Not impossible - Nepali Times

Publisher\'s Note
Not impossible

FROM ISSUE #497 (09 APRIL 2010 - 15 APRIL 2010) | TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUBSCRIBE NT

REFER

WRITE TO EDITOR

In all the distraction of the political meanderings and shadow boxing of the past month, what is often forgotten is that the Maoist party hasn't abjured violence. In fact, it is just the opposite.

Pushpa Kamal Dahal, in his speech to supporters at Tundikhel on Wednesday, once more threatened fire and brimstone, and the mother of all rebellions. His speech, of course, wouldn't have been complete without a threat to unleash another bloodbath if his party was not allowed to capture state power. And sure enough it came: "This time it won't just be 15,000 people who'll be killed but 30,000."

One could only take perverse satisfaction in the downsizing of the threat. Six months ago the Chairman said 1,000,000 would be killed. And this time he mercifully didn't threaten to "swim in the blood" of the dead.

There hasn't been a public reorientation of the party to peaceful pluralism. And until that happens, there just won't be the requisite trust among the non-Maoist parties and the main international players to agree to hand over the responsibility of power to them again.

What is bizarre is the tolerance shown by missions of supposedly democratic and civilised countries in Kathmandu to such incendiary rhetoric. Anyone calling on the Maoists to give up violence is immediately labelled a 'rightist status quoist'. Or fingers are pointed at the relatively docile youth wings of other parties, which sprang up in reaction to the YCL. Since when did speaking for ahimsa become reactionary? Why does a party that won power through the ballot still need the bullet?

The argument usually is that the Maoists need to say such things (and lie to the UN about guerrilla strength) to appease their hardcore cadre. That argument may have worked before, but it doesn't anymore. This is the familiar Maoist method of blackmailing with the threat of going back to war unless they get total power. The portrait
of Stalin on the walls of Maoist leaders isn't there just for show.

A majority of Nepalis don't really care if the constitution is written by the deadline or not, they just don't want to die in another war, and they want their lives to improve. The priority now is to defuse the explosive uncertainty over May 28. The meeting between the president and the three parties (including the Maoists) on Sunday cleared the air a bit. More needs to be done.

If the Maoists now publicly commit to non-violent politics a lot of things will fall into place, and could pave the way for a Maoist-led national government. Such a coalition can then quickly agree on integration numbers and the operating principles of a new constitution to be announced on May 28, the details of which can be fleshed out later.

READ ALSO:
Prachanda's choice - From issue #497, 09 April 2010 - 15 April 2010
Diplomatic disaster - From issue #497, 09 April 2010 - 15 April 2010

1. Nirmal
This is the unique viable option left to the Maoists If they want their political goals to be secured. To the contrary all their chatters are making nepali people's head spin. The International missions seemed to have confused their warmongering rhetoric with third world populism. But it is not, it is a call to wake up demons and then try to reign being another demon that's all.

Posted on: 09 APRIL 2010 | 2:11 PM NST

2. Jagat Jung
Bit late in the day for Kunda Dixit and his ilk to realise that the Maoists were not the saviors of Nepal. It was the Nepali Times that always gave the Maoists the benefit of doubt during the conflict, not once labelling them the terrorists that they were. Now, the publisher is saying, sorry, the Maoists were terrorists after all but they need to be in government anyway! What kind of logic is that? The reason they have Stalin on their wall is because they adore him and they want to kill 20 million people like him. Just look at Prachanda's mug on the front page, he is even starting to resemble Stalin.

Posted on: 09 APRIL 2010 | 7:39 PM NST

3. Amused
The editor doth protest too much!

Posted on: 09 APRIL 2010 | 10:43 PM NST

4. Arthur
What is bizarre is the tolerance shown by missions of supposedly democratic and civilised countries in Kathmandu to such incendiary rhetoric. Anyone calling on the Maoists to give up violence is immediately labelled a 'rightist status quoist'.

Of course! Anyone calling on the Maoists to give up violence should be hailed as "democratic and civilized" and provided with donor funds for another seminar on conflict resolution! How bizarre that after only two decades of this stuff, even foreigners are no longer impressed.

Obviously I cannot speak for foreigners in Nepal. But honestly, if you cannot convince a majority of Nepali voters to keep the Maoists out of power, what on earth makes Kunda Dixit expect that foreigners would agree that it is up to their opponents and "international players" to decide whether to "agree" to let the Maoists take power?

The point of being "democratic and civilized" is that the choice of who holds power is made by the voters. I wasn't there, but I suspect that what the people who replied to Kunda Dixit's pleas for foreign support by calling him a "rightist, status quoist" really meant was that he is "undemocratic and uncivilized".

Check some history, like the English, French and American revolutions. The countries that have democracy won it through violent overthrow of the old regime. Much larger numbers were killed than in Nepal but it still didn't stop the people overthrowing their rulers and electing a government chosen by themselves.

Posted on: 09 APRIL 2010 | 11:35 PM NST

5. KiranL
Excellent, concise editorial that calls a spade a spade. The Kathmandu embassies of the EU will not be pleased, but it is they who look the other way� when a violence-based party is trying to seize totalitarian power. Remember, Hitler� was also elected!

Posted on: 10 APRIL 2010 | 6:30 AM NST

6. jange
"Why does a party that won power through the ballot still need the bullet?"

Good question Kunda. Maybe this will be the topic for your next article.

I know that you hope this is true and are hoping against hope for it to be true and want to believe it despite having had your (and your colleagues) head kicked in by the Maoists. But I think you should learn from Mao himself. "Seek truth from facts" was what he said. Try distinguishing facts from wishes.

You might think that the Maoists won power through the ballot but obviously the Maoists are very well aware how they won power. Therefore they CANNOT give up violence.

As told to one of the "missions" that you write of- "You know what they are, I know what they are, they know what they are; so why all the pretence?" As there was no response I was obliged to say, "And I know what you are."

Posted on: 11 APRIL 2010 | 8:05 PM NST

7. Nep1
Acknowledging Maoists as terrorists is stating the obvious so the question now is how do we erode their support from the mass. Crying about their atrocities from our warm and secure pillow will not bring change. The police / military strategy failed miserably and deep down all of us know it won't work again so the logical step is to give them the power as demanded by them. Once they are in power, they will be thrown by the people like the previous rulers and their base will be destroyed permanently.

Posted on: 12 APRIL 2010 | 10:50 AM NST

8. jange
#7 "...so the logical step is to give them the power as demanded by them."

That would be like giving the steering wheel to your five year old kid while you are driving at 60 per hour simply because it is screaming for it. Tempting... but not advisable.

The Maoists are in the unenviable position of trying to "aangan sojhyaune" while holding a couple of coconuts. Or rather, more accurately, while demanding to be allowed to hold the coconut.

Sorry for mixing metaphors.

Posted on: 12 APRIL 2010 | 12:50 PM NST

9. Nep1
#8, So for how long do we go on with the current stalemate. What is your antibiotics for this ailment.

Posted on: 14 APRIL 2010 | 10:47 PM NST

10. Arthur
Nep1, jange's "antibiotic" is military rule and another attempt to defeat the Maoists by civil war. But he cannot admit that because he has no answer to the obvious question of why anybody should expect the military to do better in another civil war than they did last time.

jange knows that nobody is driving anything at even 1 kilometre per hour, let alone 60 and nobody is actually steering anything. Since he cannot openly call for military rule as there is still no support for that, all he can do is repeat his mantras against the Maoists ("mafia, killing, looting extortion") and hope that one day there will be enough turmoil so that there will be support for military rule.

Deep down jange knows as you do that the military/police strategy will not work. Also he knows as you do that their real strength lies in their mass support. But he doesn't actually believe his own stuff about them being just a "mafia" or "five year old kids" so he fears that they will actually gain even more mass support once they are actually in power and able to build roads where one could drive at 60 kilometres per hour.

Posted on: 15 APRIL 2010 | 1:37 PM NST

11. Observer

Arthur,

If you heard your own words. Where did you get the military rule from, do you see the current Army Chief making any political statements? Getting into any controversy? Has any one even suggested it? You blindly support a party that threatens to KILL ITS OWN PEOPLE as soon as it does not get its way, quite rightly put by Jange "childish". We are not in the the 18th Century and not need of examples from that period. We are more educated, have instant access to information and able to judge a "right" from a "wrong" AND to take peoples land, have a violent para wing (YCL), extort money and kill people is plainly WRONG, however you put it. So please try and preach your rubbish to someone that does not have this common sense as you are insulting our intelligence in this forum. Your claim of the ballot, as we all know was infact made through the barrell anyway... Maybe subconsciously you think the only other option is the Military rule which I must also confess might agree to you as they are only ones that have worked towards Nepal's interest...

Posted on: 15 APRIL 2010 | 6:50 PM NST

12. jange
Kamred Arhur- wherever did you get the idea that I want military rule?

Posted on: 16 APRIL 2010 | 5:31 AM NST

13. Arthur
Observer, the current army chief is behaving much better than the previous one. He has publicly spoken against carrying out the peace agreement for army integration but has avoided getting into controversy by not trying to lead the fight against this, leaving it to the NC and UMLs while simply doing nothing to democratize the army since this government does not want that, rather than actively resisting government efforts to democratize the army as before.

The current COAS has also openly refused to obey a court order to hand over Major Basnet for trial on charges of responsibility for torture and murder of a 15 year old girl. He has also obstructed investigation of the recent killing of women collecting bark in the forest by soldiers.

These are all examples of the Nepal Army refusing to accept civilian supremacy. No army in a democratic society is permitted to behave like this. But then again no democratic government would permit such behaviour. So the focus of controversy is now the government, not the COAS.

Nevertheless I do not think that either the present or previous COAS actually wants army rule at present, because they know they did not do too well last time and have no reason to expect to do better at present.

They do want to preserve the Nepal Army from democratization and integration of the PLA and keep it at its present bloated size so that they can use it for military rule "if necessary" and as a threat permanently hanging over governments and the people.

This is precisely what you accuse the Maoists of. A THREAT TO KILL ITS OWN PEOPLE. More than 10,000 people were killed by security forces as "Maoists" during the People's War so that threat has to be taken very seriously.

Maoists will win any free elections because a large majority of Nepalis do indeed want to "take peoples land" and "extort" back the loot that the minority ruling Nepal has taken from them.

Majority of population lives on less than $2 per day and majority of children under the age of 5 are stunted from malnourishment. They will not vote for your parties except when forced to do so.

So there is nothing "subconscious" about the fact that the only other option to Maoists winning elections is not having free elections, which requires military rule and civil war.

Like jange, you are stuck, since you cannot openly advocate military rule since everybody knows it won't work. But at least you are a bit more honest with your confession at the end:

"the only other option is the Military rule which I must also confess might agree to you as they are only ones that have worked towards Nepal's interest..."

jange is more cautious, his remarks always reinforce the same idea that nobody except the military have worked towards Nepal's interest, but without actually saying it. But whenever challenged his reply is always "wherever did you get that idea".

The problem you are both stuck with is "whatever makes you think that would work?".

Posted on: 16 APRIL 2010 | 9:30 AM NST