Way out of current political impasse

By Deepak Gajurel

Deepak Gajurel

The government's decision to hold another CA election is jeopardized. Opposition parties are hiking pressure on Dr. Bhattarai to quit, while the Maoist-led government seems determined to continue.

While the nation is engulfed into constitutional vacuum with no clear constitutional or legal way out. 'Partners' of 12-point Delhi Agreement are now at odds on vital issues the country is facing.

At this backdrop, there are only two alternatives, one is to choose violence to further devastate the nation (preliminary signs of violence have already been smelt); and another is a peaceful means.

In case the present political players choose a peaceful path, there can be two means which will be legitimate, based on 'democratic norms and values.'

Creating an environment for generating a 'political legitimacy' with broader national consensus is one remedy for the current political impasse.

The next alternative is to revive the 1990 constitution, which will be a means of 'continuation of legitimacy.'

An analysis of current political deadlock and projections for the days ahead is done is a radio talk show. Please click the following link to listen or download the analysis in MP3 file format (duration 19 min 47 sec; file size 5.66 MB).

https://www.box.com/s/4b75b6748e40018fc053

The program was broadcast live on Gorkha FM (93 Mhz, Kathmandu) on July 30, 2012.

कन्तविजोग पत्रकारिता !

अरुण बराल

अरुण बराल

पत्रकार महासंघका सभापति शिब गाउँलेले संकेत गर्नुभएजस्तै नेपालको पत्रकारिता यतिबेला गम्भीर संकटमा पर्न थालेको छ यसका केही विशेषता यस्ता छन्-

१ .मिडिया उद्योगहरु धरासायी हुँदैछन् । नागरिक दैनिकले समेत पत्रकार र कर्मचारीलाई तीन महिना तलब खुवाउन नसक्ने अवस्था पैदा भएको छ भन्ने सुन्दा धेरैलाई अचम्म लाग्न सक्छ । नयाँपत्रिकाले समयमा तलब दिएन भनेर सौर्य दैनिकमा गएका पत्रकारको हालत झनै पातलो भएको छ । सानो देश, विज्ञापन आउने एउटै ठाउँ र पाठकहरु उही छन् । तर, पत्रपत्रिका निकाल्ने होडबाजी अझै रोकिएको छैन । हिजो ६०१ सभासदको चर्चा थियो हामीकहाँ त्यो भन्दा धेरै पत्रिका छन्, सबैलाई पाल्नुपर्ने पाठक, व्यापारी र सरकारी कार्यालयहरुले नै हो । कान्तिपुर दैनिक फुटेपछि अर्काे पत्रिका पक्कै थपिएला । औद्योगिक हिसावले पत्रकारिता घाटाको बिजनेश बनेको छ , तैपनि बिजनेशम्यान थपिइरहेका छन् । यसमा के नशा छ कुन्नि एकपटक मिडियामा लगानी गरेको साहु, घाटा परेर जुत्ता कारखानामा लगानी गर्न जाँदैन, अर्काे टेलिभिजन खोल्छ । कर्मचारी र रिपोर्टरलाई ३ महिनासम्म तलबै नदिए पनि हुन्छ भन्ने मान्यता मिडिया क्षेत्रमा जवरजस्ती स्थापित भएको छ । मिडियाबाहेकका अन्य उद्योगमा महिनैपिच्छे तलब पाउनु वा महिना नमर्दै आवश्यकता अनुसार पेश्की पाउनु मजदुरको अधिकार मानिन्छ, तर मिडिया मजदुरको अवस्था मध्ययूगीन छ ।

२. राम्रा पत्रकारहरु यतिबेला बेरोजगार बन्न थालेका छन् । नारायण वाग्ले, खेम भण्डारीजस्ता पत्रकार यतिबेला भूमिकाविहीन बनेका छन् । युवराज घिमिरेजस्तो प्रतिभाले राम्रो प्लेटर्फम नपाउँदा आफ्ना विचार श्यामश्वेत साप्ताहिकमा पोख्न बाध्य हुनुपरेको छ । मिडिया उद्योग घाटामा गएपछि पत्रकारिता छाडेर अन्य पेशा अपनाउनुपर्ने स्थिति देखा पर्न थालेको छ । र, यो विस्थापन एवं पेशा परिवर्तनको क्रम अझै बढ्ने देखिन्छ ।

३. देशमा पत्रकारिता पढाउने र बेरोजगार उत्पादन गर्ने कलेजहरु बाक्लै खुलेका छन् । तिनले आफू पैसा कमाउनका लागि धमाधम नयाँ पत्रकार उत्पादन गरेका गर्‍यै छन्, भएकै पत्रकारहरु मुलुकलाई धेरै हुन थालेका बेला नयाँ प्रोडक्ट बजार नपाएर कुहिने निश्चित छ ।

४. पत्रिका, टिभी र रेडियोहरु घाटामा जान थालेपछि लेखक र विश्लेषकहरुले पनि पैसा कम पाउने गरेका छन्, जसले गर्दा मिडियामा लेख्ने जाागर मानिसहरुमा घट्दै गएको छ । कतिपय टिभीमा बोल्न झिकाइएको अतिथिले पाउने पारिश्रमिक समेत बिचरो रिपोर्टर आफैंले खान्छ ।

६.. कतिपय साधा पत्रिकाका सम्पादकले आफ्नो चरित्र फेर्न नसक्दा समाजको अगुवा हैन, 'हगुवा' -शब्दका लागि माफ गर्नुहोला) जस्तो बन्न थालेका छन् र उनीहरुले देशलाई बनाउने हैन, बिगार्ने कार्यमा मद्दत पुर्‍याइरहेका छन् । लोकतन्त्रमा मिडियाको भूमिका कस्तो हुनुपर्ने हो, उनीहरुलाई मतलब छैन । काठमाडौंमा बसेर देशकै डिंग हाँकिरहेका छन् । अरुलाई सुधि्रन सल्लाह दिन्छन्, तर उनीहरु आफू कहिल्यै सुधि्रँदैनन् ।

7. यस्तो अस्थिरतामा मिडियाका नेताहरुले पत्रकारितालाई व्यवस्थित बनाउन र श्रमजीवी पत्रकारमा जाँगर भर्न कुनै पनि अभियान चालेका छैनन् । र, यो शून्यताबाट फाइदा उठाउँदै कतिपय मानिसले पत्रकारिताका नाममा रातारात अकूत कमाइरहेका छन् र पत्रकारितालाई बद्नाम गराइरहेका छन् । सम्पत्ति शुद्धीकरण ऐन मिडियामा पनि लगाउन जरुरी छ । केही सडक छापहरु हेलिकोप्टर चढ्ने हैसियतमा कसरी पुगे ? यसको छानविन कसैले गरेको छैन, कसैले लेखेको छैन । केही पत्रिकामा 'डन'ले लगानी गर्दैछन् । अब यस्तो भएमा मिडियाको चरित्र चौथो अंगका रुपमा रहने छैन । हिजो डनहरु होटल चलाउँथे, अब मिडिया चलाउन खोज्दैछन् । यसलाई रोक्नेबारे कसैले सोचेको छैन ।

8. यो स्थितिमा परिवर्तन आएन भने अब मिडिया हाउसहरुमा कामदार र मालिकवीच अन्तरविरोध बढ्ने खतरा छ । मिडियाको दुरुपयोग हुने खतरा छ । यसबाट मानिसहरु पत्रकारिताबाट विस्थापित भई पेशा परिवर्तन गर्ने र मिडिया कमजोर हुने अवस्था पनि आउन सक्छ । मिडिया कमजोर भयो भने राजनीतिक क्षेत्रमा भ्रष्टाचार मौलाउँछ र राजनीतिक विकृति अरु बढ्छ, गण्डागर्दी र डनहरु बढ्छन् । अधिनायकवाद मौलाउँछ ।

त्यसैले ,
पत्रकार भैसकेका तपाई हामीले गम्भीर भएर सोचौं र पत्रकार हुन खोजिरहेकाहरुले पनि बेलैमा सोचौं । अब नेपालको पत्रकारिता यत्तिकै स्थिर रहनेछैन, चाँडै नै या धरासायी हुन्छ, या त व्यापक पुनसंरचना हुन्छ । शिव दाइले ठिकै भन्नुभएको हो, मिडिया ऐतिहासिक संकटमा छ । पत्रकारिता पेशा काठमाण्डौका कुल्लीहरुको भन्दा दयनीय बन्दै गइरहेको छ ।

राष्ट्रवाद र प्रजातन्त्रका कुरा

डा. विपिन अधिकारी

डा. विपिन अधिकारी

श्रावण १४ - १२ वर्षयता नेपालमा अकल्पनीय दुर्घटनाहरू भएका छन् । पहिले हजारौं सेनाले सुरक्षा दिएको नारायणहिटी राजदरबारभित्र एउटा स्वाभिमानी राजा र उनका परिवार समाप्त भए । यस लगत्तै नेकपा (माओवादी) को तथाकथित जनयुद्धले अस्वाभाविक रूपमा तीव्रता पायो । सोह्र हजार नेपाली अनाहकमा खेर गए । एउटा धान्न सकिने संविधान र भविष्योन्मुख प्रजातान्त्रिक प्रणालीलाई आमचुनाव हुनै नदिई समाप्त गरियो ।

नेपाललाई कमजोर बनाउन यति कुरा पर्याप्त ठानिएन । यसका लागि गृहयुद्ध पनि अपर्याप्त भयो । त्यसैले खसजाति विरूद्ध जनजाति आन्दोलन, फलित विरूद्ध दलित आन्दोलन, पहाड विरूद्ध मधेस आन्दोलन, पूर्व विरूद्ध पश्चिमको आन्दोलन अनि शान्तिकामी नेपालीहरू विरूद्ध गरिएको आपराधिकजस्ता लाग्ने नियोजित भौतिक कारबाहीहरू क्रमशः हुँदै गए । मूलधारका दलहरूलाई घोषित वा अघोषित रूपमा टुक्रा-टुक्रा पारी 'साइज'मा ल्याइयो । शक्ति सन्तुलनमा परिवर्तन गर्ने उद्देश्यले मधेसमुखी दलहरूको सिर्जना गरियो । आन्दोलनको रापमा लाखौंलाख गैरनेपाली नेपालका नागरिक बनाइए । धार्मिक र सांस्कृतिक सद्भाव खलबल्याउँदै स्वतन्त्र नेपालका लागि बोल्दै-लेख्दै आएका एवम् सिद्धान्तको राजनीति गर्नेहरूमाथि सशक्त कारबाही भए । नेपालको मिडिया, सेना र सुरक्षा संयन्त्रलाई प्रभावित गर्ने प्रयत्न पनि कसैबाट लुकेको छैन । राष्ट्रवादी सोच र अभिव्यक्तिमाथि नेपालमा यतिविघ्न प्रहार इतिहासमा कहिल्यै भएन ।

नेपालमा 'प्रोक्सी वार' नयाँ अवधारणा होइन । तर आश्चर्यको कुरा के हो भने विदेशी भूमिबाट निर्दोष नेपाली युवाहरूमार्फत प्रजातन्त्र विरूद्ध सञ्चालित यो युद्धको मुकाविला गर्नुको साटो नयाँ नेपाल निर्माणको पक्षधर भन्दै प्रजातन्त्रवादी शक्तिहरू अबुझ बन्न रूचाए । प्रजातन्त्र र राष्ट्र दुवैलाई जोगाउन जोखिमपूर्ण निर्णय लिने बेलामा उनीहरूले आफ्नो सीमान्त शक्ति त्यस्ता पक्ष र प्रवृत्तिहरूसंग मिलान गरेे, जसको प्रजातन्त्रप्रतिको निष्ठा र नेपाली राष्ट्रवादप्रतिको समर्पण दुवै संदिग्ध थियो । अझ मुलुकको गम्भीर राजनीतिक परिस्थितिको मूल्यांकन गरी भविष्यको रोडम्याप तयार गर्नुपर्ने बेलामा विदेशी रणनीति अन्तर्गत आएको १२ बुँदे एजेन्डामा प्रजातन्त्रवादी शक्तिहरू महत्वपूर्ण पक्ष हुनपुगे । उनीहरूको बुइँ चढेर नै शान्ति प्रक्रियाका नाममा संविधान र विधिको शासनको अन्येष्टि सुरू भएको हो । यी प्रक्रियाहरूमा प्रजातन्त्रवादीहरू संलग्न नभएको भए मुलुकको स्वतन्त्रता, अस्मिता र प्रजातन्त्रको यति सजिलै कसैले हुर्मत लिन सक्ने थिएन ।

हारेको लडाइँको प्रतीक नै भए पनि गत जेठ १४ गतेसम्म मुलुकमा एउटा संविधानसभा थियो । यसले के गर्ने भन्ने एउटा घोषित एजेन्डा थियो । प्रजातन्त्रवादीहरूले यसको रचनात्मक प्रयोग गर्न सक्ने थिए । यसभित्र विभिन्न राजनीतिक दलले खेल्नुपर्ने भूमिकाहरूबारे बहस हुनसक्थ्यो । राष्ट्रवाद र प्रजातन्त्रजस्ता मूल विषयमा मूल्य-मान्यताका कुरा छिनोफानो गर्नसकेको भए मुलुक सकारात्मक बाटोमा जान सक्थ्यो । अब त्यो अवस्था रहेन । संविधानसभा संविधान बनाउन नसकी समाप्त भयो । अहिले आएर लाग्छ, यो मुलुकको दुर्दशा गर्ने योजनामा सायद संविधानसभा एउटा 'साइनपोष्ट'का रूपमा मात्र मञ्चन गरिएको थियो । सविधान निर्माणको कुनै उद्देश्य थिएन ।

समस्या जतिसुकै जटिल भए पनि सर्वोच्च अदालतको सोचाइमा अब के गर्ने भन्नेबारे संविधानसभाले अर्को निर्णय लिने अख्तियार राख्थ्यो । तर सभालाई त्यो अख्तियार प्रयोग गर्न दिइएन । सर्वोच्च अदालतले भनेको थियो- संविधानसभाले नयाँ निर्वाचनबाट नयाँ म्यान्डेट लिन सक्छ, जनमत संग्रहको माध्यमबाट आफ्नो थप कार्यावधिलाई समर्थित गराउन सक्छ वा अन्य संविधानसम्मत तरिकाबाट अर्को कुनै रणनीति बनाई नयाँ संविधान जारी गर्ने वैकल्पिक बाटो  अपनाउन सक्छ । यसो गर्न नसक्ने अवस्थामा संविधान संशोधनको माध्यमबाट आफ्नो आयु बढाउँदै लैजाने प्रक्रियालाई छोडी बहिर्गमनको उचित रणनीति -एक्जिट स्ट्रेटेजी) बनाउने जिम्मेवारी पनि संविधानसभाकै थियो । यसो हुन दिइएन । यो प्रक्रियामा पनि प्रजातान्त्रिक दलहरूको अकर्मण्यता दुःखदायी थियो ।

नेपाली कांग्रेस, एमाले एवम् सबै साना प्रजातन्त्रवादी शक्तिहरू आज पनि नीति तथा कार्यक्रम विनाको राजनीति गर्दैछन् । जस्तो नेपाली कांग्रेसका केन्द्रीय समितिका सदस्य एवम् जिल्ला सभापतिहरूको १५ साउनदेखि सुरू हुने राष्ट्रिय सम्मेलनको अहिलेको परिस्थितिमा विशेष महत्व हुनुपर्ने हो । तर यो सम्मेलन एकपटक फेरि एउटा परम्परागत संस्कारमात्र भएर समाप्त हुने सम्भावना देखिंदैछ । कारण स्पष्ट छन्- हरेक सम्मेलनको आयोजना संगसंगै एउटा एजेन्डा आएको हुन्छ । आयोजकले त्यस्तो एजेन्डामा सम्मेलन आयोजना गर्नुको मूल उद्देश्यसहित छलफलका लागि प्रस्ताव, नीतिपत्र र भविष्यका लागि नेतृत्वले लिएको निर्णय वा अठोट उल्लेख गरेको हुन्छ । तर यो सम्मेलनमा न मुलुकलाई निर्देश गर्नसक्ने कुनै एजेन्डा राखिएका छन्, नत यसमार्फत स्वीकार गरिने कुनै प्रकारको भविष्यमुखी योजना । मानौं यो दशैं-तिहारजस्तो हरेक वर्ष मनाउनैपर्ने महत्वपूर्ण चाड हो । यसलाई रोक्न वा नमनाउनलाई जुठो पर्नुपर्छ । यदि यही सम्मेलनमा कांग्रेसले अर्काको लहलहैमा लागि एवम् कुनै अमूक राष्ट्रको हतियार भई गत ६ वर्षदेखि यो मुलुकलाई गरेको अन्यायको प्रायश्चित र आफ्ना गलत नीतिहरूको निर्मलीकरणको योजना प्रस्ताव गरेको भए भोलिदेखि नेपालीको भाग्यरेखा पुनः गहिरो हुँदै जाने थियो । सोको अभावमा यो सम्मेलनको भयंकर दुरूपयोग हुने खतरा देखिंदैछ ।

एमालेको आफ्ना समस्याहरू छन् । मुलुकभित्रको प्रत्येक आन्दोलनको नेतृत्व गरी हिंडेको र कुनै बेला संसद्मा दुई तिहाइ बहुमत ल्याई विश्व समाजवादी आन्दोलनलाई पुल्कित गराउने नेपाली कांग्रेस आज समाप्तप्रायः स्थितिमा छ । अब यस पार्टीमा नेपाली सेनाका रिटायर्ड जर्नेलहरू, नेपाल सरकारका सचिव, राष्ट्रका ख्यातिप्राप्त समाजसेवी, साहित्यकार, इञ्जिनियर, डाक्टर, वकिल वा व्यावसायिक समृद्धि वा उचाइ प्राप्त गरेका व्यक्तिहरू प्रवेश गरेको खबर सुनिंदैन । मुलुकका दिग्गजहरूका लागि नेपाली कांग्रेस जुझारू क्षमता राख्दैन । मुलुकको सामाजिक, आर्थिक तथा राजनीतिक क्षेत्रलाई व्यापक रूपमा परिचालन गरिरहेका युवा एवम् नवउद्यमीहरूका लागि नेपाली कांग्रेस छाता हुनसकेको छैन । नेपालका जनजाति र मधेसी लगायतलाई एकबद्ध गरी प्रजाान्त्रिक नेपालको रचना गरी हिंडेको दललाई आज समग्रमा दाँत झरिसकेको बूढो बाघको हैसियतमा पुर्‍याइएको छ । यो आफै हिंड्न सक्दैन, कसैले डोर्‍याउनुपर्छ ।

मुलुकका जल्दाबल्दा समस्याहरूको समाधानका लागि कांग्रेसका राष्ट्रिय दृष्टिकोण के-के हुन् ? आज आम नेपाली भोटरहरूमा यसबारे कुनै जिज्ञासा छैन । प्रजातान्त्रिक नेतृत्वबाट मुलुकको समग्र राजनीति खासगरी महिला, दलित, जनजाति, मधेसीका मागहरूलाई सम्बोधन गर्ने योजना छैन । राष्ट्रवादलाई आधार बनाएर प्रजातन्त्रलाई प्राप्त गर्ने कांग्रेसको अभय इतिहास किन कुण्ठामा परिवर्तन भएका छन् । कुनै बेला नेपालको आर्थिक, सामाजिक र कूटनीतिक लगायत प्रत्येक क्षेत्रमा नेतृत्वदायक अग्रगामी विचार संवाहन गर्ने कांग्रेस आज कस्ता पक्ष र प्रवृत्तिको पृष्ठपोषक हुनपुगेको छ ? बुझ्नुपर्ने बेला आएको छ । कांग्रेसका युवाहरूले जवाफ माग्नुपर्छ, आफ्ना अग्रजहरूसंग । कांग्रेसको फाउन्डिङ पि्रन्सिपल्सलाई कसले अपहरण गरेको रहेछ ?

यहाँ के उल्लेख गर्नु जरूरी छ भने नेपाली कांग्रेसको एउटामात्र सैद्धान्तिक धार छ । त्यो धार भनेको राष्ट्रिय मेलमिलापको नीति नै हो । यो नीति नै स्व. वीपी कोइराला, गणेशमान सिंह र कृष्णप्रसाद भट्टराईको नीति थियो । आफ्नो जीवन र संगठन क्षमता उहाँहरूले यिनै नीतिका लागि उत्सर्ग गर्नुभयो । अन्य कथित धारहरू नेपालको भूराजनीतिक गोटीहरूमात्र हुन् । त्यसैले त यत्रो लामो राजनीतिक इतिहासमा राष्ट्रिय एकताका हिमायती वीपीलाई बिर्साउने अर्को तागत कांग्रेसमा उत्पादन हुनसकेनन् । परिवर्तनकारी शक्तिले आफू पछाडि उभिएका, आफ्ना समकालीन र आफू अगाडि उभिएका तिनै शक्तिहरूलाई संयोजन गर्दै मुलुक निर्माणको बाटोमा अग्रसर हुनुपर्छ । यसको अनुभूति त्यसमा मात्र हुनसक्छ, जसमा राष्ट्रिय स्पन्दनहरू हुन्छन् ।

नेपाली कांग्रेसका केही वरिष्ठ नेताले भन्ने गरेका छन्- 'वीपीले राजनीति गरेको नेपालको कालखण्ड अर्कै थियो ।' अब समय परिवर्तन भइसक्यो । यो एकदमै गलत व्याख्या हो । सत्य के हो भने नेपालको दुर्दशाको कारण भूराजनीतिक हो । शताब्दीऔंदेखि यही परिस्थितिसंग नेपालले आफ्नो अस्तित्वको लडाइँ लडेको छ । राजा पृथ्वीनारायण शाह हुन् वा बहादुर शाह, वा जंगबहादुर कुँवर हुन् वा वीपी कोइराला, उनीहरूले खपेको चुनौती एउटै थियो । फरक यत्तिमात्र छ कि आफ्ना छिमेकहरूबीच बलियो भएर बाँचेको एवम् पटक-पटक युद्ध गरेर आफूलाई स्वतन्त्र मुलुकका रूपमा उभ्याएको बलशाली नेपाल आज एउटा लाचार मुलुकमा परिवर्तन हुँदैछ ।

नेपाल आफ्ना छिमेकी र बाह्य शक्ति पीडित मुलुक हो । स्व. विश्वेश्वरप्रसाद कोइरालाको दृष्टिकोण थियो, 'हामी चनाखो भएनौ, हामी संगठित भएनौ, हामी  राष्ट्रिय र प्रजातान्त्रिक भावनामा बलियो भएनौ भने अर्कै कुरा हो । राष्ट्रियता त कति बलियो रहेछ भने यहाँ विदेशीहरू आफूलाई राष्ट्रवादी भनेर मलाई  आक्रमण गर्छन् । राष्ट्रियता कत्रो मूल्यवान कुरो रहेछ । मलाई आक्रमण अराष्ट्रियहरूले गर्छन्, तर आफूलाई विदेशीको मान्छे भनेर नचिनिने युक्तिका साथ । मैले तराईको राष्ट्रिय भावनाको कुरा भनेको छु । मैले भनेको छु, नेवारहरूमा भएको राष्ट्रिय भावनाको कुरा । यति ठूलो राष्ट्रिय भावनाको आधार हामीसंग छ भने हामीले हरेस खाने कुरा छैन ।' 

त्यसो भए किन नेपालमा प्रजातन्त्र र राष्ट्रवादको अगाडि यति धेरै समस्या छन् त ? यसको कारकतत्व को हुन् ? स्व. कोइरालाको भनाइ थियो, 'मैलै हिजो कसैलाई जवाफ दिंदाखेरि भनें, म बडो तर्क दिएर तपाईंको मुख थुन्न सक्छु, तर म त्यो चाहन्न । किनभने तपाईंले उठाएको प्रश्न मेरो अगाडि पनि छ । मेरो निम्ति समस्या राजा छैनन् । मैले काम गर्न पाएको छु । मैले जुन समस्याको सामना गर्नुपरेको छ, त्यो पार्टीबाट आफ्नै साथीहरूबाट सिर्जना गरिएका छन् । जुन समाधान हुनसक्ने समस्या समाधान नहुनु मेरो घरभित्रको समस्या भएको छ । मेरो समस्या नै घरभित्र छ । कम्युनिष्टहरूले ममाथि आक्रमण गरे भन्ने मेरो समस्या छैन । मेरो समस्या के छ भने मेरो लाइनलाई मेरै साथीहरूले बुझेनन् र मैले अब सामना गर्नुपर्ने कुरा पनि त्यही छ । त्यस्तो जमात बनाउनुपर्‍यो, नेपाली कांग्रेसलाई, हाम्रो जो धरातल छ, राष्ट्रियता र प्रजातन्त्रको, त्यसमाथि अडेर बस्नेहरूको जमात बनाउनुपर्‍यो । त्यो पो त मेरोनिम्ति समस्या छ ।'

आज कोइराला बिदा भएको ३० वर्ष पुगेको छ । उहाँका प्रधानमन्त्री भाइले आफूखुसी गरेका कारण मुलुकको भविष्यप्रति भएको खेलवाडको लेखाजोखा भविष्यमा हुनेनै छ । तर नेपाली कांग्रेसमा त्यस्तो जमातको सिर्जना हुनसकेको छैन, जसका हातमा यो मुलुक सुरक्षित रहन सक्छ र प्रजातन्त्र आम जनताको जीवनपद्धति भएर बाँच्न सक्छ । समय अझै फुस्किसकेको छैन । तर यसलाई समात्नका लागि कांग्रेसको झण्डामा वीपीका विचारहरू फर्फराउनुपर्छ । जुनसुकै झण्डामुनि संगठित भएका भए पनि समग्र प्रजातन्त्रवादीको पहिचान उनीहरूले समातेको राष्ट्रवादी धारबाट हुनेछ । यसै पनि अब गुमाउन केही बाँकी छैन । अहिलेको प्रजातान्त्रीकरणको आसन्न चुनौती यही हो ।

(अधिकारी संवैधानिक कानुनका ज्ञाता हुन् ।)

साभार: कान्तिपुर दैनिक, साउन १५, २०६९

Nepal: Condition of Politics and Law

By Dev Raj Dahal, Head, FES Nepal Office

 

Opening Democratic Discourse for Conflict Resolution

“The doctrines of the good life and of a just society—ethics and politics—made up a harmonious whole” (Habermas, 2003: 2).

Introduction

Dev Raj Dahal

The current political crisis in Nepal derives its source from the absence of a common national vision—a set of widely shared social, economic, political and foreign policy ideals-- and corresponding means to attain it.  This has rattled Nepali citizens’ hope for the promulgation of a new constitution by May 27, 2012 deadline. Without delivering a new constitution, the 601-member elected Constituent Assembly (CA) collapsed the same day over the rival conceptions of federal provinces—single ethnic identity-based versus multi-ethnic provinces and other unresolved issues. Instead of seeking their solution on the rational interest of all sides in the CA and build a community that is based on citizenship, top leaders simply sought to negotiate a constitution on the basis of partisan preference. The absence of top leaders in the CA at the last moment to address the demand of agitated legislators for a new constitution reveals the vivid reality of their “closed world of decision making” cut off from both public consultation with citizens and their representative structures. The ruling coalition led by Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and United Democratic Madhesi Front (UDMF) favoring single ethnicity-based federal provinces sustained a structural disconnect from Hathiban and Baluwatar consensus on major issues including multi-ethnic provinces they had settled earlier with Nepali Congress (NC) and Communist Party of Nepal Unified Marxist-Leninist (CPN-UML) which could have been a leap forward in the drafting of a new constitution. Prime Minister Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, Vice-President of UCPN (Maoist), recommended a new CA election on November 22 to settle remaining constitutional issues through a fresh mandate which is awaiting the approval of the opposition parties and the President.  Dr. Bhattarai also did not hide his interest to continue as Prime Minister of caretaker government until the newly elected government steps in asserting that “resigning now may lead to a return of February 1,” the comeback of monarchy. Inspired by mainstream parties’ disorientation from their mutually agreed goals of constitution, peace and structural reforms, ex-King Gyanendra claimed that his rightful place “is back to monarchy.”

In contrast, NC and CPN-UML marshalling support of 27 parties to counter what they call “possible Maoist takeover of state” demanded the resignation of Prime Minister in favor of a new national unity government based on five-point agreement.  Questioning the constitutionality of a new CA election due to lack of its provision in the Interim Constitution 2007 and no possibility to amend the constitution due to the dissolution of parliament, they requested President Dr. Ram Baran Yadav for Prime Minister’s removal from office.  President Yadav, however, reduced Dr. Bhattarai to caretaker status as he is no longer a member of CA but allowed him to continue in power until the formation of a new government. The fractious opposition forces have, however, failed to produce a consensual prime ministerial candidate to the President.  Aside from new parliamentary or CA election to draft a new constitution seeking the resolution of political crisis,  78 NC members of dissolved CA submitted a petition demanding CA’s revival to complete the constitution drafting task, other NC politicians and Rastriya Prajatantra Party- Nepal prefer the restoration of 1990 Constitution, NC leader Sher B. Deuba prefers the formation of an expert committee to draft a new constitution and its endorsement by elected parliament and the newly formed CPN (Maoist) led by Mohan Baidya prefers “roundtable dialogue of all the stakeholders” by going beyond the forces of current establishment. Article 158 of Interim Constitution stipulates the “power to remove difficulties” in the implementation of constitution. But, it is defined more as a medium of exit from authoritarianism, rule by fiat or Ordinance than holding another CA election. Without a broad-based political consensus, however, none of the options can open the possibility to resolve both political and constitutional crises. 

The CA that represented many of 103 ethnic, caste, regional and gender groups of the country except 20 micro minorities had sufficient social base of legitimacy. It has declared the country secular, federal democratic republic, expanded the franchise for social groups, generated the consciousness of modernity and expanded the base of public sphere for the citizens to engage in the debate about the contents of new constitution. Multi-thematic themes generated diverse publics—each with its own canon of judgment and criterion for stand but producing no more general interests. There was, however, multi-partisan discourse in the CA and even in its Constitutional Committee that defied the possibility for the synthesization of contending perspectives on the democratic law-making process. More time was allocated to Maoist chairman Puspa Kamal Dahal-led Dispute Resolution Sub-Committee of CA’s Constitutional Committee which was largely dominated by four major forces’ top leaders. Ten thematic committees of the CA had timely submitted their concept papers to the Constitutional Committee and the full Assembly debated them. By limiting time for public deliberation, political leaders undermined the source of public legitimacy to be derived from informed consensus of citizens on both democratic process and democratic contents of laws. The idealism associated with constitutional law becomes feeble if self-legitimation of law by parochial interests creates enforceable legal material order in society. “Law is a system of coercible rules and impersonal procedures that also involves an appeal to reasons that all citizens should, at least ideally, find acceptable” (Rehg, 1997:xi).

The resolution of Nepal’s constitutional crisis requires political wisdom of its leaders rooted into the legitimate aspiration of citizens, rational process that recognizes common ground for the relative satisfaction of all sides’ legitimate interest and become reasonably accountable to their actions. How Nepal’s future constitution can enforce public morality to be created by political leaders and also makes it enforceable to their own life and behavior? Or, will they be governed habitually by political realism of power equation, transaction, syndicate, coalition and less by democratic principles, norms and laws devoid of popular control? Do not the later patterns widen the gap between poor political outcome in the material domain in the present and utopian promise for the future? Or, will there be reconciliatory measures emerging in the public sphere for the establishment of a constitutional state? This paper narrates about crisis of state power and popular sovereignty, solution of key constitutional challenges, democratic constitutional order, changing images of politics, human condition, social justice and also draws a brief conclusion. 

Crisis of State Power and Popular Sovereignty:

Normally, during the “constitutional moment” citizens and leaders set aside their particular interest and internalize the concept of common good (Goodin, 1992:54) by building inclusive “we-perspective.” The concept of sovereign citizens obliges the leaders “to take up the we- perspective” from which they “perceive one another as members of an inclusive community no person excluded from” (Habermas, 2003: 56). Democratic rule is connected with the implementation of actionable rights of citizens—liberty rights, power rights, claim rights and immunity rights (Hamlin and Pettit, 1991:2).  Rights are related to corresponding responsibilities and the rights to citizens to enter into politics marked the conscious beginning of democratization of political power. Constitutionalism seeks to protect citizens’ rights and duties to address the gap between demand and supply of regime, constrains the arbitrary action of rulers, establishes popular sovereignty and constitutes a solution of the problem of political uncertainty (Goodin, 1992:108) by making the government law-governed. The state sovereignty and popular sovereignty are interlinked as both presume a indigenous determination of politics, law and public policy through four types of institutional closure: “a political one (democracy tied to national self-determination), a legal one (citizenship tied to nationality), a military one (universal conscription tied to national citizenship) and a social one (the institutions of welfare state linked to the control of immigration of foreigners)” (Wimmer, 2002: 9). The declining capacity of Nepalese leaders to set up institutional closure on all these areas and balance the universal aspiration of Nepalese citizens for freedom and the imperative of constitutional rule have perpetuated a crisis of state power, its ability to subdue chaos in political life and become accountable to international human rights standard. 

Obviously, state represents the right of collective self-determination of citizens. Citizens, as members of the state, obliged to act in harmony with its laws creates condition for peace.  But, national law as a reflection of fundamental rights of citizens often changes with the changing values of family, society, property, polity and the acquisition of new rights by them which is a precondition to provide stability through the efficient administration of justice. The sovereignty of Nepali people, as authors of law, can only be ensured if they are conscious of enjoying sufficient private autonomy as independent persons capable of self-reflection and personal morality and pursuing self-chosen goals for personal success in individual life and public autonomy as citizens able to exercise civic virtues of reasonableness (Frost, 2001: 348) in attitude and conduct towards others. Immanuel Kant argues that moral autonomy is the highest value of an individual. At the level of citizen, the value of autonomy assumes two forms: “one is political autonomy, the legal independence and assured integrity of citizens and their sharing equally with others in the exercise of political power; the other is purely moral and characterizes a certain way of life and reflection, critically examining human beings’ deepest ends and ideas” (Rawls, 1999: 146). 

Kant rightly states that unless citizens are truly enlightened they are not able to stand on their own feet and make their own rational decision (2008:256) as emancipated, rationally self-directed persons. Those incapable of self-direction are not free. They cannot maintain their self-dignity of citizenship and participate meaningfully in public sphere and contribute less to the formation of laws.  Competition between parties and between capital and labor intensifies the emergence of a vibrant public sphere by encouraging citizens to engage in public affairs and relieving them of pre-modern political culture of parochialism which does not recognize the equality of citizen. This competition also becomes a vital spring of social transformation in laws and institutions. But in a country of minorities like Nepal perpetual eagerness to change laws and constitution through extra-constitutional measures to alter the balance of forces breeds instability as there is no institutional mechanism to balance the interest of all groups and prevent today’s minority to become a majority of tomorrow through aspiration-driven politics. Similarly, an unfair political dispensation based on exclusive power equation or syndicate cannot guarantee internal checks to prevent the domination of minorities and establish the virtue of positive law which stands higher than the will of powerful leaders. The impersonal state possessing monopoly on all the means of legitimate coercion can also prevent the constraining condition for “freedom of citizens” organized under the “complex interpenetration of cultural tradition, social orders and personal identities” (Habermas, 1997:23).   

In Nepal, every alteration of political balance of power has changed laws under the pressure of changing rights of gender, Dalits, ethnic groups, Madhesis, indigenous people, labor, minorities and marginalized and international obligations of the country to incorporate human rights and humanitarian laws. But, the weakening of Nepali state’s “legitimate monopoly” on power, tax, loyalty of citizens and international recognition (fragile state) marked the crisis of power to implement both rights of citizens and formulate and execute appropriate laws and public policies to create the condition of social peace. It’s vital democratic instruments—Public Service Commission, Election Commission, Commission for Investigation  of Abuse of Authority, Auditor-General and even Supreme Court lack either adequate personnel or authoritative leadership. Acting authorities are constrained to undertake vital initiatives. The critical jolt to popular legitimacy was inflicted by self-extension of two more years of mandate of CA by political classes under “the doctrine of necessity” and through “crisis socialization” of ordinary citizens by political leaders, partisan media persons, lawyers and intellectuals who also noisily signaled the impending fear of civil war, monarchy’s comeback, presidential coup, military putsch and foreign intervention in case of non-extension of CA’s tenure. Democracy is based on the “doctrine of choice” which requires the resolution of antinomy between freedom and necessity in favor of the former as it promotes basic dignity of human beings by abolishing the pre-modern use of fear or violence as a means of political end and generating fresh reasons of hope in politics for better life and liberty. Absence of requisite public security and fundamental human needs satisfaction hollows the concepts of basic constitutional liberties granted to poor citizens. The role of attentive citizens lies in being critical about their condition, recognizing that legal experts’ opinion does not necessarily constitute either truth or reflective opinion or valid judgments beyond the power of self-righteousness. Very often, during the time of social transformation such experts do not reveal hidden motives of political actors in the domain of justice but offers arguments of various sides, leaving contradictory conclusion rather than offering normative regulation of multiple transitions and stabilization of public authority to prevent lawlessness.  John Lock rightly argues, “Wherever law ends, tyranny begins.”

Modernization of Nepalese society has increased the use of technological means and rights of political participation of citizens on law-making and policies. It has opened the scope for communicative competence, rational acceptability and democratic legitimacy. In Nepal’s CA, however, the constitutional processes had been shortened, contents remained contestation and the result was no constitution. In the constitutional process, national leaders have compromised three key elements of democratic quality associated with the public expectation of citizens: quality of content, process and results (Diamond and Morlino, 2004:21). As a consequence, the Supreme Court had to set limit on the CA’s self-extension of term not beyond May 27 and offered several alternatives: fresh election, referendum and other suitable measures. Without popular consent, the CA had stretched the popular mandate for two more years, gave primacy to sharing executive power than law making process and rendered the CA members without any meaningful role either in opinion and will-formation, or in perspective mediation or even in dispute resolution. It also did not encourage open and informed public participation on constitutional debate close to the grassroots for their enlightenment or encourage rational agreement on issues to foster a common political culture of the country. The impersonality of legal norms ensuring equal treatment for all citizens holds scope for individual life-projects. In Nepal, however, leaders’ temptation to impose partisan perspective subverted even settled issues and generated crisis of trust of each other. All political parties are torn between a fractious future and a past that refuses to shift transactional leadership to the transformational one. The alternative media have often sponsored fears about deadlock over the contesting democratic contents and saw the deterioration of the impersonal institutions of the state as a threat to national survival and independent identity.

As a result of the third wave revolution in information and communication technology, democracy, and human rights based political culture, the relationship between citizens and the state are changing. An amazing explosion of social activism of a myriad of self-referential non-state forces produced critical political consciousness but also stimulated anomic, disorganized and extra-party participation of social classes in a fragile national context upsetting institutional equilibrium of the polity and the virtues of active citizenship unleashing democracy’s positive energies. Growing assertion of prehistoric identities of sub-national forces stoked by electoral manifestoes and unrealistic promises of leaders and cadres has infused nervous tension in the public sphere about the process of formulating common constitutional perspective for a shared future of this post-conflict nation. In contrast, multi-level critical public debates on democracy as a responsive rule of law has also mobilized the connectors of society for rebuilding this nation. Infusing public morality in politics the attentive public has consistently sought to rectify the infection that underlines disharmony between the constitutional promise of secular, federal democratic republic and the absence of constitutional behavior of leaders and cadres. Civic passivity for long has scuttled citizens’ ability to confront the imbalance of power in politics thereby weakening the sovereignty embedded in citizenship and even inter-generational reciprocity in politics. Obviously, it has rendered Nepalese politics self-serving lacking normative framework and democratic loops--transparency, accountability and responsiveness to serve public and national interest. As a result, political resistance has also shifted to ethnic, territorial, social and cultural realms.

Courtesy: Telegraphnepal.com

http://www.telegraphnepal.com/national/2012-07-27/nepal:-condition-of-politics-and-law.html

Why all the fuss in the South China Sea?

By Emily Lodish, Global Post

After the disparate nations that make up the Association of Southeast Nations (ASEAN) failed to agree on a roadmap to resolution on the South China Sea, China went ahead and — shockingly — did its own thing.

It established a brand new city in the region.

For some time, China has claimed the islands in the South China Sea and the surrounding waters as Chinese territory. It says that historical findings in the area, namely pottery shards and some old maps, mean the entire region belongs to China, full-stop. 

From the perspective of the UN Convention on the Laws of the Sea, however, a number of Southeast Asian countries have legitimate claims to territory in the South China Sea.

In effort to clear up any gray area, China has established its new prefecture, called Sansha and located on Yongxing Island, which is meant administer the Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha Islands and their surrounding waters in the South China Sea.

Yes, it's controversial.

To help make sense of the moves we talked with Andrew Billo, senior program officer with the Asia Society who specializes in Southeast Asia.

The South China Sea has been a flashpoint for decades. What is pushing the issue to a head now?

Without a doubt, the US involvement is pushing this to a head. The new factor over the last, say, two years, is the increased US interest in this region. Southeast Asian countries are emboldened by US interest in this issue and the fact that they might have the support of the US military in respect to this issue even if the US has not explicitly said so.

The US has said explicitly that it’s not taking sides in the matter but at the same time it’s evident to everyone involved that the US is in fact showing partiality to some of these smaller ASEAN countries.

The US has been pressing very hard in the region, with Leon Panetta going to Vietnam and with the US submarine being parked in Subic Bay in the Philippines. These are little measures, but they are making China nervous and making China assert itself to a greater extent within this region.

And the economy is behind the US interest?

The US has recognized its economic interests lie in the Asian region. Europe was perhaps the main economic interest of the US in the last half of the 20th century, and Asia is of course looking like it’s going to be the main economic driver for this century. The US is recognizing that it needs to be more of a part of that economic engine.

What's really at stake in the South China Sea?

Primarily the energy resources, and to a lesser extend the fisheries, and then to an even lesser extent tourism potential. And the other issue is of course the freedom of navigation issues. But I see it primarily as an energy issue. People are eyeing the energy potential of the region, I don’t think they're out to block these trade routes specifically.

What is that resource potential exactly?

Well, no one really knows actually. Any time exploratory activities are undertaken, other countries put up a fuss. China won’t even let Vietnam begin to look, or when Vietnam does begin to look there’s always an issue. So people don’t really have a very clear idea as to what it is exactly that they’re fighting over. But I think that potential is there.

So are we likely to see an escalation soon?

I think at present the economies in that part of the world, or at least in that basin, are relatively stable and even growing, so it isn't in anyone's best interest to have tensions escalate. While things continue to progress in a more or less positive manner, so long as these societies are relatively content with their situation, we aren't likely to see an escalation. 

But at a certain point China’s not going to have sufficient energy resources to support its own population. Nor are some of these other countries. If it gets to that point, that’s when we’ll see an escalation. Conventional belief is that this will not really escalate really further within the next 10 years or so, but after 10 years, who knows? This is the window of time to iron things out before it comes to a head.

What can be done to iron things out?

I think ASEAN is the best way to move forward with this, and they have a declaration on the code of conduct with respect to the South China Sea. But ASEAN also issues a lot of declarations, and declarations are just that. They’re not binding.

There was a lot of disappointment at the recent ASEAN summit in Cambodia when they were unable to issue further steps forward with respect to the code of conduct. China lobbied very hard for Cambodia to keep the issue off the agenda. So that was a significant blow to this moving forward.

I think it's a tough year right now with US political change and Chinese political change. I think that if you can get past the end of this year then it buys more time and allows things to cool off a bit.

Courtesy: Globalpost.com

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/chatter/south-china-sea-andrew-billo-asia-society

July 27, 2012 06:35

A Cruel and Unusual Record

By JIMMY CARTER, NY Times

THE United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights.

Jimmy Carter

Revelations that top officials are targeting people to be assassinated abroad, including American citizens, are only the most recent, disturbing proof of how far our nation’s violation of human rights has extended. This development began after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and has been sanctioned and escalated by bipartisan executive and legislative actions, without dissent from the general public. As a result, our country can no longer speak with moral authority on these critical issues.

While the country has made mistakes in the past, the widespread abuse of human rights over the last decade has been a dramatic change from the past. With leadership from the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 as “the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” This was a bold and clear commitment that power would no longer serve as a cover to oppress or injure people, and it established equal rights of all people to life, liberty, security of person, equal protection of the law and freedom from torture, arbitrary detention or forced exile.

The declaration has been invoked by human rights activists and the international community to replace most of the world’s dictatorships with democracies and to promote the rule of law in domestic and global affairs. It is disturbing that, instead of strengthening these principles, our government’s counterterrorism policies are now clearly violating at least 10 of the declaration’s 30 articles, including the prohibition against “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Recent legislation has made legal the president’s right to detain a person indefinitely on suspicion of affiliation with terrorist organizations or “associated forces,” a broad, vague power that can be abused without meaningful oversight from the courts or Congress (the law is currently being blocked by a federal judge). This law violates the right to freedom of expression and to be presumed innocent until proved guilty, two other rights enshrined in the declaration.

In addition to American citizens’ being targeted for assassination or indefinite detention, recent laws have canceled the restraints in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to allow unprecedented violations of our rights to privacy through warrantless wiretapping and government mining of our electronic communications. Popular state laws permit detaining individuals because of their appearance, where they worship or with whom they associate.

Despite an arbitrary rule that any man killed by drones is declared an enemy terrorist, the death of nearby innocent women and children is accepted as inevitable. After more than 30 airstrikes on civilian homes this year in Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai has demanded that such attacks end, but the practice continues in areas of Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen that are not in any war zone. We don’t know how many hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed in these attacks, each one approved by the highest authorities in Washington. This would have been unthinkable in previous times.

These policies clearly affect American foreign policy. Top intelligence and military officials, as well as rights defenders in targeted areas, affirm that the great escalation in drone attacks has turned aggrieved families toward terrorist organizations, aroused civilian populations against us and permitted repressive governments to cite such actions to justify their own despotic behavior.

Meanwhile, the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, now houses 169 prisoners. About half have been cleared for release, yet have little prospect of ever obtaining their freedom. American authorities have revealed that, in order to obtain confessions, some of the few being tried (only in military courts) have been tortured by waterboarding more than 100 times or intimidated with semiautomatic weapons, power drills or threats to sexually assault their mothers. Astoundingly, these facts cannot be used as a defense by the accused, because the government claims they occurred under the cover of “national security.” Most of the other prisoners have no prospect of ever being charged or tried either.

At a time when popular revolutions are sweeping the globe, the United States should be strengthening, not weakening, basic rules of law and principles of justice enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But instead of making the world safer, America’s violation of international human rights abets our enemies and alienates our friends.

As concerned citizens, we must persuade Washington to reverse course and regain moral leadership according to international human rights norms that we had officially adopted as our own and cherished throughout the years.

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president, is the founder of the Carter Center and the recipient of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.

Courtesy: New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opinion/americas-shameful-human-rights-record.html?_r=1

Nepal: Pending tempest

By N. P. Upadhyaya Nepali
Telegraph Nepal 

Kathmandu: Troubled Nepali politics awaits more trying dilemma in the days ahead. Neither the State exists nor the state sovereignty, this is what is the general mass feeling. The President is just ceremonial who acts only when he gets instructions from above, it is widely rumoured.

Moreover, the campaigners of the Republican order instead of settling down their intra and inner party disputes appear more interested in replacing the “caretaker” government being led by the JNU veteran Dr. Babu Ram Bhattarai with the sole objective of being in power once again. The lust for power.

The Nepali Congress though possesses the right to claim, as a matter of fact, the command of the next national unity government, but the party’s inner wrangling doesn’t allow it to nominate the candidate for the next Nepal PM for fear of  inviting a serious confrontation among the host of PM aspirants inside the party. Dr. Shekhar Koirala is one more additional PM aspirant among the crowd.

The NC has, as distinctly visible; three competing aspirants for the PM post, for example, Sushil Koirala, Sher Bahadur Deuba and Ram Chandra Poudel.

The NC’s internal squabble for the PM post has doubled the interest of the UML party which claims that if the Congress can’t nominate its PM candidate then the party should endorse the UML party candidate for the next Nepal PM post. Logic is there.  UML leader Oli is right in New Delhi now. May be trying his luck.

But the NC and the UML forget the fact that unless PM Bhattarai vacates his present Chair, the parties can do little to bring him down to the foot path. Thus the NC and the UML have collectively approached the Nepal President and advised him to manage the ouster of PM Bhattarai by using his special prerogatives. However, no such extra constitutional powers remain under the sleeve of the President whose own legitimacy has come already under questions.

Perhaps it is this Presidential helplessness which has been providing PM Bhattarai to continue in office for long.

And why should Nepal President sack the incumbent PM? What if Bhattarai pounces back on him under this or that pretext?

To boot, PM Bhattarai, July 23, 2012, made a telephone call in the morning and congratulated his former mentor who has now become the 13^th President of Indian Republic. But he claimed the other day that he is the President of all. Is he talking of the entire region?

The telephone talk between the two does speak that both were in good terms. So why Pranav Mukherjee should put his extra efforts in replacing the one which could be “used and overly used” in serving the Indian security interests? He is not that fool to change the present day Arabian horse.

As regards the Nepal President, mind it that the new President of India has already tested the political acumen of Dr. Yadav when the former, as a mere minister in Dr. Singh’s cabinet, had threatened Dr. Yadav, May 3, 2009, ordering the latter to reinstate the sacked Nepal Army Chief, Rukmangad Katwal.

This has set a precedence which by extension mean that if the Indian high placed authorities instruct Nepal President to sack Bhattarai then Dr. Yadav will beamingly exceed his constitutional limits and act as per the Indian instructions and perhaps this is the prime reason as to why he is not listening to the combined plea of the NC and the UML plus other meagre parties wherein they have been repeatedly asking the help of Dr. Yadav to get rid of the JNU political creature.

Now let’s talk something more interesting.

Dr. Shekhar Koirala, a NC leader together with Krishna Prasad Sitaula who primarily managed the ouster of King Gyanendra with the tacit support of RAW and the Maoists then residing in New Delhi is back from a weeklong New Delhi trip.

His going to Delhi is no news. But what is news, indeed a juicy one, is his secret meet with Indian Queen, Sonia’s International relations Advisor, Dr. Karan Singh. Singh is a close relative of Nepal’s sidelined King Gyanendra who had stood as a witness at the last minute of the 2006 uprising when a document (presumably) was signed in between the seven party alliance and the King wherein it had been apparently stated that “the King will give a new lease of life to the then dead parliament and that Monarchy in Nepal will continue sine die”.

Dr. Koirala’s meet with Muni and Sita Ram Yechury assumes no significance in that these Indian nationals have already become a foot path commodity who neither can provide wise counsels to Dr. Koirala nor could have a say in the future politics of Nepal. They both could be taken as failed Indians but then yet they damaged Nepal to what they longed for. Yes Dr. Koirala’s meet with the would be King of Kashmir (unfortunately he couldn’t and later reconciled his fate) must have some meaning. It is presumed that Dr. Singh may have reminded the junior Koirala to listen to the now sidelined King’s assertion that the document that had been signed at the last hour of the conclusion of the last movement be honoured.

The Koiralas’ may not agree, arrogant as they are that by sidelining the King, the Maoists have accomplished their primary agenda. The agenda-2 of theirs is definitely to wipe out the parliamentary forces, mainly the Nepali Congress. And look the present day status of the NC. Some even opine that it remains no longer a party.  Others say the party is decaying fast and one fine morning it will cease to exist and this is what the Maoists wish.

The Janjati issue has already plagued the UML.

The Koiralas and the Nepali monarchy were never in good terms in the past yet both needed each other for a variety of compelling reasons.

Matured analysts suggest the NC leaders that if they want to exist as a “democratic party”, as they claim for themselves, must revisit late B. P. Koirala’s reconciliation theory and act accordingly or their political extinction is approaching fast. A mid way theory. 

Late BP though recognised the Nepali monarchy as a feudal and antidemocratic institution but yet also had sensed that the King can be made to follow democratic norms and also felt the need that the Nepali monarchy was a must in Nepal given the instability in this part of the world. The Sikkim annexation made late B.P. to realise the importance of monarchy, matured analysts opine.

The situation apparently is still valid. However, this should not mean that we at this paper champion the case of the return of Monarchy. Whether it returns or remains in oblivion will make no difference neither to this paper nor for those analysts who were with us at this paper. To analyse is our main job.

But what is for sure is that the NC can’t survive as a party if it doesn’t revisit BP’s reconciliation theory.

Yet the interesting part of the whole story has been that Dr. Koirala left for Delhi around the time when Mohan Baidya left for Beijing. Oli remains still in Nepal’s Mecca. Maoists leader Dharmendra Bastola is also in Nai Dilli.

Notably, reports have it that the Chinese have become extra sensitive observing Nepal’s fast political decaying phenomenon. High placed sources claim that wherever Baidya went in Beijing and whomsoever he met, all expressed their anxiety over the continuing Nepali political fluidity and its possible way out.

Moreover, the Chinese enquired from Baidya about the increasing threat to Nepali nationalism and Nepal’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

This does mean that the Chinese have already guessed in advance that Nepal may soon come under the grip of an unprecedented political mayhem which may eventually hit its own security interests to which she perhaps may not tolerate. Chinese sensitivity is for real.

It is widely believed that Baidya will be back in Kathmandu, today, loaded with meaningful assurances from China. Yet another “strong nationalist” team is heading for China, informed sources claim.

But will peace and tranquility prevail in Nepal only with the likely support of China ?

Some matured analysts forcefully claim that both India and China in some way or the other have converged together in providing political stability in Nepal as an unstable Nepal neither will be in the overall interest of China nor of India.

Chinese concern is genuine for some understandable reasons.

No wonder then the Chinese Ambassador to Nepal, Yang Houlan met with the chairman, Sharad Chandra Dhakal, of a meagre political party in the recent days and asked about the likely course of the politics of the nation after the death of the CA body.

What transpired in between the two is not clear yet what we have been informed is that the Chinese envoy forwarded several questions mainly related with ‘ifs and buts’ and Mr. Dhakal answered his each and every question wherein he is supposed to have told the Chinese authority that a roundtable conference including the sidelined King’s participation was a must now or the country is sure to approach a precipice soon.

This event could very much be linked with how and what the Beijing authorities may have talked with Mohan Baidya. How Baidya explained Nepal’s present day situation is any body’s guess.

For the road: Former Indian Ambassador Shyam Saran was here in Kathmandu, July 11, 2012. He was on his way to Bhutan for a seminar and had made Kathmandu a two day transit. He was spotted by some investigative Nepali journalists at Hotel yak and Yeti and out of fear, Saran took the flight to Paro the next day of his being spotted.

During his mysterious trip to Kathmandu, he met with Chairman Prachanda and forced him to be soft towards the Indian regime, to which he complied with, while presenting his 40 page long report presented at the “disturbed” seventh plenum. Apart from this, Saran had a lavish luncheon with Nepal’s veteran politician Amresh Kumar Singh.

In the process, he met with Sushil Koirala and Ram Chandra Poudel. On July 12, 2012, Saran met with Chairman Khanal and Madhav Nepal.

Yet for no fault of Mr. Yub Raj Ghimire, he pounced upon this senior Nepali journalist and made the latter to apologise for what he wrote about his presence in his weekly paper. This speaks of the highhandedness of the Indian diplomats, even retired ones, who wish to tame the Nepali journalists as and when they prefer to do so. Our sympathy to the mentally tortured one.

In sum, Nepal is awaiting a political cyclone sooner than later.

# For further details of Shyam Saran's Nepal secret visit, read the Jana-Ahwan Weekly dated July 13, 2012. It is a front page story.

Courtesy: Telegraphnepal.com

http://www.telegraphnepal.com/analysis/2012-07-25/nepal:-pending-tempest