Prachanda's choice - Nepali Times

1. ssrj

This is an opportunity for Dahal to prove that he is made of better stuff than the much ridiculously posthumously lauded Girija. Girija, Maoists and the King together ruined Nepal. Dahal has an opportunity to rectify that by thinking of Nepal first and his own personal ambitions second. The question is whether he has the intellect and morality to do the right thing. We will know soon

Posted on: 09 APRIL 2010 | 12:28 PM NST

2. Nirmal
Prachanda is a fan of superman(most probably communist ones) and pretend to be, may be they called defeatist mentality exercising statesmanship, who knows. It is seemed that Baburam doesn't feel proud to not be able to use a computer or not knowing English(the guy has Board first record but is in archaic company) and tries hard to know them. But for Pushpa Kamal Dahal they are useless. Haamra baubajelai, purkhalai nachahiyeko kura haaamilai kina( If our ancestors-Lenin Stalin or Mao- didn't need them why should we)? my small try to read their mindset as it is being demonstrated so often.

Posted on: 09 APRIL 2010 | 1:58 PM NST

3. KiranL
Nice shirt, comrade!

Posted on: 09 APRIL 2010 | 6:25 PM NST

4. Concerned Citizen

Prachanda does not have political or intellectual caliber to be a successful national leader. He is good at manipulating truths and deceiving both indoctrinated semi-educated party cadres and clueless highly-educated international pundits. Maoists of modern day Nepal are not revolutionaries. They may have been guided by revolutionary feelings during the war but now they have turned into an insincere mafia looking for a loot.

I am not that optimistic about Baburam Bhattarai either but he may be the best short-term bet for Nepal. Baburam's desires for better Nepal at least seems more genuine. There are no leaders in Congress or UML who can step up to the task. I think Nepal can only prosper if following things happen in succession:

1. Baburam leading national government as a short-term solution.

2. Consensus constitution being drafted that endorses multiparty democracy, rule of law and judicial supremacy.

3. Maoists breaking up into two or three groups with a more moderate group being the biggest group after the split.

4. Nepali Congress getting a completely new generation of leaders.

4. Free elections with groups led by Prachanda and his corrupt cronies sidelined.

Posted on: 09 APRIL 2010 | 10:37 PM NST

5. Arthur
If only the Maoists would give up key instruments of the party machinery and dilute their program etc they could become as deeply and widely respected as the UMLs.

Dreaming that Baburam Bhatterai wants to become another MKN indicates that the Kathmandu talkocracy is even more marginalized and panic stricken than I had thought.

Posted on: 09 APRIL 2010 | 11:50 PM NST

6. Danny Birch
Dahal and the Maovadi are only interested in consolidating power and misuse "so-called" democratic elections and non-issues like the constitution and "rule of law" only to create an impression that they are responsible and caring. Their aim is to demolish the society and rebuild it according to their own twisted communist ideology. Anyone who thinks that they mean well or have any noble intentions is dreaming or blind.

Posted on: 09 APRIL 2010 | 2:21 AM NST

7. DON
KiranL Jee
Not only nice shirt comrade but also suit and watch. I wonder how much it cost??...while, lots of people who fought for his/ their ideologue still struggling for gaas, baas ra kapaas.

Posted on: 10 APRIL 2010 | 5:13 AM NST

8. Gautam Buddha
The parties messed up our country. It may be too late to ask, but do we really want a multi-party democratic system where the leaders are loyal to their parties and not to the country?

Posted on: 10 APRIL 2010 | 11:13 AM NST

9. K. K. Sharma

Prashanta, thinks,,,,,,, like children do..... that the puppets dance on their own, without seeing the strings making them do what they do.

The case of NA and the priest of Pashupati, should by now have made Prachanda Baje realise that he needs to get permission form his Masters in Delhi first, to do whatever he wishes to do.

Posted on: 10 APRIL 2010 | 10:11 PM NST

10. Kamal Kishor

Very true that Dahal is the man. He has been in that position for more than half a decade. So far, even though the Maoists have done everything to bankrupt Nepal politically, socially, religiously, and economically, luck has been their side. But the current situation in Nepal needs more than luck: it needs vision, values, and demands ahering to some minimum democratic principles and this is where he has misearably failed.

He needs to understand that this junction of Nepal demands de-criminalization of politics and he has to take the lead as it is his comrades who are criminalizing the politics at all levels. Unless he takes a stand against YCL and criminals inside the party, no body should accept him as a new PM. Same applies to Baburam. If Baburam believes that a national unity government is the need of the hour then he should take the lead in reconcilation with other parties and civil society.

They had been given chances to govern and they failed misearably. Unless they stop believing that intimidation is the final tool of governance, no body should support them.

Posted on: 11 APRIL 2010 | 8:25 AM NST

11. wtf

only in Nepal can it happen , no? why do people even recognize someone with 14000+ deaths on his head? why even write an article on such a piece of S***? leave alone him being an 'important political person'..what *revolution* has come to the country? what has changed?...oh yes, now we have shower bars, and goons asking us 'hafta'....

I don't see ANY benefit what so ever this "revolution" has brought..except maybe death, disaster, grief and taking the country back eons...another power hungry B******

Posted on: 11 APRIL 2010 | 9:26 AM NST

12. Arthur
Interesting question in #8 "do we really want a multi-party democratic system...".

All the comments so far #1 to #10 indicate that the authors do not have the necessary mental concepts to be able to discuss political matters as equal citizens in a multi-party democracy.

Not understanding what it is, makes it impossible for you to want it, whatever you say about it.

If this mentality was universal in Nepal then of course the country would indeed be too backward and ignorant to be capable of multi-party democracy. Any democratic minded minority would have no choice but to exclude the majority from real power until they had actually learned how to think democratically.

Fortunately the depth of ignorance displayed here seems to be dominant only among the english speaking middle class. As that is only a small minority, it may not be necessary to exclude you and your "parties" from participation. Although you clearly have nothing whatever to contribute to a new Nepal at present, by allowing you to participate you will be forced to learn how to comment and argue more logically and coherently and eventually you will learn how to actually be citizens rather than sneering, whining children childishly demanding that the majority be "sidelined" because you "dont want" to just be fellow citizens.

Posted on: 11 APRIL 2010 | 10:22 AM NST

13. wtf
what is with the 'english speaking middle class' reutoric in every post? If you were'nt one, you wouldn't be here, so shut up about that...all this very evanglistic rant about *multi-party democracy* yadda yadda, all this back and forth discussion on politics does not bring food on the table...whatever food on the table people had a few years back is taken away because of freaking *go by the book* idiots like you and equally stupids *civil society* going back and forth on the merits and demerits and never really achieving anything....u don't have to read a book on Mao and follow it to see whats happening, and make people of Nepal guenie pigs of your experiments...why don't people realize this is no *historic movement*, it's just bad political manouvers which the honchos are succeeding at and laughing, when dumb freaks like arthur back them up

Posted on: 11 APRIL 2010 | 12:57 PM NST

14. Danny Birch
#12 seems to be someone who feels that people with different ideas about governance than his are mentally and socially deficient.# 8's question is very pertinent. Must Nepal choose between a corrupt liberal democracy and a totalitarian communist dictatorship? Has humanity to be so limited? IS it true or is it only an assumption that having a multi-party system is an inherent sign of progress?

Posted on: 11 APRIL 2010 | 2:35 PM NST

15. Arthur
Danny Birch, your #14 joins my #12 in taking up the pertinent issue raised in #8. Your questioning of the assumption that having a multi-party system is an inherent sign of progress is certainly an improvement on your #6 where you insisted that "Anyone who thinks ...[differently from you]... is dreaming or blind." That style of argument was a good illustration of what I referred to as not having "the necessary mental concepts to be able to discuss political matters as equal citizens in a multi-party democracy".

Now that you are more openly expressing your doubts about multi-party democracy, instead of pretending to support it by denouncing the Maoists as "misusing" democratic elections, perhaps actual discussion would be possible.

As I understand it, the Maoists launched a People's War back in 1996 in emphatic agreement with a stronger version of your own view that the corrupt "liberal democracy" and "multi-party system" was not "an inherent sign of progress".

In the course of that war (long before the ceasefire) they summed up the experience of the failures of Communism in the Soviet Union and China and concluded that a "totalitarian communist dictatorship" was not the only alternative.

They certainly do intend to demolish the old Nepal and rebuild it according to their own ideas. But their ideas include competing with other parties in free elections, and establishing a majority rather than simply suppressing people like you and other commentators here.

Evidently you oppose that demolition and rebuilding, and regard their ideas as "twisted ideology". But what is your proposed alternative to competing with the Maoists in free elections?

The fact that you, like pretty well everyone else, recognizes that the "liberal democracy" parties opposed to the Maoists are hopelessly corrupt means you cannot expect those parties to do very well against the Maoists in elections.

Surely you cannot imagine that denouncing the Maoists in english language media will change that?

My guess is that you hope to avoid Maoists winning elections by simply not holding elections. But you haven't actually said that.

If that is your position (ie military rule), how do you expect to win the resulting civil war?

If that is not your position, what is your proposed alternative system?

wtf, you ask: "why don't people realize this is no *historic movement*, it's just bad political manouvers which the honchos are succeeding at and laughing...". Perhaps people are too busy actually participating in the historic movement to pay attention to your patient explanations that nothing is happening. You may need to shout "dumb freaks" more loudly so that people will understand you better.

Posted on: 11 APRIL 2010 | 5:29 PM NST

16. jange
"Dahal's decisions will determine the future of Nepali politics"

WRONG. It is OUR decisions that will determine the future of Nepali politics.

Does it really matter to Nepal and Nepalis what happens to the political future of Dahal?

Does it really matter to Nepal and Nepalis whether the Maoists split into however many groups?

Do we really care if Dahal's own followers eat him alive for having duped them into going on a murder, loot and extortion spree so that Dahal and his politburo could live the high life??

Posted on: 11 APRIL 2010 | 6:43 PM NST

17. Slarti
#12 and #15 - No amount of propaganda is going to cover for violence that people have suffered first hand. Politics obsessed lunatics have always hurt a society because to them death is a statistic and the world revolves around a few text book phrases.

Repeating those very words time and again and precluding everyone else from an argument on the basis of their inability to communicate very well is the forte of all leftists, and you seem to display that just as effectively.

You don't own this space so you need to stop asking people to stuff it. You wish to say something? - say it and get out. Because your opinion and its expression is always the same, you don't deserve an answer.

Regarding those who oppose democracy - there is no other alternative. With todays technology, proliferation of media and easy access to information it is possible to force effectiveness in administration and refinement in policies. Change is easy and peaceful, and diversity of opinion respected and encouraged. Whoever you are, prevalence of peace ensures greater participation and even those politically passive - as most people are - can exercise their conscience and decide what rule they would like.

I understand the frustration - the Congress, the UML and everyone else says the right things, but they lack a coherent strategy and the integrity to implement their solutions.

The Maoists on the other hand, do not have the right ideology, they change their stance depending on the audience they are addressing and masterfully utilise and have always utilised the politics of murder to get their way. At the same time, their cronies in the English media help cover up for them (those who don't are right wing, even as they were instrumental in legitimizing them in the first place!!!) because either they are all buddies from the same university or simply lack the independence and courage to speak the truth.

Nevertheless, there are elements of intelligence in all political groups. For instance, for all the profession of communism and socialism, Chinese communists are capitalists and nationalists and have been effective in getting their policies to benefit a large number of the country's citizens.

On the flip side, they deploy a deliberate programme to exclude their own minorities and "nationalities" from the mainstream. Nearly all (all) communist governments of the world are deeply suspicious of differences in opinion and utilize tools of terror to contain the proliferation of ideas not endorsed by the politburo.

Similarly, in near perfect democracies like the US and India or in the UK, political parties are able to transform over time because they allow all opinion to proliferate unhampered. They are susceptible to making populist mistakes, but because they function within the well defined rules of democracy, they can easily change course and correct wrongs.

Maoists and their supporters don't understand ideas - they shout it out and like to hear their own voice. That is why they seek military rule (capturing state power, rule of the mob vs the rule of law, obsession with text book solutions and language, extreme fear of the rise of the other side), firmly believe in the use of propaganda against expression of opinion, and in terrorism of thought.

And, by the way Arthur - don't bother responding. I actually work to earn a living and I really don't need your pathetic little rants where you steal other peoples ideas and turn it on its head. It is you who want military rule but accuse others of having, you justify violence..............you don't deserve a conversation.

Posted on: 11 APRIL 2010 | 7:48 PM NST

18. SS
why does anyone bother to reply arthur? he doesn't know his own shit. to him the terrorists in the guise of maoists can't do anything wrong. everyone plz leave arthur alone and let him rant.

Posted on: 11 APRIL 2010 | 10:07 PM NST

19. Danny Birch
#15 Arthur makes a lot of peculiar and unfounded statements about what he concluded about my opinions. You needn't speak for me in your own words. I can express myself, even though you may disagree.

It would seem quite naive to take at face value the occasional claims by the maovadi that they don't intend to impose a communist dictatorship. The Bolsheviks also took part in a multi-party system for a short time. Hitler was also elected. Does that mean his rule and the ensuing genocide were legitimate? The strategy of communists has always been to use whatever means is available to establish their rule until they can consolidate their power. Then, watch out! Democratic elections are fine with them as a means toward that end.

Posted on: 12 APRIL 2010 | 6:34 AM NST

20. Arthur
slarti, "...dont bother responding...".

What is to be done with such people? They will continue to maintain that "the Congress, the UML and everyone else says the right things", but they also know that they "lack a coherent strategy and the integrity to implement their solutions".

So they also know the people will not vote for them.

Others have a different idea of "right". But that only shows "Maoists and their supporters dont understand ideas...".

This basic attitude towards political ideas is characteristic. As the dominant attitude it got old Nepal to where it is today. In the new Nepal it will remain the attitude of a noisy, angry but increasingly irrelevant minority, while the rest go about their business as citizens of deciding what coherent implementable ideas to actually implement.

Posted on: 12 APRIL 2010 | 9:24 AM NST

21. Arthur
Danny Birch, in #15 I said.

"My guess is that you hope to avoid Maoists winning elections by simply not holding elections. But you haven't actually said that.

If that is your position (ie military rule), how do you expect to win the resulting civil war?

If that is not your position, what is your proposed alternative system?"

If my guess was a "peculiar and unfounded statement" about your opinion then you should be able to express yourself by answering one or other of my two questions. Instead you simply repeat that Maoists can't be trusted.

Obviously you will not vote for Maoists and you urge others not to do so. Fine. But do you trust others to vote or not vote for Maoists according to their own opinions or do you hope to avoid Maoists winning elections by not holding elections?

Posted on: 12 APRIL 2010 | 10:08 AM NST

22. jange
Kamred Arthur- "That style of argument was a good illustration of what I referred to as not having "the necessary mental concepts to be able to discuss political matters as equal citizens in a multi-party democracy"."

Kamred Arthur makes a very good point. After all, what is the point in allowing me to take part in such a discussion as this if I don't have the necessary mental concepts. No point in wasting the Kamred's time and effort is there? I mean, look at the amount of effort the Kamred has put in and louts like me, who live in Nepal and stand to gain the most from it all, don't even have the mental capacity to appreciate it, let alone respond to it at an equal level.

I propose that NT hire Kamred Arthur to assess whether the participants have the "necessary mental concepts" and only then allow such qualified people to take part. If Kamred can volunteer for the effort so much the better. I volunteer to be the first to take the test.

Risaani maaf hos, Kamred sarkar.

Kamred sarkar- jo hukum, jo nigaha.

Posted on: 12 APRIL 2010 | 11:35 AM NST

23. jange
Kamred Arthur- "As I understand it, the Maoists launched a People's War back in 1996 in emphatic agreement with a stronger version of your own view that the corrupt "liberal democracy" and "multi-party system" was not "an inherent sign of progress"."

You understood wrong. Try again.

Posted on: 12 APRIL 2010 | 11:43 AM NST

24. Mepali Citizen

I totally agree with the views made by the concerned citizen above. Yes, if there is a leader I assume he is Baburam and he could, as I assume bring consensus with his genuine view and practice among political parties.

Posted on: 12 APRIL 2010 | 2:15 PM NST

25. Slarti
#20 "what is to be done with such people?" - Normally your lot stick them up poles, and if one of your own says something slightly different and they are too important an asset to be stuck up a pole, send them to labor camp - ask BRB, he knows a thing or two about that.

For good measure, you take pride in your lack of understanding the obvious - even when it is written in plain language.

Here is sudden surge of curiosity, that hopefully would not get this humble cat killed -

1. If Maoists understood ideas, then how come you always fail to understand them?

2. If Maoists do not want military rule, how come they keep an army and fund it by extortion, both from a government of cowards, and from ordinary people. Of course, you call all these people corrupt or some such thing and justify extortion.

3 If you wanted elections, what prevented you from participating in them, instead of killing people?

4. If you wanted democracy, what prompted you to commit crimes against legitimately elected governments and why did you not allow people to vote in elections freely, and without fear?

5. If you wanted peace, why did you steal children from their families to fight your war of greed?

6. If you wanted progress, why did you destroy the infrastructure that was built through the hard work of honest men and women?

7. If you respected opinion, then why did you murder Journalists and everyone you could get your hands on?

8. If you respected culture, why did you force children to go against theirs?

9. If you fought for the poor, why did you destroy their livelihood and choose to take cover amidst them?

10. If you wanted to negotiate, why did you not negotiate when the legitimate government agreed to talk on your terms?

11. If you are so confident of winning elections, why do you maintain a violent group of thugs who periodically, and almost everyday engage in acts of intimidation?

12. If you want another election to decide the fate of the Constituent Assembly, then why aren't your leaders calling for it?

There are a hundred other questions that you need to answer, since being a Maoist terrorist - fantasizing about the opportunity to kill people - you are incapable of anything but propaganda, I already what your evasive answer would be? That is why - you don't deserve a conversation.

Posted on: 12 APRIL 2010 | 7:35 PM NST

26. Arthur
jange, re #22, I expect that you (unlike some others here) have both the mental capacity to argue coherently and logically and also understand the concept of discussing political matters as equals.

In your case the problem is simply that you reject the concepts that you understand well enough. You generally prefer to simply repeat your mantra of "Maoists are a mafia engaged in killing, looting and extortion", not because you are incapable of arguing at a higher level but because you believe that is the most effective way to go, given the limitations of your audience, and the lack of support for your actual agenda of military rule.

As for some "test" to allow qualified people to take part in discussion, my point in #12 was the opposite. The only way people can gain the necessary concepts is through open competition of ideas. That is why I think the Maoists are quite right to go for multi-party competition despite the abysmal level of their opponents. It would certainly not make any sense if viewed only from the point of view of the difficulty in suppressing those discredited parties or the potential value of actual contributions towards a new Nepal from them. But it makes a lot of sense when you consider how people learn, and what is needed to avoid the Communist party itself becoming corrupt.

Re #23 I think you are well aware that in launching the People's War in 1996 the Maoists openly rejected the claims of both Congress and UMLs that their corrupt liberal democracy was an inherent sign of progress. That was not a point of disagreement with the panchayatis then, and it still is not now. It is also a much more widely held view now, with few still expressing much hope for development and progress from those corrupt "liberal democratic" parties. (Their remaining support seems based mainly on them not being Maoists and not being Panchayatis, rather than any positive expectations from them).

If you actually did want to engage in discussion as an equal, you might have responded in #23 by presenting an argument to convince others that my statement you quoted was wrong.

Instead you simply said "You understood wrong. Try again."

That is an expression of your rejection of the concept of arguing as equals.

Since you are opposed to open competition of ideas and parties it makes sense for you to simply proclaim what is right and wrong in a way that cannot accidentally encourage discussion. This style of military drilling works well for producing boot-bangers in military parades. But it doesn't actually win any battles.

Posted on: 12 APRIL 2010 | 8:22 PM NST

27. Deepak
I dream of ....
"Sujata :- in jail for corruption charges."
"Baburam :- Prime Minister of Nepal"
"Dahal :- "Party head"
"MAKUNE :- Retired politician."
"Sher Bahadur :- Still struggling to be number one in Nepali congress."
"Nepal :- Beautiful and Happy"

Posted on: 12 APRIL 2010 | 8:59 PM NST

28. hange

Arthur, Arthur, Arthur- it's good to see you in your element, swinging away at anyone that doesn't agree with you! But a good point has been made: you've decided that anyone who is able to actually respond to you in English is a part of the "elite upper class talkocracy," hence immediately rendering them powerless to respond to you. Kudos on this stroke of genius! But are you correct? Or are you being elitist in assuming that some of the "common people" can't write a single lick of English? Are you so narcissistic in your own opinion as to think that only the "influential" dare spar with you on matters of intellect while the rest of Nepal doesn't have the necessary mental concepts to discuss these matters? Sorry, I don't mean to add to your plate- you've seemed to have taken on quite a few in this article. More power to you for arguning for what you believe in- even if I disagree with you. I still think the Maoists say the right things but, at heart, are thugs who are willing to steal, kill, and rape to get their hands on power. Just my "unbiased" opinion. :) Hope you're well.

Posted on: 12 APRIL 2010 | 1:51 AM NST

29. rishav
Guarantees - 1. Constitution will not be written on time. 2. Army integration will be a very long drawn out procedure until one side decides to concede on their stand point while the rest of the country suffers. 3, Nepali Congress will have a lot of in-fighting to elect a leader which will also take quite some time to achieve. 4. Security, health, wealth and life in Nepal will continue to fall as the politicians including the Maoists continue to squabble for little scraps of power.

Posted on: 12 APRIL 2010 | 2:10 AM NST

30. jange
Kamred Arthur- The reason I keep repeating that the Maoists are a mafia group and they are murderers, looters and extortionists is because that is what experience and observation has told us. Try reading today's Nepali papers.The Maoists behaviour is more consistent with that of a mafia organisation than a political party.

I try to be a good Maoist and do my best to "seek truth from facts".

And as for my contention that you are wrong- Well, some things are so obviously wrong that there is simply no point in explaining. If you pointed to a donkey and insisted that it was a cow, I would not bother to explain why you were wrong except maybe to point out that you are wrong. Even though you might protest that it has 4 feet and so it must be a cow.

Posted on: 13 APRIL 2010 | 6:54 AM NST

31. Arthur
hange, unfortunately you are right that I enjoying "swinging away" at opponents too much, and posted #12 to provoke these arguments. But actually I prefer to argue with the views I disagree with, even when others insist on attacking the person rather than the opinion.

My desire to provoke an argument in #12 resulted from irritation that so many of #1 to #10 did not discuss or respond to the article at all, but were simply childish abuse against Maoists. (Likewise #11 which I had not seen when I wrote #12).

The only ones that referred to the topic of the article at all, were #1, which said nothing, #2 which claimed that unlike Baburam Bhatterai, Prachanda does not speak english or use computers (I have listend to a speech by Prachanda in adequate english), #4 which absurdly hoped for Baburam to lead a government conducting elections in which Prachanda was "sidelined". and #5 (mine). Although #10 did mention Baburam it was only a token reference so as not to be as openly ignoring the article as the others, while still actually ignoring it. Since then, the only passing references to the article have been in #16 (the usual from jange), #24 agreeing with the absurd #4, and #27 (no complaint).

In the light of #1 to #11 I don't think the subsequent lack of discussion of the article was my fault.

As to my reference to the talkocracy in #5, I do believe there is something panic stricken about essentially marginalized and politically irrelevant people chattering about their hopes of Baburam, a senior revolutionary leader of the Maoist party, becoming another UML style politician. This concept of a "talkocracy" or "talkerati" is not a weapon to render anyone powerless to reply but a well known observation also referred to by Prashant Jha in other articles. If there had been some response to my #5, or some interesting response to the article itself, I would have responded to that instead of posting #12.

But there wasn't, hence #12.

You ask "are you being elitist in assuming that some of the "common people" can't write a single lick of English?"

My assumption (based on easily available statistics) is that the majority of Nepalis cannot write in Nepali and have no access to the internet. Only a very small minority can write in english. I do not think many of that small minority are in any sense "influential" and cannot imagine that anyone influential would have time to participate in discussions here.

As a foreigner I at least know enough about Nepal to be aware of those obvious facts. Your "unbiased" opinion of the Maoists would be of greater relevance if you were not so completely surrounded by people like yourself that you at least understood that the overwhelming majority of people in Nepal are not at all like yourself.

slarti, although your #17 shows no more interest in actual discussion than before, I will encourage your "sudden surge of curiosity" by responding to the only one of your questions that I am also curious about in the hope that others might also want to shed light on it.

"12. If you want another election to decide the fate of the Constituent Assembly, then why aren't your leaders calling for it?"

Obviously as a foreigner who happens to support the Maoists I cannot speak for the Maoists. (You can blame me for supporting the Maoists, but don't bother blaming the Maoists for anything I say - it's obviously pointless).

My guess is that the preferred option is to reach a consensus agreement on the issues still in dispute so that both the constitution and the peace agreement can be finalized with a short extension. While there is still hope of such agreement there is no point in calling for anything else.

Both sides appear to be preparing for a confrontation in the event of there being no such agreement. But such a confrontation could result in civil war, and neither side seems to actually want that (though some of the commentators here seem to wish the civil war had continued, they do not have any influence).

So my guess is that if they are unable to reach agreement they will have to elect another Constituent Assembly on the same basis as the present one instead of under a new Constitution which would presumably include a much smaller and cheaper legislature.

I think only the smaller parties are actually calling for that already. The waste of money in electing another large Constituent Assembly would at least retain representation of very small parties, while there would be less room for them in a smaller legislature under a new Constitution.

Of the bigger parties, those in the current coalition have good reason to fear the results of any elections and are reluctant to agree on a constitution because that would be immediately followed by elections. The MJF and the Maoists have less to fear from elections, but no reason to distract attention from actually reaching agreement by calling for them before the time for agreement has completely run out.

That's my guess, what do others think?

Deepak, interesting dream in #27! How about Hsila Yami for PM as Baburam Bhatterai is needed in the Finance Ministry?

jange, actually what I am looking at seems more like a frog, in a well.

rishav. in #29 your 1 to 3 seem uncontroversial. But I think security, health, wealth and life in Nepal will improve despite the continuing delay in downsizing Nepal's bloated army once the squabbling politicians of the minority parties are forced to accept that the threat of the Army cannot win them any more than minority status in a Maoist led government.

Posted on: 13 APRIL 2010 | 5:14 PM NST

32. Slarti
"Your "unbiased" opinion of the Maoists would be of greater relevance if you were not so completely surrounded by people like yourself that you at least understood that the overwhelming majority of people in Nepal are not at all like yourself."

Sure.

Posted on: 13 APRIL 2010 | 10:15 PM NST

33. rishav
Another Guarantee - As time goes on, the PM position will start to become more alluring for all potential candidates. Friction currently present between Prachada and Baburam will become more apparent even creating individual alliances with other parties and as time goes on even the formation of diverging poles in the Maoist party itself.

Interesting to read your responses to this claim, those who fear this outcome but no deep down inside of it's strong possibility will reply to refute it quickly, aggressively and in haste.

Posted on: 13 APRIL 2010 | 10:25 PM NST

34. wtf

@Arthur, you wrote:

"but were simply childish abuse against Maoists.. (Likewise #11 ..."

Maybe I should put my arguments in a fashion more appropriate to the readers of this forum, here goes:

I disagree. The article discusses two things mainly: 1)Dahal's decision and political skills, and what the author feels he *should* do to make himself a true altruistic and 2) Bhattarai as a potential PM...

I don't see the intellect in Dahal to be associated with any words described in the article, statesmanship and sacrifice being the big ones. I *might* see only a level of leadership in Bhattrai, nothing exceptionally higher than other current leaders...but that gets eclipsed with the ideaologies and the intentions he carries.

But both points go down the drain when you see the route they have taken to achieve their political means. When I weight that against any arguments given above, my answer is No, these guys don't deserve a chance, leave aside a 2nd, 3rd, 4th,5th ones people keep giving them.

and THATS WHY my comments in post # 11.

How many more times will you bite the bait to excuses of 'deep consipiracy being hatched...' , how many more times do we need to intellectually discuss "Rame didnt do this, now the question is will shyame be able to do it?...lets wait and watch"

However much you keep waiting and watching and discussing, you'll know at some point that the most relevant points everyone will finally agree to are noted in #11. And I don't say that because I wrote them.

Posted on: 13 APRIL 2010 | 11:58 PM NST

35. Nirmal
Yes, there is a threat of Army intervention in case the Maoists propagate street terrorism(which in their word urban revolt), there is what the crux of the matter lies. Cons and neocons are waiting eagerly to finish the brutal war again declared by the Maoists and the Maoists are as always up in arms. If not do you think the ones who have started the bloodiest insurgency of Nepal's history(killing people) would have so easily given up their aim to capture the state through guns and appear in ballot box? Yes, I know everything was tactical and the Maoists barons don't get tired telling us that it was the compulsion of the time but still their technical regulatory guidelines, quasi in totality are motivated by militarised activities and make them be the priviledged ones for the potential management of entire politics through violence, It is the most absurd idiosyncracy of any Democracy that one dares to use both ballots and bullets at the same time. The Maoists are not competing the politics as an equal, in equal conditions . Arthur just take stock of the news from last days, YCL is roaming like a lion with the blood already in its mouth(and If it is untrue why don't they put the facts in front of public opinion or refutes them?). And in any case we are not going to tolerate all this shit of muscles and guns in politics with an excuse to avoid right-wing uprise. This should be stopped If not even a single mistake can f*** the whole process, the Maoists are obliged to strike a deal and in absence of its possibility, it poses a serious threat to their own existence. the ball is in the Maoists' court.

Posted on: 13 APRIL 2010 | 4:55 AM NST

36. कुमार
कामरेड आर्थरको अरु काम छैन कि क्या हो? कति फुर्सत भाको यो मान्छेको!

Posted on: 14 APRIL 2010 | 9:41 AM NST

37. vikram pant

monarchy ruled for 240 years and the result was poverty, starvation and death for millions of nepalese. the congress and other proteges of monarchy ruled for 15-16 years with no change in the condition of nepalese.

the congress sold out mahakali, saved the killers of com. Bhandari, created the bhutanese refugee problem and the corruption, widened the gap between the haves and havenots.

as a saying goes it is easier to wake a person who is asleep but not to that who is pretending to be sleeping.

all who blame maoist for all the problems are either blind or unaware of the nepal's history.

however the best thing is these people are less than 1% of the population of nepal.

Posted on: 14 APRIL 2010 | 10:01 AM NST

38. Arthur
wtf, thank you for putting your views more appropriately in #37 than in #11 (and #34). I am sure you are right that those who think as you do will continue to do so. But when you say "everyone" will agree, I think you must mean "everyone" who had hopes the Maoists would be "tamed" and join the old mainstream. My impression is that the old mainstream has become much smaller and weaker while the Maoists have continued to become larger and stronger, becoming the new mainstream. Naturally not "everyone" will become part of the new mainstream and naturally those left behind will become increasingly angry the more it becomes obvious they have lost.

rishav, your hopes seem to be based on an assumption that the Maoists are similar to other parties, although you also know that they aren't. Everyone can see that the MJF has split, and that each of the UMLs and the Congress are deeply divided. Since your only hope would be for the Maoists to also split, you have to pretend to yourself that they are like the other parties even though you can see that they are not.

Nirmal, only last week (or was it two weeks ago, how time flies!) you joined in a discussion here where people were gloating about criminal gangs murdering Maoists in the Terai. I am not at all surprised to see subsequent reports of the YCL promptly smashing people who attack them instead of waiting to be murdered.

A deal was already struck. Federalism and democratization of the Nepal Army was part of that deal. The ball has been in the court of those who thought they could go back on that deal for some time. They have had the ball for nearly a year now and have grown weaker and more divided as it becomes more and more obvious that there is nothing they can do with it.

slarti, I am puzzled by your response in #32. Congratulations on confusing me ;-)

Posted on: 14 APRIL 2010 | 11:10 AM NST

39. Surya Acharya
"Dahal's decisions will determine the future of Nepali politics"

....I think future of Maoists Party as well.

The most important decision for maoists is about the political paths they would adopt. There are clearly two lines within their party. The hardliners, going by Lanin's book, see good prospects of communist utopia. The other group led by Baburam is better informed and prefer for more flexible path- excepting basic elements of democratic setups. Both of these model can deliver state's power to Maoist- but only the later can do in a sustained way.

Current makeup of maoists is just good for "revolution" or destruction of existing state, but they are grossly in deficit when it comes to building and delivering. Now they appear to have judged the presence of rightists elements as barrier for socio-economic transformation. Ironically, such rightist irritations may work in maoists' favor as an excuse to tame the unruly cadres. Otherwise, even if maoists could get rid of all opposing forces politically or otherwise, the big barrier for building new Nepal would be their own cadre, such as the contract-loving YCL or casino-serving union leaders.

So, the challenge for establishing maoists' regime is not so much from NC/UML (their popularity already hitting rock bottom) as it is from their own party. The time is offering maoists a good opportunity to play a long-inning provided that they make good strategic moves, which involve surprising all by unilateral declaration of accepting all conditions put forward by NC/UML including maximum flexibility in drafting new constitution (kind of "shock-and-awe" political operation). Then even Kathmandu's "chattering class" would be maoists fan.

Posted on: 14 APRIL 2010 | 2:05 PM NST

40. Nirmal
Yes, they all have struck a deal call the very MacGuffin, yes Arthur? Better you teach them how a deal is done.

Posted on: 14 APRIL 2010 | 3:00 PM NST

41. Arthur
Suraya Acharaya, you note that NC/UML popularity is already hitting rock bottom. Then you say that if Maoists surprised everybody by accepting all conditions put forward by NC/UML even Kathmandu's "chattering classes" would be maoists fan.

Why are such unpopular parties putting forward "conditions"?

Why should a popular party join them in their path to rock bottom by accepting such conditions?

What's missing is any explanation of what possible use that would be to the majority of people in Nepal and why anybody outside Kathmandu's "chattering classes" should care whether they are fans or not?

Posted on: 14 APRIL 2010 | 5:55 PM NST

42. Prem Nepali
Both Dahal and Bhattarai are just two aspects of the same coin. How can we believe that hypocrite like Baburan can lead our country on the road of prosperity. He and his party forced thousands of teenagerers to abandon thier home and school in the name of revoulution, but he kept his own daughter in the heven and continuously provided with quality education. What does this reflect? While his daughter was in safe heven and getting modern quality education under the aegis of Indian government here contemporay teenagers were either fighting for his dad's party and sacrificing their precious life in the name of so-calle revolution or being killed mercilessly. The same hypocrecy holds true with Dahal too.

Posted on: 14 APRIL 2010 | 6:56 PM NST

43. Slarti
"as a saying goes it is easier to wake a person who is asleep but not to that who is pretending to be sleeping."

You are right, QED.

Posted on: 14 APRIL 2010 | 7:19 PM NST

44. Surya Acharya
Arthur: "Why are such unpopular parties putting forward "conditions"?"

NC/UML are not only unpopular but strategically foolish as well. That is why they are volunteering in offering valuable strategic advice to maoists. NC/UML conditions are not to turn maoists into UML but make maoists real people's party. And without meeting these conditions, maoists can not commands public support beyond their cadres.

Key point here again, maoists in the current shape/thinking may/may not capture state, but CANNOT build so called new Nepal. So, these conditions are indeed in maoists' strategic interest.

Posted on: 14 APRIL 2010 | 8:08 PM NST