Nepali Times
PRASHANT JHA
Plain Speaking
Flex-ible


PRASHANT JHA


BILASH RAI

At the time of writing, on Thursday morning, there has been no deal between the parties.

This has not been reported on enough but there are many non-Maoist forces – right-wing parties as well as sections of NC-UML – who do not want an extension. They believe the CA has been a source of strength and legitimacy for the Maoists and provided it access to state power. Any constitution prepared by this CA will therefore favour the agenda of the Maoists and marginalised groups. This school points out that if the objective of this process was to 'weaken and tame' the Maoists, and if that has not happened, what is the point of continuing with it? The more the Maoists hedge bets on extension, the happier this lot is.

But their options are now limited since the government has officially tabled the amendment proposal, shifting the onus onto the Maoists. The degree of Maoist flexibility will now be crucial since, contrary to rumours, it does not appear that Madhav Kumar Nepal will resign before an agreement on issues.

The debate on the CA within the Maoists is revealing. At the most recent central committee meeting, Kiran and company essentially said the CA has been hijacked by the 'reactionaries'; there was no point in staying on in the process; the party should prepare for the next stage of revolution, change its line and go back to armed conflict; anything else would be a betrayal.

What is striking about this view is there is absolutely no understanding of the existing ground reality, and no alternative plan. It is like, as left analyst Shyam Shrestha says, talking about an October revolution without even having prepared for the February revolution. Yet it finds a degree of support within for two reasons. One is the dogmatic indoctrination that binds many even now. The other is the need felt by many to keep up a 'revolutionary' image, especially when you know someone else will do the tough job of arguing a more considered line.

Prachanda's original paper considered traces of this thought, emphasising that the party is being pushed to a war and that the other side, prodded by India, is not interested in the process anymore.

He had however thought through some of the implications of not getting the CA extended. Arguing that it would break the political stagnation and lead to new alliances, Prachanda said that the party had not learnt how to fight the 'People's War' before it started it; it learnt on the job. Similarly, a new situation will arise in the absence of extension that the party can take advantage of. The organisation will remain intact; the framework of the peace process will remain as long as UNMIN is here; cadres will get a boost; the other side will face serious political and legal challenges; and the next few months could either prepare the ground for a new deal and thus 'revival of the CA' or be a period to prepare for the next confrontation.

It was left to Dr Baburam Bhattarai to talk about the achievements of the past few years, and that the core objective right now was to institutionalise the 'federal democratic republic' and other goals like social justice and inclusion. The CA was the platform to do it, and it was crucial to give it another chance. Letting it end would only embolden those groups who were opposed to these goals, even as the Maoists would be blamed for being 'anti-peace and anti-constitution'. While agreeing that they had to ask for the PM's resignation and not cave in unconditionally, Dr Bhattarai stressed the need to exercise 'maximum flexibility' – the line that prevailed ultimately.

How the Maoists play this at the end will be interesting. Conventional wisdom suggests they will give in unconditionally and couch it in terms of protecting the gains of war and the movement. But given the internal strains, and their feeling of being under siege, this will not be an easy decision. An unconditional extension by the Maoists cannot be taken for granted.

After this crisis is over, the Maoists should reflect on their internal fractures, lack of clarity, and lack of experience of open politics and how that has cost them dearly in the past year. They should also assess the balance of forces and recognise it is time to fulfill certain peace process commitments, especially on the PLA, and reframe strategy according to what is achievable and not achievable at the moment. Otherwise, even if there is an extension, both the party and the country will keep going round and round in circles.

READ ALSO:
Engage the monarchy, Biraj Bahadur Bista
Politics abhors a vacuum, Publisher's Note
Ready, steady, no?, Dewan Rai
Full circle FM, CK Lal
United we fall, Indu Nepal
Just questions, Ashutosh Tiwari
Two seconds to midnight, Ass
Whither constitution writing



1. Nirmal

"It is never too late to do the right thing, "said a passionate advocate of civil rights, in a famous movie. But is it true? Because very often when you arrive late you can not do the right thing. The most clear example is that of justice, whose excessive delay in a decision prevents to impart justice. And so we say of politics, whose delayed decisions can prevent social changes, or ensuring basic rights? The truth is that the excessive delay in a key decision, especially when it concerns human communities, can have major collateral damage to the solutions that eventually undertake. Because if something is obvious, is that, the time is a highly effective oxidizing agent.


No democratic school of thought wants the maoists to be flexible with the conservative forces like the NC and the UML(one can be anti-maoists and pro-people and in the same mode democratic but non- NC UML wallahs)All this very school expects is to see the fate of these traditional forces as 2046 movement did then with Panches. I want the fate of the NC and the UML similar to ex-panches8there is no stable remedy for the nation than this). I know I am offending the followers of these parties and "elites" like Kanak Mani Dixit whose understanding of the ground reality does not saddle with the one from the street.


So, how to turn the NC and the UML into panches? The maoists tried with janayuddha, but they could not; they tried with peace pacts but they could not; they tried with votes but that was not sufficient, lately they tried with nepali version of octuber revolution and that was a total fiasco. The maoists need to play by simple rules, less tricks and a coherent politics that speaks of common men's necessities and not that of political commissars.


2. chasing_che
there is absolutely no point in extending the tenure of the CA as long as MKN is the executive.What reasons are there to substantiate the fact that the constitution can be drafted within the extended limit.How can we believe that what cannot be done in all these days would be done within few months.And what results would it yield? MKN is creatimg the hurdles in the way .Rather,  simply he is the hurdle...

3. Nirmal
Thank God at last MKN is going, wish makune prabriti does not prevail anymore, and this is a good starting to finish the climax as God prefers. Now one can definately expect the light at the end of the tunnel but i would reserve my prudence too...


4. Arthur
Prashant Jha should now "reflect" on the fact that the Maoists "inexperience" in open politics has resulted in both the Congress and UML's agreeing that they will now have to participate in a Maoist led national consensus government and finalize a constitution.

A majority for sacking MKN was already guaranteed quite some time ago when most UML members demanded his resignation. Those demands were in the expectation of the UML rejoining a Maoist led majority coalition (together with the MJF), as before.

So that much could have been achieved without the recent crisis. What then was achieved by the Maoist tactics in the recent crisis?

What the Maoist tactics have achieved instead is that the Congress too is now forced to agree to support a Maoist led consensus government, which they refused to do before.

The Maoists will be leading a national consensus governmlent as originally envisaged, instead of just having a majority coalition blocked by an obstructive opposition. This can lead to ending the long deadlock in which no constitution could be drafted with a two thirds majority.

It may take a few more weeks and it could still be derailed. But it looks like the Maoists "inexperienced" tactics will result in a situation in which a constitution can actually be drafted, and the peace process completed.

That did not result from tactics of stepping back to accommodate the rightists in the UMLs and Congress so that they would be more "comfortable". It resulted from the opposite tactics of showing them how their discomfort can only increase the longer they delay. It is not the Maoists, but their opponents who have had to reflect on how dearly their obstruction has cost them in plummeting support and how much more isolated they would become if that obstruction continues.

If instead the Maoists had capitulated, and allowed the Nepal Army to remain unreformed while disbanding the PLA, as Prashant Jha again "advises", there is no way Nepal could avoid the same kind of army intervention as in Thailand.

How about some advice to the other side for a change? Advise them to stop dreaming that they can win through consensus what they could not win in war. Advise them to fulfill the commitments of the peace agreement for democratization of the Nepal Army.

Nirmal #1, "No democratic school of thought wants the maoists to be flexible with the conservative forces like the NC and the UML". Interesting comment!! Prashant Jha could be described as an anti-Maoist, pro-people democrat too. But he could learn something from you on that.

"The maoists need to play by simple rules, less tricks and a coherent politics that speaks of common men's necessities and not that of political commissars."

They do that too and most of their rural and working class support is based on it. Not on anything to do with obtaining a two thirds majority for a constitution.

But they also have to engage in the usual parliamentary tricks to out maneuver the opposing tricksters in the UML and NC. They have just proved again that they are very good at that too.

Haven't they just put the K P Oli faction of the UMLs into a situation rather like the ex-panches?


5. saroj
Arthur

Why don't you reflect on this insight

'While agreeing that they had to ask for the PM's resignation and not cave in unconditionally, Dr Bhattarai stressed the need to exercise 'maximum flexibility' – the line that prevailed ultimately.How the Maoists play this at the end will be interesting. Conventional wisdom suggests they will give in unconditionally and couch it in terms of protecting the gains of war and the movement. But given the internal strains, and their feeling of being under siege, this will not be an easy decision. An unconditional extension by the Maoists cannot be taken for granted.'

Many in Kathmandu thought the Maoists were bluffing. Jha has good description of the CC debates and the conditional extension as Maoist bottomline.

Maoists proved to be smart this time, but let us wait to see whether MKN actually goes. There is no agreement on Maoist led government either and there are many others in the fray. Maoist need to introspect . one year, they tried every trick in the trade and could not dislodge this government. It is essentially the failure of Prachanda. Jha seems to be hitting him rather than Bhattarai for whom he seems to have a soft corner. Look at this 

http://www.nepalnews.com/main/index.php/news-archive/2-political/6191-maoists-told-to-agree-to-ca-term-extension-to-defend-achievements-of-janaandolan.html




6. Arthur
Saroj, certainly I agree that Prashant Jha has a much better understanding than those who were confident the Maoists were bluffing and would surrender unconditionally (although he was still not clear enough to actually predict that they would not do so, and he was among those pressuring them to do so, as your link confirms).

I do not agree that the Maoists have spent the last year trying to dislodge this government and failing. My impression is that they could have brought it down long ago if they were willing to form a minority government again, but preferred to leave it dangling there impotently draining more and more support from all the parties in that failed coalition and hold out for an inclusive government that can actually carry through the peace process and constitution drafting.

I do agree (and already said) that the recent agreement could take weeks for implementation and could be derailed. But if MKN still tries to hang on for long it will only make the situation worse for the coalition supporting him and better for the Maoists. This is only intensified as a result of the agreement. So the anti-Maoists have gained nothing and the Maoists have lost nothing but nobody can pretend that the ball is not now completely in the court of the anti-Maoists. They look more and more like panches every day they delay.

Even Kunda Dixit will find it harder and harder to keep blaming the Maoists if the other side just sits there.

BTW I would still be interested in your answer to the question both I (#7) and kumar kafle (#8) asked you in response to your #6 last week:

I don't understand what you mean by "Announcing elections will be another way to trap Maoists." Please explain how it traps the Maoists.



7. Nirmal
An eye to origin and topicality

The history of the Maoists has been linked entirely to the history of  violence(with upper case, never in the history of Nepal the confrontaion between two ideologies cost the brutal deaths of nearly 15000 people) since it was born in the mid of nineties which started to interrupt abruptly in the public space since the same decade. Arthur The future of the Maoists  in general-in space with no violence- is undoubtedly one of the most relevant issue of the new political climate that has just opened in Nepal. Will have to see how it runs and does not seem very useful to speculate too much. But at least it may be useful to assess how to reach this new time and raise some initial concerns about the future.

Virtually armed Maoists and recent socio-political rejection against violent their violent modus operandi:the commencement of regeneration.

 Last month, the violence has made suffer one of its militants, The Maoists, in a confrontation with the State. But we were about to sink on abysmal depths of the very conflict; Town to Town massive rallies(anti?) and demonstrations asking to reveal the fact  If the Maoists is not just an armed organization of young people attracted to portraits of Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Marx and  Prachanda and so the violence in which they swing with romanticism, but the referent of a new socio-political movement that is being undertaken apparently just next to dilly dallying of curent pseudo-paternalist govt of old order.

revolution-ary Self-esteem

But the Maoists  has remained a significant sociological factor and constant since the abandoning of their bhumigat rajniti: the ample incorporation of active youth to their militancy, even in times that the youth movement has degenerated more. There must be added another sociological factor more significant after the instauration of the current parliamentary democracy(based on the spirit of constitution of 2046 san King): its consolidation as a huge electoral movement.

Maobadi Fetor

Over these years, the violent and arbritrary activities perpetrated by the Maoists goons have gone through several crises and even in internal cracks (like Ram Hari Shrestha and now seeing the Maoists nervousness and consequent reaction to so called reveal story by Nagariknews and Republica, sounds chor policeko khel) , the maoists have so far maintained restraints but aggressive resistance too. Yes all this in general have resulted in the grouping of the social and political movement, agreed but the topic of the maoists being violent remains intact. This socio-political character of the Maoists has allowed violence even in times as complicated as those relating to electoral and day to day social lives and has maintained a significant presence in the public sphere.

Aproximate Panorama

But that is not sufficient to reversion to a process like that of recent times, in which the regenerative premiums degenerative  and in what appears, the spaces and influences that were lost has weighed more than those won and in which the very future of the leftwing Maoists appeared more than doubtful. In a drift of this magnitude there always involves various factors and causes.. But as a solution there is one that is mainly determinant. The official abandonement of violence by the Maoists If any deal grand or package is to be done in one or two days. The violence is just a leap to vaccum which leaves the Maoists in a situation of continuity:devour the Maoists represented socio-political movement to make it walk under its shadow.. The phenomenon is not entirely new. Inside of the most organized, active and influential component of this movement, in non other than the Maoists, there has been tardyness to accept this self-destructive effect unstoppable that clear ways for the love to use the violence as a tactical mean is generating.

climate-war: wickedness versus mildness

It required the Maoists protest and peace rally to reveal that there were no space or time to violence because it would entail a social rejection which will stifle any political space for so called left-wing Maoists. And it's let the Maoists check to see whether the State have hidden intention to eliminate them like LTTE which had already put the largest party of the parliament in a corner, san contemplating that there could be a social action that would most probably censor the violence. There are still areas covered by Maoists commisars who are far from having undertaken and contemplated the situation, had oriented their so called semi-violent aka peaceful protests more like a new experience at  the time when the end of the past experience should have come into effect. But at least it seems that the awareness to that dynamic self-destructive weight is sufficient to initiate such closure i.e. the final announcement of the Maoists to abandone the arm struggle and promise the world and the society that they will do politics with tools exclusively political which include  violence.


P.S. Arthur I like your initiative to debate but i can't imagine you promising me bhautik karwaahi just because you don't agree with me or I come in the middle of your ways, will you? Further debate is welcome.





8. saroj
They would have announced elections and not held it, like Deuba did in 2002 and king did in 2005.. They would have used PLA in cantonments as an excuse not to do it. Look at Madhav Nepal's statements about how holding elections with PLA was a mistake they cannot repeat. Maoists would have been on the streets and others would be enjoying power.


9. Arthur
Nirmal #7, unfortunately I don't understand most of your post. Also naturally I don't understand what "bhautik karwaahi" means. Certainly I look forward to further debate. Disagreement is not a barrier to debate but a necessity for debate!

Saroj #8, thanks - now I understand what you meant. Of course this danger that the anti-Maoists will refuse to hold elections is real and indeed a major reason they have delayed the constitution and delayed democratization of the Nepal Army and integration of the PLA is that they are (naturally) afraid of the elections that must follow. The breakdown in "consensus" was a direct result of the Maoists winning the first elections.

I agree that it is important for the Maoists to be in government so that elections will actually be held.

Nevertheless I still think the anti-Maoists would have been in a completely untenable position if the CA had been dissolved and they had tried to cling to office without elections. That is why they had to agree in the end. They will of course keep on dragging things out as long as possible (and looting as much as they can in the meantime). But every delay only makes them more isolated.

BTW I also agree that Prashant Jha promotes Baburam Bhatterai while criticizing Prachanda. I think it would be better if he stuck to policy analysis instead of promoting divisions.


10. Nirmal
bhautik karwahi means physical action...Arthur what didn's you understand? I will try to make you understand, If you say which paragraphs are incomprhensible?


11. Arthur
Nirmal #10. I don't understand any of the headings or any of the paragraphs except perhaps the PS.

I can guess, from the context and from other things you have said, what the PS means now that you have explained the Nepali words for "physical action". My guess is that you meant to say:

"PS Arthur I like your encouragement of debate because I don't think you would threaten "physical action" against me just because you don't agree with me. Further debate is welcome."

However you said "but" not "because" so the words you used looked as though they might have the opposite meaning. Also I have no idea what you meant by "or I come in the middle of your ways, will you?", so I had to just ignore it when guessing about the rest.

I am interested in discussion with you because you often seem to be saying something different from and more complex than others. Writing here is a good way to learn how to write in english, but it is still much harder to write complex ideas than to read them.

If you want to try again, I suggest much shorter sentences. Each sentence with only one thought. It is hard to write complex ideas in simple sentences. But it is always better to do so and it is absolutely necessary when writing in another language.


12. govind

Nirmal #7, why can't you write simple and precise words instead of SAN, TROPICALITY, regenerative premiums degenerative, approximate panorama :) lol..

 "Echo" at your psyc - looked so pompous. Did you use "Thesaurus" in Microsoft Word 2010 beta version ? Or, you are in GRE preparation in Nepali Times's free web server (space) ??

You are excesively focused on vocabularies so it gives an impression that you are still learning english. Focus on the content than memorized words. Memory is not intelligent, but mere practice.



13. Nirmal
Ok I will take your advice seriously while writing english. But you haven't answer me yet. Question:
Arthur I like your encouragement of debate because I don't think you would threaten "physical action" against me just because you don't agree with me, do you? Like the maoists do with their rivals.

I would like to know If as a participant of this site, you possess the possibility to use violence as a tactic like the Maoists is known for their character.


14. reader
take a rest Nirmal, Arthur will never understand that a political party cannot use violence to fulfill its own agenda nor these so called democratic parties who never minded the maoists being armed and walking along with them. Thank him for not saying you feudal, rightist and blah blah, he only had complaints about your english.


15. Arthur
Nirmal #13,

I will answer your question, now that I understand it is a question, and I look forward to your future questions and discussion. Previously I did not understand it was a question because I had to ignore the words "or I come in the middle of your ways, will you?" to guess the meaning of the rest of the sentence, as they did not fit the grammar of the sentence.

First even though the advice from govind #12 was less friendly, it is also good advice - use only simple words and phrases as well as shorter sentences and very simple grammar.

Also translations of other Nepalese phrases like "bhumigat rajniti" and "chor policeko khel" in #7 are also necessary when seeking a reply from a foreigner (though not necessary when writing only for other english speaking Nepalese here). Even dates like "constitution of 2046 san King" should be translated, although I was able to understand that as meaning "the 1990 constitution (but without a King)".

In general, the vocabulary, grammar and style of Nepali Times articles should be taken as a guide for excellent written english. Although the political views are often worse, the english expression here is usually much better than in other english language publications from Nepal.

Your question mixes two things together. I do not agree with you and others here that the Maoists have a violent "character".

Some comments here get "removed by moderator", perhaps for violent language. Others that are written in an aggressive, abusive, insulting and threatening style are quite common (not from you, and in general less here than I have noticed reading Nepalese blogs elsewhere, but still, quite common).

It is quite noticeable that such "violent language" here is from anti-Maoists. The smaller numbers of pro-Maoist comments are much more polite. I must admit that if I had to live in a society where the majority of people are forced to live on less than $2 per day and governed by corrupt clowns, I would have great difficulty being so polite about it.

As Lenin once said "in politics abusive language often serves as a screen for utter lack of principles and sterility, impotence, angry impotence, on the part of those who use such language".

Obviously I do not use abuse, let alone such "violent language" let alone threats of "physical action" myself.

But that does not mean I am a pacifist, opposed to all use of violence as a strategy or tactic.

A revolution is the violent overthrow of one class by another. In Nepal the counter-revolution is armed and the only barrier to another massacre of the people is the fact that the revolution is also armed. If the Maoists were to give up all possibility of a violent response to attacks on them, the ruling minority would not hesitate to act exactly as in Bangkok recently.

Peace can only be made permanent as agreed - by integration of the two armies. Prashant Jha's advice for the Maoists to give up the PLA without insisting on democratization of the Nepal Army would only result in far more violence in another civil war.

Until army democratization and security sector restructuring is completed, Nepal will remain in transition from war to peace, not at peace. While people like Prashant Jha continue to regard such democratization as "unachievable" the progress will be slow and the risk of real violence great.


16. Artthur
reader #14, the large majority of political killings since the cease fire have been murders of Maoists by anti-Maoists. That simple fact makes it very easy to "understand" the constant ranting about "Maoist violence" from anti-Maoists. You accidentally explained and described it very well - "feudal rightist ...blah blah".


17. Nirmal
Arthur
Aah finally you understood that it was a question, Fine! it was nice to hear what Lenin said, but it is a matter of regret that it does not apply to violence.
let's do a small exercise: fill in the blanks with apropriate word found in the bracket, this exercise is very typical in Nepal among school children, and have moral and pedagogical connotation :
"in politics .........(violence, abusive language, Gandhian principles) often serves as a screen for utter lack of principles and sterility, impotence, angry impotence, on the part of those who use.....(violence, such language, Gandhian philosophy)".
What do you think of it now?

 Don't you think all this ideology sounds nefastly cryptic, already entangled in an inexplicable cruelty?.....and What?.... You can kill just because you consider yourself a revolutionary? If yes, then dear Arthur, you as well as the Maoists chose the wrong profession, epoch and place(no matter how much Nepal resembles to African nations for you). You said that I am anti-maoists, i am not any sort of anti, I enjoy my autonomy and i say what i think correct and I explain how I know(with humbleness).

@12 govind, Yes I am learning English(is it a shame to accept it? and would it be a shame for NT that one utilises this site to learn English?). I have not enough time for attending English lessons right now, GRE is for US visa, I don't need it. What is thesaurus? is it a generally used word?With regard to my style "pompous", I am sorry brother everyone acts as he/she can. Some may like it, some may not and nor I write with an intention to make friends. all i can promise is to improve my English. And i will try my level best, got it?

Going back to the topic Arthur, if saying the most obvious thing  I become anti-maoists then I am anti-maoists and i will do as much as possible(and of course without killing others) so that nobody could use bullet and ballot at the same time.

It was a mistake to go for CA elections with an armed political party, I wrote this before CA elections in this newspaper also and I say again: it will be another political blunder to allow the Maoists to form or participate in any future government unless the end of the arm struggle has been officially declared by the Maoists' headquarter. Anyways, not many options are left for them. I think, right now, the maoists have found themselves trapped in a road without exit-point with PLA in cantonements, and as a party which has not denounced violence till the date. Status quo of the maoists is somehow very patent.

For the maoist leaders, it is difficult to realize that the day the maoists accepted multi-party political system, their violent revolution was ended theoretically. Now, If the maoists honchos possess good skills to govern they ought to dedicate their times for outputs.

Integration and democratization are not synonomous words. Or is it like the angels from the sky convert the rest of the cruel world into angels? I am of view that the rebels should be given an oportunity to compete for NA but in no way there should be a status of fundamental difference. The stance of the maoists is unclear, dubious and unscientific. And Arthur, to democratize the NA you don't need the excuse of the PLA. As a politician you can prepare policies to achieve that aim. Not even a single proposal was forwarded when the maoists were in govt with regard to the democratization of the NA. Gives the impression that this terminology is being used for the Maoists vested interest and not that of the Nation at large.

last of all: The hands of the clock always moves in the same direction however not in favor of the same people. so far the maoists have enjoyed this priviledge to use arm against its opponents. Now, it is their turn to forget this forever. let's see how this matter ends up, taking into consideration the evolving picture of politics these days.


18. Govind

Nirmal #17, GRE is  not created for US visa, but for aptitude test to get admission into the graduate schools.

In the US civil war history, it was not the democratic votes (peaceful means) of the people that abolished the slavery system. As a matter of fact, instead, the voters of "South" favored , through the election or votes, to continue the slavery system. It was the armed force (violence) of the "North" that attacked and overpowered the Southern millitary in order to empower the black people.

The Maoists armed struggle made possible the present people-elected CA that represents all including those marginalized by the state for centuries.

Violence (war) also provides liberation of people as in the cases of above.

In order for non-violence to prevail, corrupt politicos should stop corrupting the state and people, judges should start giving justices to the people in injustice, and the state security appartus (mainly the Army) should be subordinated to a civilian goverment- no matter who runs it, left or right or middle. And, new trend in Nepal- election loosers must quit running the goverment portfolios. Then, violence goes away by itself.



19. Arthur
Nirmal ok, I understand most of #17 as it is much better written.

"It was a mistake to go for CA elections with an armed political party, I wrote this before CA elections in this newspaper also and I say again: it will be another political blunder to allow the Maoists to form or participate in any future government unless the end of the arm struggle has been officially declared by the Maoists' headquarter."

The other parties opposed elections for a Constituent Assembly and agreed to it only because they could not defeat the people's war. You say this was a "mistake". In other words the war should have continued and there should be no elections.

You can say this is your opposition to violence. That is a problem with your logic, not a problem with english. Opposing peace and elections is not "non-violence".

Both sides agreed that the respective armies would be kept in cantonments and barracks (monitored by UNMIN) so that the elections would be free and fair. For you, that was a "mistake" (ie the Maoists won the elections so it would have been better if there had been no elections and the war had continued).

More than 80 Maoists were murdered from the ceasefire to March. This is still continuing, with at least 1 or 2 killed each week. Recently you joined with others here in a discussion that was gloating at the increase in murders of Maoists by criminal gangs in the Terai.

For anti-Maoists, the murders of Maoists are just what they deserve. This is your "non-violence".

"... to democratize the NA you don't need the excuse of the PLA. As a politician you can prepare policies to achieve that aim. Not even a single proposal was forwarded when the maoists were in govt with regard to the democratization of the NA. Gives the impression that this terminology is being used for the Maoists vested interest and not that of the Nation at large."

This is ridiculous. Everybody knows that the parties in government now sided with COAS Katawal in flatly rejecting civilian authority over the army and that Prachanda resigned because the Maoist attempt to deal with this insubordination was blocked. The army does not obey court orders to submit its officers for trial when charged with torture and murder of a 16 year old girl.

Throughout Nepal's history the army has been the basis for autocratic rule. You are seeking to protect and preserve that role while espousing "non-violence".

If you actually want peace you have to support democratization of the Nepal Army and integration of the two armies. That is what was agreed to and it is the only way forward.

What strikes me is the sheer pointlessness of your stand. Calling it "non-violence" does not change anything. The choices remain as they were when the "mistake" you regret was made. Since then the Maoists have grown stronger and their opponents have grown weaker. So you are stuck with the "mistake". There is no way to go back.

All that the anti-Maoists can do is delay things and complain to each other. You are becoming more and more irrelevant to the mainstream in Nepal, just like the current government.

Wouldn't it make more sense to actually start working constructively on a new Nepal instead of just regretting your mistake and "non-violently" siding with criminal gangs and feudal army officers?


20. Nirmal
Arthur By the way that comment in name of Nirmal from the link: gloating   was not mine. come oon Arthur there are millions of Arthur and so Nirmal. I don't monopolize things, it is not my style.

Yes, Katwaal kaanda was a breakthrough in Maoists exit, that was something the Maoists commissars wanted to prove and that is how they perpetuate their role of victims. They tried their famous strategy, how is it said in English, dhaadma tekera taukoma hirkaune(get into the back and hit the head, sorry for not good translation). But the concept of governing a country goes beyond this sheer strategy. The change has to be sought from grassroot level. Which policies did they putforth to change their so called feudal and autocratic character? Nada....you know what this means.

You tried to interprete my comment as a support to atrocities committed by the NA personnels. This is another example of your logic producing capacity. For me and many atrocity is simply an atrocity no matter who commits.

To say that the violence has no place in today's mainstream politics is to be out of mainstream? a political schizophrenia of the maoists in todays world perhaps. Arthur the maoists would do a gesture of great magnitude in front of the entire world If they renounce armed struggle once for all officially. If not they will be confined into the books of history too as so many political parties similar to maoists story in this world, be they from the east, west, north or south. Sharp eyes suggest that the very nature and the future of the Maoists could be described as characteristics of a bubble. They look like semi-political party but hard to do because a bubble would pop so fast.







LATEST ISSUE
638
(11 JAN 2013 - 17 JAN 2013)


ADVERTISEMENT



himalkhabar.com            

NEPALI TIMES IS A PUBLICATION OF HIMALMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED | ABOUT US | ADVERTISE | SUBSCRIPTION | PRIVACY POLICY | TERMS OF USE | CONTACT