STRESSsssssssssssssss

A good test of stress is, for example, the load test of any modern bridge. You have to put a few truckloads of sand to test the endurance of the infrastructure in an extreme situation that, in theory, will occur. The same kind of test could be applied to the governor of our national bank when we know that there is a increasing inflation(real one) and shortage of rupee notes(by the way, nice piece of daura-suruwaal governor saap!) AND also could be implemented a review of resistance to political leaders in order for the voters to know what to expect. Applied to each party, would allow us to predict how their leaders act in the worst-case scenario.

Since Nepali politics has long been installed in a state of overload, at least three different political fronts(minus UML, I already had plenty of comments on them these last days) should be tested. Sushil Koirala focused on the first stress test of the NC to maintain a tight grip on the party. It seemed that the structure is enduring until the first cracks will reemerge because he preferred to live with them rather than repair. But what the stress test did not predict at that time was the worst-case scenario: an unfriendly government made of the Maoists and Madhesi parties, which will behave as an enemy but will pretend to seek reconciliation aparently. To pass the test and restore confidence, the NC should explain what the future of the NC's federal project looks alike, find out if the NC has any and finally reveal how to cope with a new coalition, as their options to govern alone are nonexistent neither now nor in future. It is true that apparently it has been the Maoists who raised the new political concepts but it should be reminded that anyone who can implement them in praxis could win the medal leaving the Maoists empty hands. Monopoly in competitive politics is a chimaera.

The madhesi front, which was suspended in all exams with evidences in the previous term  -from split to widespread scandals-, has been remade. However, the stress test of Madhesi alliance opens many questions: How is it possible that still there is a greater sense of one Madhes one Prades between them when the Madhesi leaders' charismatic control over Terai is in drastic decline according to the public opinions? Such has been the abrasion, just by ruling two years? So little credibility? Or that, Madhesiness is "a kind of feeling that does not translate into reality"? For if this is the reason, madhesi alliance would do well to explain that its goal now is to open a "transition" to Federalism, but has trouble keeping its composure before the madhesi patriotic fervor of some armed friends like Goit and company, the greed of power-mongering along with its southern shadow.

As for the Maoists, it has passed the stress test of the opposition, but governing is more difficult. The stress test should not only measure its ability to manage, but the responsibility with which it ought to assume the state of mind installed in Nepali society. To channel, Baburam Bhattarai has devised a claim to the consensus govt, which, he believes can adhere all stakeholders, even those, prone to risky adventures. But it is left to see how he could gain his own party president's tacit nod first. He does not mind to wrap it with the discourse of a  'nepali transition' or of an unfinished process with his style a la communista ... also towards Democratic Federalism? Here the test begins to show signs of stress because there is nothing more stressful than uncertainty(his controlled chaos).

Arthur. You have to be in Nepal to know how sharp the divide between Prachanda and Bhattarai is. Jha is not sharpening the divide but reporting on it and analysing its implications. The Kantipur interview was surely not a figment of Jha's imagination but what Bhattarai said at a time when his own candidate was in the fray. Jha last week did not blame Prachanda for wanting to split the UML. He merely pointed out that this is one of Prachanda's aims, and of course it is since that will benefit the Maoists. All he is doing is trying to look at the possible permutations that can lead to government formation and that is the big concern at the moment. A good piece by Jha is here -  http://www.hindu.com/2010/07/30/05hdline.htm.

I personally agree with you that the peace deal included democratisation of the NA. But Na has changed to the extent that it will in the present round of political struggle. You have to objectively look at the options that Maoists have in pushing this agenda. They can do what they did last year with limited success. They can say we won't write the constitution which suits the other parties just fine since they do not want it anyway. Jha seems to be making an underlying point which is recognise the reality and compromise for the sake of the constitution. Perhaps he seems to be pushing Bhatarai since that is his line within the party. Surely you know not all your comrades want the constitution and this process to succeed.  

"Yes, it is getting stale. Week after week Prashant Jha writing to stir up conflict between Prachanda and Bhatterai and speculating on permutations of numbers instead of analysing the underlying situation"

Arthur stop youre needless bantering ...because you're not even a citizen of our country...probably some idiot  khaire or wannabe khaire that thinks he is an intellect and keeps on rhetorically praising the maoists....Bhatterai is spelt Bhattarai BTW.....if you dont know that then.......even if you are here you obviously dont have any local connect...so shut it !!!!!!

It's absolutely pathetic, the stage we've come to! The whole nation has come to standstill watching a half-dozen old Bahuns trying to back-stab each other. Week after week, month after month, it's the same old story of Bahuns playing their sly games -- while the country slides inexorably into a stinking abyss. Surely Nepal and Nepalis deserve better than this!

Why do Nepali ppl keep putting up with this crap?! It's time to call an end to this Bahunbadi game of false promises and lies. THIS C.A. HAS FAILED! It's time to dissolve this assembly and go for FRESH ELECTIONS, or, better still, REVIVE THE 1990 CONSTITUTION! This whole idea of New Nepal and New Constitution has been exposed as total bullshit! 

Jange, everyone who follows Nepali politics knows / has experienced Bahunbad. It's the defining feature and cause of our pathetic political state. (I'm sure, deep inside, you know what it is too.) It is the supreme cunning used by Bahun netas to capture the state, its powers and privileges, for their personal benefit, all the while paying lip-service to high-sounding ideals like "democracy", "human rights", freedom etc. etc. It's the shabda-jal in which they have managed to trap the mass of Nepalis with false hopes and promises, while surreptitiously swindling away state goodies to build their personal and family fortunes, and reducing a reasonably good country into one of the absolute worst and hopeless states in the world. Base cunning, lies, shasan-through-bhasan, unbridled opportunism, corruption, dishonesty - saying one thing, doing another, supreme greed and selfishness, and apathy for the nation -- all these are aspects of Bahunism / Bahunbad. 

Having said that, it's important to mention that I'm NOT saying that all Bahuns are Bahunists / Bahunbadis. Many Bahuns are as disgusted by it as non-Bahuns. But most of the political leaders and their yes-men in the media and civil society are. That's the problem.

As for kshatriyabad, never heard of it. Let #13 anti-bahunbad explain it himself! 

"Perhaps he seems to be pushing Bhatarai since that is his line within the party. Surely you know not all your comrades want the constitution and this process to succeed."

As a foreign supporter who does not speak Nepali I have no special insight into views among comrades in Nepal. It would certainly be surprising if there weren't any thoroughly impatient with the long transition delay and ready to go back to war instead.

 But I see no sign that this is the position of any of the party leaders. The tactical and strategic differences I can see do not appear to be about the basic line of leading the Nepalese people's current agenda of republic, federalism, peace and constitution, but about how to implement that basic line.

#24:

Agree with you that accountability is the major weakness of our polity and society. Which is why I have constantly advocated for Referenda on major issues such as secularism, federalism, and republic.

The current CA clearly failed to deliver its mandate. Something has to be done to ensure that people in power don't get away scot-free for NOT delivering on their jobs/promises. Besides, a lot of decisions have been imposed on the Nepali people without our explicit consent or even clear understanding. Therefore, holding referenda will be a major achievement. It will correct the mistake of the past and drive home the point to all and sundry that the people of this country, not the politicians, hold the ultimate power.

I could say a lot more, but in short, holding referenda is the strongest way we can drive home the concept of accountability into our politicians' and peoples' minds!

#24 Dahmoines:

Totally agree with you that lack of accountability is the main problem in Nepal. Which is why I think holding Referenda on a number of major issues (eg. secularism, federalism and republic) is necessary. It is the most effective way of disciplining the politicians and making it clear, in no uncertain terms, that it�s the people, not the politicians, who are the supreme power in the country.

At the moment, the politicians have imposed many changes on the people without their explicit consent or understanding. I'd argue that most of these changes have been taken to promote the politicians� or parties� interests � and perhaps even that of foreign powers. But Nepali people themselves have not had the chance to consider the issues and make their own choices. If the politicians are allowed to continue like this they will forever continue abusing their powers. But if the decisions they�ve imposed on us are put to the vote, then finally the point will be driven home that politicians derive their authority from the people and are answerable to us.

@ Sushil K (#20), thanks for that long sad story about the Bahuns� historical lack of power. So they never had political power like Muslim imams or Christian priests, nor the economic power of Jews, eh? Perhaps that explains why they are so power-hungry today then! They feel that they never had it so good as their counterparts of other civilizations, and now, finally, is their chance! Perhaps they believe it�s their due, which is why they are so apathetic to the peoples� frustrations. �and let me clarify again, I was talking about the Bahuns in politics and media, not all Bahuns.

@ Dahmoines (#24), the difference between the Rana/Shahs etc of the past and the current Bahun politician  is that the Rana/Shahs were feudal rulers who presented themselves as such. They came to power through the sword and ruled by it. The politicians of today claim to be �democrats�, here to devolve power to the people and to work for their benefit. But they wield power just like a feudal ruler, using the state resources for their personal benefit and leaving the people in disarray. I�m not saying the Rana/Shahs were better. But they were wolves who presented themselves as wolves. Today�s Bahunist leaders are wolves who present themselves as lambs (�democrats�); Wolves in sheeps� clothing, as they say. That�s the difference. Get it?

@Arthur (#22), you say this article hasn�t much to do with Bahunism. As a foreigner you still have a lot to learn. This article is just the symptom, the outer results, of the inner Bahunist mentality and modus operandi.

Reader (#31), when I say Rana/Shah + others were not better, I mean that I am not supporting their rule i.e. feudal rule again. But is it better to see wolves in wolves� clothing as opposed to wolves in sheeps� clothing? Obviously, yes! Obviously honesty and straightforwardness is better than hypocrisy and sly cunning (Duh!) Do you disagree? In fact, you almost sound like you do prefer the second. Do you? (If so, maybe that helps to answer Jange�s question, #30!)

And quite honestly, I do not understand your second point. King Birendra gave up power in 1990 with very little bloodshed (relatively speaking). Throughout the 90s he didn�t interfere with the rule of the parties. Gyanendra took over power at the heat of the Maoist insurgency when, like now, the parties could not decide on their leadership. After he gave up power, he too has not interfered with the new rulers and system. So what�s your point? What intricate complexity are you trying to build into this simple truth? Are you trying to imply that somehow the �ghosts� of the Rana/Shahs are responsible for the mess we are in today?! (Perhaps this is an example of Bahunist �shabda-jal�!)

Jange, will get back to you if there�s time. But it�s already Thursday. We might have to continue this in another thread�

Wow, amusement in plenty.

 Look how NT regulars have succumbed to pseudo-intellect blackhole and suddenly decided to talk 'Bahunbad'___its again the multiple scores of 12 blind men taking stock of the elephant [sickly, the sorry state of Nepal]. I woundn't be surprised should 'BUDABAAJE' & 'DAHMOINES' or even the likes of 'SLARTI' ultimately purpose to turn[or even murder-such is the moronic psyche of otherwise bahun bums] all the 'Bahuns' into whatever sheep or goat or a tiger breed of 'somethingbad' good enough to rule the country...possibly the new breed carry the secret potion to turn the country into singapore, switzerland, Canada for heavens sake!

Arthur, Jange...you do better than that.

Bahunbad if there was any...would be, when all Bahuns came together and decided to work together...isn't that what we all want as of today mate?! stale.