Better, not good - Nepali Times

The success of any political-constitutional system is based on four key elements.

To survive, it has to be able to manage contradictions in society. These could range from transactional but unequal relationships between capital-labour and landlord-tillers to the competition between different population segments for government largesse. For this purpose, states use coercion while simultaneously creating mechanisms to settle disputes. If the system fails to strike a balance, and weighs in too heavily in favour of one group, it will face challenges.

Second, the system has to provide tangible benefits to multiple constituencies who will then develop a stake in the larger framework. This involves engineering an elite compact and getting those on the periphery to buy into the idea of the state as something that will lift them up from state of oppression.

Third, politicians need to keep an ear to the ground, sense shifts in public opinion, and respond to changing aspirations. And most importantly, all the political forces need to feel locked in to the constitutional order, and follow the rules of the game. Once they feel there is no alternative, the possibility of a systemic challenge lessens.

The 1990 order fell because it did not meet all these conditions. NC and UML failed to sense brewing conflicts in the hills and then responded in a totally ham-handed away, with the king adding to the mess later. There was little institutional coherence between the pillars of the constitution.

The discontent among those outside Kathmandu, those outside the Bahun-Chhetri fold, and the poor only grew when they perceived the system to be synonymous with open loot for the Kathmandu-centric establishment. The pie did not grow rapidly enough, and was not distributed evenly enough. Citizens felt they did not have security, and for most, the newfound liberty was not translating into material improvement

Some of the perceptions may or may not have been true, but there were few left to defend the system. The elites had characteristically spread their bets � keeping channels open with all sides with a willingness to swing either way depending on where power resided at any moment. The depth (or lack of it) of their conviction was evident when palace loyalists turned into die-hard republicans in less than a year. The Maoists did the rest, by convincing a vast majority the 'sarkar' had to be overthrown, and showed this was possible by attacking state authority.

These lessons are instructive because it is time to ask where the 2006 transitional system stands.

The new arrangement has done a better job of addressing demands than any other previous system. Relatively speaking, there is a degree of peace and calm in the districts. Many have called it appeasement, but there is a reason why there has been no Madhesi movement or major ethnic ferment over the past two years. The system has accepted the legitimacy of their issues, co-opted some of their leaders, and promised to institutionalise changes. There has also been an unprecedented democratisation of political society and public space � with newer groups asserting claim over resources at the local level. All of them have a stake in ensuring that this framework is not abandoned for the unknown.

But the problems are all too apparent. The political polarisation is not merely a Madhav Nepal-Dahal or Ram Chandra-Dahal battle. It is a reflection of the inability of the system to reconcile contradictions between political forces that represent different classes and group interests. The latent anger among Madhesi and Janjati leaders who see Bahun-Chhetri leaders deliberately dragging their feet on the process will also complicate matters.

Add to this the shrinking numbers of those who defend the 2006 system. It was the fear of the Maoists, and the recognition that monarchical rule was not sustainable, that drove the elites to back the peace accord. But with the monarchy gone, and the Maoist aura dissipating, the yearning for strongman rule is back once again. At the popular level, the disdain for politicians is returning too. If the defining cry across the country five years ago was for peace, the one universal demand now is jobs. The failure of the present system to generate employment is discrediting it thoroughly.

There is no organised force to fill the vacuum, nor a clear roadmap of what an alternative arrangement will look like. The only reason the system lasts is because such a large segment of the population has seceded from it � look at the transnational Nepali proletariat.

All of this means that the coming failure of Nepal's experiment with peace and constitutionalism may not result in outright confrontation. But the grammar of anarchy, to borrow Ambedkar's evocative phrase, is in place.

READ ALSO:
Step it up, EDITORIAL
Against the wind, DAMAKANT JAYSHI

4. jange
There is one other critical item that comes before all the points mentioned and without which all four points are meaningless.

Wonder why Prashant has chosen to unmention it.

Posted on: 11 DEC 2010 | 5:53 PM NST

5. SS
if it ain't broke, don't fix it. 1990 constitution wasn't broken. i'm sure jha can see what has come trying to fix it.

Posted on: 11 DEC 2010 | 6:55 PM NST

6. ritesh
Keep beating the bush and it will not take you anywhere.. The 1990 Constitution was good, and that Girijabaje's blunder has been costly for us, and a gain for India. Prashant needs to mention that...

Posted on: 11 DEC 2010 | 3:43 AM NST

7. Slarti
"To survive, it has to be able to manage contradictions in society."

Rabi Thapa has written a very interesting article about speaking their own two words and then going on for all eternity.

One of the reasons - actually always - is that everybody in Nepal starts with gobbledegook and ends up with exactly that.

managing contradictions, such an obvious and clear statement for the readers, and I can't get it.

I tried to understand because I have been confused and completely befuddled by all this leftist talk

Q1. What is a contradiction?

1: The incompatibility, contrariety, and evident opposition of two ideas, which are the subject of one and the same proposition.

or, 2 : a difference or disagreement between two things which means that both cannot be true

or, 3: 1 : the act of saying something that is opposite or very different in meaning to something else

What I gathered from this is that Prashant is trying to tell us - believe me you mortals, I know a fancy word, therefore, I shall now proceed and bore you to death with my dreamed up reality and cooked up fantasy's.

Too late in the night so more on this later because I want to really find out what he is talking about.

Posted on: 12 DEC 2010 | 10:55 PM NST

8. Anil

The author is right that anarchy seems to be gaining ground in the country especially in the south.

The ones who are mostly benefitting from this are the corrupt politicians including those who thrive solely on ethnicity based vote-bank politics, and criminals.

The leaders , who keep on chanting how things have improved , seem far removed from the reality and hardships that the common people are facing day to day due to the lack of any economic opportunities, the rampant corruption and the lawlessness that pervades the society.

Without any economic opportunities at home, thousands of people are forced to leave the country everyday to look for work abroad, and without their remittances and financial contribution it is difficult to imagine how the country would be able to fare. The government probably would have difficulty paying even the salaries of the CA members, ministers and employees of the bloated government bureaucracy ( and the Maoist combatants).

In this context it is ironic that the writer should still be talking about government largesse. The belief that the governmentï¿½s job is to provide largesse is one of the main causes of corruption in the country and is the remnant of feudal mentality that plagues our intelligentsia and political leaders.

It is the government and the political parties that are dependent on the peopleï¿½s largesse and not the other way around.

The government should instead focus on providing law and order to the people, so that the private citizens can operate their businesses in a safe environment; and they can lead the way for the economic development of the country. Similar examples can be seen in many countries including in India for the last decade. If Nepalese citizens can successfully work abroad for the development of other countries, there is no reason they cannot do it in their own country provided the the right environment can be created.

All that the government has to do, besides ensuring law and order, is make sure it keeps up with the necessary infrastructure and appropriate economic policies necessary for growth.

And all the political leaders of the CA (including the Madhesi parties ) need to understand that being the peoplesï¿½ representatives they are responsible to ensure law and security for the people.

Blaming others can only take you so far, but unless the political leaders can be held accountable by the people, things can only get worse. For example in many parts of Madhesh, the pahadiyas were blamed by the Maheshi politicians and leaders for many of the problems of the region and were driven out. Has that really helped to improve the economic and social plight of the common citizen there?

There is more lawlessness now and more corruption.

Unless you happen to be a politician or one among the elite few who spends most of the time in Kathmandu, the common man in Madhesh probably does not feel his economic or social plight has changed much.

That some of the Madhesi politicians want to provide voting rights to people without proof of citizenship making it easier for non-citizens to vote is another example of flouting the law, that can only breed more lawlessness and anarchy in the region.

The intelligentsia, media, and people in general should stop exempting their leaders from accountability based on similar ideology, ethnicity or party affiliations. Doing so will encourage only more lawlessness and anarchy, and the ultimate losers will be the people.

Posted on: 12 DEC 2010 | 1:17 AM NST

9. Arthur
Slarti #7,

"To survive, it [a political constitutional system] has to be able to manage contradictions in society. These could range from transactional but unequal relationships between capital-labour and landlord-tillers to the competition between different population segments for government largesse. For this purpose, states use coercion while simultaneously creating mechanisms to settle disputes. If the system fails to strike a balance, and weighs in too heavily in favour of one group, it will face challenges."

It is true that some "leftists" throw around words like "contradictions" or "dialectics" as gobbledygook in the same sort of way that other pundits blabber about "democracy" or "pluralism".

But you quoted only the first sentence of what Prashant Jha said (in boldface above) and ignored the very clear explanation of what he meant by it in the same paragraph. There is nothing obscure about this paragraph and it clearly does not have any of the three meanings you suggested.

He is very clearly referring to conflict between opposing forces and tendencies when he uses the term "contradictions". This is easy to understand.

Posted on: 13 DEC 2010 | 2:01 PM NST

10. Nirmal

In the backdrop of the Maoistsï¿½ debacle, in addition to specific disabilities recognized (or not) , it is the perplexity of the Maoists in general. Impotent to stop the greed of their Bahun men who are putting in jeopardy the whole peace process, their role seems limited to kamchalau managers of a commercial enterprise. A role too gray, ungrateful and unfair to those who dreamed of changing the country. Today, there is no love left, moreover their passions sound sort of nonsense. Nostalgic moment, that moment in which it is thought they could do it.

The Maoists needs time to reflect. We also ask the Bahun Men of Maoists to define the horizon i.e decide whether it is worth competing in open and plural society without abandoning any form of armed struggle. TIME AND REFLECTION. To avoid contradiction in a Party that runs without knowing where, in which any idea requires more than two minutes to account unvalid later, in which the dialogue is never seemed to listen to others also, in which the leaders seem to come from factory with an expiration date. But this time there is no instant formula. The Maoists should think. And it should not do it alone. Moreover, we should demand that they do not. Not just the future of the Maoists is at stake. Today, the horizon of all Nepali people is poorer. More unfair. Lost in a debate simplified and short-term, personal or weighed down by complimentary deluxe units that a country like Nepal can not permit. It would be nice to believe again in the Maoists.

Posted on: 13 DEC 2010 | 3:00 PM NST

11. Slarti

No Arthur that is not what I am driving at, it is something far more important, that is, The habit of taking an element of truth, fitting it into some framework of communist making and then ending up with a conclusion completely different from what it is. You try that trick all the time.

The first three paragraphs are wasted on setting that false framework as if that was the only political and the very natural and obvious definition of a state and a clear interpretation of history. Of course, being a communist Prashant knows that repeated delivery of subtly changed message turns a ridiculous notion into conventional wisdom.

This is a part of the process of trying to legitimise a terrorist organisation, i.e., the Maoist and their defunct and dangerous thought process. This trick works on people like me who generally donï¿½t get politics. Anyway, I digress.

Of course a government has to manage contradictions but that is not the objective, it is an incident of the objective which is as Anil (#8) describes it. Of course, not in the language of a fraudulent political scientist.

Prashant says that politicians need to keep an ear to the ground etc, and then goes on to say that a failure on their part is what resulted in the falling of the 1990 order. But that is not true, the fact is that the NC and the UML betrayed their oath and long-held conviction at the first moment that someone told them they can continue looting this country.

The Maoist did not convince a vast majority, they just got a vast majority of elites to shout for them so it would appear that everybody is convinced even when people were just scared, or confused, or both.

No political group in Nepal represents different classes and group interests, they merely represent their own interests, and use people like Prashant to keep people busy arguing over politics and the future of the country.

Most Nepali people want what Anil wants and what I want, for the government to provide a safe and secure environment so that they can get on with their lives.

I really do wish I had more time, but it all has to go in installments.

Posted on: 13 DEC 2010 | 10:57 PM NST

12. jange
#10 Nirmal

The Maoists behave the way they do because they are Maoists and not because some of the leaders are bahuns. To say that their behaviour is due to them being bahuns is a racist comment.

Try replacing bahun with, Gurung, Magar, Tharu, Madhesi, Raute, etc.etc. and see if the NT moderators will let you get away with it.

Posted on: 14 DEC 2010 | 8:20 AM NST

13. Nirmal
Dear Jange,
When Argentine people hear something that they don't expect they say "pero que me estas diciendo!"(translation:but what are you saying). I don't know If you misunderstood my previous comment or you're not interpreting it correctly.
I was exclusively refering to the character, my comment was not personal at all against anyone(not even against those maoists barons who claim to be against caste system) If you read it with attention you will get it, I care the cause and effect not who the very culprits are. Well, it's my way to manage a situation whether political, social or personal. Actually, it(the use of bahun men) has to do with Prabriti(belief, costume and behavior). I am sorry If you are offended, I had no such intention to hurt your racial beliefs. Personally, I've the kind of belief that there exists only one human race and that should be enough to identify humans physically. It doesnot mean I deny the right to one's own identity but to the contrary, I advocate it with the spirit democratic, you can contrast this through my comments.

Now, I will try to illustrate the case with an example from my own family(also brahmin but without taboo), I remember what my mother used to tell us (naturally as an open minded family we also have debates over these issues), she says: To be a good brahmin one doesnot need to belong to brahmin caste, his/her Karma can lead to there, and I always said, "mummy you are an intelligent brahmin woman, but it seems that one doesnot need to be from brahmin caste to be a bahun, whose karma determines the level of bahunbaad plagued in one's mindset."

Going back to the issue of bahun in my previous comment, Jange Bahunbaad is an excellent manual of dogmatism. Inable to recognise that the reality is what it is and not what you think it should be.

Surprisingly(?) you said etc.etc. and see if the NT moderators will let you get away with it.

Fortunately, it is known that NT is not interested in denying the debate, as a nepali I should feel proud and thank the whole NT crew for its extra-ordinary capacity to generate opinions and expressions.

P.S. the other day I was listening CP Gajurel in BBC nepali sewa just after writing the post in this column, he accused his counterparts of trying to convert them into mohi-bahun. Jange, there everyone was supposed to be a kind of bahun.....................what else can be the solid evidence of the Maoists' bahunbaad syndrome and their stimulated bahunisation? That's what I meant. Do you believe in caste system Jange? Well, it seems that your political caste is anti-maoists, me too, so often I get angry but the difference between me and you being anti-maoists is that I am free of prejudice and vendetta, I try to be assertive whereas yours is a story of all time anti-maoist . Perhaps that's the problem!

Posted on: 14 DEC 2010 | 4:03 AM NST

14. Battisputali

I am interested in how to deal with the grammar of anarchy that is in place. Therefore, I am indulging in idealist babble again. Earnest apologies in advance. J

A system is greater than the sum of its parts. Despite the machinations of the multiple actors, the 2006 system has been able to adapt and lock in various group interests. The successes of Madhesi parties are an obvious example. What is necessary now is that missing component: justice.

There are potential methods to manage this contradiction of peace without justice in the 2006 transitional system. The Special Security Plan should have been balanced by either a truth and reconciliation commission or a commission on the disappeared. This policy would have been a combination of both coercion and justice mechanisms.

One of the main causes of instability in the 2006 system are the two armies. I canï¿½t provide an answer on how to manage that intractable problem. However, a just peace, and thus a lasting peace cannot occur without a decision on the final status (if you will) of the two army problem.

Yes, the system has failed to provide tangible benefits in the form of unemployment. But, all is not lost. Creative policies could be used to reconstruct the relationship between Nepal and the transnational Nepali proletariat. Embassies with a sizable labor attachï¿½ that assists the Nepali Workers Abroad (NWA) could be helpful. Giving the NWA a voice by extending voting rights could be an interesting idea. NWA keep our country afloat; they deserve a direct say in its affairs.

The absence of institutional coherence is another problem. Ideally, the parliament should have been the strongest body in the system- the voice of the system. The constituent assembly should have been the venue to discuss the future of the state and not newspaper columns, street demonstrations, or ridiculous speeches. Nepalï¿½s most important institutions are relegated to the background in national discourse. They need to be yanked back to the front of the line. Using Prashantï¿½s terminology, the organized force to fill the vacuum in the 2006 transitional system is the constituent assembly/parliament itself.

Like I said in my previous post, Factors such as geography, ethnic diversity, settlement patterns, wealth inequality, resource scarcity, and geopolitics may mean that no one group will have enough leverage to control the state for quite some time. Therefore, the apt strategy for all actors within the system would be to go back to the constituent assembly and finish that important work.

I hope that made sense. I feel like such a part of the ï¿½intelligentsiaï¿½ right now. J

Posted on: 14 DEC 2010 | 4:24 AM NST

15. Arthur
Slarti #11, once "everybody" agreed with you that the Maoists are just terrorists. Most of the "elites" still hate them, even though they cannot keep saying the same things about them that you would like.

You seem to blame people like Prashant Jha for the fact that less people believe the same things you still believe.

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that these beliefs simply don't make much sense...

Battisputali #14, why is the two armies such an "intractable problem". There was a clear agreement, included in the transitional constitution, to democratize the NA and integrate the PLA. Refusal to carry out that agreement naturally results in "instability". The solution seems very simple, just carry out the agreement.

How could there possibly be "institutional coherence" when the old corrupt parties that lost the elections try to preserve the undemocratized NA as their only hope of preventing the Maoists from actually carrying through the changes that most people outside the "elites" want?

Agree to democracy, and reject civilian supremacy over the army - result incoherence.

Posted on: 15 DEC 2010 | 8:28 PM NST

16. Battisputali

@ Arthur

Pretty simple. Undemocratic army gives the impression institutions in this country can exist even after they have been thoroughly discredited. Maoist army gives the impression to other ambitious emerging actors that violence results in gains: If the Maoists could get what they want (republic/government control..for a while only, i know, but they did have control) through the use of violence, why can't they? So, as long as the two institutions exist in any shape or form, we have high risk of future instability. Therefore, I propose: do away with both armies. As long as these two forces exist, chances are that Nepalis will fight among themselves. I know this is only an opinion and believe me, if i had the time and resources to prove my claim empirically, i'd do it. :)

Posted on: 15 DEC 2010 | 12:04 AM NST

17. jange
13. Nirmal

It looks like you have missed the message entirely. But, no matter. It was more for the benefit of the NT and their hypocritical attitude towards political correctness. They know what I mean!!

Bahunbad?? I have heard this word quite a few times but everytime I ask people to define it they mumble something about it being so obvious that it needs no definition. So, it would be good if you could try and put together a definition so everyone is talking about the same thing- no Agra and gagra situation!! There is also Jange bahunbaad??

Same situation with "democratisation" of NA. No one can say what they mean by it or each one has his own definition.

Posted on: 16 DEC 2010 | 8:39 AM NST

18. Arthur
jange #13, you can find a good description of bahunabad in Fatalism and Development.

Some aspects of the measures needed for legislative accountability of the NA that would be needed as part of democratization can be found in section 3 and later sections here describing the actual situation of the old feudal army still only being nominally under civilian control. You already fully understand this, since it is precisely the situation you wish to preserve.

battisputali #16, I agree that the solution has to be to do away with both the two armies. That is what was agreed to, integrating them both into one new army that is both democratized and professional and completely under civilian control. As long as this agreement is not carried out there will remain two armies and instability will remain.

Obviously the Maoists will not give up their army while the old army they fought remains ready to kill them. Those who keep demanding this are merely day-dreaming. When they actually do agree to accept full integration of the PLA into a democratized new army then if the Maoists refused you could say it was their fault. At present it is clearly and completely the fault of the old parties that still dream of using the NA to preserve their looting.

Posted on: 16 DEC 2010 | 10:45 AM NST

19. jange
Kamred Arthur

Fatalism and Development, read it already- a collection of personal prejudices marketed as academic writing. Sure, the authour may be a good academic and may have written other useful works but this book isn't it.

I know that the development crowd have swallowed it whole but then that is a self serving act since it gives them a good pretext for their own failures and shortcomings. Also, it means they don't have to work harder to make up for their failings.

I am surprised that a kamred has fallen for it! Not very Marxist or whatever.

If there is such a thing as Bahunbaad it should be possible to define it in with about 50 words. The reason that it is not possible to do so, especially from the contents of this book is that it is simply a collection of prejudices and chautari guff.

Try it- 50 words, 100 if you like.

Posted on: 16 DEC 2010 | 3:04 PM NST

20. jange
Kamred Arthur- You will need to set aside all your Marxist/leninist/Maoist etc. etc. teachings and learnings if you are to understand the political situation in Nepal.

It is not a case of two armies. It is a case of how best to rehabilitate a group of people who have gone astray back into society. How best to get a party that thinks that violence is the way to do politics to change its ways from violence to non-violence.

It's not easy and one of the methods used has been to allow the Maoist leadership to pretend that they are great, they have achieved great things etc. etc. in the hope that the Maoist leadership will not find it too difficult to get their followers to move to non violence. After all, it is very risky to tell a few thousand brainwashed people who have known nothing but violence for most of their adult life that the violence that they carried out was wrong.

It's getting there, slowly. And in the meantime we can always entertain ourselves by reading what the revolutionary text books and theory say should be happening. Thank you, kamred.

Posted on: 16 DEC 2010 | 3:45 PM NST

21. jange
The success of any political-constitutional system is based on four key elements.

But before this can be done there has to be a consensus on some fundamentals. The one critical fundamental on which there has yet to be acceptance by the Maoists is that there is no place for violence in politics. Until and unless the Maoists accept this or are made to accept it there cannot be a constitution.

Posted on: 16 DEC 2010 | 5:20 PM NST

22. Arthur
jange #19,

I think this passage from Bista captures an important aspect of bahunabad:

"While not all high caste Hindus are orthodox, even the irreligious ones can remain the victims of their hierarchic upbringing and be greatly affected by fatalistic beliefs. Some as a result of their personal experiences and reflections, develop a strong opposition towards fatalism itself but it with something that at an abstract level has remarkable similarities to many of the features of caste hierarchy and they continue to behave as pundits. They may be atheistic, international travellers with an education abroad, having professional degrees, but their orientation to development and their way of action remains influenced by caste principles. They are passive defeatists, who see an impoverished Nepal and lose any hope for the future (see Khanal, 1987). Many are embarassed by things Nepali, which they think are inferior, and they look to the outside world as the source for sophistication and cultivation. They intellectualize problems and subject them to endless debate, while passing on any real responsibility for decision making to some higher level. Their new superficial membership to the world culture becomes an opportunity for self-distinction from the uneducated and unsophisticated common mass. They make use of chakari and when in privileged positions, with their perception that the country cannot be greatly helped, use the opportunity to help themselves and their afno manchhe."

When I quoted that in #12 here you did not dismiss it as prejudices but repeated it and pretended to adopt it as a description of Maoists.

The passage continues:

"Not all educated people are from a high caste background, but even an aspiring non-caste ethnic individual, who has succeeded through personal effort to gain an education and a respected position, when acculturated with the caste people develops hierarchic caste attitudes. This is the great current danger of a Hindu high caste dominated value system: that it is readily secularized and can be recreated anew by those not traditionally of the caste background. But Nepal is passing through a stage of transition, and traditional social structures are being modified to accommodate change, with ever newer social organizations being introduced. For some this is a time of opportunity, though the opportunity should be for all. In this time of flux it has become apparent that the adverse features of Bahunism can be promulgated and perpetuated by members of any social class or ethnic group. With a history of caste, there is a danger of the development of a new secularized caste system, where the socially mobile consolidate their position by blocking out their competitors or those closely behind them.

The high caste people are in a minority, and their value system is not the prevalent value system among the majority of the people in Nepal. Yet fatalism and hierarchy, the hallmarks of the caste principles, must be taken very seriously and must be recognized as the most influential value system. Any strategy for development, if it is to be genuine, and not a redistribution of foreign monies into local hands must oppose fatalism and a hierarchic social order, because the two are irreconcilable. This need not be traumatic for Nepal, because the form of fatalism associated with the caste hierarchy is not Nepali even though it is sometimes believed to be so by some people. Nepal has other value systems to draw upon, that have much greater potential. These are the value systems of the traditional ethnic groups of the country who are not divided into a vertical hierarchic order and are as a rule hardworking with a conscientious discipline. They also share a sense of guilt within their own context, which the fatalistic people have lost altogether with the introduction of giving charity to a priest to absolve a sense of guilt."

As is clear from the first part I emphasized in boldface, Bahunism (or Bahunabad) refers to a value system and is not just a racist comment against Bahuns as you claim.

Although far more than 100 words would be needed to describe it thoroughly, it can be summarized in the two words "fatalism" and "hierarchy". Everyone that has anything to do with Nepal is struck by it, recognizes the descriptions given by Bista and like Bista (a Bahun) despises it.

You pretend it does not exist because you do not want genuine development and want to continue the distribution of foreign money into local hands such as your own.

I also provided a reference on democratization of the NA. You could not respond to that but regularly express your opposition to democratization of the NA for the same reason. Army rule is your only hope of preserving the old Nepal.

Posted on: 16 DEC 2010 | 5:48 PM NST

23. Gole
#18 Arthur
What is the difference between Karma and Fatalism?
Those who believe in Karma do not believe in fate.
The degeneration of ancient values lead to fatalism. Poor Dor Bahadur had little knowledge of Vedanta.
In Vedanta, Fatalism isa break-down of faith in human effort.Karma is the unalterable law of effect following previous cause. This what distinguishes Vedanta from ita half-brother ,fatalism,as it emerged in the West from pagan philosophies. One should only expect the fruit of one's action and nothing else. No act cancan ever fail to produce its result. It is not possible to do a thing and escape its result.To a Vedantin karma does not mean that human effort is vain. Karma means work and in no wise refers to any mysterious pre-determination by an outer power.

So karma is not fatalism.
Luck is Adrista in Sanscrit.,which means not seen previously. It does not mean that it is not subject to law.

Posted on: 16 DEC 2010 | 6:43 PM NST

24. Nirmal
Jange If you think you are the only person with correct approach in politics why don't you start explainging it? Instead of commenting on others' opinions to criticise NT and your dislikes(for me too your style is a agra and gagra situation), venting the same anti-maoists ire which sounds a bahun with limited knowledge on punditry who only knows to recite the same mantra 100000 times and later pretends to know everything, why don't you start putting your own definition about those issues.

Posted on: 16 DEC 2010 | 7:01 PM NST

25. Slarti
Perhaps you should consider the possibility that these beliefs simply don't make much sense..

Fair point Arthur, but the thing is I have spent a considerable amount of time thinking along these lines and only after evaluating my stance against some very tough questions I asked myself, that I am convinced that I am on the right side.

The reason why this is not very popular among the elites who would be out of their jobs, you know, nothing left to talk about and give their own two cents nonsense on every issue. People would have to specialise and would have to work a lot harder at their information pieces than they currently appear to do.

May I make a note that over the nearly one year of arguments, you have never actually refuted anything thoughtfully. So its a bit rich of you to come back saying makes no sense. You tell me how, and then we can talk.

Posted on: 16 DEC 2010 | 9:12 PM NST

26. K. K. Sharma
RE: Bahunbad.

All major parties are run by the Bahuns. They are in the decisive positions. When Ranas were in the top decisive positions it was called Rana rule. So when Bahuns are in the top decisive positions why is it loktantra and not Bahun-o-cracy.?

Compared to the Thapa, Pande, Rana and Shaha rules, the current Bahun rule has been the worst, regarding the sufferings of the people. And this Bahunocracy has been the most hypocritical and perfidious..

There is such a thing called Caste Charasteristic, in the same way as there is such a thing called Class Charasteristic..

Posted on: 16 DEC 2010 | 11:46 PM NST

27. hange

Sometimes methinks that the comments are better than the original article. For what it is worth, it should come as no surprise that Arthur is an ardent Maoist supporter. While he is right in that this party has brought about a change, I feel that he fails to notice that the change was brought about by its leaders for personal selfish reasons- as opposed to democratising the NA let alone anything else. Why? Because the leaders are not janjatis. They are not marginalised. They are not minorities. And trust me, there are only two leaders of the Maoists: PKD & BRB. Period.

Everyone else is "philosophically" involved or "military strategy" involved. And these two leaders are of course, Bahuns. They tried to run for office before- and failed miserably. So, they went to war and killed many people. The sad thing is that the existing system was so corrupt that it collapsed (this is the portion that Arthur will cut and paste in his response). But just because the previous system was corrupt does not mean that what BRB & PKD were offering up was not. Just because one apple is bad doesn't mean that the one offered in its place is not just as rotten. The fact of the matter is that PKD and BRB wanted power. Period. You can take that to the bank.

And yes, so did the king. And all of the existing previous politicians. From this perspective, it makes PKD & BRB no worse than their predecessors. But, in some ways, they are better and in other ways they are worse. How are they better? They were more creative and organised. How were they worse? They were willing to extort, destroy, and murder to gain power. That they were willing, ready, and able to leverage the general discontent of the people can either be painted as better or worse depending on your perspective: better in that they were wildly successful in tapping into Nepal's limitless discontent. Worse in that they did not hesitate to deceive an entire nation for the sake of their own selfish political gains.

Posted on: 16 DEC 2010 | 2:03 AM NST

28. Anil

#22 Comrade Arthur,

Hierarchy is most pronounced in the communist parties and communist societies. There is very little tolerance for dissension.

Look at North Korea, Cuba, the ex-Soviet Union and China during Maoï¿½s reign, when it really was a communist state .

Anybody who questions party leaders ,and especially the top leaders of the politburo are very severely dealt with. Even among the politburo members there is a hierarchical ranking, and many communist leaders have many times paid with their lives for not following this established order.(Even Dr. Baburam Bhattarai and his wife were put under arrest in Rolpa by the party high-command for just questioning some of the organizational issues in the party.)

Not only that, the communist parties are also very fatalistic in their beliefs in the out-dated doctrines laid down by their guru-Karl Marx one and half century ago.

Despite all the demagoguery of the comrades, Marxism has been proven to be a failed system. There is not a single state in the world where it has succeeded ;and it has been rejected by the people worldwide.

Despite all the overwhelming evidence world-wide of its failure as a system, the few remaining true believers of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism continue to have faith that their philosophy-religion is fated to rule the nation and the world.

Hierarchy and fatalism is what defines Marxism.

Sorry comrade, you need to concoct another definition for Bahunism. Just do not forget to obtain permission from your party high-command first.

Posted on: 17 DEC 2010 | 6:35 AM NST

29. jange
Thank you Arthur ji,

It would take too long to point out all the inaccuracies of the book although Gole with # 13 has made a good start. Remember that although written by an academic the book Fatalism and Development is best described as polemic rather than academic.

Let's just take one example which you have mentioned.

"" Many are embarassed by things Nepali, which they think are inferior, and they look to the outside world as the source for sophistication and cultivation."

This is definitely a common attitude among Nepali elites but it has nothing to do with bahuns or brahmins although being Nepalis they are likely to have this attitude but that is probably to do with other reasons than the fact that hey are bahuns. Some non-bahuns have this attitude while some bahuns don't have this attitude. I would say that you yourself are a prime example of someone who has this attitude judging from your comments on NT. You would like to see Nepal become some type of communist state as imagined by some long dead European). Kanak Dixit, editor? of NT has this attitude too. He is quite unabashed about his admiration for the 'liberal' values of the North American kind, and his wish to see Nepal develop along those lines; and so on with others too. But this has nothing to do with bahuns or brahmans or related philosophy.

Same again with chakari and afno manchhe- Nothing to do with bahuns or brahmans. If it were so then Afghanistan would have to be considered as having ten times more bahunbaad than Nepal and that is a moslem country!!! And don't others do the same- Chicago?? European communists (when they existed!!), the Basques? Mugabe? Need I go on?

Virtually every assertion in the book is similarly flawed. But then the book's purpose is polemic and not academic.

Another example:

" These are the value systems of the traditional ethnic groups of the country who are not divided into a vertical hierarchic order and are as a rule hardworking with a conscientious discipline. They also share a sense of guilt within their own context, which the fatalistic people have lost altogether with the introduction of giving charity to a priest to absolve a sense of guilt."

This is another crass generalisation about other ethnic groups and the drawing of false conclusions regarding bahuns as well as other ethnic groups.

You pretend it does not exist because you do not want genuine development and want to continue the distribution of foreign money into local hands such as your own.

Guesswork!! You are letting your imagination run away!!

I also provided a reference on democratization of the NA. You could not respond to that but regularly express your opposition to democratization of the NA for the same reason. Army rule is your only hope of preserving the old Nepal.

Is this the piece by Dina Nath Sharma? Hardly worth the effort. A poor, ill informed article more suited for Maoist cadres or just chautari guff.

There is a lot of lazy journalism and lazy "academic" work in Nepal. You will need to learn to tell the difference between facts and conjecture and propaganda. One example comes to mind- for a long time, and maybe even now??, Nepali journalists used to write that Nepal had the second largest hydropower potential in the world when even a cursory investigation would have revealed that it wasn't so.

Added to that would of course be ones own prejudices!

Final result- gross inaccuracy.

#24 Nirmal-

But I do put my own definition on issues!! Most of the time anyway.
As regards Maoists my definition is simple- Violence has no place in politics. I repeat it again and again because most politicians and journalists don't say it often enough.

If they did, I wouldn't have to.

Posted on: 17 DEC 2010 | 10:49 AM NST

30. bahuns bad?
jange,

as far as i am aware Kanak Dixit is the Editor and Publisher of the montly magazine of Himal South Asia and has never worked for Nepali Times. His brother Kunda Dixit is now the Publisher of Nepali Times...

Posted on: 17 DEC 2010 | 11:47 AM NST

31. Arthur
Gole #23, I am quite ignorant of Vedanta and cannot respond. But even if Bista is also ignorant in connecting the value sytem he describes with aspects of the Hindu caste system, his description of ruling "Bahunism" or "Bahunabad" values of "fatalism" and "hierarchy" is instantly recognizable to any observer.

People like MKN are examples of this value system who do not claim to believe in Hindu Vedanta but are atheistic international travellers as he describes. They just sit there looting shamelessly while waiting fatalistically to see what happens, with a total belief that people like themselves belong at the top of a hierarchy and the people below don't matter.

The famous Nepali expression "ke garne" clearly sums up a fatalistic attitude. I have no knowledge from which to argue that it does or does not have anything to do with Hindu Vedanta. But it is obviously a central problem blocking development in Nepal.

Slarti #25, "...you have never actually refuted anything thoughtfully...".

Others will judge whether my #9 in this topic was an actual thoughtful refutation of your #7.

My own opinion is that it was so successful in completely refuting what you had actually said in #7 that you did not even attempt to respond further in #11 but simply resumed talking about something else in the typical pundit manner described surprisingly well last week in "Two cents or nonsense".

However there is no need to worry about either my opinion or what anyone else thinks when they read your comment and my refutation. All that matters for you is that "after evaluating my stance against some very tough questions I asked myself, that I am convinced that I am on the right side".

Actually I have some genuine sympathy for that spirit, which can more often be found among rebels than among conservatives. But your belief that clever propaganda gobbledegook from people like Prashant Jha is what convinced so many poor (and overwhelmingly illiterate) Nepalis to rebel against the system you want to keep is very plainly not the result of asking yourself tough questions.

Since you do at least know that the politicians in government now talk gobbledegook and are completely corrupt and useless, and since you also know that the Maoists fought a people's war against these same politicians together with the King, the tough question you could ask yourself is why shouldn't the majority living on less than $2 per day join the Maoists to rebel and overthrow the entire completely useless "elites" of Nepal?

Why should they believe that the King would be better when Nepal has had Kings for so long and developed not even a cesspit?

You certainly won't convince them by babbling about your three definitions of "contradiction" as you did in #7.

Posted on: 17 DEC 2010 | 1:18 PM NST

32. Arthur
jange #29,

You asked for an explanation of what "democratization of the NA" means and I provided this link to section 3 and later sections of a detailed explanation. Since it is written by the spokesperson of Nepal's largest political party, the party that insisted on other parties agreeing to democratization of the NA, it is of course "Hardly worth the effort. A poor, ill informed article more suited for Maoist cadres or just chautari guff." In other words you won't read it, never mind answer it.

You asked for a 50 or 100 word explanation of bahunism. I pointed you to a longer work which summed it up in two words. Your reply is to keep repeating that this set of values is not specific to hill brahmins, ignoring the fact that the work I quoted completely agrees with you about that and I put the quote saying so in boldface so that you could not miss it:

"the adverse features of Bahunism can be promulgated and perpetuated by members of any social class or ethnic group"

I am happy to go further and agree with you that there are similar phenomena, especially corruption, in many other least developed countries, including countries with no Brahmin headed caste system. (Although I also think that Bista very acutely describes the specific Nepali variant which has some quite unique and extreme features).

Now you complain:

"Guesswork!! You are letting your imagination run away!!"

Because I said:

"You pretend it [bahunism/bahunabad] does not exist because you do not want genuine development and want to continue the distribution of foreign money into local hands such as your own."

But you explained this far more clearly than Bista yourself. In fact your own description of how people like yourself redistribute foreign aid money into your own hands was quite brilliant and shows real literary flair as well as shamelessness:

27. jange
" What is going on in the name of redressing past wrongs is aggravating divisions in Nepali society. " The author blithely accepts the basis on which the whole edifice stands and wonders why the outcome is unsatisfactory. What past wrongs are being redressed? Please, tell me. Who did the wrong and to who? If there are no past wrongs to redress and your NGO funding is dependent on pretending that there are wrongs to be redressed then you are bound to get tokenism. Why are you surprised or disappointed or worried at that? Especially when there is real money to be made. The NGO sector is a large and important part of the economy. Why would any one refuse a donor's money simply because he has a wrong/weird notion about Nepal's history/society/culture or has a hypocritical attitude to doling out the money. The NGO market is a market like any other. Would you refuse to guide a tourist to Namche just because he thought wild elephants lived there? No. You take him there, explain that it might be difficult to find wild elephants there, make a sincere effort to look around to see if there are any when you do arrive in Namche. Profess disappointment at not finding any and suggest to come back in a different season. You are happy, he is happy, the elephants are happy. That's beezness. To give you an actual example. The UK government has given a TU professor (I forget his name) a few million pounds to promote the ILO 169 convention despite the UK government itself having refused to sign the convention. Hypocritical? Sure. For a few million pounds would you not spew out any BS required by the donor? Why should rational and critical people spoil it for others when they have the chance to earn some money.? That would be irrational! It could be you turn next to get your nose in the trough.

Posted on: 23 DEC 2009 | 2:08 PM NST

Yes, I understand that you sometimes write sarcastically, and that the same (brilliant) words could be used to expose and denounce this system. But your complaint was that in order to get your nose in the trough you have to pretend to agree with NGO tokenism that there have been past wrongs to be righted.

Has anyone ever written a better description of the rackets you live off than the words about elephants in Namche above?

Anil #28, most people reject communism for the sort of reasons you mention. My view is that the dictatorial and corrupt regimes that have been called communist are in fact anti-communist and people are quite right to oppose them.

Unfortunately it is certainly true that such "social fascists" were able to come to power in countries where genuine communists had once led revolutions and this is a bitter fact of history which communists have to acknowledge and deal with.

As a foreigner I certainly cannot speak for the Maoist party in Nepal, but I am studying what happens in Nepal precisely because I believe that the Nepalese Maoists have shown the best grasp of what needs to be done to prevent communist led revolutions again being defeated by social fascism.

"Anybody who questions party leaders ,and especially the top leaders of the politburo are very severely dealt with."

Of course. No doubt BRB and Hsilma Yami are still rotting in a jungle prison just as the newspapers told you they were and Kiran has been chopped into tiny pieces for challenging Prachanda! Why not simply repeat that they are all Indian spies who eat babies?

hange #27, "the existing system was so corrupt that it collapsed (this is the portion that Arthur will cut and paste in his response). But just because the previous system was corrupt does not mean that what BRB & PKD were offering up was not.

You are right, I could not resist, but to be fair I have also cut and pasted your addition.

Logically this is flawless. Just because the old system deserved to be destroyed does not prove that those who destroyed it are better.

If BRB & PKD (and the many other Maoist leaders of all ethnicities who you think do not exist) either are corrupt already or become corrupt then of course another revolution will be needed (just as another revolution is needed in Russia and China).

But simply saying that they are working for their own selfish political gains does not prove it.

Incidentally I also cannot resist remarking that there is a very interesting parallel between your views and those of Dr Rishi Raj Baral. Perhaps you should contribute to Samaybadda ;-)

jange #20,

"It is not a case of two armies. It is a case of how best to rehabilitate a group of people who have gone astray back into society. How best to get a party that thinks that violence is the way to do politics to change its ways from violence to non-violence."

If there was only one army, yours, we know how you would "rehabilitate" these people who had "gone astray". You would non-violently kill them after non-violently torturing them as before.

Posted on: 17 DEC 2010 | 5:53 PM NST

33. Slarti
#31 Arthur,

(typical pundit manner,)...... try this trick on someone who gets annoyed by childish jeering, there was no proposition in my comment #7 that required a response in #9. I clearly stated in #7 that I did not have the time to finish that thought and therefore had leave the comment hanging in there. You comment #9 was not a response but simply a comment which required no refutation but invited a conversation which I engaged in, in #11.

(genuine sympathy for that spirit....,) I have said repeatedly that you do not have to be patronising, just extend your idea respectfully and I will respond respectfully. Unfortunately you never do that.

(convinced so many poor (and overwhelmingly illiterate) Nepalis to rebel against the system) ......, nothing could be further from the truth, it is you who think that Nepali's are poor and illiterate, I know that people are intelligent and smart and that includes those who are semi-literate or illiterate. (you know we Nepali's are not animals, even if we don't sometimes know how to read and write, we do have our ears and eyes and a brain between the two, and we tend to use it)

Nevertheless, it is a statement of fact that in a democracy people respond to both advertising and often vote for candidates who are most likely to win.

Also unlike you, I have looked at my numbers very carefully, while in the number of seats the Maoists have 40%, in number of votes they have 29% of the 10.6 million who voted of the total voting eligible population of about 17 million, that means that there are only a little over 3 million direct Maoist supporters. Nearly 7 million are expressly opposed to them. This also means that only 18% of the total populace (adult voting eligible) expressly support the Maoist. Refer the election commission site.

If 18% is all the number of poor and illiterates, then I would say Nepal is doing fairly well for itself.

About your allegation that they rebelled against the system is a serious case of delusion. Nepali's in general did not rebel against the system, the Maoist kidnapped children, forced parents choose between death and sending one of their children to fight, to choose between losing their life, limb and property or support them, damaged physical infrastructure extensively .. essentially they threw a tantrum...... and some had to join them to avoid a bad fate for themselves.

Surely, once a rebellion gathers a momentum and resources it can also recruit some disgruntled people - and there are always some in every society.

Fact is that it is a great display of social maturity of Nepal that nothing more catastrophic happened since and even during the insurgency, it was fear more than actual influence which tarnished peoples faith in government.

It is also in this connection that one must criticise the way the media provided space to a terrorist organisation and tried to give it intellectual sanctity. This is something I will continue to allude to.

The tough question you could ask yourself is why shouldn't the majority living on less than $2 per day join the Maoists to rebel and overthrow the entire completely useless "elites" of Nepal?

Asked, and have experienced the life at that level. But let me join this up with the second question.

Why should they (I) (was my question, I am and was the they) believe that the King would be better when Nepal has had Kings for so long and developed not even a cesspit?

The elites of Nepal are mostly communists and their lackeys who have dominated the thinking and governance of this country over the past two decades.

The first step towards this is to gather a fairly impartial data on what exactly did happen in the country over the past 60 odd years, economically.

Secondly, what are the conditions which are unchangeable - for example, the geographic location, limited cultivable land, geo-politics.

Thirdly, what was and is the state of governance infrastructure, the quality of available human resources, the difficulty of executing strategy, and managing internal politics and security which is a key factor in governance.

I will take each factor one by one,

Gathering economic data, surprisingly there is very little data available for the pre-90 period. However, there is incidental evidence of how things progressed over the period in higher life expectancy,rising birth rates, and lower child mortality, meaning that health services were reading a wider populace. Also finding out the establishment date of schools and hospitals is a good way of finding out what was happening before the 1990's.

Furthermore, in the immediate aftermath of the implementation of democracy, there was a greater pace of change as I am sure you have seen in different sites since you appear to be keen on that sort of thing.

What that also shows is that in some way the democratic government, at least in its initial years, reaped the rich rewards of the what happened before its time.

The development of the Prithvi highway, works on setting up a range of institutions recognized for their robust institutional capacity etc were also some of the keen achievements and were admired by a range of work by national and international academics, and technocrats illustrates.

One anecdotal evidence illustrates this, travelling on the roads across the border in India and in Nepal, and the richness of Nepal's districts compared to the bordering districts in India. You would have to ask around to find out more.

Naturally, life and administration are not perfect, but the fact is that there was demonstrable improvement in both the pre and post Panchayat period.

But why on earth was Nepal poor in the first place, is what I ask myself?

The fact is that it was an independent nation, and had a government etc. so I put that rhetorical question to Dr Baburam Bhattarai, and the answers were not satisfactory because instead of investigating the truth, the good doctor appeared to be labouring to do everything to fit everything into his own prejudices. Instead I relied on some others, chiefly on Harka Gurung for context.

After getting a bit of that context, I found a very useful term, it is called common-sense.

The full story will take a considerable amount of time, and therefore let me highlight certain facts of Nepal's national life.

It was and remains located between the two of the worst governed and poorest regions in its south (till recently, at least) and under the shadow of a very very poor tibetan plateau to the North, which up until that 80's or even later was extremely poor and hard to travel through.

What is worse is that both these countries, south and north, practiced socialism with a marauding zeal - note that China started changing into an economic power 78 onwards and India 91 onwards, and they are still travelling in that direction - first off given this geography life would been tough for anybody responsible for governing Nepal.

(An interesting point at this juncture, is how I find that you are not interested in an informed debate, depending as you are on angering people into changing subjects and making it personal)

Anyway, so leaving that point there, lets look at some other notable issues.

An interesting point about governance is that sometimes good intentions don't result in good outcomes and a governments sincerity is to be assessed by checking whether it accepts that and changes course to meet expectations, there is ample evidence that well thought course corrections were indeed undertaken and they did have an impact, particularly during the democratic period. You, yourself, would have to do a bit of work on that.

Now, you would appreciate that this is a lot of typing in a very short time and I really am pressed for time, but if you respond I will too. Note that I have written in a single sitting so there could be some missed lines and words and not being an English speaker the grammar is iffy.

Posted on: 17 DEC 2010 | 8:10 PM NST

34. Slarti
Just as a back up to my latest comment, according to the election commission site, the Maoists got 29.28% of the total PR votes of 10739078, which is 3144204, that is over 3 million Maoist supporters, of a total of nearly 11 million actual voters and PR results should be representative of party support so here is the support for NC at 21.14%, and UML 20.3%, the rest are also rans.

Funnily though for the Madhesi's appear to have voted in a far more concentrated and strategic manner because given that 50% of the country is down there, the MPRF got only 6.3%, TMLP 3.2%, pretty bad actually.

This next bit is a little confusing because what I have done is simply taken the number of votes for the winning candidate only and added them up, the Maoist voters hit the bulls eye most frequently which means that there voting was concentrated, that is they got votes in hordes, so the split here is

Maoists won 120 seats of the 239 in total, so in PR they get about 30% but in FPTP they have 50%, and at what rate did they strike? of the 3144204 votes, 2208062 were winning, that is 70% of the Maoist voters voted for the winning candidate. Great stuff, right.

What about the NC and UML? In case of NC, of the 2269883 that is well over 2 mil right, only 23.6% were voting for the winning candidate. and the UML, 22.2% of their voters knew they were voting for a winning candidate, tallies for the latter two, right.

Guess about Madhesi lights, MPRF 63% of voters in PR voted for the winner, and TMLP? nearly 30%.

So what was it about the voters of the Maoists that gave them such a huge strike rate, I mean frankly we all know that people wish to vote for the winner but with such accuracy, how?

more later

Posted on: 17 DEC 2010 | 9:32 PM NST

35. Battisputali

@ Arthur

"integrating them both into one new army that is both democratized and professional and completely under civilian control"

I was talking about an end state in which there is no army. Hopelessly idealistic, maybe. But here are my arguments for no Nepali army (Communist, Nationalist, or otherwise) anyways:-

1. On Sovereignty:-

There is an international society of states (with laws and norms to boot) that recognizes Nepal's sovereignty. We don't need an army to prove that we are a sovereign people. Counterargument 1 : What about Indian territorial conquest? Answer: Not while China's up north. Counterargument 2: What about Chinese conquest? Answer: Not while India's down south. Counterargument 3: There will be other foreign interference. Answer: And that is not happening now or hasn't happened in the past?

2. On State Power:-

Counterargument 1:-A Maoist styled people's army in which all citizens get military training will unite the country's peoples and make the state stronger against internal division. This will create order. Answer 1: The comrades policy could have worked had it not been for the complex identity equation within Nepal. Local attachments are stronger in Nepal than national. The citizens may get military training but end up using that training as part of organized violence for their minority group. Real world example even before universal military training: The Goit group in the Terai-- Trained by Maoists. Oh by the way, Maoists greatest achievement- Removal of Monarchy- was a result of a change in strategy from military to political.

Counterargument 2:- The (formerly Royal) Nepal Army has defended Nepal since its unification. It fought the British back in the 19th century to protect Nepali sovereignty. It fought the Maoists in the 21st to protect against internal collapse. Answer: While the historical legacy of the 'brave' army is commendable, let us remember that it was used as an instrument of the will to power of many a despot- all the way from Jung Bahadur to Gyanendra.

Violence in all its forms provides a very strong competitive advantage. Therefore those with moral ends are tempted to use the violent shortcut through immoral means. Yet, violence begets violence. Our collective experience in the late nineties and the first decade of the twenty-first century have proven the futility of violence. Therefore, an ethical end state for our troubles would be no army at all.

Posted on: 17 DEC 2010 | 4:58 AM NST

36. jange
Arthur ji,

Re DN Sharma's article- it is not worth responding to it because for a knowledgeable Nepali reader, it will be what I said it was. anyway, some points for your benefit:

The 1950 coup- The main basis of King Mahendra's ability to carry out the coup was not the army. If it were, it would have been a very simple for the Congress party, who had received a landslide vote in the elections, to simply bring the country to a standstill peacefully to demonstrate that the king's action were illegitimate and that the king had no political support. However, they were unable to do so as the Congress did not have broad political support among the masses. There is more to democracy than getting ballot papers in your favour out of a ballot box at election time! A fact which our politicians forget or choose not to remember and which causes a lot of problems. BP blew it.

The evidence for this is the fact that the major bulk of BP's cabinet chose to serve in the king's cabinet AFTER the coup. So, the cabinet remained largely the same before and after the "coup".

The myth of the king carrying out the coup on the sole basis of army support is based on the fact that army officers were used to arrest the ministers and not civilian police. This is largely a technicality since the civilian police was still at the nascent stage in 1950 and most likely did not have the structure or manpower to make the arrests. Prior to this there was only the one national security force, the army, which also carried out civilian security duties. The Nepali police only got their first Chief in 1952!!

For most foreigners the term "military coup" gives an image of the way militaries take over in Latin America and it is a clever propaganda exercise to try and give the same impression for what happened in 1950. Hence my comment that it is ignorant but useful for training party cadres who don't have the ability or inclination to know the difference.

Re the king being the head of the army- This is standard practice for a constitutional monarchy. In the UK the Queen is the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. I don't expect that a senior figure in a major political party would be unaware of this and yet he chooses to disinform. Hence my reluctance to respond.

Same with the Royal eulogy- standard practice for constitutional monarchy. I can't believe that Sharma is unaware of this. He is simply being disingenuous.

Re security policy- Either Sharma is unaware of the security policies of Nepal since Nepal existed or chooses to ignore it. Either way, it may be good for propaganda but simply shows that the writer has a shallow and superficial knowledge of what he is talking about.

Re military training in India- Sure, what of it? It is only a technology and the easiest way to rapidly build up an institution. Because of this the Nepal army follows closely the India (and by extension the British) format for civilian control. The NA still sends officers for training abroad- China, US, UK etc. and also takes in foreign officers for training. DN Sharma should know better. He probably does but the article is a propaganda piece. Hence my reluctance to respond.

Far more dangerous and indicative of a slave mentality is to import ones ideology from a foreign land (lock stock and barrel including name) and that too without really understanding what it really is!

Army and 1990 constitution- The 1990 constitution had ample provision for "civilian control" but the political parties chose not to establish the necessary structures and procedures to do so. A key reason for the reason why it appears that the Maoists were successful. It will take too long to explain the why and wherefore of this.

Interim constitution- The Maoists were in government and failed to come up with any policies re the NA. Not surprising really as they have no policies or a political agenda except to be in power, if that can be regarded as a political agenda. They had no policies for other sectors as well.

If you wish to see an institution that is almost outside civilian control one only needs to look at the NEA. The government policy is in one direction and the activities of the NEA in a different direction. Ironically, it is the NA that has strictly followed the principles of civilian control (as they have been trained to do, the good soldiers that they are!!) and they get the flak for it!

Civilian control over an institution is where the institutions follow government policy and objectives. Ordinary Nepalis (sadly even the highly educated ones) seem to think that it means following the whims of a minister or Prime Minister. That is the line of Sharma's article which makes it unworthy of giving it much time.

So, there is your free history lesson.

Regarding elephants in Namche; I think you fail to distinguish between responding to a market and running a racket.

Re your response to Gole:

People like MKN are examples of this value system who do not claim to believe in Hindu Vedanta but are atheistic international travellers as he describes. They just sit there looting shamelessly while waiting fatalistically to see what happens, with a total belief that people like themselves belong at the top of a hierarchy and the people below don't matter.

The famous Nepali expression "ke garne" clearly sums up a fatalistic attitude. I have no knowledge from which to argue that it does or does not have anything to do with Hindu Vedanta. But it is obviously a central problem blocking development in Nepal.

The expression "ke garne" does not necessarily sum up a fatalistic attitude. It could do, but more than likely it does not. There are many problems blocking development in Nepal but this is definitely not one of them.

Regarding MKN being fatalistic. So, he sits there fatalistically to see what happens??!! Is this how he managed to be leader of his party, prime minister, and whatever else he has done??!!

Posted on: 18 DEC 2010 | 10:14 AM NST

37. Arthur
Slarti, battisputali, jange #33-36, thank you for thoughtful detailed responses. This is just to let you know that I will study them carefully and there may unfortunately be a day or two delay before proper reply.

Posted on: 18 DEC 2010 | 9:27 PM NST

38. Arthur
Battisputali #35,

one day there will certainly be a world with no armies. But thinking about that future should encourage action towards it instead of being a substitute for such action.

A first necessary step towards no army at all is ending the danger of renewed civil war by combining the two armies into one under real civilian control. Until then it is just an escapist dream to avoid facing the harsh reality.

A next step is making the integrated army much smaller and devoted to training the people for defense.

This answers the objections from those concerned about needing an army for sovereignty much better than relying on China to defend against India and India to defend against China. That invites a war betwen China and India fought in Nepal, with lots of damage to Nepal and less damage to India and China.

A small professional army and an armed people can hold out long enough for world reaction against an aggressor to be effective. Switzerland for example is also surrounded by more powerful states such as Germany, France and Italy. In all the European wars those more powerful countries marched around Switzerland to fight each other instead of marching through it. This is because although the Swiss army is small, the Swiss people are armed and trained and will defend their mountains so it was easier to respect Swiss neutrality and march around.

With or without formal training, "identity politics" can result in armed groups being formed, most of which have degenerated into criminal gangs. This is best prevented by thorough federalism with full rights for each nationality. The armed people of Switzerland do not fight each other.

Arming and training the whole people, of all nationalities actually reduces the power of any such armed criminal gangs. Their power depends on the fact that they are armed and their victims are not (and the armed police and soldiers do not protect the people) so if the people they want to loot from are armed too they have less power. There is much less inclination for angry youth to join such gangs if the youth are provided with proper discipline and training for service to Nepal as a whole.

When there is no longer a need for a state to protect the people from armed criminals then the state can begin to wither away and with it the army.

An armed people is a further necessary step, perhaps the final one, towards eliminating the need for arms at all.

With all those necessary steps taken, one can seriously begin to imagine having no army at all. Otherwise it is just a dream.

Apologies to Slarti and jange. That is all I have time for at the moment as I am still unavoidably delayed by visitors. Will follow up as soon as I have another spare moment.

Posted on: 20 DEC 2010 | 7:45 PM NST

39. Arthur
Slarti #33-34, I am not sure what point you are making re election details in #34 and will leave that for reply to your similar comments in this week's Alone in the Echo Chamber #4-6, if I have time.

After studying your other comments carefully I am left with the conclusion that you claimed you were unable to understand the article by Prashant Jha because he was talking gobbledegook, completely ignored my reply to your misunderstanding of the term "contradictions" and demonstrated that your incomprehension is nothing to do with Prashant Jha's writing but reflects your general attitude to the changes in Nepal that you both oppose and fail to understand.

It would of course be possible to understand what is happening (at least from one's own perspective), and understand what Prashant Jha is saying and to oppose either or both. (I think jange is an example of this).

But the way you write seems to express a sort of angry bewilderment that is rather different.

In #11 you wrote:

"The first three paragraphs are wasted on setting that false framework as if that was the only political and the very natural and obvious definition of a state and a clear interpretation of history. Of course, being a communist Prashant knows that repeated delivery of subtly changed message turns a ridiculous notion into conventional wisdom.

In #15 I replied:

"once "everybody" agreed with you that the Maoists are just terrorists. Most of the "elites" still hate them, even though they cannot keep saying the same things about them that you would like.

You seem to blame people like Prashant Jha for the fact that less people believe the same things you still believe.

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that these beliefs simply don't make much sense..."

In #31 I replied to your denial in #25:

"But your belief that clever propaganda gobbledegook from people like Prashant Jha is what convinced so many poor (and overwhelmingly illiterate) Nepalis to rebel against the system you want to keep is very plainly not the result of asking yourself tough questions.

Since you do at least know that the politicians in government now talk gobbledegook and are completely corrupt and useless, and since you also know that the Maoists fought a people's war against these same politicians together with the King, the tough question you could ask yourself is why shouldn't the majority living on less than $2 per day join the Maoists to rebel and overthrow the entire completely useless "elites" of Nepal?

Why should they believe that the King would be better when Nepal has had Kings for so long and developed not even a cesspit?

You certainly won't convince them by babbling about your three definitions of "contradiction" as you did in #7."

My understanding of your #33 is as follows:

1. You complain about my statement that propaganda from people like Prashant Jha could not possibly be the explanation for so many poor and illiterate Nepalese rebelling. First you deny that overwhelming majority of Nepalese are poor and illiterate (which is so ridiculous I assume it is not what you meant to say) then you add that that even if they are illiterate they are intelligent and smart, which is true.

It still remains a fact that nothing written by people like Prashant Jha could possibly influence illiterates (especially not articles like this one in english!). So any theory you have explaining the collapse of your royalist politics and growth of Maoist politics as due to such propaganda could not possibly be true. You have simply not attempted to defend your original complaint about Prashant Jha and his article, but just wandered off into other matters.

2. You explain that the majority of Nepalese living on less than $2 per day should not rebel against the King as well as the elites because:

"The elites of Nepal are mostly communists and their lackeys who have dominated the thinking and governance of this country over the past two decades."

There is no way to discuss Nepal with someone who believes that the elites are mostly communists since 1990.

Again I am stuck with your explanation being so ridiculous I have to assume that either it is not what you meant to say or it is not worth attempting to respond.

3. Next you explain that things were getting better during the Panchayat and continued to get better after 1990.

4. Then you explain that Nepal is poor because of geography, including neighbours and terrain.

Finally you say:

"there could be some missed lines and words and not being an English speaker the grammar is iffy."

In my view the english and grammar is not a problem. The problem is that your ideas themselves just don't make much sense.

You do not have a coherent explanation of how Nepal got into such a mess that your King became so widely rejected and the Maoists became so strong. You are simply angry about that without being able to understand it or propose what to do about it.

Apologies to jange for further delay until my next opportunity to reply.

Posted on: 21 DEC 2010 | 10:28 PM NST

40. Arthur
jange #36, thanks for reading and responding to the article by DN Sharma.

1. There is no reference to a "1950 coup" in the article. I would assume this is just a typo and you meant "1960" coup, but you say "1950" three times and stress that the first separate Police Chief was only appointed later, in 1952. So I suspect you really are quite confused about history. Anyway I will assume discussion is about the 1960 coup below.

2. "The myth of the king carrying out the coup on the sole basis of army support is based on the fact that army officers were used to arrest the ministers and not civilian police. This is largely a technicality since the civilian police was still at the nascent stage in 1950 and most likely did not have the structure or manpower to make the arrests...."

This is ridiculous. There is no democracy and no constitutional monarchy where the King can arrest the Ministers. Any King that asked the army or police to arrest the Ministers in a democracy would be dealt with by the Mental health authorities.

Sharma's point was that the army was the instrument of Rana rule and then of Shah rule but never a national army. You simply confirm that point by mentioning that they arrested Ministers.

2. "For most foreigners the term "military coup" gives an image of the way militaries take over in Latin America and it is a clever propaganda exercise to try and give the same impression for what happened in 1950. Hence my comment that it is ignorant but useful for training party cadres who don't have the ability or inclination to know the difference."

Yes, the danger is that Nepal, even with no monarchy will continue to be subject to military coup just like Latin America was until quite recently, and also Africa. This danger is obvious to both foreigners and Nepalese. Your complaint that it is "ignorant" goes perfectly with the 1950 date. The real problem is that you are in favour of such a coup, just as you have defended the "1950" coup even though you obviously don't even know what decade it was in.

3. "Re the king being the head of the army- This is standard practice for a constitutional monarchy. In the UK the Queen is the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. I don't expect that a senior figure in a major political party would be unaware of this and yet he chooses to disinform. Hence my reluctance to respond."

The formal supreme command of the Armed Forces under a constitutional monarchy is merely an expression of civilian supremacy since the "monarch" is obliged to act only on the advice of the responsible Ministers. The last time a UK monarch ordered the army to arrest members of the UK parliament he was tried for treason by parliament and executed. That was more than 300 years ago.

4. "Re security policy- Either Sharma is unaware of the security policies of Nepal since Nepal existed or chooses to ignore it. Either way, it may be good for propaganda but simply shows that the writer has a shallow and superficial knowledge of what he is talking about.
"
Since Nepal existed the security policy has been for feudal army to preserve feudal regime. Sharma explains this clearly and knows what he is talking about.
5. "Army and 1990 constitution- The 1990 constitution had ample provision for "civilian control" but the political parties chose not to establish the necessary structures and procedures to do so. A key reason for the reason why it appears that the Maoists were successful. It will take too long to explain the why and wherefore of this. "

The political parties that chose not to establish the necessary structures and procedures for civilian supremacy in 1990 are the same parties that choose not to do so now, despite having
agreed to do so in the peace agreement. You are in fact confirming what DN Sharma said in the article:

"The provision of the King appointing the army chief was also retained. Although the National Security Council (NSC) was formed under the Article 118 with Prime Minister as chair and the defense minister and army chief as members to oversee matters related to the Royal Nepal Army, this council carried out no function. Because the Constitution had provided that the Army would be directly accountable to the King, it did not become responsive either to the government or the parliament. The Nepalese people were given a lie by the propaganda that the Army was under the control of the elected government while the chain of command was handed over to the King."

Everybody knows that this army which you say was amply under civilian control in the 1990 constitution arrested the politicians and established the Gyanendra dictatorship. It does not take too long to understand that obvious reality.

Nor does one need to be a Maoist to understand that you want to keep this army available to do the same to a Maoist government.

6. "Interim constitution- The Maoists were in government and failed to come up with any policies re the NA. Not surprising really as they have no policies or a political agenda except to be in power, if that can be regarded as a political agenda. They had no policies for other sectors as well."

Everybody knows the Maoist policy re NA was to carry out the peace agreement by integrating the PLA and democratizing the NA. This was blocked by COAS Katwal with support from India and other parties supported that blockage just as they blocked other Maoist policies. Since everybody knows Maoists were removed from government because of their policies on NA you should have enough common sense to confine yourself to enthusiastically cheering the prevention of those "evil" Maoist policies instead of making yourself look ridiculous by pretending that they did not have any policy on NA.

7. "If you wish to see an institution that is almost outside civilian control one only needs to look at the NEA. The government policy is in one direction and the activities of the NEA in a different direction. Ironically, it is the NA that has strictly followed the principles of civilian control (as they have been trained to do, the good soldiers that they are!!) and they get the flak for it!"

Most Nepali institutions are dysfunctional so I would not be surprised if you are correct about NEA. Since the defeat of its Gyanendra coup by the 7 party agreement etc NA has basically complied with the terms of the ceasefire i.e, it has stopped waging war. That is important and should be acknowledged. But it remains in the same dysfunctional state as NEA. Just as NEA has not managed to generate electricity, NA has not accepted carrying out the rest of the peace terms and integrating the PLA etc. It even refuses to obey court orders to hand over an officer escorted back from overseas by UN to face charges of torture and murder of 16 year old children.

8. "Regarding elephants in Namche; I think you fail to distinguish between responding to a market and running a racket."

I do not blame you for responding to the market for corruption. But Nepal cannot develop while people like you are able to respond to such "markets" as the NGO industry and looking for elephants in Namche.

When the market for unproductive activities is eliminated you will have to find an honest way to make a living by actually producing something instead of just taking advantage of other people's gullibility. There will be many opportunities. Meanwhile you are wasting your energies in the hope that the army will be able to preserve the old system under which Nepal did not, and cannot develop.

9. "The expression "ke garne" does not necessarily sum up a fatalistic attitude. It could do, but more than likely it does not. There are many problems blocking development in Nepal but this is definitely not one of them.

Regarding MKN being fatalistic. So, he sits there fatalistically to see what happens??!! Is this how he managed to be leader of his party, prime minister, and whatever else he has done??!!"

If a typical response to absurdities is to shrug one's shoulders and say "what can one do", that expresses a fatalistic attitude that blocks development.

It does seem odd that people with such an attitude could become leader of a political party, prime minister etc. The fact that he is still there so long after having "resigned" confirms what a completely bankrupt political system produces such "leaders".

Posted on: 22 DEC 2010 | 8:42 PM NST

41. slarti
Great work Arthur, a brilliant retort. Anybody who wants to see my proposition pummeled needs to read your comment after reading mine. Good work!!

Posted on: 22 DEC 2010 | 8:53 PM NST

42. Slarti

Arthur, in #39 you say After studying your other comments carefully I am left with the conclusion that you claimed you were unable to understand the article by Prashant Jha because he was talking gobbledegook, completely ignored my reply to your misunderstanding of the term "contradictions" and demonstrated that your incomprehension is nothing to do with Prashant Jha's writing but reflects your general attitude to the changes in Nepal that you both oppose and fail to understand.

But as I can see, that in no.11 I acknowledged your uninvited comment with a very polite acknowledgement, reproduced here - No Arthur that is not what I am driving at, it is something far more important, that is, The habit of taking an element of truth, fitting it into some framework of communist making and then ending up with a conclusion completely different from what it is. You try that trick all the time.

This was in continuation of the fact that I did not have time to finish my note in #7. Naturally, I had to go ahead and give a sense of finishing that comment.

Then you go on to say - But the way you write seems to express a sort of angry bewilderment that is rather different. There is nothing I can say or do about it. If I appear that way to you, thatï¿½s fine by me.

Then, of course, characteristically, you go on to quote #11 and your own #15 very selectively. Then you quote your own #35, where you replied to my # 25 where I said, May I make a note that over the nearly one year of arguments, you have never actually refuted anything thoughtfully. So its a bit rich of you to come back saying makes no sense. You tell me how, and then we can talk.

This holds true even now, you have still not responded to my arguments merely depending on obfuscation to appear in command. You completely ignored the point and went on a completely different tangent.

You said, in #31, But your belief that clever propaganda gobbledegook from people like Prashant Jha is what convinced so many poor (and overwhelmingly illiterate) Nepalis to rebel against the system you want to keep is very plainly not the result of asking yourself tough questions.

What you have done here is jumped to a conclusion that is convenient for you. It is not my belief that you have quoted but your own assumption about what belief you would be able to comfortably respond to. I wrote against this -

The habit of taking an element of truth, fitting it into some framework of communist making and then ending up with a conclusion completely different from what it is.

Then, in #31, you go on to say Since you do at least know (highlights mine) that the politicians in government now talk gobbledegook and are completely corrupt and useless, and since you also know that the Maoists fought a people's war against these same politicians together with the King, the tough question you could ask yourself is why shouldn't the majority living on less than $2 per day join the Maoists to rebel and overthrow the entire completely useless "elites" of Nepal?

Wrong points again, proving my point about taking a kernel of truth and running with it in a completely wrong direction.

I will explain, you say that I at least know, but I have known that and I have expressed that repeatedly. They donï¿½t now talk gobbledegook, they always have, they are not corrupt and useless, they were and they proved it by hitting an alliance with a terrorist organisation, namely the Maoist.

Then you go on to say since you also know that the Maoists fought a people's war against these same politicians together with the King, the tough question.

The fact is that I know that Maoistï¿½s did not fight for the people but for self enrichment and to gain power by murdering innocent people. They hurt and murdered the defenceless, the unprepared, and destroyed public property and did or have done absolutely nothing positive ever since any of them have had a chance to do anything at all.

You conclude your #31 by You certainly won't convince them by babbling about your three definitions of "contradiction" as you did in #7."

The definitions were from a dictionary, two different ones, that is just to clarify.

Now, moving on to your conclusion about my #33

Your point 1. (A) You complain about my statement that propaganda from people like Prashant Jha could not possibly be the explanation for so many poor and illiterate Nepalese rebelling. First you deny that overwhelming majority of Nepalese are poor and illiterate (which is so ridiculous I assume it is not what you meant to say) then you add that that even if they are illiterate they are intelligent and smart, which is true.

I did not complain, I stated as such nothing could be further from the truth, it is you who think that Nepali's are poor and illiterate, I know that people are intelligent and smart and that includes those who are semi-literate or illiterate. (you know we Nepali's are not animals, even if we don't sometimes know how to read and write, we do have our ears and eyes and a brain between the two, and we tend to use it).

There is no assumption here other than the statement.

Your point 1. (B) It still remains a fact that nothing written by people like Prashant Jha could possibly influence illiterates (especially not articles like this one in english!).

Here you go gain with your insult about illiteracy. Whether literate or illiterate, people talk and that is how through social interaction whether illiterate or otherwise you get an overwhelmingly similar message in favour of leftist politics, about hopelessness and so on, as I have so many times talked about and cannot go further into each time you take fancy to it.

So any theory you have explaining the collapse of your royalist politics and growth of Maoist politics as due to such propaganda (highlights mine) could not possibly be true. You have simply not attempted to defend your original complaint about Prashant Jha and his article, but just wandered off into other matters.

Please refer to several comments I have made regarding this. You clearly show that you have either just selectively read my comments or have chosen to completely ignore them.

In your second point about #33, you say 2. (A)You explain that the majority of Nepalese living on less than $2 per day should not rebel against the King as well as the elites becauseï¿½ï¿½ï¿½..

I did not ï¿½explainï¿½ why anyone should not or should, I said - About your allegation that they rebelled against the system is a serious case of delusion. Nepali's in general did not rebel against the system, the Maoist kidnapped children, forced parents choose between death and sending one of their children to fight, to choose between losing their life, limb and property or support them, damaged physical infrastructure extensively .. essentially they threw a tantrum...... and some had to join them to avoid a bad fate for themselves.

Surely, once a rebellion gathers a momentum and resources it can also recruit some disgruntled people - and there are always some in every society.

Fact is that it is a great display of social maturity of Nepal that nothing more catastrophic happened since and even during the insurgency, it was fear more than actual influence which tarnished peoples faith in government.

And then (within 2(A) go on to quote me at the wrong place and with an incorrect reference:

"The elites of Nepal are mostly communists and their lackeys who have dominated the thinking and governance of this country over the past two decades."

This was just the start of my answer to your question Why should they believe that the King would be better when Nepal has had Kings for so long and developed not even a cesspit?

If you do not understand the fact that most intellectual elites in Nepal are communists and have been so over the past two decades and sometimes more that is down to your ignorance, I cannot help if you choose to be ignorant even now.

Read the rest of my note carefully, it does not cover everything because it is not possible to do so. I will again note that while I answer every question in as much detail as possible you, Arthur, never have any answers whatsoever.

In your points 3 and 4, you take your ignorance and sidestepping to a whole new level

3. Next you explain that things were getting better during the Panchayat and continued to get better after 1990.

4. Then you explain that Nepal is poor because of geography, including neighbours and terrain.

Read #33 very carefully with a notebook by your side and then respond more intelligently.

Finally, you quote a display of my humility and politeness in recognition to the fact that I had to rush a response

Finally you say:

"there could be some missed lines and words and not being an English speaker the grammar is iffy."

In my view the english and grammar is not a problem. The problem is that your ideas themselves just don't make much sense.

Let me elaborate on a few things, just because I said what you quote does not mean I asked for your patronising approval or disapproval of my writing skills.

My ideas make sense. It is most clear by the fact that you never have any answers and that you are completely incoherent in your response to other people, depending on your ability to anger other people with your insinuations than calm reason.

You do not have a coherent explanation of how Nepal got into such a mess that your King became so widely rejected and the Maoists became so strong. You are simply angry about that without being able to understand it or propose what to do about it.

I will let others be the judge for that since your judgement appears to be so poor, you canï¿½t even respond intelligently to comments made by a simple individual.

Posted on: 23 DEC 2010 | 7:55 PM NST