points about ICG reports IN GENERAL. Congrats. Now, let us contrast them with IMF-World Bank Reports.
(a) They are ill-written, without exception.
(b) They make suggestions that no one in Nepal can ignores. Backed by threats, they make Nepalese decision-makers cower in fear. Invariably, IMF-World Reports are forced by goons with pens more powerful than pistols. People who wanted to be journalists but couldn't make the grade and those who wanted to be economists but failed the test write these reports.
(c) Among rightwingers, it's common to start every statement with "The Bank says..." and end with "Bank's views must be respected".
(d) The reports are no good as archived recent political history as they are full of lies, damn lies, and statistics.
(e) Talking about incentives, IMF-World Bank needs Nepal to be in a perpetual crisis. Why? Because they need constant crisis to be remain engaged as a rescuer. It's an employer of choice of those with self-awarded degrees in manufacturing sweet lies based upon doctored statistics.
(f) That said, all thinking Nepalese should welcome IMF-World Bank reports as another additional data-points to understand what's going on in donor-circle of Kathmandu.
Om Shanti.

Shaiva,

A good effort at writing (reactive) humour, there!
But, frankly, you could do better.

Since I care about your success, let me freely share what I have learnt: Humour can be best shared and enjoyed when there is no bitterness involved. When you bring toxic emotions to humour, the audience looks the other way and laughs at you and NOT with you.

Good luck next time.

And hey, thanks for reading this posting, which does NOT mangle your name.

oohi
ashu