Choices to make

As the November 19 election for a second Constituent Assembly (CA) nears, the question is whether the imminent electoral exercise will inevitably cause the political parties to head for more confrontation or if it will outline a strategy of cooperation and co-evolution instead.

The developing political scenario suggests that political parties are sticking more closely with the two contentious issues of the last CA—federalism and the form of government post-election. In the absence of collaboration, it will be tough for the CA to write a well-structured constitution, which is what the country needs.

Since 1990, Nepal’s democracy has been grappling with consistent flip-flops and political maneuverings. It has already lost over two decades in coming out completely from the shadow of royal institutions. The current constitutional crisis would have been unlikely if political principles were in alignment with peoples’ aspirations.

Nepal’s tryst with democracy hasn’t always been painful—the country witnessed full-scale transformation into a ‘democracy’ within a short span of time, compared with other South Asian democracies. The first generation democratic leadership of the country deserves closer evaluation, as they had a clear grasp over their goals and intentions. Sadly, things are dramatically different now.

Nepal has failed to capitalise on many chances to cement its democracy. The eventful 1990s were spent initially in a ‘tug-of-war’ between the king and the political forces, and later in the Maoists v everyone else. The last decade began with an unfortunate royal massacre, which not only ended the monarchy’s natural continuity but also greatly affected the natural progression of democracy.

Since 2001, what has dominated the major political discourse in Nepal should have avoided—intense factionalism, directionless ideological formations and fragmentations, unprecedented rise in regionalism and an excessive focus on the federalisation of the republic. Demands were mostly routed through demonstrations, discarding basic civic and moral sense.

At this crucial juncture, the reckoning should be that Nepal fared well under a central command. It is a small country where territorial divisions are not as important as its emancipation as an economy and democracy. India and China can be the good examples for Nepal, given how far these countries have traveled from medieval monarchies into modern states.

Nepal, however, always has the option to keep the constitution-making exercise simple and inclusive. As a modern parliamentary democracy, it can go the Indian way—where the constitution was made through a rigorous consultation process and by adopting the wisdom/aspirations of the land along with fine examples from outside.

The Indian Constitution, at least notionally, embodies the best of democratic values; and this despite diverse ethnicities and massive size. Whatever the verdict of the election, all political parties should approach constitution-making as a consensus-driven exercise. For this, the trust in the existing parliamentary model needs to be incorrigible. Sans faith in the present system, it will be impossible for the political parties to offer a better alternative to the Nepali people, who are more interested in a dignified life.

Meanwhile, the adamant stand of Mohan Baidya-led CPN-Maoist against the election only proves once again the directionless working of his camp. Baidya should revisit the basics of communism, which teaches that a ‘connect with people’ is supreme. Second, he needs to figure out the constituents of a ‘class structure’ before fighting for the cause of ‘invisible proletariats’. He is about to commit a bigger blunder than his alma mater, the UPCN (Maoist), when recognising the divide between the ‘elite’ and ‘oppressed’.

Baidya’s half-baked political programme may not lead him too far. Earlier too, the Maoists performed miserably on crucial socio-economic as well as cultural matters while they were in power. That was at the cost of a rare political edge, which was post the diminishing status of the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML.

For long, Nepali leaders have not looked at political developments beyond the ‘surrealist order’, which allows ‘unconscious choices to be expressive’. This is an existential downplaying and must not be continued. The Nepali people’s faith in democracy should reflect in its institutions.

Political leaders have to be sensitive to this or they will end-up undermining democracy and finally their own utility in public space. They have to make choices and the poll is going to be most opportune for hat. This election will decide whether democracy in Nepal is a lame duck or a winner.
-Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Kathmandu Post on November10,2013)

Too early to drop one’s guard

India must work closely with the newly-elected Nawaz Sharif Government in Pakistan. But, while it must explore enhancing relations in areas of trade, New Delhi must remain vigilant all the time.

Mr Nawaz Sharif’s return to power and his exuberant shower of constructive announcements offer hope, both to the Pakistani people as well to those in India wanting to improve relations with Pakistan. But India has had a mixed experience dealing with democratic regimes in Islamabad — at the start, things appear to be promising but suddenly the relationship turns sour. This was the case with Mr Sharif’s previous stint as Prime Minister, when friendly summits and goodwill trips to Pakistan by the NDA leadership were reciprocated with heavy infiltration in Kashmir.

Also, Mr Sharif, groomed under the cunning shadow of former President Zia-ul-Haq initially had little problem with limited military-political interface within the Pakistani establishment. His perception changed, however, after his Army chief Pervez Musharraf’s coup d'état in the post-Kargil days. While in exile, Mr Sharif has supposedly become more gentle, practical and reliable. So, he exudes hope to the crowds in Pakistan as well as to the Congress-led UPA regime in New Delhi, which has no strategic foreign policy for the South Asian neighbourhood.

But let us not forget that the root cause of pessimism in Pakistan lies in the fact that this country knows not how to live with rational actions. Today, Pakistan exists somewhere between the grim world of Saadat Hasan Manto and Faiz Ahmad Faiz.

These two literary greats had witnessed the making of Pakistan, and knew the country better than others and much before it was overrun by fundamentalists. A country created on religious lines, and also a product of the tussle between the elitist leaders of the Muslim League and those of the Congress, Pakistan has never been able to outgrow the complexes attached to its birth.

The history of democracy in Pakistan is blurry and replete with instances of continuous military interference, which till date distort political processes. Sixty-three years after its birth, Pakistan is far from how its founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah, an astute politician, had envisioned it. And even though a small segment of progressive Pakistanis may like to hold on to Jinnah’s vision, it is, for all practical purposes, now lost.

Its international borders notwithstanding, Pakistan’s alliances with China and the US have already compromised its sovereignty. Driven by their imperial compulsions, these countries use Pakistan to maintain their grip on the South Asian region. And this is obvious to Pakistani leaders, civil society activists and journalists.

The other factor that defines Pakistan’s geo-strategic policies is Afghanistan. The ground realities from that country plague Pakistan on a real time basis even as one powerful class of Pakistanis reap the benefits of instability. This class knows how important it is to keep stirring the pot — as, in a political order that is driven by force rather than constitutional values, it is troubled times that offer better strategic dividend than peace times.

India has the burden of history to bear when it comes to its foreign policy vis-à-vis Pakistan. However, New Delhi has often failed miserably to carry the load. This maybe in part due to the inadequacies of those who have sought to shape India’s policy towards Pakistan in recent years. Many of these so-called ‘Pakistan experts’ in New Delhi have practically no on-ground exposure to that country and only limited understanding of the historical linkages between India and Pakistan. They look upon Pakistan as a project that they need to handle. This impedes any deep and long-term study of the Pakistani problem in India.

Even New Delhi’s diplomatic corps, from the IIC to the Gymkhana generation, has failed to make its mark when it comes to strategic thinking with respect to Pakistan. Yet, India cannot afford to remain indifferent to this neighbour. As for now, India should keep playing safe with Pakistan. New Delhi may allow for an enhanced trade engagement with Pakistan, for instance. More importantly, it should support Mr Sharif so as to keep hardliners at bay in Islamabad. A fresh round of goodwill summits may also be encouraging for bilateral relations.

But through it all, India must remain vigilant. It must not be caught off-guard like it was in the 1990s when the then Prime Minister was indeed working to make a long-lasting improvement in India’s relations with Pakistan. Of course, both countries are in a different state now — this is especially true in Pakistan where the people have chosen the ballot over the bullet. Hopefully, Mr Sharif too will stay democratic and the Pakistani military will be cut to size by him. At this juncture, New Delhi should work closely with Islamabad for a positive turn in bilateral ties but while keeping its border security mechanism firmly in place.

-Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Pioneer on June18,2013)

A Stalled Nation of Faltering Hopes

Indecisiveness damages the ‘terms and procedures’ of a system. It could be with any system, irrespective of the functioning nature, it follows. Indian democracy seems ‘stable’ only when the economic fundamentals lend it a good backup, and vice versa, with the bizarre prefix ‘nascent’ leveled on it by the policy experts and confused alike.

But the fact remains that the Indian democracy is neither nascent, nor is it proficient-it has a rather strange capability to hold a matured polity in action. On many occasions, the high-caliber leaderships have proved it. But when escaping the patches of positive procedures, we see an unyielding gloom pervasive and entering rare heights in negative territory.

UPA-II enjoys ‘shock & awe’ and has stuck to the steadfast policy of ‘no action’ on the issues of high moral values. Its foreign policy, leading the country to the verge of disaster–its neighbouring nations hardly respecting it and the world outside of subcontinent taking it for granted. With rogue governing pattern, India has lost its earlier earned formidable position among the emerging economies.

The dwindling investment on its land confirms that unwelcome trend. Indian economy is certainly moving in the wrong trajectory, with unsound handling of policies and no clear direction for reform or welfaristic programmes. The blurred scenario is posing dampening prospects ahead, that is keeping the morale of entrepreneurs (either home grown or from outside) at an alarming low. On internal security matters, India is pursuing its fantasy to put dissenting voices on the line of detractors.

Adding the worst, its judicial system treats the convicts, on the basis of background, rather than with the circumstantial evidences attached to a case. Amidst all these, there has emerged a new phenomenon where India’s serving or retired lawyers/activists are running a parallel system from the prime time TV shows and trash opinion/edit pages of awfully commissioned newspapers.

Combining these factors, we come to know, how India is walking and for whom? Consequently, the hope entrusting terms–equality, justice and others appear falsifying their intrinsic values. At this juncture, it would be wrong to endorse that this nation has any hope left for the big ideas or for their enactment on ground. In short to medium terms, this odd trend would be remaining streamlined.

To live up to the expectations of the marginalized is out of agenda, if not ignoring the sentimental fashion statements of authoritarian giants–such gimmicks are to shadow the unethical favours offered to cohorts of cronies, who are turning dollar billionaires in a time-span of a business quarter or year. This way, the spirit of economic reforms is being placed.

The frantic time allows giving gallantry awards to proven criminals, who sits at high rank in official forces or to the horror, at the Parliament. Amidst all these weird bonhomie, the underlying exploited class/tribes and downtrodden from the other sections are the natural victims. They are not ‘well-connected’ and they will not easily understand the technical, yet very silly plannings of Central Delhi’s Czars.

It makes less energetic to see, those who are in authority speaking like escapists or fake radicals. It’s true that we must respect our institutions but is it possible without overlooking the bad game in progress from officials?

The set of rules are well-stocked in India, but they are not essentially meant for improving the governing structure of respective organizations. It’s an open secret that ‘double speaking’ is the real virtue of regulators-these days, we can see RBI and SEBI confronting with the law defying financial entities, but they are creating scene, not the actual impact.

SEBI is among the most confused institutions that India has–it doesn’t feel bad in treating the ‘frauds’ decently and allowing Capital Market to run like the ‘hub of crooks’. The RBI, with a better reputation is doing not good by not believing that our banking structure is romancing the unrealistic complacency and it’s only matter of time, before things go beyond the limits of control.

K.C.Chakravarty, otherwise an angry old man, recently outrightly denied that India’s leading private sector banks are involved in unethical businesses–this raises questions upon the intent and understanding of top-ranked bankers/economists at Mint Street?
And with all these, it appears starker when we see that our incompetent bureaucrats never seem to retire.

This is a recent trend, shaped and developed by the offing of new economic planning started in 1991. This is based on ‘sophisticated corruption’ and not ‘subaltern corruption’-the distinction, recently given life by Ashis Nandy, in a different context from the stage of Jaipur Literary Festival, known for its confused colonial hangover.

So, New Delhi is keeping high promises for such ‘collaborators’-now, it doesn’t surprise us when we see India’s former diplomats handling ‘PR Companies’ or its financial wizards from north block looking on the growth of stock exchange etc. This is Americanization (without adopting its free virtue) of work culture, which is dangerous and will make India, a ‘clown’.
-Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in News Yaps on April09,2013)

Remembering B P Koirala!

Bisweshwor Prasad Koirala, or BPK, was an internationalist and statesman with whom Nepal’s quest for liberal democracy began during the atrocious Rana rule. He was a maverick and never followed any existing half-baked political trend in Nepal. He embraced broader world views and kept striving to make Nepal a liberal democracy.

The monarchy was not a just ruling system for him, he maintained his struggle to replace it with democracy and succeeded to an extent in making a reasonable transition. Though things didn’t take shape ideally, once the Panchayati pattern was abolished. The other old ranks of those earlier democratic movements lost the much required vigour to carry forward desirable democratic pursuits.

BPK grew up in colonised India and shared great concern for its pathetic political status. He was a voracious reader of progressive texts and a writer of high literary sensibility. He had strong leaning towards socialistic ideas during his university days in Banaras Hindu University (BHU). He read Marx/Lenin and had taken up with the fine spirit of communist ideology.

But the personal appeal of Gandhi and the Indian Congress’ people-centric policies during the independence movement drew him closer. BHU was then a major centre of socialists in the Congress. There, he came in close contact with Acharya Narendra Dev, Ram Manohar Lohiya and Jaya Prakash Narayan.

He was sent to Indian jails on many occasions for actively speaking in favour of India’s independence from British rule. He had sensed the vitality of circumstance that could make the Ranas weaker. For this, he fought against the British. His approach broadly favoured the betterment of the entire South Asian region.

Later, as a young law practitioner, he worked for labourers in north Bihar and again spent time in jail. In those days, Indian jails were filled with high moralists. So, he was on good terms with the leading figures of Indian politics—Nehru and Rajendra Prasad, among them.

Back home during the last years of Ranas rule, he succeeded in establishing a very weak democratic system, which was working as the monarchy’s puppet. His first ministerial stint as Home Minister brought him embarrassment from various quarters, following the shooting of a few protestors by security officers in Kathmandu.

The struggle became more difficult once king Mahendra succeeded the throne in 1955. Mahendra was firm in his resolve to destroy democratic changes but BPK was not easily defeatable. By 1959, the king was forced to call a general election—this was unprecedented. The Nepali Congress won the election and BPK became Prime Minister.

But the king was wary of BP’s growing popularity at home and abroad. By the end of 1960, a coup took place (planned by the king) and BPK was sent to jail under the pressure of landed aristocrats. He was destined to struggle, but surprisingly, his brother Matrika Prasad Koirala sided with the monarchy and served as ambassador to the US. During that testing time, BPK’s personal fate was at stake but he was well connected in India and in other parts of the world.

King Mahendra knew the limit of his acts but the hardship stayed as the ‘rule of game’ against BPK and other dissenting figures. In his latter days in exile and spearheading the flame of real democracy in Nepal, BPK appeared as independent as he was always, irrespective of all pressure.

He was a tough administrator, an able diplomat and a leader who could handle adversity with courage and clear conviction. His unflinching determination for democracy did not waver with his ailing health, and hostility from king Mahendra.

Despite that, he maintained his persona and the decency of the democratic movement. His diplomatic instinct was unquestionable. He proved on many occasions that a stable leadership can rescue a nation from internal loopholes at crucial international junctures.

His refusal to VK Menon’s non-courteous demand to receive Nehru in the US, which would’ve implied that Nepal was India’s client state, could be counted as one of those astute moments. It was also not without some sound reason that he termed Nehru’s interference in Nepal’s internal affairs (beyond a point), besides the monarchy and the country’s landed aristocracy, as major hindrances for the upliftment of the country.

BPK was a respected name in India at that time, and is, even today. It was a major misfortune for Nepal that BPK couldn’t cope with his failing health and died prematurely in 1982, eight years before the country attained the remarkable landmark of a constitutional monarchy.

His younger brother, Girija Prasad Koirala, who emerged as a strong centrist and served the country many times, lacked BPK’s integrity altogether. During his time, the hope for real democracy was strengthened, albeit it proved short-lived in the course of time.

Now, with the Maoists working like monarchs, trying with all possible efforts to disfigure Nepal’s conventional outlook, it’s high time the country followed the broad path of BPK instead of getting terrorised by the current stock of dubious radicals.
-Atul K Thakur
Email:summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Kathmandu Post,on March31,2013)

Give democracy a chance

With Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi reacting positively to suggestions by Nepal’s political class to head an election Government, Nepal’s transition to democracy has suffered yet another setback.

The shrewd proposal to form a Government headed by the Chief Justice was floated by the ruling Maoist party recently, after political parties failed to reach consensus on who would head the election Government.

Like many recent political events in Nepal, this is also surprising, and it challenges the sincerity of the so-called democratic activism that is being pursued by Nepal's political parties.

The move is worrisome as it will violate the core values of the Constitution. The provision of Article 106(1) of the Interim Constitution allows, at best, the Chief Justice or a Justice to be on deputation for judicial inquiry — it clearly prohibits a former Justice, let alone a sitting Chief Justice, to serve as the topmost executive of the Government.

On a larger scale the principle of ‘separation’ of powers as well as judicial independence would come under heavy strain. Then, what compels Nepali politicians to abandon their avowed role and instead come up with a highly objectionable set of plans?

Understandably, these political shenanigans have not found favour with the people. The ongoing protests in Kathmandu lend credence to the growing disenchantment of the masses with the incumbent regime which is labouring under the delusion that the ordinary Nepali has a dismal sense of political realities in their country.

The obvious lack of political will and consensus to hold elections and install a properly elected Government, has further eroded the credibility of the Nepali political class.

Unfortunately, the United Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and the Nepali Congress have failed to acknowledge the gravity of the situation. Rather, they are working overtime to block the prospects of a ‘multi-party transitory Government’, which could have addressed the issues related to the fresh election in the country, besides putting in place a new Constitution, which is the dire need of this nation going through a difficult transition.

This is crucial to keep alive the democratic sentiments, although much more than mere tokenism is required today to pull Nepal out from its political chaos.

Ever since monarchy was abolished in this tiny Himalayan kingdom in 2008, the political parties, belying all expectations, have failed to provide a credible leadership to the country. Today, five years on, the situation has gone from bad to worse.

Probably, at this stage Nepal misses its ‘centrist stalwarts’ like its five-time Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and Ganesh Man Singh, or an idealist of Man Mohan Adhikari’s calibre. They are worth remembering, not with nostalgia but to emphasise the fact that the first generation political leadership could understand and empathise with Nepal’s democratic aspirations in a much better way.

These leaders were not faultless, but their performance was never at variance with the promises made to the nation and its people. They led from the front and did not shy from taking on the role of troubleshooter when issues of crucial national interest cropped up.

In the present scenario, it is impossible to find anyone from Nepal’s political circle who is not championing ‘political overplay’! Most of the current clutches of leaders are more intent on targeting easy goals and short-term interests, blithely unmindful of the disaster that such recklessness entails.

The Maoists have contributed largely to this atmosphere of gloom and despondency that Nepal finds itself in currently. It is evident now that the Maoists have clear plans of running a totalitarian regime while destroying India’s conventional position vis-à-vis Nepal.

So a sort of ‘Maoist monarchy’ is in the offing, and the rest of the contenders like the leaders of the democratic Opposition, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) and Nepali Congress, have been unable to stand up for the people even as the situation has worsened over the years.

Over the years, the delay in holding elections, and in setting up of the Constituent Assembly and the involvement of non-Nepali elements in governance and federalism-related debates have made a mockery of Nepal’s polity.

It is depressing to see that an aspiring democracy like Nepal, which streamlined the basic tenets of democracy in a short span of time and successfully handled the ‘ultra radical’ political outfits following the abolition of monarchy, is struggling to save those ideals.

The coming days will decide whether Nepal dissolves into anarchy or stands up for its democratic ideals. The people, the civil society must act now to keep the system running by not allowing the Chief Justice to become the Prime Minister and by preventing the incompetent Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai from brokering power.

Nepal needs a simple democratic political course that can be easily attained without seeking the ‘blood or tears’ of the citizens. The political parties should not worry about China’s reaction; they should just move on.
-Atul K Thakur
(Published in The Pioneer on March05,2013)

Inglorious trends!

The history tells that throughout the stretches of history, India has been plundered by the imperial forces. But still it remained home to every ethnic race known to mankind. Even the better social accords were attained in those adverse times, but sadly this nation drifted from such healthy course once it succeeded to force out the nefarious British Empire in 1947 from its land.

We know the truths of later time, how a nation turned into ‘three’ and the unresolved ‘Kashmir’ sandwitched for bad taste between India and Pakistan. Gripped through prejudices, and short on framing a suitable stand on Kashmir, India has been missing its chances to come in proper terms with the aspiration of Kashmiris’.

Naturally, this leads to ‘collective alienation’ among those who were never given the proper benefits of citizenship that India’s constitution essentially mandates for its citizens. Over the decades, leadership (including separatists) in Srinagar and New Delhi has shown indifferences to the basic notion of democracy and instead has followed their own chosen myopic path.

Consequently, Kashmir’s real issues were submerged in those ego clashes. Though turbulences never stopped surfacing in Kashmir, but in recent years, valley was moving towards an unusual normalcy. The disenchantment from external actors and growing self belief in a better future, based on sensible activism and leaning for the “beauty of compromise” were leading that positive change.

But the situation will not remain the same with the hanging of Afzal Guru-his trial would be remembered for misallocating judicial verdict for the falsely courted ‘collective will’. It was never true and it can’t be true. People never demanded such verdict and manner of inhuman prosecution. ‘Crime and Punishment' could be or not a classical case, but certainly the linking of 'collective will with hanging' by Supreme Court itself creates horrific sense.

Afzal was sent to the gallows after ten years in solitary confinement. Even by the record of ‘retributive justice’, one should not be given death sentence after a decade long harsh treatment. Even when the matter was sub-judice, such consideration was not given any heed and now when Kashmir is under siege, Supreme Court has extended the stay on hanging of four accomplices of Veerapan.

These four unfortunate persons will see the institutionally recommended death after having straight twenty years in the dark cells of Karnataka jail. The question arises, what makes India’s legal system so cynic and blood thirsty? Will it check the growing crime or make the situation worse? The Indian state is on the verge, where ‘thaw’ forms or ‘melts’ depending upon what a certain class thinks.

This confirms, today Indian state has its periodical choices and selective consideration over the crucial issues like ‘justice’. Again need is to remind, this is not a systemic collapse but it’s a position moulded by the virulent rise of violent identity politics. This is not a new phenomenon but a return of ‘sordid way of action’ from past. This makes the situation tense by dividing the existence as between ‘us’ and ‘them’!

Obviously 2013 is not 1984, and certainly Afzal Guru was not as firm as Maqbool Bhat was for a ‘separate Kashmir’. But still he was hanged and without even allowing a last time meeting with his family. Was he given the prosecution for his crime (as known for) or the Indian state suddenly found a taste for brutal overplay on the sensitive matter attached with mass sentiment?

Through the account of Afzal Guru’s letter, he wanted a normal life after he quit the path of militancy in mid nineties. That didn’t work out. This can’t be answered by any expert who has dealt with his case related to the attack on India’s Parliament in 2001. Because the points he made in his later, I am afraid would never get cross-checked. And if, they were cross-checked, why not the findings are in public?

The failure of legal processes and horrific compulsions of politics are in cocktail producing the most dangerous elements, upon which the radical voices would get louder. And those who are in Kashmir and suffering the ire of curfewed nights and forced curtailing of free voices would be prone to fall in another wave of alienation. This will do no good to India’s further maneuvering in Kashmir and in any case, to Kashmiris’.

The political class, who pursues the weird ideas, will keep staying in the corridors of power. The blind blow of ‘consumerist politics’ In India will give no chance to the voices from Kashmir or North East to challenge its heartless celebration of success, which is meant for few who dine and wine unrelentingly and in absolute bonhomie. India’s claimed commercial feet are so antagonistic that it easily appears like a consolidating disaster.

Pakistan couldn’t be shaped as it was dreamt by Jinnah because of chronic political deviation from the basic issues. Today, India is standing at a different but strikingly difficult cusp where its blind reliance on ‘cronyism’ is making its existence dubious, and hence less respectable. This worries me. This should worry all who really believe in the ‘Idea of India’ but feel cheated when the official authority surpasses even the minimum moral ground.

A nation, once hosted the dissents like Mahatma Gandhi and Bhagat Singh, should be more careful in misusing the authority of ‘violence’. The true rapprochement with the dissenting citizens cannot be established through the acts of coercion, or by denying the position of any genuine stakeholders.

As Afzal Guru was an Indian citizen and he had already spent ten years in jail for the charge he was framed, the government and court should have spent more time in looking on the concerned tasks that could have assess those charges against him more precisely. Rather, he was awarded solitary confinement and finally snoozes on a particular time and date, suited for exhibitions of UPA governments’ tough stand on terror.

Another side of story is that juveniles and matured criminals are raping/murdering girls on street and some of them are the ‘honourable’ members of the Parliament. In such state of affairs, status quo would be a choice of option for the power holders.

Atul K Thakur
Can be mailed at summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Kashmir Monitor On February19, and syndicated in Rising Kashmir on February20,2013)

Nepal’s politics at a cross roads

Prithvi Narayan Shah, 18th century king and the father -figure of Nepal, had once termed his country’s position as “a yam between two boulders”. He was, of course, referring to Nepal’s unusual status between the two intimidating giant powers — India and China. Even to this day, his metaphor aptly defines the existing state of affairs in Nepal’s strategic terms with its neighbours. Despite the fact that Nepal as a nation is far older than both of its principal neighbours, it has not been able to come out of the major influence of the two, especially India.
While the India-Nepal relations have historic backing from a series of factors, China’s quest to downplay India’s special friendly status with Nepal is part of Beijing’s narrow imperialistic ploy. Now, both in international relations and domestic politics, Nepal is facing the adverse implications of recently increased political engagement with China.

In broad terms, Nepal has suffered a lot by mismanaging its conventional role of a passive and focussed nation that tempered its special peaceful standing in South Asia. In his later days, King Birendra shared close relations with China, and so the royal massacre of 2001 shocked the Chinese greatly. King Gyanendra, who then occupied the throne in highly suspicious circumstances and without the respect that his predecessors enjoyed from an average Nepali, sought to cement ties with China by offering it space in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation in 2005. India had been understandably less than amused by Kathmandu’s overture to China.
Since the end of the monarchy, Nepal’s politics has turned more inward looking. The breathless twists and turns hatched by political parties, whose working patterns are radically different from one another. Such is the friction among them that the attainment of any goal collectively or individually has become a lot more challenging. After the bloodless coup in February 2005, Mr Baburam Bhattarai, a thinking leader from the Maoists’ camp, came forward against the obstinate ideological hardline pursued by the likes of Mr Puspa Kamal Dahal, popularly known as ‘Prachanda’, called for the democratic means of struggle — that was a point of highest accomplishment in Nepal’s democratic transition.

Things are not similarly idealistic and flexible now, even with Mr Bhattarai as the elected Prime Minister having greater acceptability inside the party and outside. The conclusion that can be drawn over the failures of Constitution making on another deadline is that Nepal’s polity is undergoing a major change in its fundamentals.
Consequently, the assertiveness could be found at an all-time high among the elite political participants, though this is hardly surprising as every major political change in Nepal (even in the past) has created a new class of elite with shrewd aspirations. That’s why the project of democratic revolution has not met with the success that it deserved in Nepal since 1950.

Chronic political deadlock is denting the credibility of mainstream political forces in Nepal. There is the need for an immediate consensus among the country’s political parties to acknowledge the progress that democratic movements have made since 1990, when the county first tasted democracy, although on restricted scale. Misleading demands of the Rashtriya Prajatantra Party, the Rashtriya Janshakti Party and others for bringing back the Constitution of 1990 or to go for an election only because the term of the CA has ended is condemnable. Such a move will give a fresh lease of life to a defunct monarchy. Despite the failures of the CA, revisiting the last seven years since the abolition of monarchy presents many positive landmarks on which the future base of democracy could thrive.

In this time of uncertainty, the Interim Constitution of 2006, which is still functioning, can offer the new proposed Constitution all the progressive set of rules that is enshrined in it and has a degree of high credibility. The Interim Constitution consists of all the major issues to be followed in the future, such as the abolition of monarchy, provision of federalism, participative representation in state services and others.

The intra-party feuds in the major political parties of Nepal and the failure of these parties to reach a consensus on crucial issues including on the CA, have severely damaged the democratic spirit of the country through decades of struggle. As compared to the Nepali Congress and the CPN (UML), the Maoists are new to power and lack the soundness they should have as representative of a ruling collation.
The issues of federalism based on ethnic identity need a sensitive response on the policy front. Unfortunately, exactly the opposite has been done by the top political leaders. Before the Madhesi parties’ total convergence with the Maoists on this front and their outsmarting acts over NC-CPN(UML), the region of Madhesh had passed through a rather volatile phase in which many lives were lost in the process of peaceful demonstrations in favour of statehood. A major blast in Janakpur (unofficially Nepal’s political laboratory) left four dead, including an emerging Maithil-Nepali leader Ranju Jha.

Kathmandu has to be more accountable in the changing times to the Madhesi-Janjatis who now have a greater say over political matters and can easily make or break the established political discourse for their long-anticipated rights. The concentration of power in Kathmandu has to be reduced. While this will happen with the upcoming execution of the federal model, it may not cure all the maladies of ‘divisive political mania’. Still, its impact at least in selected terms would be long-lasting in favour of a peaceful and stable Nepal.
In the ongoing round of political manoeuvrings, India has played an apparently passive role. Diplomatically though, this cannot be taken as inertia, as silence speaks too. No longer is India ‘Swyambhu’ and no longer is Nepal ruled by the comprador capitalists.
Atul Kumar Thakur
June 24,2012,Sunday, New Delhi
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Pioneer, June 18, 2012/ http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/item/51822-nepal%E2%80%99s-politics-at-a-crossroads.html )

The unjustified endgame!

Though violence put forth the blind assertions of angst but often it appears with so much inhuman senselessness as shockingly been it executed today in Janakpur.The blast handled by the Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha in Janakpur caused the immediate death of Binod Sharan/Satya Narayan Jha, Ranju Jha(A promissing thespian in Maithili), Jhagru Mandal and Suresh Upadhaya besides leaving twenty-four other critically injured. After many hours of this unfortunate incident, the question remains unanswered, who represents the peoples of Madheshi region in Nepal? Time is for an immediate wake-up now to suppress those urges, which unnecessarily categorising this small nation into many blocks and giving the strength to the unwarrantably hostile groups working under the political guise.

As hailing from the Mithila region myself, I am in state of consistent inner confrontation, how such massive blast could take place at Ramanand Chowk in Janakpur, which has been for long had reputation of being one of the most vibrant cultural center of Nepal? Shock increases with undeniable realisation that this coward act was done by a nonsense fraction of Madhesh right based parties-terribly cruel with their endgame, the incredible and unjustifiable representation confusions created by these regional political fractions must be end now. The next revamp, which this incident has made essential that mainstream democratic Madheshi parties, must have to work with conclusive agendas under the national government instead over playing with the non issues.


Nepal's political transition is still being far from over, that's major cause of concern. Not less dangerous is its ramification over the desperate youths across the nation, who is simply loosing the healthy aspirations for the sake of easily gainable temporary stay in power through the deadly combine of violence and nasty propositions of regionalism. It's not that Nepal never had the wave of regionalism but the earlier divide of Madheshi-Pahadi was unlikely to be so acute and chronically processed as it's in the course of action now. When I first heard about the blast, at maximum, I thought for a very low scale casualty, but the land of Sadhu/sage turned to be the death bead like never before, alas!


Among the Nepal's major urban spaces, Janakpur had for long maintained its specialties of being a center of historical connect. From the time immemorial, many myths and the living traditions have been strengthening its significance as once the capital of Mithila and later as the place of great cultural confluence as undoubtable symbol of India's shared past with Nepal. Personally, I have seen the gradual decline of functional good spirits from Janakpur in my visits in 1991,1999, 2003, 2006,2007 and last in 2008-as a seven year old child, my memory is still vivid how this city and Nepal at large was in state of equilibrium in 1991, which is no longer remained the same.


I saw Ranjhu Jha acting in the major Maithili plays around my familiar places and also later in Delhi’s cultural hub, Mandi house, never thought I would remember her for anything else than her immortal acting for meaningful plots but unfortunately now I have to, in a very tragic atmosphere that shook me and the all who heard about this incident. My sincere tributes for her and all those affected by this massive shock, besides I also wish to see any overplay of politics out from the Madhesh and Nepal. Only by which, the nation could converge with the proper democratic culture, and people’s lives would be stopped getting undermined by the nasty political dramatists who are in any case good for nothing-politics must be sustained but not on the cost of lives!
Atul Kumar Thakur
New Delhi, May1st, 2012, Tuesday
Email: summertickets@gmail.com

Wariness and hope in UP!

Neither Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian search of “maximum happiness” in a democracy, or Marxist’s approach for classless society within a complete socialistic state fit well to idealise the Samajwadi Party’s sudden emphatic and unprecedented rise in recently held UP assembly election. Instead Machiavellian aspirations seems more closely working behind the modestly deserving transfer of baton to once this unholy entity and now a less worse option, which still believe much ahead from auxiliary terms on the effectiveness of crime and criminals!

Whose early sign is induction of well known history-sheeter Raja Bhaiya in Akhilesh Yadav’s front placed cabinet. If also adding some early hooliganism of flamboyant Samajwadi Party workers in Lucknow and various other parts of the state in the wake of unexpected poll victory, the fallacy of change appears more quickly. At this point, arguing against the statistical over performance of SP is really very daunting but hardly the same dilemma would be haunting, if one will dare to see the political change in UP not very genuine unlike Bihar in 2005.

If then Nitish Kumar was chosen with BJP as the resort of last hope in crumbling Bihar, it was because the situation indeed so far became so much starker in the hand of corrupt RJD, indifferent Congress, distracted LJP, weak Communist parties, that it had to be an inevitable occurrence. But the same is still not true in UP with BSP stands with 26% votes even in the dire anti-incumbency wave unlike the principle opposition parties in Bihar which touched the brink of extinction in last assembly election held in 2010. That refers, BSP will be remain a major political force in UP despite this fall and for securing SP from BSP’s potential revival in future, Akhilesh has to fight hard against his own party’s shortcomings beside ensuring the governance and investment in state instead of luring peoples with harmful freebies alone.

As young scion of almost a family run party, SP, Akhilesh too didn't have any magical wand to supersede Rahul Gandhi but his symbolic gestures of averseness with crime and sacking of infamous liability, D.P.Yadav in last moments worked miraculously very well. Earlier too, he played sensible part in sidelining Mohan Singh, throwing Amar Singh out from the party and in pacifying the parochial ambitions of old party carders including of his two uncles who lately shown discomfort for his leadership. As an aging father and leader, Mulayam Singh Yadav couldn't have better time than this to secure his family domination continues. And ofcourse, Akhislesh was the sole hope for him, same thought by the hapless masses and history was made differently in haste!

Moreover BSP has shown in recent past how India's democracy could be participative and spoiling platform for identity activism. Over the years, under excessive personified command of Mayawati, party left merely with a shadow of its earlier self and ironically, its core afflicted with all feudal tracts against those the Bahujan Samaj movement was once formed and propelled. That lead to spoiling resentment against the party’s fortune, and finally a broad base of support fragmented, alienated and rejected the BSP as a party to rule any longer in Lucknow.

However, in snapshot, consistent follies of Congress could be solely attributed for atleast seventy-five more seats and increasing one sided support for SP. Rest BJP and RLD fought and gain as par their conserving capacities, so shocks and awes in their camps are naturally restricted. State politics acts like mirror of Indian democracy; it has proven again with the verdict of UP elections...the basic functional ideas won over the structured and over surfacial political shrewdness of BSP, Congress, BJP, and RLD!

So far known for his clean and progressive image, if the new chief minister as par promises would have no disinterest with being the anti-thesis of his own party’s practicing ideologies, then indeed his stint will make people hopeful. For now, it would be desirable for him to keep the maligned components within the party and outside of it on its toe, for completely concentrating on the much needed developmental priorities. So far, he has clean image and that’s encouraging even amidst the approaching uncertainties of performances lying ahead. If he will win the small races, he would sure be more acceptable as leader among masses.

As grooming prudent practitioner of grassroot politics, here need is for him or anyone else in fray to not confuse statistical supremacy as absolute beingness, instead for permanency, political ideas should always chase the long term capabilities that lie in securing consistent mass base. He is more fortunate than Nitish Kumar in Bihar, as he have not succeeded a bankrupt state economy but still many challenges are umpteenth and identical, for that looking on Bihar model of revival would not be a wasted attempt for him. Beyond the essential execution of governance policies and infrastructure development, fetching industrial investment would be a challenging task for Akhilesh Yadav.

Here a conscious effort have to be made from his side, as the closeness of respective cohorts have did immensely harm to the UP’s industrial prospects in past. Notwithstanding the old paradigms would be desirable from mass point of views, so it will be healthy for new government too. Afterall the reasons of jubilation have come from people and rationally, it should be reverted back if the windblown was really pragmatic.

In my preceding piece (The Boisterous UP Election Scene, Mainstream, February 11, 2012) on similar theme, I was close with my opinion for SP lead government in UP but in numbers terms neither I had speculated nor felt it essential. What for me the basis of change was after feeling the fragility of political acts that done by all rest parties barring SP-this was the sole party in contest which had a fresh and clean leader to offer. Between wariness and hope, the new leadership was accepted, rest time will set the course in UP!
Atul Kumar Thakur
March 23, 2012, Friday, New Delhi
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in Mainstream Weekly,June 09,2012)

Uncivil foes of Democracy!

Only up to a point, a very vaguely defined point, we understand our goals in democracy. This has been a strong case in India since we have been working under the many adverse shadows, even after throwing out the British colonialism and our tryst with destiny to a most profound authoritative system called, democracy. Was discovering the democracy sixty-four years back was a mania, a passion or even a kind of neurosis, without the slightest moral justification? I never wish anyone should think in this manner and take it like that; no explanation will ever convince them to settle collective wishes for common greater goods. With embedded resilience and appropriation of ideological and even sectarian new classes, Indian democracy has strengthened enough itself over the years to give ample room to Bentham’s utopia of happiness or Marx’s equitable socio-economic stake.

What we have a functional base for our democracy with a chequered proven record of comparatively peaceful transition of power but what we don’t have the volition for rock bottom segment. There have been always some underlying disagreements among the different classes-ofcourse, we too had broken off for even more than once, but interestingly never completely. Indeed, even those skirmishes were not the roistering moments-after all, we are still paying the price of over sobriety on Kashmir and extreme baffling with monstrous emergency era. Later after witnessing the most undemocratic ordeal, we realized and came out of slumber that the monstrosities are a mark of emotional imbalance rather than a lack of intelligence. Obviously, if someone has no confident I himself, it is because they sees themselves through others eyes even barring world’s vision that gives atleast some universal feeds.

I really scarcely know what our goals were, even can’t endorse whether they were adequate? I also don’t see either opulence or nattering in single magic line…we could have done otherwise as a nation? That we couldn’t, so now merely muttering that our collective obstinate trust turning swiftly into bitterness of hearts and wavering all around our system. The dwindling credibility from public institutions is not passable; it’s emphatically reflects the growing ostracizing from those who are in authority instead of performing on tall vows. In a sort of warring, common folks are on receiving end, theirs representation being hijacked by the hawkish thugs with pedigree of many questions marks on their integrity. Under a new fashion, impractically theirs ubiquitous entanglements on every matter have tarnishing the line made to delink the statecraft from manipulated street demonstration.

Present wave of corruption, that otherwise should have taken as serious governance flaws is unfortunately being considered as byproduct of coalition government by the Congress party with nerd citing towards the blind ambition of regional political forces. What Congress is missing today? The loyalist political cohorts-the cornerstone of sycophancy based political order. Whatever their’s intent or display, it’s hard for a Journo to cite, who is Judas? Only crux of the matter is truly embarrassing, how the genuine rage of common men’s was falsely represented by the Anna Hazare and innumerable metro cities based activists who never votes or faced the ire of price rise or corruption. The demonstration pavements of Jantar Mantar which years back was awarded the entertaining slots to free Rajpath from deviating concerns, was well managed by the sharpest brains like father-son combo, Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan, Magsaysay award winner and may be Nobel prize aspiring Arbind Kejriwal.

Later, it was altogether a big flash, that father-son have combined property of around Rs.145 Crore, even with most conservative estimation…and remarkable is the fact Shanti Bhushan has earlier played two extra innings in legal practice and politics including once of Ministerial profile-rest is open secret about his claim of integrity! It was worth of noticing that, sensationalizing electronic/social media had at no point covered the voices from rural hinterlands towards the hyped crusade against corruption. What Anna Hazare movement with back up from conglomeration of neo-NGO type civil organizations has did the, complete outshining of real issues for an unreasonable Lokpal bill in current form. That went well in favour of Anna&co and ofcourse for principle opposition BJP-what left in midway the electoral reform, Inflation control, lethal inequitable spread of wealth, nexus of vested corporate interests etc. Even in wildest dream, Anna Hazare couldn’t be confused with Gandhi by a conscious mind-it was indeed ironic to see a non-political man like him being prepared for an unprecedented revolution against the corruption without looking on the role of parliament and constitution.

A nation like India can’t be run in this way-there is need of peoples connect as vital organ of governance and that’s alone possible through react practically instead of hanging with blurred tantrums and ending like cobweb. Governance must mean for public goodness and transparency, that can be only achieve through broader participation and electoral reform-that will too address and check the growing overlapping of jurisdictions among legislatures, executives and judiciary. Instead of shunning politics, peoples must see it as life and let entwine it with fairness through corrective measures-political process must have to throw the pedantic following for a bigger reform. This must start now to retrieve people’s faith in their political system…it must be in place very soon because world has already started seeing us with doubt. Thinning FDI in last few months and coverage of corruption by the western media, including Economist, which has a scripture like stature has summarily rejected the Indian growth story as “rotten”.

Peoples have to take ccare of politics but not through shambling convictions, the main concern here left with the role of loose talking by policy makers-the way Kaushik Basu has idealized the bribe on finance ministry website is indeed very shocking. This must be condemned as ethical violation from top on hierarchy…we needed peoples who can work, and not experts have only mastership of bawdy rhetoric’s. India is complex entity, here misadventures’ tolls high on human capital which is its true strength-we shall not take risk to jeopardize our edge as knowledge economy vis-à-vis China. China with much stricter and closer political system, has grown up fairly on governance and sizable income spread at bottom level. We shall not be envy merely; rather we should act for competency.

Our distortion of progressive elements which begun with the blockades in Communist movement and theirs balkanization as political entity did lot of harms in mainstream Indian politics and further in lessening of progressivism from collective psyche. Under changed ideals, except few core issues, there is little differences of perceptions among the rest political parties, that is matter of grave concern. The major stakeholders of Indian democracy must have to align with the dynamics and compelling changes to avoid the further nightmares. Culprits must be nail to sabotage their glamour’s and misuse of trust& authority…nation can’t be run by the uncivil foes, it exactly needs characters like Caesar’s wife!
Atul Kumar Thakur
April 30, 2011, Saturday, New Delhi
Mail: summertickets@gmail.com

Girija Prasad Koirala: Architect of Democratic Nepal

A man who grew up under the visionary mentorship of father Krishna Prasad Koirala, and later elder brother Bishwesar Prasad Koirala {BPK}have played very pivotal role in the crucial political development of Nepal that’s span ranging almost for six long decades. Girija Prasad Koirala {GPK}, through his stout democratic vision and its execution, secured for himself a position that was never been a streamed precedence in Nepali politics-that towering stature in national politics also imparted him an inevitable crucial position in entire South Asian region.
Through his stellar performances, with maintaining steadfast attitude in his working style, he truly secured a position in Nepal’s politics that makes even his ardent critics unviable to completely staring him out from any political developments in last six decades.

This tallest figure of Nepalese politics was the youngest of the six children of Krishna Prasad Koirala and Divya Koirala-he was born in Birpur{Saharsa, North Bihar} in 1924 and later moved to Varanasi where his family was compelled to settle down and keep their struggle alive against the Rana regime in exile; city of Varanasi indeed appeared as a safe camouflage for them-there the Koirala’s grew up, studied and started sharing great bonds with the contemporary Indian politics which was entirely focused independence struggle.
The time was of ripe unrest in both the country that was sensed very well by visionary B.P.koirala and made endeavor for wider democratic activism in the region-it wouldn’t be an exaggeration, if his participation in Quit India Movement in 1942 and three years imprisonment for the cause of Indian independence may be regarded as peak of co-operation between two neighboring country. He succeeded enough here to mobiles Indian support to overthrow Rana regime {1846-1950} in 1950 and subsequently reached to a very comprehensive Delhi Agreement with the help of Indian interlocution led by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru.

Apart from many significant moves, this treaty made way forward for parliamentary democracy in Nepal-that was genesis of democracy as an idea in the Himalayan Kingdom and naturally pioneering have been started from the Koirala’s. Although Shah Regime didn’t resolute their pledge until 1958, when the first Parliamentary elections was convened under its patriarch, B.P.Koirala who further won the majority to rule-he became the first Prime Minister of Nepal albeit couldn’t prolong it in the wake of dissolution of democracy by the King Mahendra.
The next thirty years remained the struggle phase for democratic maneuverings-being the supreme rank of opposition, B.P.Koirala had to face the ire of Monarchy; he was imprisoned for eight years to contain the democratic move by Nepali Congress. This period of adverseness bestowed upon young brothers-Matrika Prasad Koirala and Girija Prasad Koirala to play key organizational leadership-death of B.P.Koirala in 1982, further maximized the potential for Girija Prasad Koirala in next order of politics in Nepal.

Indeed GPK shown his great capacity as successor of his family values-his father, a follower of Mahatma Gandhi, who died in imprisonment for his pro-democracy convictions and later elder brother, B.P Koirala’s life long commitment for socialism and non-alignment infused in him a great taste of democracy and relentless struggle for its materialization. Since the inception of Nepali Congress in 1947 {at Varanasi, India} by the exiled Nepali political activists, he remained a profound voice within the party and indulged himself even in illicit act like hijacking a Plane and printing of fake Indian currency to assist the violent revolution for democracy in 1970’s but on the twilight of the decade, Nepali Congress moved for peaceful means which also reduced the reason of illicitness.
He must be given maximum credit for endowing Nepali Congress, a principal for parliamentary democracy with place for constitutional Monarchy-probably, such shrewd tracts with mix of pragmatism empowered him to serve as Prime Minister for record five times albeit without completing the entire tenure.

Strong stuckness with power also led him for lot of criticism that especially derived from his autocratic manner in party line, corruption and in last phase of his overt nepotism to back his unpopular daughter Sujata Koirala who is now the deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister in present government. For personnel rise too, he deftly sidelined the two measure force of Nepali Congress-Ganesh Man Singh and Krishna Prasad Bhattarai after the restoration of democracy in 1991; Nepali Congress won the majority and he as a top choice became the Prime Minister.
Though his tectonic shift from a rebellion and a Trade Union leader {In early phase of career, Birgunj}to top legislative representative didn’t happened without compromising on ideological and ethical front-throughout his stint, he maintained one-man domination in party by applying marginalization of senior leaders and promoting nepotism. Corruption was on all time high during his first three years in Prime Minister Office which fetched him stout criticism and condition of resignation; such initiation was indeed very unfortunate for the democratic foundation of Nepal.

Anyway, he remained unconvinced through all these developments and kept working as a maverick in Nepali politics-he played a well choreographed role during the decade long Maoist insurgency and transition of Royal rule; his next stint as PM between 1998 and 2000 was very crucial from contemporary perspective. His pragmatic role after the unfortunate Royal Massacre in 2001 and later in 2002, when King Gyanendra dismissed a democratic government, submitting power to loyal nominees couldn’t deter his systematic resoluteness for power. In2003, like a true leader, initiated contact with the underground Maoist rebels and further fall of the 2005 deadline given by the King for executive power led the seven parties to signing the 12-point agreement {In Delhi, November 2005, with the Indian help}that stroked the historic people’s movement of April2006.
After the peoples movement, 240 years old Royal rule was collapsed in2008; now Koirala again had to play a pivotal role to track the country’s back to peace and development as Prime Minister albeit it was not materialized in proper manner-indeed this phase was peak in his career except a single unfulfilled dream left, to be the first President of “Republic of Nepal” due to expected spat with Maoists. He drafted a mix fortune for Nepali Congress in his life time where he led Nepali Congress to the peak but couldn’t succeeded to prepare a second tier leadership which now haunting the party very dearly besides on many macro policies, he failed to led Nepal towards out of corruption, instability, economic and other social deprivations. Despite some odds, whenever this giant of Nepali politics stood in his Daura-Suruwal, he always appeared as a voice of nation and very much synonymous with the democracy. Indeed passing of Girija Prasad Koirala marks an end of era-both in Nepal and subcontinental politics.
Atul Kumar Thakur
March24th2010 {Wednesday}
atul_mdb@rediffmail.com
New Delhi

Nepal-Caught in Personifying Assertions

The present coalition of Nepal shows a paradoxical scenario about its acceptance at large; within country government led by Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal uprightly facing the crisis of legitimacy besides consistent hostile opposition from Maoists but in external affairs it receiving warm accolades from friend nations like India, where this government has seen as best alternative representation through democratic practices.
Here Indian concerns are vital since historically India have been sharing the plights of Nepal with strong sense of responsibility; in recent past India played very positive role in post monarchial political adjustment in Nepal especially in peace process with Maoists and forming a consensus on twelve point agreement.

But through recent developments in Nepalese politics, Maoists role could be just extrapolated as bemoaning force who blurring the entire peace process and move for constitution drafting. At this point Maoists must strive for at least an expedient move for consensus with ruling parties to hold its prominence intact in national politics and stop embittering Nepal’s most trusted ally, India.
Indian concerns to Nepal has always been genuine and will remain same, the only things has to be see in proper light by the Maoists or other dogmatists who suspiciously rated the Indian involvement in their country; they must have sense that an unstable Nepal with its ramifications would equally pose threats for a vast home land which India sharing along with the border of Nepal, so good or bad stack for both countries will depend upon the stability and harmony across the border without disturbing the elegant threads which these two nation have been relentlessly maintaining so far.

At present juncture Maoists are playing the game of personification inside the Nepal in exactly confused state to locate themselves at the helm of affairs within country and outside; ideology is major deterrent before their potential impartial role in Nepalese politics.
Indeed Maoists are caught in ambiguous web of ideology which they are not becoming to shape in their indigenous circumstances that making their attitude haughty with sharp divergence between their saying and intention. Pragmatism is the need of hour for all democratic forces of Nepal; and being a strong component, Maoists also have to act with more responsibility to end the apprehensions of India about theirs undue proximity with China and anti Indian sentiments in Nepal’s some quarter which forming negative biases towards the traditional ties of India and Nepal.

From Indian side, intellectuals and officials of Ministry of External Affairs have frequently stressing on the crucial role of Maoists in new political order which also well acknowledged by the Maoists chief Pushpa Kamal Dahal”Prachanda” in an interview with Prerna Marasani of The Hindu (Friday,October6th2009).
Now Maoists must hails such word of support and legitimacy by striving to sort out all complexities of its further involvement with India; indeed Maoists proactive and peaceful participation in crucial matters, like civil supremacy, constitution drafting etc would broaden their acceptance in country and abroad.

Assertions of radical ideology in a multi party democracy like Nepal is a very tough task, since its lacking the required authoritarian mechanism, so experiments of Maoism in Nepal are an unusual phenomenon that was hardly occurred anywhere else in similar manner.
Rudimentary principles of Maoism in Nepal stand on the notional basis of a strong and energetic state that Nepal completely lacking today; so foremost task that Maoists must have to deal immediately to strengthen the pillars of Nepalese state and rationalize their ideological practices as per their local conditions without completely emulating any other nation’s experiments.

In his recently published article in The Hindu (Monday, September14th2009), Kathmandu based journalist Prashant Jha has revealed that India could enjoy two strategic options, generative and degenerative to deal with Nepal.I have slightly different standpoint about his perceptions, with reiterating again the fact that India could never play a spoiling role in Nepal because of close inherent nature of their relationships and that must be taken as true matter of perception in this regard.
So former options seems completely subversive as per the track record of Indian involvement in Nepal, somehow, it’s a completely unrealistic proposition from both countries perspectives. What India could find a niche for itself in a stable and peaceful Nepal forming out through the people’s aspirations and consensus of its political parties?

Atul Kumar Thakur
October10th2009, New Delhi
atul_mdb@rediffmail.com

Let Plot a Fight back for Democratic Participation

Often statistics are considered a complex stream because deciphering its fundamentals needed a meticulous observation, despite this it’s so relevant that an escapement is not possible when judging the core of any organized happening. Obviously statistics remind us about the actuality of an outcome besides also insulate to look after on some deciding implications, even though we are quite aware about it’s not being the sole proposition of inquiry in present context.
On the date these words are taking place there could be also seen a smooth progress of parliamentary election 2009(at least on cards); but neither the word smooth nor the progress justified the genuine claims in present election. It’s alarming to see the scale of violence and lower turnout of voters in so far completed three phases of voting.

These two ill indications are I think countering the spirit of Indian democracy and making it elusive to form a genuine representation at the center. Violence jeopardizing the democratic sentiment of nation because it’s chocking the peoples from exercising their franchise freely besides this it also revealed the growing impatience of a large number of peoples toward the existing political and social order.
Such feelings among its practitioners creating a sense of distortion in their cognition state further which shaping their action of fauxpas. This miscommunication between the government and aggrieved groups are deepening the mistrust that is proving disastrous and failed to acknowledge each other’s plights.

It should be a foremost aim of next government at the center to restructure the governance with the help of respective state governments to tackle with this growing divide at social, economic and political sphere. It will require a set of conscious efforts including some drastic reforms in growth agenda and honest disbursement of opportunities throughout the country, which would indeed lessen the isolation of backward areas and infused parity in socio-economic order.
The falling polling turnout is another area of grave concern which dampening the overall electoral practice in recent times. So, it would be worthwhile to acknowledge the regional variance in this regard because completely contradictory conditions are prevailing among the rest states and Jammu & Kashmir.

Many crucial determinants and their magnitudes differs state-wise; where in Jammu &Kashmir a lower poll of 26% is indicative of decades long prevailing turmoil in state which is a unique case because the security of this state is immensely critical from national point of view as it consists utmost concern of India’s external security as well.
In such state of affairs even the peaceful completion of election in the state should not be seen less than a breakthrough but the same are not justifiable in the case of state like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh where the polling got confined on a meager 44%. It’s extremely regrettable because alone these two states have deciding capacity in any political formation with its strength of more than hundred parliamentary constituencies.

Even we cannot compare these two states and Jharkhand with lower turnout of polls in Mumbai (50%), because a metropolis like Mumbai has some inherent characteristics in which we could locate a consistent alienation among the sizable number of its participants from political arena, I think its not a noble happening in Mumbai although it’s equally unfortunate in broader sense.
Situation of India’s two states is awesome on development front as these two states have a history of bad governance and parochialism at their political sphere. Such political anatomy harassed the plot of development and caused for weaker socio-economic indicators like poverty, unemployment, migration or better saying exodus, casteism, illiteracy etc.

Such state of affairs formed a sense of deception among the common men whatever they are facing in daily life impulses them for political alienation. Another major reason of lower turnout is state of exodus in these states due to lack of employment opportunities in their home states they forced to migrate in metro cities. Majority of migrants are flew conditionally to survive in material world.
So, lower turnout of polling in these states are caused by the forcible migration generated through absence of proper sustainable infrastructure and opportunities in their near by areas. To some extant political participants reflects the overall picture of socio-economic progress and its entitlement with the common men’s.

So, being the most worlds most esteemed and vibrant democracy, India now needs some fresh look at their electoral mechanism by which it might be possible to strengthen the alternative system of voting and many other conducive approaches in this regard. Remote system of voting and a rational ceiling on electoral expense of candidates would infuse fresh hopes among the masses. Indeed democracy would emerge in its finest form and masses of this country have lot to cheer in their life through their genuine political participation.
As a common man I am optimistic about such reforms, but presently very remorseful to missed the casting my votes in present election… because of having physical remoteness from my constituency. Hoping to see new dawn in Indian politics through fresh approaches on our electoral institutions.


Atul Kumar Thakur
Saturday, 2nd May
New Delhi
atul_mdb@rediffmail.com