Kathmandu is now Closer Post Modi's Visit

In the official establishment of Nepal, and among its masses, there has been a lingering sense of dissatisfaction over improper diplomatic reciprocity from India. This was understandable, as no Indian Prime Minister thought it essential to visit Kathmandu for seventeen long years. Hence, Modi's invitation to SAARC leaders for his swearing-in ceremony was seen as an indication of a strong neighbourhood policy, and that was welcomed by Nepal.

Further, Nepalese Premiere Sushil Koirala's visit to New Delhi in May helped establish fine working terms with the new government, which became evident when India’s external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj made a visit to Kathmandu and won the hearts of the Nepalese people.

India has always played a crucial role during the political transitions in Nepal. This goes back to the time in Monarchy, where India thoroughly enjoyed a non-competing role.

Thus, Modi’s long and nuanced extempore speech in Nepali Parliament wherein he touched upon certain long-pending issues, was very well received in the country. He also spoke a few sentences in Nepalese, which was a humbling gesture. Apparently, even radicals like Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai hailed his efforts and came to agreement.

Modi not only offered Nepal soft credit to the tune of Rs (Nep) 10,000 crore for various development projects, he even simplified the terms of diplomacy in his precise remarks that “India is an elder brother, not a big brother”. In the past, anti-India sentiments over the interventionist approach of the Indian mission in Kathmandu persisted, and there was no parity in political negotiations.

So, under this backdrop – Modi's simple yet sensitive approach to the issues at hand made his time in Kathmandu highly productive, not only on a political level but also in terms of improving trade relations between the two countries. He also spoke for rationalising the telecom arrangements and enhancing cooperation on security related matters.

Although the open border has been a unique feature of Indo-Nepalese relations, it has also been a major cause of concern for India apropos to its potential misuse by unscrupulous elements posing security threats to either side.

It was agreed that neither India nor Nepal would allow their respective territories to be used against each other. Both sides agreed to finalize the texts of Extradition Treaty and MLAT on an early date.

Crucial projects such as the Pancheshwar Development Authority (PDA) received the nod for approval. The Karnali hydro-power project– besides other power projects like Arun III, Upper Marsyangdi and Tamakoshi III - has also seen significant development. The development of projects of this magnanimous size will be a major catalyst for the development of Nepal’s enormous hydro-power potential.

The Nepalese side highlighted the trade deficit it is facing viz. its trade with India, and suggested measures to address this deficit through increased Indian FDI, relaxation of non-tariff restrictions including SPS standards for agro products, increased support in product development, relaxation of Rules of Origin requirement for duty free access to Nepalese products, and mutual recognition of standards, conformity assessment and accreditation.

The Nepalese side also requested the removal of Quantitative Restrictions (QRs) on the four core Nepalese export products namely vegetable fat, copper products, acrylic yarn and zinc oxide. The Indian side assured it would consider these requests – however it reminded them that the trade deficit could best be bridged by the development of hydro-power in Nepal and the export of surplus power to India.

The talks also included deliberations over three additional air entry points at Janakpur, Bhairahawa and Nepalgunj, and cross border routes to facilitate direct flights between regional airports (Pokhara-Bhirahawa-Lucknow), in order to save time, cut costs and improve air connectivity.

The two Prime Ministers directed relevant authorities to expedite all work related to the development of cross border transmission lines as was agreed by the Joint Commission. At the request of the Nepalese side, the Government of India agreed to consider undertaking the rehabilitation of Koshi Pump Canal, Koshi Western Canal System, and West Gandak Canal System with a Lift System to irrigate additional land in Nepal.

Modi’s visit to Nepal has brought about decisive and visible changes. It has reset the game with China now batting from a weaker pitch.

In the last two decades, China has been spending billions of dollars to categorically diminish India’s traditional stronghold in Nepal – but with new synergies in Indo-Nepal relations, China's propagandist interventions into the Himalayan nation will be in vain.

In the 1970s King Birendra proposed that Nepal be a ‘zone of peace’ between India and China and in the 1980s, Nepal began importing Chinese weaponry, which to India was clearly against the spirit of India-Nepal 1950 treaty.

With no Monarchy and the Maoists in mainstream, those arms export struggle between Indian and China is almost over in Nepal – however India’s concern stays about the seized Chinese advanced arms from the Maoists, which all are not under state control.

Nepal is a country landlocked between two Asian giants (India and China), along with a disputed Tibet – this complex geographical and political reality has been a key influence on ties among these three countries.

Modi’s is scheduled to visit Nepal again for the SAARC Summit in October, with which the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) may see a new lease of life. For now, Nepal no longer sees India as ‘Swayambhu’ – this is an achievement.
-Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in INCLUSION)

Himalayan face-off is inevitable

India and China are competing everywhere on earth, from nearby Pakistan to faraway Africa, for natural resources and diplomatic edge. The situation is no different in the rugged terrains of neighbouring Nepal

India and China have a long history of love-hate relations that can be traced to the pre-civilisational era. Colonisation, of course, changed the conventional terms of engagement — especially the Boxer Rebellion in which the Indians fought, along with British forces, against the Chinese revolutionaries. Since then, the Chinese have never really trusted the Indians.

A part of the Henderson-Brooks-Bhagat report on the 1962 India-China War clearly establishes the effects of this old Chinese complex. It also details the blunders done by the Indian Armed Forces and the defence establishment.

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s heightened sentimentalism, rather his show of statesmanship that caused for the war, have also been exposed. The report is only partially in the public domain; nonetheless, it has given much insight into India-China relations.

Tibet and Kashmir and China’s irritating stand on boundary issues are the focus in journalist Shishir Gupta’s book, The Himalayan Face-off: Chinese Assertion and the Indian Riposte, which says, “Even if bilateral trade between India and China goes beyond $100 billion in the coming years, China’s posture towards India is adversarial and will perhaps remain so in the future, with Beijing viewing New Delhi through the prism of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government-in-exile… A rising China, inflexible on boundary dispute resolution and with strong tentacles across South Asia and beyond, could encroach on India’s strategic space and lead to a potential crisis this decade.”

However, the book doesn’t look into the India-China ‘face-off’ in Nepal. China has turned overtly cunning in Nepal, so as to challenge the traditional comfort characteristic of India-Nepal ties.

China is infusing large amounts of money in Nepal to minimise the warmth New Delhi and Kathmandu have enjoyed through economic cooperation. On the ‘softer’ side, China is missing no chance to slap its cultural load on Nepal.

Hence, the number of Nepalis wanting to learn the Chinese language has seen a dramatic rise in recent years. Still, it will be difficult for China to counter India’s traditional position in Nepal.

Politically, the advent of Maoism in the mid-1990s gave China a big foothold in Nepal. But Maoism in this Himalayan Kingdom has been so diluted that it has almost lost its Chinese soul, especially in the face of the complex conditions produced by local competitive politics.

For many years, Maoists were able to hold on to power because they were pragmatic and flexible in their political programming.

The Maoists in Nepal designed their policies in keeping with the changing political situation of the land. They rose to occupy the highest positions in the country, but in recent years they have lost the sheen after the top Maoist leadership’s dubious stands were exposed and the former insurgents frittered away the credentials to stay on the high moral ground.

China is watching the developments in Nepal closely. The 2013 election has given the new regime a mandate to govern, not rule ruthlessly and without a sense of direction. In this new composition, Maoists are a minimal force.

From a larger geo-strategic point of view, China perceives India to be getting close to the world’s only superpower. Therefore, it has been seeking to encircle India through various advances.

Some may argue that this is perhaps partially an existential tussle caused by China’s continuing complex vis-à-vis India. Perhaps China still sees India as a collaborator of the colonial British Army that plundered Chinese cities.

However, this seems like a ridiculous argument when China, today, is one of the biggest offenders of human rights. It makes little sense as to why China would seek to shape its current engagement with India on the basis of an event that happened over a century ago, and that too under the control of colonialists, not Indians per se.

Still, India and Nepal, in all their diplomatic manoeuvrings towards China, must take into account the complexities of the Middle Kingdom.

Time and again, the Chinese leadership has asserted its belief in co-existence — India has been acknowledging this without giving heart to it, as this country has its own share of complexes, born out of Chinese betrayals that began in 1962. Nepal, with its unique historical position, has rarely had to face-off with either Beijing or New Delhi.

India and China appear to be in a tug of war, with their many unresolved issues. It is difficult to be optimistic about the future, given the incorrigible complexes of both Beijing and New Delhi. The Himalayan face-off is a reality, and it is going to be an enduring one.

India and China are competing everywhere on earth — from nearby Pakistan to faraway Africa — for natural resources and diplomatic edge. The situation is no different in the rugged terrains of Nepal.
-Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Pioneer on April22,2014)

Border benefits

The open border must be a major plank of economic and diplomatic relations between India and Nepal

The open border between India and Nepal has been the vantage point of the two countries' trust-based relationship. But a closer look at this border regime shows a lack of impetus in transforming this unique arrangement for the enhancement of trade relations between the two countries, thus leading to a failure of the border regions to tap into the potential of trade activities.

Gains for both

Many places in the Madhubani district in India's north Bihar share boundaries with Nepal. These places offer immense opportunities to maximise trade and civil cooperation. Sadly, Indian authorities have taken a lacklustre approach in helping build roads and rail infrastructure across the border in Nepal.

Kathmandu, too, has surprisingly failed to show interest. Nepal has no rail network beyond a symbolic and outdated small stretch between Jaynagar in Madhubani and Janakpur in Dhanusha district in Nepal. Telecom and postal cooperation, which has great potential to foster civic ties, is also missing.

These shortcomings indicate a flawed approach to border talks between the two countries. There seems to be a clear and sharp disdain for tapping economic opportunities and while delving on this issue, the geographical spread has to go further—to other parts of north Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Uttarakhand.

The federal structure of India restricts the states' authority and action when it comes to international matters. So it is imperative that New Delhi and Kathmandu be serious about these issues, which are currently being handled half-heartedly without any vision. It is time for India and Nepal to go beyond formal barriers and translate rhetoric into action.

Nepal has emerged as a more confident nation amidst the democratic transition. Nepalis today no longer see the monarchy as an option. This is a welcome development in the country, where, until recently, political authority was seen as inseparable from the royalty. Historic political upturns have tested the country in many ways. But amidst many setbacks, Nepal has emerged as a forward-looking modern nation. These developments have close bearing on Nepal's relations with India.

Potential gains

Yet, in recent years most high-level Nepali delegations visiting Delhi have been ignoring the potential of trade relations between the two countries. It is surprising when even a prime minister-led delegation prioritises rudimentary concerns over core issues.

Take as an example the fact that India is the world's largest milk producer. It reached this position through early adaptation of technology and impressive cooperative movements, not through keeping high numbers of cattle alone. Nepal is a milk deficit country but its plains are conducive for a white revolution. So it should seek India's overall expertise and try to create a success story like that of Amul in Gujarat.

The power sector is another area where the passive stances of both countries are harming their economic interests. There is an immense potential for cooperation—especially in hydroelectric production and transmission. Sadly, India's industrial chambers—the Confederation of Indian Industries, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry and Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India—have not been able to move beyond tokenism in furthering multi-sphere trade cooperation with their counterpart in Nepal—the Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry.

Most delegations have wasted much time and energy signing Memorandums of Understanding without observing the feasibility of new projects. Treaties between these two countries need immediate revision. Trade or diplomatic negotiations in 2014 cannot be handled by the policies of bygone eras. New Delhi has a lot to do on this regard and it must do so for the mutual interest of both countries.

Border problems

As India faces the constant threat of terror attacks, safeguarding its open border with Nepal is high on its to-do-list. Time and again, Nepal has closely cooperated with Indian security agencies in cracking down on terror outfits, most recently the Indian Mujahideen network. But there are many problems along the border that must be addressed by both sides.

Illegal trade is rampant as official vigilance is not up to the mark. This administrative failure could make Nepal a parking lot for terror activities, as India is the most targeted country by both international and homegrown terror outfits in the whole of South Asia. India cannot afford to overlook this aspect, so it has to guard its borders with greater sensitivity. Nepal also has a shared interest here. The border, therefore, should be made a major plank of India-Nepal diplomatic negotiations.

Next month, a new government will be formed in India. The new prime minister should start a new beginning by visiting Nepal before flying to distant locations. India must show this courtesy to its closest ally, which has not been given its due in the past—especially if we recall the Indian PMs' lack of interest in visiting Kathmandu. That unusual shortcoming has shadowed even the good intentions shown.

To make trade and diplomacy work fairly, India and Nepal should move beyond tokenism and enter a new phase of cooperation. Nepal should not preclude itself of benefiting from India's economic rise and India should not miss the opportunity to further cooperation with a politically stable Nepal.
-Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Kathmandu Post on April29,2014)

Spoilers of the democratic drive

Maoists in Nepal have in the past, with greater share in power politics, done immeasurable harm to the chances of healthy democratic movements in that country. They have unfailingly and deliberately created problems for the Government

Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal, also known as Prachanda, is a worried man these days, principally coloured in red — not for the lost ideological claim of his party, but because his command and credibility inside the party and in national politics is on the wane.

He has kept mum for months after the humiliating performance of his party in the 2013 parliamentary election. But after the customary soul searching, he is now trying to reunite the different Maoists camps and revive the party’s character in its rank and file.

In this endeavour, Prachanda is looking to the working class and the marginalised sections of society but he has also almost given up on his former colleague and now CPN(Maoist) chairman Mohan Baidya. This is his version of struggle for survival, but while doing this he has displayed his and indeed his party’s deep rooted desperation towards the new developments in Nepali national politics.

Another big factor is Mr Baburam Bhattarai — a powerful Maoist comrade who turned dubious to match Prachanda’s ambitions. There are open theories about their dualism in public life and none are refuted by these two giant leaders of the Himalayan nation. Mao is not alive but it seems like these two leaders believe in the old saying that ‘China’s leader is our leader’.

So much like Mao, they too, time and again, have committed follies, cheated the poor Nepali people of their aspirations, and damaged the delicate democratic fabric of Nepal.

Nevertheless, it will be wrong to say that Nepal doesn’t have place to accommodate radicals. But it is the wrong moves of the radicals, which have falsified the conception of progressive political manoeuvring. This amounts to a big setback for a democracy that is still trying to cross many hurdles.

Since 1996, when Maoism formally haunted the nation, almost two decades in Nepal have been wasted. Governance is broken, infrastructure is decaying, industry is in a mess — and the people are fleeing to Gulf countries where they live perilous lives.

Who are these Maoists representing then? Why they are still sticking with their false ‘ism’s and not focussing on national issues that are getting more serious day by day? In recent years, outbound human trafficking from Nepal has seen unbelievably high. Abroad, Nepalis live in a kind of exile and are routinely exploited.

Barring the elite, it is tough to find a Nepali who lives in dignified state. This was not the case earlier when Nepal was still poor but at least its political leadership had better control. Still, there has hardly been a ‘golden phase’ in Nepal.

Maoism was a stream forced to flow in an authoritarian China, where democratic tributaries were seen as rival counter-currents. It kept revising over the years in the country of its origin and, so cunningly, that it made China not only a closely-guarded, ruthless communist regime but also amusingly a hub of crony capitalism as well.

So, today, many communist leaders from China find themselves on the Forbes billionaire list even if their socialistic convictions stop them from making flashy style statements.

Sadly, this kind of an unhealthy cocktail of social and economic policies is being seen as the cure that can fix the ills of socio-economic disparity in Nepal. However, this will be at the cost of democracy, that will otherwise benefit the masses, unless the leaders turn into looters of resources. Such endemic tussles are, of course, long-standing. And resolving them is perhaps the toughest challenge for democracy.

Writing on Nepal’s last two decades appears tough, given how fast-evolving trends and developments boggle the commentator’s mind. One can see endless political activity and the unstoppable movement towards factionalism as well as the lust to grab the top seat of power, even if for a short while.

The Maoists brought these changes with bigger effect, and in the course of time, their brand of politics was borrowed by the old parties and narrowly-shaped the Madhesi and ethnic groups. And within this flurry of opportunistic moves, Nepali democracy has suffered. It has never recovered enough to support the country’s progress in different areas.

In the past, the Maoists, who then had a greater share in power politics, did immeasurable harm to the chances of healthy democratic movements in the country. Even now, they are creating trouble for the existing Government run by Mr Sushil Koirala.

It will be worthwhile to recall that Prime Minister Koirala is not a conventional representative of the Koirala family, rather he is detached from the aura of power. He has given the mandate to lead; he has not fought for it.

But his success is doubtful. The Constitution-drafting process is threatened by a motley group of Maoist comrades and it is unlikely that they will allow Nepal to stay the democratic course. The Maoists mock Nepali democracy and democracy here betrays masses and their humane expectations. On the other side of the tunnel, there seems to be no light.

Tough times will remain in this country that has no king but is not free from king-size maladies. And for that, the people cannot be blamed for an error of judgement as they were always without better choices.
-Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Pioneer on March25,2014)

Verdict for democracy

Nepal’s election results are hardly unexpected. The Maoists have been relegated to third position and many Madheshi and fringe parties have met their diminishing fortunes. Under both the direct vote and Proportional Representation systems, the Nepali Congress, led by Sushil Koirala, took the lead, followed by the CPN-UML, headed by Jhala Nath Khanal.

The political verdict is clearly in favour of a stable coalition. Evidently, the course correction has been directed against the UCPN (Maoist), who failed at any broadbased maneuvering to make the constitution in recent years. The disenchantment with the Maoists, thus, must be seen in the long-term context.

Unprecedented fall

The rise and fall of the Maoists as a political force in Nepal is unprecedented—their acceptance into mainstream society grew with the end of the ‘normal monarchy’ in the country and subsequent political developments, in which the mainstream political parties were on a weak track. Even then, the way in which the Maoists rose to political prominence, despite their notoriety for violence, was quite unusual.

The spectre of decline was certainly known to Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Baburam Bhattarai but they seemed to remain steadfast in not moulding their ideological principle for local conditions and moreover, to live out its spirit. So, the blunders were not single-handed. In the changed scenario, the Nepali Maoists turned into a classic example of adhering to a custom-made ideology from a foreign land.

In the 1960s, something similar happened in India when a genuine radical upsurge met with an awful fate, following the incorrigible sycophancy of communist leaders in fancying the Chinese style of ‘hit and run communism’. Some even went so far to declare ‘China’s Chairman as their Chairman’.

Consequently, the radical movement dwindled in India, though the oppressiveness of the state and corporates has increased multifold over the decades. The Maoists in Nepal should think of the bigger picture and start doing things, rather than denying the aspirations of the common folk. And on a personal front too, they have to show integrity with principled political commitments, which, sadly, is notably absent in their current mode of action.

Albeit, emigration is reaching painful levels of exodus among young Nepalis but the poll results have represented their will. Certainly, they wish for a stable nation, with enough capacity to absorb the needs of every citizen. As of now—from India to Tibet to the Arab countries—the state of average Nepali migrants is a matter of concern for any thinking mind. Alas, no thou-ght or action has really been made on this haunting issue!

NC and UML

This is a historic chance for the Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML to draft a pro-people constitution and create a functional government. As representative of the peoples’ will, these two political parties should not fail this time, because improved democratic processes will only promise better times ahead.

More on the socio-economic line, increased inclusion of different under-represented communities should be among the top agenda. Now these two major political parties have to carry the will of the people at large—as the activism of regional outfits in the Madhes and other parts of the country have lost their allure. But it is crucial for the NC and UML to respond and address the genuine demands of these groups.

Missed opportunity

The election result is remarkable for rejecting the ‘federalisation drive’ of the Maoists but keeping hope alive for socio-economic transformation. This was a response to the previous political configuration, which was largely opportunistic. If things improve, we will not see ethnic conflict mar the syncretism of this ancient land.

As the recently held CA election had existential rigour for Nepal’s democracy, it is truly unfortunate to see India’s inept response. India’s foreign ministry has again missed a chance to do damage control for earlier blunders by offering gestures of support to Nepal, which holds more significance than the other countries where top leaders don’t mind travelling to without reason and wasting valuable national resources.

Still, if not the Indian establishment, the mass of Indians think much more actively about their special neighbour. There lies the strength of bilateral relations between two countries; otherwise, official double standards from both sides could have hampered this relation long ago.

The time is right for immediate action from the new incumbent in Kathmandu. They will have focus on pressing goals. This time, leaders have to act or fail like the Maoists. The choices are easy to make but consistently following up on them will be the real acid test. But for now, reading the election results on a positive note would not be too risky.
-Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Kathmandu post,on December07,2013)

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)

All gore for the crown

Book Review: Non-fiction/ The Bloodstained Throne by Baburam Acharya, Penguin, 266p; Rs299 (Paperback)
Baburam Acharya sheds light on the inglorious power struggles within Nepal’s bloody royal history.
Nepal has an eventful past, but sadly its culture of historiography isn’t that strong. Few historians from the land, which has on occasions, seen both war and peace between the royalty and half-baked democracy, have documented the changing times. Baburam Acharya was an exception among the Nepalese scholars, who had shown great leaning for historical writing, without ever fearing the wrath of ruling kings of his time.

The Bloodstained Throne is the English translation of Baburam Acharya’s seminal work in Nepali—Aba Yasto Kahilyai Nahos. The translation has been done by his grandson, Madhav Acharya, a well-known journalist. Moreover, Baburam’s son Shreekrishna Acharya has done justice with the book, as its editor, preserving the facts, while moulding the book for new era readers.

The book covers a very disturbed timeframe of 1775-1914, when the ruling Shah dynasty confronted both the internal and external oppositions against its rule. A fragile kingship and corrupt feudal structure allowed the despotic Rana regime to come to fore, plunging the throne to a new low.

All 11 chapters of the book dwell with the gloomy time of Nepal’s royal rule, recalling major conspiracies, murders and court politics. The violent eras were preceded by Prithvi Narayan Shah’s effort to unite Nepal into a single entity, even though there was hardly any connect with that principled vision. The time to come was rather driven by the court conspiracies, massacre and assassinations — violence in tune with the disenchantment with royalty.

From Pratap Singh Shah to Dev Shamsher, there was not a trace of hope. Nepal has been living under the ‘factional challenges’— the royal massacre of 2001, the beginning of civil war to ongoing democratic blunders in the country, which have largely stemmed from the same complexes. Prithvi Narayan Shah died early, causing a young nation to fall from the track of consolidation and development.

As an articulate historian, Acharya had rightly chosen not to write a fictional history of the nation. The book gives rich details of Chinese incursion into Nepal’s territory during the rule of Bahadur Shah—and the decisive role played by the Malla kings and Gorkhali Empire. Bhimsen Thapa’s real character is revealed, contrary to his popular nationalistic image.

The death of Pratap Singh Shah and emergence of Rajendra Laxmi as the new power centre had allowed Thapa to pursue his wrongful ambitions. The shadowy nexus left a deep scar on nation’s prospects. From there, started the Rana’s adventurism with the throne—Rana Bahadur was made the Prime Minister and he met his end in court, while pronouncing the punishments targeted at courtiers.

Rule of Jung Bahadur was bloodier. The brutal Kot Massacre was the height of his cruelty. If the Shah had drawn the middle name ‘Vikram’ from India’s Parmar dynasty, the surname ‘Rana’ came as sign of newfound clout for the ‘Kunwars’. The nomenclature had wider symbolic values.

The Rana rule continued in Nepal for almost 100 years and they made the Shah dynasty a puppet during those painful decades. Nepal remained a hub of ignorant and greedy feudals. Between the senseless war between the Shahs and Ranas for power, Nepal remained sandwiched with all bad turnouts.

The book opens up many hidden facets from Nepal’s royal history, but there are no detailed narratives on the people or their suffering. Acharya had sensed the aristocratic pulse of those eras and streamlined his research towards the same. It was a better idea to focus on decisive factors, whose sources were available. The diversification would have made the project superfluous, especially because of the severe limitation of reliable information.

The Bloodstained Throne is a pathbreaking addition to Nepal’s politics and history. It would redefine the perception on the established institutions and symbols, bring in sharp clarity.
-Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets2gmail.com
(Published in Millennium Post on October06,2013)

Beyond borders

Many multilateral cooperation platforms have eluded smaller nations, contradicting their own rationale for existence. Nepal is no exception to this phenomenon and has badly missed out on chances to carve out a position to deal with major bilateral issues in South Asia and beyond. The country’s long democratic transition has made its standing even more precarious.

Before 2001, Asia had two distinct royalties—Nepal and Bhutan. With the unnatural ending of the partially feudal legal throne in Nepal, the country ushered in a complex web of mismanaged political arrangements. Later, the prominent advent of the Maoists and Madhes-based political parties were in the right spirit of the times but later developments have shown their inefficiency in dealing with the cores of polity and diplomacy.

Living under an unjustified ‘big brother syndrome’ and making impractical moves for trilateral initiatives have broken down Nepal’s conventional edge vis-à-vis its relation with India. Prachanda’s latest visit to New Delhi was primarily seeking Indian confidence for the Chinese presence back home. This was a sort of blunder, though it was surprisingly overlooked by the Indian side.

Nepal’s external policy should be directed by its own self-interest instead of excuses. The political establishment in Kathmandu should reckon that the diplomatic engagements of two almost equals—India and China—do not happen on a single front but on many counts. Among them, the most formidable is economic ties. Li Keqiang’s first foreign trip as prime minister to India was aimed at settling the border dispute and boosting economic ties. Straight after India, he flew to Pakistan, and total results of his visit have proved abysmal.

China cannot simply throw off the burden of its past. It has a few allies to date and Nepal should not have irrational expectations from China. In the lexicon of Nepal’s political economy, trade should be given extra attention. Trade and diplomacy must be the mainstays of external policy. There is no reason why Nepal should distract from this fundamental understanding. The hyped ploy of breaking conventions has given little positive outcome so far. The lack of any political stalwart is another cause
of concern; the country is missing a pacifier like Girija Prasad Koirala like never before.

New efforts are being made to hold Constituent Assembly elections in November, which will be a great test of the political parties en masse as there is great disenchantment among the populace for their false promises. People’s representatives need to come to terms with the fact that the masses are only concerned with leading the country out of the present mess. The internal atmosphere will shape Nepal’s external policy; so clarity over this would do well for the country’s future course.

In South Asia, Nepal is situated strategically to carry forward its independent stature. Despite the gloom and doom over the last two decades, Nepalis in general have endorsed democracy. This is a sort of accomplishment, as modern ideas and aspirations are routed through such welcome changes. If there is balance on the political home turf, it will be much easier for Nepal to claim its deserved position in the world.

There is no tailor-made solution for a firm footing in external matters except for being internally strong while chasing difficult targets externally. Relying less on theoretical paradigms and taking a more practical approach would make foreign policy maneuvering a more informed exercise. As a sovereign state, the boldness of Nepal’s action should display its sovereignty. Unlike China or India, it has never earned the ire of cunning colonial motives. This is a reality and not bound to be changed.Thus, it allows Nepalis to take pride in its non-interfering nationalistic pedigree.

In the present ideal-deficient time, bilateralism is the order of the day for nations. Hence, Nepal too should define its priorities accordingly. Among the most important changes, it should learn to look beyond India and China as the world is much bigger. With a changed mindset and a mature leadership, Nepal has the capacity to draw resources from beyond.

However, India will stay its closest ally, even when Nepal expands its presence across the globe. China has a different angle on seeing the world but it is a very formidable force in itself, which India has learnt since 1947. Nepal, for a while, can learn from India’s follies in the 1962 war. It is time for a course correction in Nepal.
Atul K Thakur
Email:summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Kathmandu Post on July05,2013)

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)

Big brother is not watching

Be it during the long rule of the monarchy or during the one-and-a-half decade in which Nepal experimented with semi-democracy and even in the subsequent phases of complete democracy, the Himalyan nation has never witnessed a more dangerous, anti-India programme in action. The manner in which the new breakaway group from the UCPN (Maoist) called the CPN (Maoist) has been blatantly attacking every Indian symbol in sight in Nepal is worrisome.
The CPN (Maoist)’s most recent decision to ban Indian vehicles and Bollywood cinema within the country marks the height of bankruptcy in Nepal’s ultra-Left movement. First, it violates the fundamental rights enshrined in the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007, in Article 12(2). Second, it negates Nepal’s long history of co-operation with India.
The psychological complex that has produced such action is, however, strikingly different from the Orwellian notion of a big brother figure watching over the country. Or else, the people propagating the anti-India message would have similar apprehensions about China as well. But they don’t, possibly because Red China is offering the seed capital with which to destroy the tightly knit fabric of India-Nepal relations.
China is already outpacing India as a major investor in the Himalayan state, besides controlling the nerves of that country’s ultra-radical political forces. India should never have taken China’s hidden game in Nepal so lightly. Also, India’s diplomatic mission in Kathmandu has miserably failed in recent years to nourish the goodwill of the Nepalese people.
People-to-people contact between India and Nepal is New Delhi’s sole edge over Beijing. Probably, this is the reason why the average Nepalese stands against the ban on Indian vehicles and movies, having dismissed the dictates of the CPN-Maoist. But this is not surprising.
Since 1996, when civil war broke out in Nepal, the Maoists have consistently defied the common man’s aspiration. Even those with the most radical of imagination will agree that the Maoists don’t qualify as the leader of proletarian movement. Indeed, it is the average Nepalese, the civil society in that country and the Press that have been the biggest victims of the Maoist’s hypocritical people’s movement.
Ideologically, the Maoists’ movement in Nepal is impure and reflects the personal cynicism of its leadership. Next to the ideological line, these leaders have been nurturing their political ambitions by pumping up a ‘sovereignty phobia’ or ‘Indophobia’ in Nepal. Maoists are divided entities now, and those who sit outside the power circle, try to carve a niche for them. They hope that the anti-India demonstration will give them the mileage to do so.
A recent report by the United Nation’s High Commissioner for Refugees, charting 10 years of human rights violations during the Nepal conflict, presents the trove of horrific data regarding the number of dead, the number of abducted people etc. As expected, the ruling Maoists have rubbished the report. In fact in a bid to corner the international watchdog, the Maoist Government has begun distancing itself from the UN in multilateral arenas. This marks a complete departure from its earlier reliance on international agencies such as the UN. Clearly, transition from a power-seeking role to a position of power-mongering has altered the basic principles of the Maoists.
Political theory suggests that a state’s sovereignty rests with its people. Nepal has always successfully maintained its sovereignty and independence. Since the end of the Malla confederacy and the political unification done by the founder of the ruling house of Gorkha, Prithvi Narayan Shah, in the 18th century, Nepal has in fact never faced any sovereignty crisis.
Even the present time of political transition has hardly allowed for any systemic vulnerabilities in Nepal that might result in the country falling to the domination of a foreign power. So, this new-found ‘insecurity’ regarding sovereignty, especially among the radical politicians, is really the result of the kind of petty politicking that is rampant in Nepal.
Let there be no doubt that political strategies based on anti-India, hate campaigns will not last long enough. This is because neither Nepal’s economic nor sentimental impulses will ever allow India to be any less participative in its soil. Besides, India still has a positive footprint inside Nepal. Any apprehension towards India’s role in that country is misplaced and principally irrational, and the fighting political parties of Nepal must acknowledge this. They must also understand that there is no merit in engaging in a tease game with an immediate and friendly neighbour, who also strategically ranks high in global power-politics. The Nepalese people deserve better than vile rhetoric.
Atul K Thakur
October10th, 2012, Wednesday
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Pioneer,dated on October23,2012)

Nepal needs genuine democracy

It's alarming to see that the Himalayan country has no real economic roadmap in place. Industries are either being shut down or they are stagnating. Meanwhile, politics is being shamelessly played out.

In a recent quantum leap, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), the constituents of United Democratic Madhesi Front and other Madhesi and Janjati parties came together to form a Federal Democratic Republican Alliance, with the professed aim of moving towards ‘a Constitution with federalism, and federalism with identity’. Unfortunately, this hardly presents any positive signal to end the political uncertainty in that country.

The FDRA’s aim is to put pressure on the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) to accept an identity-based restructuring of the state before the polls and then go in for an electoral partnership. Altogether, this alliance has done little more than angering the Opposition and preventing any potential thaw in relations.

The present state of Nepal’s politics allows for such an unusual condominium of parties that make little sense when it comes to resolving the greater political mess in the country. The overblown ambitions of the political class nullify the earlier efforts of democratic experiments. The current state of instability in Nepal seems to be more the result of the behavioural recklessness of politicians rather than the consequence of a celebrated political transition.

Undoubtedly, such pacts and agreements among politicians who are under pressure to survive have pushed governance issues to an all-time low. When the roads were not all rubble and 12-hour-long power cuts were not the norm, things were different. The people of Nepal had hope in the new generation of politicians and their brand of democratic politics.

For instance, the Maoists, until recently, were viewed differently as they focused on inland development and did not wish for Nepal to continue as a dumping ground of imported goods. However, their economic vision has been lost mid-way. Today, the work done by the present Maoist led-Government, headed by the once ideologically pure Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, is no less disappointing than any of his predecessors.

The wider connect among the people of India and Nepal has remained the cornerstone of ties between these two countries; the bond here is simply unmatchable. Still, the current level of engagement between these two countries is less satisfactory than it used to be in earlier times. From the Indian side, there is need to limit reliance on the diplomatic mission in Kathmandu for all negotiations, most of which should actually be carried out by Ministerial level delegations.

Also, the inadequate response from India in diplomatic engagement has kept Nepal on the margins; in this regard, there is need for course-correction. Greater people-to-people exchanges will help minimise anti-India feelings among a large section of the Nepali population. In the recent past, India has played the role of a cautious yet concerned neighbour, with respect to Nepal’s fluctuating political scenario. But to stop the vendetta of misguided radicals, India should deal with the situation in a proactive manner and without any biases.

Since 1996, Nepal has witnessed a series of troubling developments. Primary among them was the outbreak of the highly violent Maoist insurgency and later the royal massacre of 2001 which pushed the nation into an age of uncertainty. King Birendra had acceptability among the masses and political parties as well; and his willingness to lead Nepal to democracy was well known. It is true that had he still been alive, the credibility of the throne would not have been lost so early and without the emergence of any better substitute. Before 2001, Nepal was a nation in political transition. Now, it is a land ruled by leaders, who have no other plans except to walk with their erroneous ideas.

It’s alarming to see that Nepal really has no economic roadmap in place. Industries are either being shut down or they are stagnating. Janakpur, a remarkable city in the Terai region, has no other industry apart from a state commanded cigarette factory. As a result, the city is far worse today than it was twenty years ago.

This problem is contagious. The condition of Nepal’s other big cities is not very different. Nepali leaders visiting New Delhi have no will to execute the Memorandums of Understanding signed with the Indian Government or the Indian private sector in the areas of thermal power, telecommunications, tourism etc.

Until the political class reacts to economic impulses, things in Nepal will be hard to change. Nepal deserves a better deal than shrinking under the false promises of undeserving politicians. Democracy is indeed desirable but only if Nepal has chances of getting a real one, not something clownish in its place.
Atul Kumar Thakur
September 29, 2012, Saturday
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Pioneer, dated on September 20, 2012/ http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/item/52487-nepal-needs-genuine-democracy.html )

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

Palpasa’s trail!

Book Review: Fiction/Palpasa Cafe by Narayan Wagle, Random House India, 256 pp; Rs199 (Paperback)
The English fiction writing in Nepal has not yet entered into a matured phase from where the mass issues can be broadly presented for meaningful orientations. This is little bizarre, as in the category of non-fiction English writing, especially those done by the leading journalists have found accolades both in the country and outside. In absolute terms, Nepali literature is quite rich with an amazing consistency of its development-even in present time, the pace is intact and that is the matter of great solace. Though in recent times, Manjushree Thapa and few others have also did sporadically well to bridge the gap in English fiction writing…this work/Palpasa Cafe of Nepal’s leading journalist, Narayan Wagle is also appears very refreshing in a sensible English translation of Bikash Sangruala.

Set in the backdrop of Nepal’s transitory democratic scene, this novel could be termed very much the replica of those painful years started with the royal massacre of 2001. That brutally mysterious incident left the balance of royalty, mass belief, democracy and approaching radicalism in a prolong state of weirdness whose signs are still very much visible in Nepal. Palpasa Café is a sort of original work, that’s completely woven around the realities, with those the Nepalese lives have suffered immensely in last two decades. Inside the novel, Palpasa is a female protagonist, representing the insecure generation of her country with vivid charm and bewilderness. Her muse like involvement with the artist assures at some point, love can take lead even in the deep darkness of war and uncertainty!

But also is truth, those adversities tests the relations on its own hard terms where emotions alone don’t last long before the extreme convictions. Under the guise of unpleasant circumstances, Palpasa meets untimely but faithful end, and her better half part relies on artistic continuance and follow up ethical bearings. Which overall reaffirms that the benign functionalism of bond can be easily also coexists beyond the conventionally restricted trees of relationships. Being familiar with both the India and Nepal’s length and width, Narayan Wagle’s description from Goa to the valleys of turbulent Kathmndu allows readers to know and sense the events with comfortable ease. On individual characters, his reliance to assert his news centric opinion also creates interest rather confusion, that’s definitely a big win for this debutant author at quite ripe age.

Those who have enthusiasms for knowing the political history of Modern Nepal, advent and shaping of democracy in the nation can be more blessed entwining with this highly factualised fiction. Practically, like a scribe and astutely as an editor, Narayan Wagle delineates Nepal’s essential events of last few decades through a very balance vigour, which keeps reader informed and entitled with the development in envisaged plots. Moreover, better concentration over the conflicts among community and vested political interests of different political groups necessitates knowing the ongoing struggle of Nepal’s democracy not in monolith frame. If Palpasa’s end comes so easily, that it can be taken less than a loss of a human for the strife believer Maoists or other insensitive political participants, then atleast momentously it looks more believable to accept “disenchantment “from the existing institutional frameworks as “mainstream move”!

The book tries well to establish those disenchanting urges with the directionless political development in Nepal. This gives the effort of author a much desired broadness. Through knowing by one’s own impulses or getting in term with a work like this, views strengthens that the pain of Nepal’s democratic transition is far being over in the days to come. The big gulf that created with the end of monarchy or even much before, from the royal massacre, is still haunting the prospects of political normalization in the country. A nation with rich cultural past and gifted human and natural resources, Nepal certainly deserves to retrieve its normalcy and peace back. Over the years, Nepali journalists have been playing the vital role in forming balanced international consensus in favour of Nepal, time has still not lapse have they start thinking to concentrate more on homeland!
Atul Kumar Thakur
March 15, 2012, Thursday, New Delhi
Email: summertickets@gmail.com

Self tales of unknown Nepalese!

Instead conceiving the living conditions of ordinary Nepalese migrant in Delhi through polarised opinions or statistical records, it would be rather sincere spending some moments with them, listening their choice of folk music and most importantly knowing their views on “Muluk ko hal khabar”(nation’s current affairs). Remarkably these concerns are mostly related with the long democratic transition, which the nation has been going through in last two decades. That shows, amidst the all starkness of actual democratic functioning and falsification of big claims by the political parties, a general view on democracy is firm and positive.

Common Nepalese are now subscribing the idea of democracy more genuinely than even before, all those are inside the nation or forced to live outside of Nepal for earning subsisting livelihood. This is positive development in a nation, consistently ridden with conflict to figure out the mode of suitable governance. And no doubt, democracy would be the best choice for the Nepal which lost the real representation of its unique monarchy with the unfortunate royal massacre in 2001.

Five years back in Delhi’s unkind summer, I was new and alien here searching for stable abode in its obsessively commercial southern parts, came to a comfortable halt by the consideration of Kedar Saanpkota, a man in his fifties from the Narayangarh district of Nepal. The benign gestures of this mess staff of JNU and his family on my appearance as paying guest kept me more than happy for next few months of my staying in a beautiful room facing the picturesque beauties of dead Aravali ranges. Alas, two years later when I went to see him as promise made, I found his picture set on the wall-that was tragical for me to not see him anymore and knowing this so unexpectedly.

Even today, I am deeply indebted for the insights he had shared with me during those fateful days of Nepal’s painful political transition on the Maoist politics, especially how it was closely linked in early phase with the left progressive elements of Delhi’s premier universities. If Vamdev Shotriya was his colleague in JNU, he had also seen Baburam Bhattarai in formative days there…what was striking among his all descriptions on Nepali politics and politicians, he was never sure about the actuality of Comrade Prachanda like most of the fellow countrymen and there first time I found the dualism inherent within the Nepali Maoists!

In last few years, my exposure with the high echelons of Nepali journalists, politicians and intellectuals have grown up, yet the feeling of lacking the common men’s views was haunting my consine on a regular fleet. Last year, I was shifted to a new apartment (in Ghaziabad) with the immense help of its security staff, Arjun Singh Mehra, lien-thin though not a frailled man from Kanchanpur. He knows his arrival in Delhi by the amount he paid to bus for commuting from Vanmassa border to Anand Vihar, that was Rs15 then and another historical clue he has to remember of his early days, how the death of Indira Gandhi had shocked the India. With a pause, he said me those days were replicated though differently in Nepal by the assassination of King Birendra and family! I sensed great wisdom in his thought, infact Nepal lost that day the king who could have drawn better way of democratic transformation and India lost for the first time, “ the idea of collective justice “ with the brutal killings of Sikhs in Delhi and outside after Indira Gandhi was shot dead-both these assassinations left democracy in perils for long time!

Long back, Arjun had served as the head of Village Development Council in Shishaiyya Naya Gram that falls in Mahakali Anchal. Once, he was also an active member of NCP (UML) and still claims for his belief in democratic communism but not for a single moment he stopped loathing “Maoists” for their betrayal with the poors and disadvantaged sections. He is shocked to find the way, Maoists were persuaded the culture of mindless violence on the name of justice and democracy. He opines which kind of justice they brought through their action? Though he appreciates Baburam Bhattarai and few Congress leaders for their constructive zeal but he’s afraid in the manners, such voices are being taken as granted by the dominant leaderships in their party.

Arjun’s courtesy enabled me towards the ongoing grave exploitation on local communities in the forests of Sunsari where even the picking of fallen woods are taken as a crime and punishment leveled as high as raping the poor women by the security guards or captivating them for weeks in unlawful manners. He adds, there are no employment opportunities in the hinterlands of Nepal, NGOs are already proven functionally hypocrites and further the reliance on external aid is making the situation much worse in the rule of Maoists than in the earlier governments, whom they used to slap charge of carrying “comprador democrats” and acting sycophants of “Swayambhoo”/India. Exactly opposite are the feelings of poor but sensible Nepali’s living hundred miles away from their villages. They had never seen the kind grace of political authorities from Kathmandu, despite that they are not alien existences, but in all cases they see India as very dear friend and not likes any ditch in both nation’s long and sound relationships.

Harish Bahadur Khati is from Bajan in Nepal and has brought up here in Delhi. He drives very well, that he says is good for his profession but for his pastime in music, he is equally focussed. An avid fan of Bhuvan Dahall, Nand KIshan Joshi, Tara Devi and Dikra Badeni, he could sing hundreds of Nepali songs in proper rhythm and tone. A step ahead, I tried to inquire him, if he has equal fond for the new genre of Nepali singers like, Amrit Gurung or Sugam Pokhrel? He said “no” because of long staying away from Nepal, many of us are able to connect with the past but found hard to get align with the contemporary developments. He loves his country because he never put forth a worldly logic of relative comparisons, he is proud doing streamlining the beauties of Nepal by quoting this fraction from folklore “Nepal ka Dhan, Hariya Van/ Nepal’s wealth is its green resources”. He wants no looking back from democracy, though he is not satisfied with its present state of affairs in Kathmandu.

Moti Ram is from Kailali, an avid newspaper reader, appears in deep thought while talking about the nation. He exudes the all peculiar qualities of a Nepali in fancied dress and etiquette talking. He is happy working here as security staff and denying he would ever seen as “Bahadur” by the residents of his building. He is concerned with the delay of constitution making but is somehow happy with the growing maturisation in Nepal’s democracy. He says, he is glad working here instead ruining his soul in the desert of middle east, which is a very wrong trend in Nepal these days.

Nawal Singh Kathait is from Kanchanpur, he works in the opposite building. He is balanced with his words, less sentimental but as realistic as other three friends, he didn’t tired admiring Indian’s brotherly gesture towards them and how pious is the relationships between his country and India. He is totally disappointed with the present government and had firm disbelief in Gyanendra, erstwhile royal. In his views too, had king Birendra alive today, Nepal would have altogether different!

The views of these four unknown but highly concerned Nepali’s on their nation shows, they all like democracy as choice of system but not in the present lustful way. Next, they all have realization that Maoists have betrayed the mass belief and acted against the ethics of humanity and mandate of communism itself. Also they all found India, very dear and only next to Nepal in their preference of working and staying. They don’t know the puzzling theory of bilateral or multilateral engagements, simply the common past and existing similar life style making them close to India and Indians. At some point of life, they all want to go home, even though none of them make you feel they are sad somewhere living distant from home!

I know Nepali, so could share with them their say on internal politics, very rich culture and hard working peoples. They consider me as their “own people” and honestly I also do the same, as human being and migrant. These four Nepali’s and others I had met in past have expressed their desire to be covered more closely by the Nepal embassy here in Delhi. En route home, every time they have to suffer the exploitation by the Indian SSBs at border of Vanmassa and Dhangari…same may be the cases at other borders too where they are unruly harassed by the few wrong natured Indian security officials.

Nepal and India must deliberate in this regard to stop such indecent behaviors. Afterall, Indian government never allows this in statutory terms, so a broad debate on more liberal borders would be very imperative in sorting out the immoral and corrupt acts of few officials. Among the many unresolved issues, this is most pertinent, as open borders are the strongest symbol standing between these two counties and that should be never downgraded through any wrong process. If the Nepal would be stable, it will be most beneficial for India, so peoples of both the countries should continue their affectionate relations, which would be the more crucial than the role played by the slumbering and unconvincible embassy officials from both the sides!

Atul Kumar Thakur
February 10th, 2012, Friday, New Delhi
Email: summertickets@gmail.com

Essential Reconciliation

Two most remarkable politician till date in the democratic history of Nepal,Prachanda and Babu Ram Bhattrai is indeed sharing a symbolic bond by wearing this meaningful "Paag'{Maithil Cap}for public but their internal differences have even crossed the level and dignity of spat.Prachanda, with whom the genesis of radical politics begub in the Himalayan state had always remain averse to allign his whole agenda with public or even trusted cadres..with immense merit and acceptance,it's hardly unlikely that he is not finding easy to cohabit with another high rank man in his camp.

The tantrums regarding the potential Indian role in hijacking the key of Maoist brigade is one of biggest folly of Prachanda which have been so far and may be in future will be keep haunting the internal as well the external prospects of Nepal. Baburam Bhattarai has reason to be closer with India as he spent his formative years in this nation,even during the long insurgency era, he received overt support from like-minded Indians.Yes, Bhattarai is very much right if he has dare to look on Maoism as movement instead of political conglomeration since he knows the future of revolution and compulsions of liberal democratic system very closely.

For now,theirs spat hammering the Maoist's prospect more than any other possibility albeit it would indeed possess a big risk for Prachanda himself and his party's further prospect as an alternative hope in national politics.Through my personal sources,I found the peoples growing apathy for this forced political stalemate in the country...they,especially the young generation is badly enchanted towards the politician's role.They no longer want to entwine with the theories which given them even worse political leadership since the end of Monarchy. In no way,I am contemplating any nostalgia for Monarchy but this was the mass reaction following the 17th round of failureness to choose a dignified PM and a working constitution.
Breaking of ice is impossible with the stubbornness of top Maoist ranks as they still have no mood to leave their demand for exorbitant absorption of theirs army with the National Arm Force. These are undeserving demand and at the same time a sort of force dealing with the strife ridden country.In their complacency both the chief Maoist ideologue, Prachanda and Babu Ram Bhattrai had forget to recall that they are part of democracy rather than the upholder of Maoist state; their cynical demonstration in front of official royal set-up with five thousand strong armed cadres for maneuvering the replication of Balkanization in Nepal was out rightly shocking, the way they were pronouncing that Newar community would be given more rights than others in newly formed province had sparked the fuel of mass sentiment.

As Maoist ideologue Babu Ram Bhattrai believes their participation in peace process or constitutional development merely as “tactics” to enter among the bourgeois and a pre-exercise before grabbing the throne and later shaping it into their ideological fervor (Communist utopia) instead of sharing existing democratic model in which they have given fair chances-such game plan is entirely contradictory to their erstwhile preaching when they avoiding such faux pas and desired on numerous occasion for political peace process and constitutional making task.
Now Maoists and other political parties know the fact that the deadlines of constitutional making process wouldn’t be met by easily in the situation of flux that also grew up after the departure of UN Mission in Nepal, so they are adopting different stand-Maoist Babu Ram Bhattarai’s stand is seems explicitly deadly as he thinks in that case they will declare the constitution from the street and capture power albeit they are forgetting their lowering popularity from mass psyche since they couldn’t copied the pious motives of socialization as the communists of Cuba or many other country did in past.

Way back from the Maoist’s insurgency in 1996 and later their mainstreaming and emergence as single largest party in Nepalese politics have been relentlessly co-inside with the large scale violence and civil war like situation, which’s still being far from over as the collapse of central authority with the end of monarchy, any alternative retrieval plan from major political players only creating void and a loose regime that propelled swiftly on hatred, intolerance and violence-far from stable and peaceful state of affairs.

High expectations were prevailing from Maoists prospective role in the wake of their democratization and accession to the highest political order of the country but they couldn’t endured the expectations for long and very soon started to jeopardize the situation over a standoff between the army and the Maoists, and later between the Maoists and their coalition partners…and now eventually within party itself.Maoists consistent distrust in sharing the state authority and their wayward opportunist expediency now forming furore among a large chunk of population including the media who now for the first time explicitly supporting the Nepal’s official army as they feeling the potential fallout of Maoists strategic domination in the country.

Maoists views are extremely critical on past agreement with India including the border issues; they are in favour of tectonic shift in alliance with the Indian state by daringly asking for removal of Indian army from Kalapani and restraining their so-called encroachments in Susta region-most of claims are prejudicial and could cause for large scale misunderstanding between these two very interdependent and cordial nation.Whatever the Maoists oral assertions like-abolition of the President’s un-constitutional move, maintaining civil supremacy, safeguarding national independence, checking foreign interference etc, they act entirely opposite from their own front with preoccupied contentious motives.

Maoists have shown terrible performances on most of issues since their arrival as a force in 1996-frequent human rights violation and barbaric suppression including murder of dozens of journalist for merely their ideological opposition with Maoist functional methods. Situation is indeed turning in very grim shape as things are again being ready to be fall apart-presently little hopes persists to visualize consensus among the political parties in near future to look after on the crucial issues of peace process and constitutional drafting. Political parties and members of civil society must refute any maneuverings of Maoists to merge their arm cadres with national army, otherwise stalemate would be never halted; international community have also play a major role to lift Nepal from this very unfortunate state of affairs.

Today India’s neighborhood policy cries for greater attention, so India must monitor the situation closely and assist in stable and united Nepal-where there is will there is always a way…we can’t and shouldn’t see Nepal moving like Bosnia. I think nobody could suggest the exact way to resolve his trust deficit with Babu Ram Bhattarai, even if the reconciliation would take place, there is little chances that they would think better than theirs past action for the nation. Anyway, there will be no wrong, if we wait for another turn…hope the wait this time will be much shorter than the Godot in Samuel Backett’s immortal political play-“Waiting for Godot”!

Atul Kumar Thakur
January 22nd 2011, New Delhi
Blog: www.onesstandpoint.blogspot.com
atul_mdb@rediffmail.com