Tamrat Samuel (left) and Ian Martin, Lalitpur, 2006
The United Nations Mission to Nepal, UNMIN, is to be thanked profusely for its efforts with the peace process and graciously shown the door when its term expires on 15 January. In the meantime, Nepali political actors including the Maoists must concentrate on making successful a unique process that was designed by Nepali stakeholders, starting with the 12-point understanding of 2005.
In its first days, many did feel reassured by UNMIN's presence as a symbol and guarantor of the international community's commitment to peace and democracy in post-conflict Nepal. After the Constituent Assembly elections of April 2008, however, UNMIN's remaining task of monitoring the cantonments was conducted without distinction and at great cost. Even while repeatedly misleading the Security Council with its own version of events, the Mission leadership constantly sought to expand its mandate to be the arbiter of Nepal's peace politics.
There is no doubt that the Mission's inability to challenge the Maoists to stand by thier peace commitments contributed to that party's obduracy, helping delay the peace process. Those who had lobbied hard for UNMIN's deployment in 2006 were let down.
The question arises whether we should not seek accountability from the UMNIN leadership in the same manner we do from our politicians and bureaucrats. While Karin Langdren, the present chief, has been rewarded with a promotion and a Burundi assignment, the tone and tenor of UNMIN's work was set by the former chief Ian Martin, and Tamrat Samuel, the designated Nepal handler at the UN Department of Political Affairs. Together, Martin and Samuel sought to inject UNMIN into our peace politics, seeking sociological roots to Nepal's conflict when disarming of the Maoist Party should have been the priority. It is they who certified UNMIN's erroneous reading of the Maoists as true agents of progressive change and the other major parties as carriers of the status quo.
Even as the Maoist leaders today engage in rearguard action to extend UNMIN's term, we need to be clear that continuation of the Mission beyond 15 January will Ė ironically Ė derail Nepal's peace process. In turn, this will guarantee the collapse of constitution writing, the deadline for which is end-May 2011. The Maoists have preferred to use UNMIN as a security blanket, and they would utilise another extension to filibuster further and influence the last days of the Constituent Assembly.
Pushpa Kamal Dahal lacked the sagacity and courage to convert UCPN (Maoist) into a civilian party when it was united under his command. Now, challenged by his two deputies, the chairman seeks to appease the cantonment commanders, peace process be damned. He seeks to link UNMIN's departure to constitution making and government formation even though the 2006 agreement on the integration/rehabilitation of ex-combatants allows no conditionality.
Fortunately, the political parties and the international community are not about to be taken in by the Maoist bluff this time around. UML and NC on Wednesday reiterated their position on the non-renewal of UNMIN's term, and Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal has remained steadfast. The word from New York is that the Security Council is not about to reverse its decision and provide another extension. The change of guard at the UK and US embassies in Kathmandu seems to have delivered a more balanced international approach, and China has spoken out against UNMIN extension as well. Germany and India joining the Security Council as non-permanent members on 1 January will favour the successful conclusion of the peace process.
Anyone who wants to see the Constituent Assembly proceed with its work must answer the question that UNMIN never asked Ė can any civilised society be expected to proceed with constitution writing when one party retains its private combatant force? Why did the Mission not publicly urge the Maoists to implement the repeated pronouncements of Chairman Dahal as prime minister, that the cantonments had in fact come under the Special Committee on integration and rehabilitation?
The urgent requirement of the next three weeks is to transfer the modest task of monitoring the 28 cantonments from UNMIN to the Special Committee, after which the work on integration and rehabilitation can begin in earnest. The transfer of responsibility should not be a problem in principle, because the committee as well as its technical secretariat include the Maoists members. And it is a good sign that the Maoists agreed to the appointment of experienced ex-general Balananda Sharma as coordinator.
Looking ahead beyond the fait accompli of UNMIN's exit, the democrat-politicians and diplomats must stand firm as the Maoists seek to manufacture a deadlock. Chairman Dahal perhaps knows that if he pushes too far, the resulting political snowball can lead to a situation of no integration/rehabilitation at all. While the polarisation within his party may not allow the chairman a free hand any more, standing up to UCPN (Maoist) is the best way to promote its democratic evolution.
Yes, the UNMIN had crossed the line when it defended itself during the controversy of the killing of Rameshwar Shrestha. It appears to me that UNMIN is working to protect the Maoists. I have heard that some calling UNMIN people as black UN in comparison to OHCHR as white one. It should have gone a long time ago. And extension after extension --- may be to correct their previous mistakes but it was never to be
24 DEC 2010 | 2:03 PM NST
2. Vija Sretha
I would like to invite everyone to take some¬†time and think, and ask yourselves a question what emotions and thougths¬†a word 'maoists'¬†brought to each of you¬†when it first came in use in Nepali society and in each Nepali family .If you have positive emotions and would give¬† a positive reply to all the questions you value for the society and a family then go ahead and support the best you find in this group who calls themselves a party for people and by people ,but if you can not,then you must stop and go ahead ,because we have wasted so much time trying to understand,compromise and we have done it to the extent which is even not excusable,but being¬†humans we have gone a step further,we have accomodated thousands of people from the PLA in our hearts knowing that¬†most of them¬†were forced or are ignorant to understand the whole meaning¬†of maoist promises,¬†but now is the time to go ahead and someone must take an action,an actions based on our analysis,actions based on our needs for the people and it means for the country and its needs .Having different opinions,views¬† is something always worth keeping¬† as it doesn't let us stagnate,however for the progress of society we can not take sides therefore everyone must keep an open mind.
The question for me was and is,why the so called PLA was accepted in the first place, in my opinion it was a gang of people who went looting,forcing and killing innocent¬† people to join the gang¬†As it was not¬†the army in its real meaning of the word,¬†as any government should have only one national army¬†that protects and serves to people and its¬† government .
Therefore¬†a question about integrating ¬†PLA should not have beeen even a question as they did not represent Nepali society and did not protect its citizens.We can not call them¬† responsible soldiers of Nepali Army,however if that point was taken as a point to start the peace process it should go ahead. Each army has special forces ,ones that protect air space.land,sea etc ¬†of the country and there are forces that help build infrastructure of the country and in my opinion this is the place where Maoist¬†Party ¬†must use their group of so called soldiers if they are sincere in progress.Now we are spending so much money just to keep them at bay without them actually giving¬† back to the nation.It's the work force that could build roads,bridges etc.it is equally important for the country and the society .
And let's not play blaming games,this is a famous process everyone tends to do and it has been done again by both opposition parties.NC says they do not mind presence of UNMIN ,they¬†just want to limit UNMIN from monitoring the Nepal Army.This in my opinion was the first compromise made ¬†by NC, but it was not said or acknowledged before¬†,because¬†as you well understand that each government should have only one army and that is exactly what UNMIN let happen,they accepted PLA as a result of consequences made by Maoist Party and a way out of deadlock ,however,problem must be solved as we are now participants of the problem and we chose this step knowingly.UNMIN was a first logical step¬†during the¬†calming period and it was the right step.It gave us time to crystalize and hear out different sides,which is the positive outcome from having UNMIN in Nepal.If you look at the official documents of UNMIN you will see that they never promissed to solve our problems at home,they never promissed to take responsibility for the actions and consequences¬†we as a society made,it was there as a peace keeper ,as an adviser.And we must remember,that it was the Nepalese Government that invited them and I am sure that for the Constitution to be written at the higher level of its meaning ,Nepalese law makers will still need help ,because we can not afford to write constitution every time we change goverment or every time some other party is leading the government.
One party retains its private combatant force? This is absolute absurd,how could ever maoists believe or think ,if they goals were to have a safe society to bring the gang ,they themselves organized ,as question to be discussed.It¬†was their parties primary responsibility and duty to take care of people,they call them PLA,as they were the ones to give promisses to these people.Again,the problem is present and now we all have taken the responsibility,therefore the only way out is to integrate,but as I said,every army has different forces and in my opinion they could be integrated as working forces for restructuring and building the infrastructure of the Nepali society,even though they might be not high skilled,therefore there are skilled officers of Nepali Army who can lead.Every soldier of an army has a code of conduct and every soldier gives¬†the Oath¬† to protect and serve its country and citizens and this is the only measure we must follow and accept,there are no other ways around this problem and there are no any special conditions.This is a question of Principal and the meaning of having army ,there are no compromises,this is what maoist leaders must understand,we do not need their ability to talk,we have heard and seen their actions and promises,that have never been kept.Someone must stop .Anything we do in life will be insignificant,however we must do it anyway,we must participate.
However exit of UNMIN is a positive step and it should be made,but without blaming,we need to realize that no one can bring peace at home,if the members of the family do not show good will to trust and try.Forcing has never brought results we want ,it limits growth .This is why we are¬† here at this stage ,because we have been trying out different approaches,but I¬†hope that¬†parties have understood that it doesn't bring growth and development for the people and its country and it is the urgency of a time to make big decisions .
Outstanding issues in the peace process include completing the drafting of the new constitution and resolving the future of the Nepal Army .The¬†termination of¬†UNMIN¬† is a logical step too, however UN will have to remain closely engaged and supportive in the peace process that hopefully will take lift up towards economic growth of the country .
My wish to every family in NEW YEAR 2011 is believe in the best of every member of your family,keep an open mind and roll up sleeves,we have so much to do.Enjoy the process.Health and wealth to everyone.
24 DEC 2010 | 2:25 PM NST
It is a biased analysis.¬† Plus, it is interesting that Kanak is writing this at the final stage.¬†¬† But, many had been saying this for a long time --UNMIN 's failure to reign in the Maoists.¬† They also had been asking the political parties to not fall for greed and power bargaining (bargaining for Presidentship rather than law and order -- one of many examples). ¬† In fact, UNMIN did their job to the best of circumstances; the political parties did not.¬† But, you seem to put all the blame on UNMIN and say nothing about the political parties and their own lack of commitment and power greed that have been equally responsible for the mess.¬† Now, what do you suggest? Hand it over to India?¬†¬† We all know that UK and US are just token players.¬†
24 DEC 2010 | 8:03 PM NST
If all the anti-Maoists hold hands and fervently wish for both UNMIN and the PLA to disappear then a miracle is guaranteed to happen within 3 weeks.
If you also hold your breath it could happen in 3 minutes.
24 DEC 2010 | 8:14 PM NST
¬†Arthur is a mole of ICG .Ha. ha ha!
25 DEC 2010 | 6:16 AM NST
6. who cares
in the early days, those who have personal/group interest were talking tough against maoist .......... its glad to know that now there are many people who have started to show they tough stand for the betterment of nepal.
what took you guys so long? i think you people have wasted around 2 yr.
and also, we have to do something about those, who have been wearing democratic hide, who are trying to full fill their¬†personal¬†and gang's interest in this troubled time.
THEY ARE EVEN BIGGER PROBLEM THAN MAOIST.
25 DEC 2010 | 9:58 AM NST
7. Vija Srestha
Good morning ,
I have been waiting for one acknowledgement,accepting own mistakes,acceptance and open mind,but reading the comments above,I have understood that we still have a long way to go,some are cynical and only talk and still devide people in castes and social groups according to their opinions without acknowledging how we ,each of us are better than the other,are we??????????????????Embrace the difference!!!!!!!!!!!!
First of all we need to understand what is the role of UN¬† and what is the role of UNMIN .What is your role as an individual in the society?Do we let them lead our lives or we decide,what we want and how we want our lives to be lived in our home.The word is compromise and an open mind but members of political parties haven't understood that,there is a mistrust and the greed for power.I think it's time they make a decission,we need to understand there are no loosers,we can all be winners if we embrace the progress.
If two brothers have an argument,who do¬†you think is to solve the problem?....
I am giving examples using simple words,and I think every politician should use them too, so that millions of¬† our brothers and sisters would understand you and vote for you.Politicians are not a group of people from above,you walk the same road as we do in the mornings,you walk the same road we walk in the evenings,the question is what do we do between these walks?
I would like to quote these words'In fact, UNMIN did their job to the best of circumstances ,to the the political parties did not......'¬†Their own lack of commitment and power of greed for spheres of influence,that has been responsible for the mess.'That's so right!
An opinion isn't necessarily a bias, and that's where some of us debaters miss the point.First of all, just because a news source is biased, it does not make it wrong about everything.
25 DEC 2010 | 12:08 PM NST
With this article it is cleared when exactly Kanak Dixit and likes started to feel betrayed by UNMIN and precisely it is then when detractors like me has started to dislike him and his likes. What these people thought prior to Peace accord? That UNMIN should have taken the corrupt and incompetent lots of non-maoists as savior and the Maoists as baddies? Impossible! when you go through each letter of the pact. Without doubt the non-maoists look status quo If one goes by the words of the peace accord.
When these people found the CA election results as a shattered dream, the wish to demonstrate the real size(haisiyat)of the Maoists, they started attacking UNMIN and Kanak Dixit is one of them. And by the way, still so called mainstream people like Kanak Dixit owes an explanation to the public opinion on their failure to estimate the CA results having quite a significative control in the media.
The UNMIN played by the rules of the game as any United Nation's organization has done anywhere. Of course one can have personal qualification objectively or not . But noone has right to say things that they know it is not true. Lack of honesty, it is called Kanak Sir! Because honesty is not to defend the truth but to abhor the falsehood we know and to admit that the reality cannot spoil a good reporting. Perhaps this has been the essence of journalism led by Kanak Dixit and likes. Quite betraying for what it is known for: honest as scientists, artists and economists. But in the case of this storyteller, it must be added the bonus of criticism, the ongoing question of boundless curiosity. And to be critical one should begin by being self-critical without being self-destructive. And it should begin by recognising that we often forget honesty in an effort to criticise what we do not like or do not suit us. Conversely, Mr. Dixit has been taking shelter somewhere to attack something that we share and/or protect us.
P.S. Lately, Kanak Dixit in his articles appear to be repeating duhai of rightist elements.....", but I wonder If he has ever realized who really are cheering his write ups?
VIPoint to be submitted: Karin Landgren clarified what really is UN's standing on¬† peace process. The integration and a guarantee of NA's democratisation process will determine the kind of conclusion the UN will have on Peace process as a whole. The crux of the matter for civil society leaders like Kanak Dixit is¬† "Are you enough intelligent not to incurr the disapproval of the most respectable?"
25 DEC 2010 | 3:42 PM NST
9. Mahesh Sharma
Kanak has been carefully gentler towards UNMIN in this article particularly in raising rather a meek voice about the accountability of UNMIN. Obviously, had it not been UNMIN's presence Maoist would probably have never agreed to put their fighters in the cantonment and disqualified would not have been released. But it must be noted that UNMIN was invited only after government and Maoist decided for peace accord. In other words, it is not UNMIN that brought conflicting party together and made them agree on peace accord. Nonetheless, UNMIN did its job and it should have left long back. But instead they invented many excuses and reasons to extend there stay in Nepal. Neither UNMIN nor UN tried or facilitated to strengthen the Special Committee to take the monitoring responsibility. Clearly, strengthening Special Committee is suicidal game for both the UNMIN and Maoist. This non functional special committee worked quite well for the interest of both the UNMIN and Maoist. For Maoist, on the cover of UNMIN they continued to play their game in whatever way they wanted to do and for UNMIN has been an excuse to stay longer in the expense of huge cost and be part of international politics. Evidently, longer UNMIN√Į¬Ņ¬Ĺs presence not only jeopardise the peace process, but also blind folds Nepalese√Į¬Ņ¬Ĺ vision to seek long term solution independently.
If Maoist truly believes the large number of voters as true and honest (not coerced) they should not see the only 20,000 combatant as their strength. As a matter of fact it is the peoples√Į¬Ņ¬Ĺ vote, not the combatant that made Prachand prime minister of Nepal
25 DEC 2010 | 10:08 PM NST
10. M.B Shresha
We don't need anybody. We can do our self. Only we need nationalism¬† mind and spirit. This Problems is ours. Solution also comes from us. We should stop to expect from others to solve the ours problems.
26 DEC 2010 | 11:16 AM NST
11. jange 8. Mahesh Sharma
¬†As a matter of fact it is the peoples√Į¬Ņ¬Ĺ vote, not the combatant that made Prachand prime minister of Nepal
And there lies the problem. If it wasn't for the combatants they wouldn't have been able to get the "peoples vote".
Why NC and UML does not want to extend ¬†UNMIN ¬†term ? its simple. The mere fact is Moaist is the biggest party in Nepal and still they enjoy the support from majority of Nepalese people. NC and UML have fear of¬†eradication¬†if they continue the peace process and go for next election, thus they want to derail this peace process and bring back this country once again blood shed thinking that their dul dai India will intervene here and take control of the country and make them master again. Why on earth they have to send UNMIN back at this final juncture of the peace process, UNMIN is a¬†neutral¬†force which is here just to monitor our peace process. I believe because of their presence , ¬†there is no single incidence of arms conflict after the peace agreement , this mere fact is sufficient to say they are¬†successful¬†in doing their job.¬†
26 DEC 2010 | 4:39 PM NST
13. K. K. Sharma
Thank you Kanak for this article. Now we know what our masters in Delhi desire.
26 DEC 2010 | 7:41 PM NST
14. Vija Sretha
The Government,Maoists have always and repeatedly agreed on short ceasefres many years during the Dashain Festival and Tihar.Isn't it strange that decissions ofsuch scale and width were made in a matter of days and for many years!Were Maoists ever serious about the course they had taken or was it the usual midle age crises ,looking for fulfillment of own dreams ,not understanding that the only way to fulfillment is through learning,understanding ,hard work and acceptance of differences.The willingness to help¬†many people comes from within and forcing something one doesn't want to do is not the way.We start from ourselves.So,did both sides invite UNMIN¬† then?
Festivals,nostalgy for home ,respect to people's needs?These emotions are not separable parts of ourselves and our¬†lifes and it¬†goes hand in hand¬† every day¬†of our lives¬†,but¬†¬†then the process of life had gone much further with new diversions and developments and in this case the only common ground was removal of the King and the question what do we¬†¬†do¬†next?
¬†They had too biopolar opinions on issues that is the reason they agreed to invite UNMIN as an obser and adviser¬† and both sides,Government and Maoists knew too well and know now that¬†¬† decision will be made only by these two¬†otherwise why do we need such¬†Government which doesn't know difference¬†between UN and UNMIN.Why are we¬† part of UN and why did we¬†invite UNMIN?
It was not the purpose of UNMIN to bring them together,we need to read their official documents¬†to understand¬†¬†the purpose of inviting¬†UNMIN.It was a¬†very wise step on the part of Government and Maoists however the decisions must be made and steps taken by ourselves not by UNMIN¬†
What is UNMIN?
The United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) is a special political mission in support of the peace process in Nepal. It was established in response to the letter to the Secretary-General sent on 9 August 2006, in which the then Seven-Party Alliance Government and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) requested United Nations' assistance in creating a free and fair atmosphere for the election of the Constituent Assembly and the entire peace process.
What does UNMIN do? Resolution 1740 (2007) established UNMIN with a mandate to: monitor the management of arms and armed personnel of the Nepal Army and the Maoist army, in line with the provisions of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. assist the parties through a Joint Monitoring Coordinating Committee in implementing their agreement on the management of arms and armed personnel assist in the monitoring of ceasefire arrangements provide technical assistance to the Election Commission in the planning, preparation and conduct of the election of a Constituent Assembly in a free and fair atmosphere The United Nations, for its¬†¬†part, stands ready to assist a peace process guided by and for the people of Nepal.√Į¬Ņ¬Ĺ
¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬† and that is so frustrating to read,that many of us still have not understood that and the reason it has no development so far is the greed for power and spheres of influence ,but we need only progress in our lives,the time to work and succeed in peace.
The vision to seek long term solutions independently is needed and there is no one to blame,I repeat,let's not play blaming games,let's not engage in unprofessional behaviour.
26 DEC 2010 | 10:27 PM NST
Poor Army.¬† Once vilified for abusing human rights, now they will have to be ready to do the dirty work for the parties, ....after the departure of UNMIN and the derailment of the peace process.¬† K.K. Sharma-- right on the money... ¬† We knew India was always¬† reluctant about the UNMIN's presence..
27 DEC 2010 | 5:14 AM NST
Oh I see my comment hasn't been published. May be the moderators found too offensive. Actually, it was a contra-reaction. When the entire world is saying that UNMIN has been a fair partner in peace process, Kanak Mani Dixit appears as usually telling us "Not Missing UNMIN" exactly when no man of his choice in politics has any alternative to fill the vaccum right after its departure and to defend his posture he sees no difference between UNMIN and a technical commitee based on political consensus. I can't figure out the motives behind such unnecessary attack of something that we've shared and have protected the peace process.
The peace process in itself had two sides "STATUS QUOISTS AND REVOLUTIONARIES", it can be sait more loudly but not much clearly, like it or not, in words and for circumstances, the Maoists are revolutionaries and the rests are nothing more than STATUS QUOISTS. And CA ELECTIONS gave legitimacy to that voice. It's strange that until CA elections Kanak Mani Dixit was not keen to disarm the Maoists. You all people have jumped the fundamental rule of the game: where in any civilised country elections happen with an armed group in govt and being participant of so called civilised elections?¬† It is said that strong people write history but I am optimistic that one day history will say that Kanak Mani Dixit has also been one between many who legitimised the guns in the election. Perhaps that was a sort of tacit nod to bring the Maoists INTO THE SIZE by many civil society leaders, in name of mainstreaming those with guns but in reality the shit hit the fan.
If I'm to allowed some suggestions, I'd humbly request him to focus on following aspects of story telling:
1. Defend the kind of truth you believe but abhor the falsehood we know and please admit that the reality cannot spoil a good reporting.
2. Your criticism ought to follow the ongoing question of boundless curiosity.
3. Be critical but being self-critical and without being self-destructive.
4. Do often recognise that we often forget honesty in an effort to criticise what we do not like or do not suit us.
I think If worked on above points Kanak Mani Dixitjiu will again be dear as a civil society leader of all nepali people. I would not wish him being confined into partisan walls. My heartly wished for a man who we know have fought for Democracy.
27 DEC 2010 | 1:39 PM NST
17. DG In writing the "Nepal ko Sambidhan 2046 "no foreign help or expertise in such colossus¬† scale was involved.¬† This time covertly or overtly there is so much foreign hand involved in this excercise. Does it not hurt Nepalese pride? Previously it was a pure Nepalese affairs .¬† So¬† was the guiding principle and sprit¬† behind¬† the making of Indian constitution¬† as well¬† in history.It is saidof it thatits indigenous Indian nature has been the major reason for the Constitution's success. In making India's Constitution ,theChairpersons¬† of¬† all committees : Nehru,Rajendra Prashad Ambedkar,Patel,Kripalani, etc, all of them attended meetings without fail and contributed to their fullest extent. Is it not a shame and dereliction of duty towards the country and the people that our Socialist comrades¬† reciting people in every sentence have such bad attendance in the meetings of such national importance. Why not ostracize them¬† for such act.? Let us bycott¬† them in the next election¬† and srart this slogan right from now to punish them. This will be a great service to the downtrodden and poor people ,our fellow beings or not. " No attendance ,no vote " should be our slogan now.
27 DEC 2010 | 4:39 PM NST
Another one for INDIA...
27 DEC 2010 | 6:44 PM NST
Not Missing UNMIN
The need of the day is, take responsibility and make independent decisions without but's and if's¬† without violence,can¬†we do that in the family ,Nepal,
28 DEC 2010 | 11:25 AM NST
We know there will be a Blast again, that is sure. People are too much frustrate with politicians. Sujata to Makune√Į¬Ņ¬Ĺs every move made normal public annoyed. Maoist and NC opposite behavior! Terrible!!
Big reason is, no new constitution. All these made Nepali public in the mood of Blast. We saw lot of Blast/changes earlier, but only one thing making me scared, India√Į¬Ņ¬Ĺs physical/army interference.
Let√Į¬Ņ¬Ĺs pray that never happens! At least if UNMIN was there, India can√Į¬Ņ¬Ĺt directly interfere us, Now India is free with help of US to do anything they want in Nepal. This is the grand plan, I think so√Į¬Ņ¬Ĺ.
29 DEC 2010 | 4:17 PM NST
I think, UNMIN did a great job facilitating the peace process. It gave Nepalese a ray of hope in the path towards peace. But I have a feeling that Maoist are taking negative advantage of UNMIN and has always stressed on lengthening its terms. It has advantages from UNMIN , one despite weapon registry and vigilance from UNMIN their cadres are in constant touch of weapons who have always used them in their favor. Another advantage Maoist have from UNMIN is that they have always used UNMIN in their favor by urging UNMIN to hold talks with parties and negotiate their demands ( Maoist always try to threaten saying that they will keep the peace process in stake ). It is the best time for UNMIN to leave as it has already managed the key process of keeping their cadres inside the walls and have started them to provide regular Government income. In parliament Maoist are devoid of the adequate seats to form a Government, so if other parties keep their unity and remain in power they can always negotiate with Maoist with this point. Thanks UNMIN. Key is other parties have to unite until Maoist give up weapons, dissolve YCL, and return seized properties to their respective owners.
30 DEC 2010 | 8:25 AM NST
22. Arthur Nirmal #16 "I can't figure out the motives behind such unnecessary attack of something that we've shared and have protected the peace process."
I think yanpras #12 has a plausible theory - the motive is end the peace process so the status quo can remain in power by force from NA with Indian support instead of having to face even bigger defeat by Maoists at next elections.
But even though that is "plausible" it still doesn't make much sense. They didn't win the last civil war and they have less support now, so how could they actually want another one? My impression is that the "ruling" parties no longer actually have a strategy and are just drifting, waiting for others to decide their fate. Meanwhile they can shout mechanically against UNMIN and feel better about it.
No wonder the Maoists are divided about "people's revolt". How does one mobilize to revolt against such empty bluster?
30 DEC 2010 | 1:18 PM NST
Agreement to agree.
Let us think ,what does it mean? When undertaking negotiations it is all too easy to leave things unfinished,which can result in an unenforceable √Į¬Ņ¬Ĺagreement to agree√Į¬Ņ¬Ĺ
Example ''Out of 210 contentious issues in the reports prepared by the seven thematic committees of the CA, the taskforce formed with UCPN (Maoist) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal as the Coordinator had settled 127 issues. ''
We all would like to know what exactly are the prioritising and the remaining contentious issues that Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal as the Coordinaror wouldn't agree with? You all represent people of Nepal and we have the right to know .
I think it is time that Nepali newspapers let people in on what exactly was discussed during the meetings not just showing few rabbits and putting them back in the sack.
Taking independent advice and settlement contracts such as these brings to an end the dispute as it is the solicitors' responsibility to ensure that their client's agreements are in fact binding.
So is UNMIN√Į¬Ņ¬Ĺs withdrawal as it formally winds up MA can√Į¬Ņ¬Ĺton√Į¬Ņ¬Ĺment , temporary quarters for troops and Barracking of the Nepal Army.
¬† However the rehabilitation packages for reintegration to those discharged into the society and supported by the Government and the United Nations in Nepal are:like to draw your attention UN not UNMIN include:¬† formal schooling, vocational training, training as health workers, and setting up of small/micro-enterprises. A discharged person shall have 12 months from the date of discharge to sign up for one of these packages.
A UN team will monitor the Action Plan that the discharged person will not engage in violent activities within Maoists affiliated organizations.¬† It is verified that the when the Maoist party shall have fully complied the plan, the party shall consider for removal the list of parties that recruit and use children in conflict through the annual UN Secretary-General√Į¬Ņ¬Ĺs report on Children and Armed Conflict.
Under the Plan, monitoring will last for six months, and monitoring under Security Council¬† will continue beyond that date.
Therefore¬† another UN political mission,¬† with a different name, would be a must to accomplish the monitoring and supervision of the arms and armies of both sides, in addition to the necessary technical support to the Maoist army for (re)integration and rehabilitation.
¬†Absence of UNMIN is not the main issue here,it is the good will,promises made and signed,as most of the signed documents have no legal binding after the date expired.If we continue this road of mistrust,anger,just demanding ,not participating in betterment of one self,we will have long way to go,but I like to believe that we are able to overcome bitterness and gorgive mistakes and go on ,this is again one chance to do so.
30 DEC 2010 | 1:27 PM NST
24. Chetna Kunwar
Mr. Dixit, I am sure you learned some dixiya from the UNMIN and Maoists' at the last minute.
A great article, hope India will not have its cold hands in handling the peace process and constitution writing (Hope will not dictate).
Great to know from you that finally UNMIN, which was a curse and burden to Nepal will be leaving soon.
With all the best and Happy New Year 2011.
30 DEC 2010 | 6:15 PM NST
25. S. ARYAL
Once again Kanak dai, I see where you are coming from but cannot say that I agree with you. In your heart, and those of a few other well meaning folks living materially comfortable lives, who genuinely believe in the free enterprise and democratic governance, the present situation in Nepal demands all the show of support to the so called democratic parties. It is not the belief in democracy that I question, because I am all for it myself. Rather, it is the blind arrogance emanating from self-perceived moral (read: material) superiority of the so-called democratic system as practiced in Nepal, and your support by extension to the parties that are its carriers no matter how repulsive they are. Like you, I witnessed Al Gore concede his election victory to GW Bush, and for all the deformities in the US political system, felt that there were some things that are truly democratic in that country. While I rightly did not and perhaps never can or will assume that Nepali democrats will turn out to be as magnanimous as that, it seems like you are still not grounded in the core reality of the differences in the way we do democracy here. Tacit in your blind support of the looters in the form of saints, I sense a degree of hope that you have cherished for the country and the vision you have nurtured of one day having a truly democratic Nepal where values such as the one described above could simply be superimposed along with the moral authority in these democrats. That is the reason you perhaps ask people to give these guys more time, as they would need to be changed. My argument is that the way that the political system has developed in this country and the manner in which party systems are built does not point in any way towards that vision. Quite the contrary, I see these thugs being emboldened even more, with each passing day, extending the scope and reach of their rampant pillaging, arresting our potential and tearing apart the whole fabric of our society.¬†¬†¬†
What you conveniently seek to hide- and to our own detriment most of us tend to forget- are the small steps that have led us up to this point. Despite your blind and fervent support for the √Į¬Ņ¬Ĺdemocratic forces√Į¬Ņ¬Ĺ which characteristically absolves them of all their follies, it is they, who I hold responsible for the sorry state of this nation. UNMIN or not, the reality is that these status-quoists in the guise of √Į¬Ņ¬Ĺdemocrats√Į¬Ņ¬Ĺ are ruled hopelessly by a selfish lot of self centered, immoral, misguided buffoons hell-bent on preserving their own clans, and being selfish even at that. Although you have been indoctrinated to support- perhaps with the belief that one day they will turn their pages- I see no hope of their transformation. You may cite the handful of 30 something young leaders as being the silver-lining- who I may argue are not detached from their patrons- but even if I were to buy-in to your assertion that indeed they are the new firebrand ambassadors of change, just in terms of their sheer size and numbers they are far from becoming a phenomena and making any credible impact beyond the meek emotions they may evoke while practicing their public speaking at sundry meetings.¬† Through your tacit or explicit support of their ideology, you may rejoice in feeding¬† your alter ego all you want, reflecting on how you never gave up on the all encompassing democracy and the democratic ideals, I argue that in fact you and your lot are doing the country a disservice.
What are the indications that you see that are remotely in place which you can cite to guarantee the bewildered lot as myself that your support of these quasi democrats is contributing towards achieving true democratic ideals and goals? Help me out here Kanak dai, for, your lack of concrete examples will only warrant a newer question from me. Instead of continuously erring on the side of the looters and their gang, why not give the Maoists, a force to be reckoned with that were never given their due in governance a real chance in getting this country move forward? Remember, moving forward in development is what people need.
Intellectual masturbation and theorizing can be the pastime of a handful of people gifted with the wherewithal to pass through the acts of life- getting their egos bloated along the way. Far from it, what the average Nepali needs and wants is a Nepal where Rishi Dhamala goes to prison when it is established that he was in on that ransom bid. It is a Nepal where Makune, as a soverengn nation's PM¬†does not stoop down to the level of requesting the Thai ambassador during an official meeting to find a Post Graduate course for his daughter in Thailand OR when he gets caught doing so, is punished. They want every person who even considers enriching themselves with the expense of the poor by any untoward means is genuinely afraid to do so as that act would get caught and would come with severe punishment that does not discriminate. They want a Nepal where those found guilty of committing financial crimes are hanged to death. They want equitable redistribution of the resources. They do not want their half naked children sleeping on the street side begging for alms on a cold winter night while a tax inspector builds a multistoried shopping mall through his loot. They want a Nepal where they don√Į¬Ņ¬Ĺt get cursed at and bullied at the airports on their way out of the country to slave themselves as migrant labors by the government employees. They want a Nepal where they can get jobs and guaranteed health and education for their children.
Although in the interim it may seem like a disservice that you and your likes did to the country by staging an untimely exit of the Maoists, which to Prachanda√Į¬Ņ¬Ĺs credit, was an honorable one nonetheless, the majority of the poorer people- poor by virtue of geography, caste, creed, languge, Indian-ness etc- continue to look up to the Maoists for increasing their odds of getting anything out of the government. The short lived Maoist coalition government¬†on which¬†these people were pinning their hopes on was never given the space to function- a basic democratic norm¬†in the countries whose models you perhaps wish to have emulated in Nepal- I may add- with all the impediments from the quasi-democratic tilting bureaucrats and detractors. Unlike your belief that the Maoists only won the majority in the elections by coercion and use of force and that they would not fare as well come the next elections, it is my challenge and assertion, given the simmering anger of betrayal the have-nots feel, that they will sweep the next election and come back with even more votes.
It would be interesting to see what antics you will come up with at that time. It would have been obvious by then, perhaps, that the semantic acrobatics that these thugs and their allies are so good at vomiting, does not work.
Maybe then you and I can have a beer and talk about how you feel about democracy in Nepal.
Until the next elections,
04 JAN 2011 | 3:12 PM NST
26. S. Onta
Something had to give to break the current stalemate between the political parties, and UNMIN's departure is the right way to start a new process. The country has gone through years of stagnation because all parties, especially the Maoists, found the comfort zone in the status quo, where their army was taken care of my UN, while they try to dismantle the state system so the country can be ruled the way they want it. While the next step is unclear, the political parties are taking a calculated risk.
Having said that, unlike Kanak dai, I will not put the blame squarely on UNMIN, because our political parties, all of them, had a lot to do with the ineffectiveness of UNMIN. Bottom line is, rest of the country is not ready to dance to the Maoists tune, while the Maoists form of democracy is "my way of the highway". This polar opposite view of the world cannot live side-by-side, and our leaders must understand that and come to a compromise. Otherwise, we'll all live the rest of our lives in this purgatory.¬†