Blog.com.np redirects here

Update: United We Blog at blog.com.np is up and running. Please click here to go the page or at the headlines on the right to go to individual pages.

Plus, click here for Blogmandu’s new address.

Original post………………
Blog.com.np currently redirects here. That domain is currently being maintained because we are changing the host. We hopt the site at blog.com.np will be back by today evening.

Background Info for Shall UNMIN Succeed in Nepal?

UWB at blog.com.np is back
…………………….
Background information for the post: Shall UNMIN Succeed in Nepal?

By Conflict Study Center

The conflict of Uganda, Angola, Namibia, Sudan, Congo, etc. has been the bloodiest in the history post-World War II where about 5 million people died, resulting in a situation where estimates towards 1000 people a day are still dying due to causes and consequence of those conflict forming a “make or break point” for the continuing humanitarian crisis [1].

The most violent conflicts of the twentieth century during ‘cold-war’ era were waged between the states, but in post-cold war, almost all the major conflicts around the world were fought within the states. Among these internal conflicts, only one-fifth of these are internationalized outside states. However, the frequency and intensity of the volatile internal conflicts are significantly intensifying in number around the world [2]. Between 1989 and 1996, 95 of the 101 armed conflicts identified around the world were such internal confrontations [3]. Describing the intensity of the violent conflicts around the world, Bishnu Raj Upreti writes: “In 1999 there were 40 armed conflicts being fought within the territories of 36 countries, up from 36 armed conflicts in 31 countries in 1998, and 37 in 32 countries in 1997″ [4]. Professor Peter Wallensteen of Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University stated that in 2004, there were 30 active armed conflicts, up by one from 2003. While seven of the conflicts from 2003 are no longer active, seven conflicts broke out - three with action taken by new rebel groups and four by earlier recorded actors. However, most of the government and armed groups often receive support from neighboring states rather than other rebel groups.

The Great Talks About New Agreement

SPA forms taskforce to forge an agreement today itself

Dec 15 - The seven party-alliance is busy holding consultations on Saturday on the issue of power sharing among the three major parties—Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and CPN-Maoist. The formal meeting of the seven parties held this morning at Baluwatar set up a taskforce to forge an agreement and come up with a draft for the same to be inked by the top leaders by this afternoon.
The meeting of the top SPA leaders has been postponed till afternoon by asking the taskforce to hammer out an amicable solution of the power-sharing row. The taskforce comprises Maoist leader Babu Ram Bhattarai, NC leader Bimalendra Nidhi, UML leader Bharat Mohan Adhikary, Left Front leader C P Mainali and the People’s Front leader Lila Mani Pokharel. (detail)

UML chief claims agreement by this evening, new CA polls date soon

Dec 15 - CPN-UML General Secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal has said that the seven-party alliance would forge an agreement on the outstanding political issues by Saturday evening and the fresh date for the Constituent Assembly elections would be announced in a day or two. Talking to reporters at Bharatpur Airport upon arrival in Chitwan district where he came to inaugurate the sixth convention of the UML’s district unit today, Nepal even claimed that the parties have agreed on allocation of the ministerial portfolios.

However, he did not want to elaborate on the power-sharing agreement. He further added that the parties have already agreed to conduct the CA elections by the end of the current Nepali year i.e. mid-April next year, and that they would ink an agreement to this effect following the meeting of the top SPA leaders this evening. “The government would announce a new date for the elections within a day or two,” he said. (detail)

Power-sharing dispute stalls agreement

Dec 15 - Top leaders of the Seven-Party Alliance failed to convene their formal meeting on Friday as the three major parties could not agree on a fresh power-sharing deal as demanded by Maoists and the CPN-UML. CPN-UML General Secretary Madhav Nepal and Maoist Chairman, Prachanda demanded that the Home, Defense and Finance ministries be allotted among the three largest parties-NC, CPN-UML and Maoists. As Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala rejected the demand outright, Prachanda and Nepal left the meeting telling the PM to invite them again if necessary. “They were clearly in a bargaining mode,” said an angry NC leader, adding, “They keep on adding demands that they think the NC cannot fulfill.” (detail here)

Blog.com.np Redirects Here

UWB’s regular domain address http://blog.com.np redirects here at http://unitedweblog.wordpress.com for the time being because of some technical problems. We will be back to blog.com.np as soon as we are able to get over with the problem.

Daughter of a Maoist Comrade Defends Her Chairman

Posted on December 12th, 2007 by UWB

Excerpts of an article by Manushi Bhattrai, daughter of Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, in today’s Kathmandu Post titled A false alarm perhaps! that explains and provides perspectives to a controversial statement by Maoist chairman Prachanda

By Manushi Bhattarai

A statement made by Prachanda on December 4 in an interaction with the Federation of Nepalese Journalists created an apparently emergency uproar in political circles. So it may be of some significance to ask why Prachanda’s recent statement on unity with “nationalist royalists” has troubled so many minds, and what the implications of this call are.

First of all, there has to be some clarity and uniformity about what Prachanda actually said. The reports are utterly confusing. For example, the main headline of the day reads “Prachanda for tie-up with “nationalists’ royalists” [Kathmandu Post], followed by the very first line saying Prachanda “has stressed the need to forge an alliance of royalists, parliamentary parties and his own party.”
If words started getting eaten in the very first line, what would happen by the end of the report! If one is to treat the issue with more seriousness and responsibility, then it cannot be doubted that what Prachanda called for was a national unity among nationalists, democrats, and leftists.

The only issue to have pricked some people was the term royalist glued with nationalist. In the process, the weight of the entire statement has been reduced to a ‘Maoists are forging an alliance with monarchists’. Whether this is a deliberate digression from the main issue is not so much of an importance as is the need to understand why the recent emphasis on tripartite national unity is so striking.

As to why the Maoists should now talk of allying with traditional class enemies like ‘national bourgeoisie’ or even worse ‘nationalist royalist’, there is perhaps a need to shed cliched prejudices and do some homework on the Maoists. Otherwise one can continue the ramblings and sigh ‘God knows why Prachanda is saying this!’

Understanding the limitations imposed by present-day national and international situation the Maoists had entered into a new stage of peace, dialogue and diplomacy. The tri-polar antagonism was reduced to a bi-polar struggle between monarchy and democratic republicans. As the republican agenda is sure to be established at the end of the day with only procedural disagreements remaining, it makes a perfect sense to talk of other important agendas because the Constituent Assembly is not only about making Nepal a republic but making it ‘new’ in other sense as well.

The confusion about nationalist royalist is needless. Just as it makes sense for ‘baby-king’ protagonists to exist within the so-called ‘democratic’ party, and for stooges of imperialism to exist within ‘nationalist’ and ‘leftist’ forces, it should not be so difficult to find some sense in existence of nationalists among ex-royalists! Also it has never been a secret that the Maoists have some relationship with people in the Nepal Army and it has been said repeatedly that there are republicans within it. I thought all along ‘democratic’ forces were having difficult time teaching the Maoists the significance and art of peaceful reconciliation and negotiation. I didn’t know they had exchanged roles!

Another fear has been that the alliance between the Maoists and the ex-royalists is aimed at hoodwinking democracy. First of all, such an alliance is an assumed, nonexistent one. It is true that nationalism has often been pitted against democracy by autocrats, as was done during the Panchayat era. But it is precisely to avoid such an abuse that the word ‘democrats’ is deliberately inserted between ‘nationalists’ and ‘leftists’.

Click here for the complete version of the article. Manushi is a student of political science, MA, in TU.

Quitting Nepal Parliament for a Madhes Party?

Posted on December 11th, 2007 by UWB

What does that mean? Who is the real convener of this force?

The news: A senior cabinet minister and three influential parliamentarians from the tarai resigned from all their party posts and public office yesterday to lead a new political front in the tarai. Senior Nepali Congress leader and Minister for Environment, Science and Technology Mahantha Thakur (middle in pic) leads the new front which is yet to take final shape. Lawmakers Hridayesh Tripathi (Nepal Sadbhavana Party-Anandi Devi) (left in pic), Mahendra Prasad Yadav (CPN-UML) and Ram Chandra Roy (Rastriya Prajatantra Party also announced their resignation from the interim parliament and from their respective parties along, with Thakur. Rastriya Janashakti Party Spokesman Sarvendra Nath Shukla, former MP Anish Ansari (NC), Ram Chandra Kushbaha (NC) Brishesh Chandra Lall (NC) and Srikrishna Yadav (CPN-UML) also quit their parties to join the new group. Addressing a press conference in the capital, the Madhesi leaders said they were forming a new political front in the tarai to launch a fresh struggle and ensure self-rule for Madhesi people. “People in Madhes want their separate administration, legislature and a separate judiciary to settle their disputes, but their demands have been rejected so far,” said Thakur, justifying his move to lead the campaign. “In essence, the Madhesi people want to end the present colonial relationship [between Kathmandu and the tarai]. (source)”

The Questions: Is that really so? Isn’t here the great role of our great southern neighbor? This talk of new front (where members of different parties in Terai have joined) wasn’t really a surprise because the rumor about that had been circulating in the political circle for quite some time. Some gossipers were suggesting us that India was trying to create a Terai force by stealing people from various mainstream political parties. This development has proved those people. Now what? Fresh rounds of agitations? Additional instability in Terai which will threaten the national integrity of Nepal (which in turn will only benefit our great southern neighbor?)

One Response to “Quitting Nepal Parliament for a Madhes Party?”

1. sagarmatha, on December 11th, 2007 at 4:33 pm Said:
Yes.. SPA’s and their followers’ Delhi durbar…..the game plan was started when 12 points agreement prepared in Hindi…

Royal Challenge to Democracy

Posted on December 10th, 2007 by UWB

The last (and suspended) king of Nepal isn’t just hibernating. He is playing games against democracy from inside the palace. An editorial from the Kathmandu Post

So King Gyanendra is not only swigging drinks and taking dips in the “heated” swimming pool waiting for the day when he will be ousted from the royal palace. Last week’s political developments have proved that the king has been quite busy rallying pro-monarchists in all the parties under the pretext of nationalism. It seems he has become quite successful in swinging Nepal’s fluid politics from one extreme to another. First it was Prachanda who said that people supporting the monarchy were also nationalists, and that they should also be taken into confidence. His party cadres are now busy defending his stance, but they have not been able to convince the people why they were attacking royalists throughout the 10-year insurgency if they were nationalists. The press and democratic groups have not spared Prachanda and the Maoists in criticizing them, and a group of senior Nepali Congress leaders has shown one-upmanship by speaking in favor of the monarchy. It seems the monarchy in Nepal is not yet a spent force.

History tells us that the Nepali Congress is the only party that has been trying hard to keep the monarchy to its size and establishing a true democratic political system. The leftists have never been reliable on this issue. During the 1980 referendum, the communists played a crucial role in defeating the multiparty system in favor of the partyless Panchayat. In 2007, the force that waged an armed struggle for over 10 years with the loss of over 14,000 lives in the name of establishing a republic has also shown its true colors. Interestingly, the NC is also not well shielded from royal infiltrations into the party. The royal palace has always stolen NC leaders or created factions within the party. King Mahendra successfully won over a number of NC bigwigs when he staged a coup in December 1960. King Birendra followed in his father’s footsteps and in 1994 played a major role in dividing the party into two groups of 36 and 74 parliamentarians, which led to the mid-term polls and the consequent political crisis.

It has hardly been a couple of months that the Nepali Congress became united, and a strong fissure has already emerged within the party in the name of a pro-monarchy group. What these leaders have been saying openly is convincing many within the party and also the public. They have been saying that the Maoists should be checked and cut down to size. But the extension of their opinion is that in order to control the Maoists, the king should be taken into confidence. The Post despises both ideas. We believe in establishing democracy through people power - neither by appeasing the monarchy nor by giving undue credit to the Maoists. The NC should not compromise on its stand in support of elections and multiparty democracy. If it takes a single step towards any extremist force, we will not be able to achieve the democracy that the people fought for in 1990 and in 2006. Let us see how it deals with the newly emerged royal challenge. (source)

Nationalism Tirade of the Maoist Comrade

Posted on December 7th, 2007 by UWB

The question why it is important to forge unity with “royalist nationalists” at this juncture is even more puzzling.

By Ameet Dhakal

Last week, Prachanda launched his nationalism tirade. God knows why. But common wisdom tells us that autocrats of all hues and colors use the nationalism card to trump democracy. The Maoists never had democratic credentials; now that their commitment to it is in serious doubt, it’s quite natural for them to take refuge in nationalism (I am resisting from quoting Samuel Johnson who famously said that patriotism was the last refuge of scoundrels).

Prachanda has called for a new unity among “royalist nationalists”, mainstream parties and the Maoists. His remarks raise two key questions:

1. Who are these “royalist nationalists”?
2. Why is it important at this point to forge a new unity with them?

Prachanda answered none of these questions. He wouldn’t.

His deputy commander Barsha Man Pun offered an explanation to the Kathmandu Post: The new nationalists are people in the military, police and bureaucracy. Huh, does that make any sense?

Two developments have taken place in the last few months that partly explain the Maoists’ latest distraction. First, an army general who aspires to become army chief by replacing Rookmangud Katwal established contact with the Maoists and told them that he would facilitate integration of the Nepal Army and the Maoists’ combatants should he become army chief. Sources say the current army leadership quickly reached out to the Maoists and told them that the army was not averse to the integration process, and that it was an issue to be decided by the political leadership.

Second, intelligence sources say Maoist leaders have held several meetings with royalists, including some former ministers in the king’s cabinet. It’s unclear who initiated these meetings and what their agenda was.

The question why it is important to forge unity with “royalist nationalists” at this juncture is even more puzzling.

The Maoists have been obstructing the constituent assembly polls arguing that elections were not possible without first abolishing the monarchy. But now they say that the country can’t move ahead without entering into an alliance with “royalist nationalists”? How are these people, whose very identity is “royalist”, different from the king? And if they support democracy, want peace and defend nationalism, are the Maoists saying that the king alone — ONE MAN — is trying to and is capable of obstructing the polls?

Have they gone crazy?

One reason why the Maoists are increasingly chanting the nationalism slogan has to do with the India factor. During his last visit, former Indian Secretary Shyam Saran told the Maoists two things: First, the peace process and elections are inseperable, and if the Maoists shy away from the elections, it would rally the international community to encourage other parties to go for polls without the Maoists.

Second, the Maoists would no more be allowed to use Indian territory, as they did in the past, should they walk out of the peace process. The Maoists seem not only angry but increasingly nervous about India. Sources say that despite Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala’s hesitation, it was Prachanda and UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal who took the initiave to invite former US president Jimmy Carter to help with the stalled peace process. In the Maoists’ calculation, Carter could offer some counter balance to the increasing Indian pressure on them.

Divorced from reality, the Maoists are making silly calculations about regional and international geopolitics. In his interview with Rajdhani daily on Thursday, Prachanda said, “If the United States tries to suppress us, Europe will provide us some help. If India tries to suppress us, China will oppose it; and if someone else tries to supress us, Russia will support us.” Does this make any sense?

“Nationalist royalists” who were unhappy with India for “orchestrating” the April Uprising— millions of Nepalis coming out on the streets against the king means nothing to them just as seeking a fresh mandate from the people has no meaning to the Maoists— now see the Maoists as paragons of nationalism. They have a common interest: Deny the people their sovereign right.
Prachanda even urged the “big media” to understand the compulsion of this new unity with the “royalist nationalists” and act accordingly. Only a few weeks ago, Prachanda claimed that the “big media” had sold out to expansionaists and imperialists. How come that now you are urging “puppets” of expansionists and imperialists to support the “nationalist alliance”?

Ameet Dhakal is the news editor of the Kathmandu Post where this piece appeared first. Continue reading the article here.

Related: प्रचण्डको मण्डले राष्ट्रवाद (editorial in Kantipur)

Everyone Wants To “Volunteer” For UN

Anjila Mul, 22, and Sujita Amatya, 22, who got Bachelors in Science (Environmental Science) degree from Biswo Niketan College a few days ago, had gone to the “exhibition” hoping to get recruited as volunteer or explore opportunities in volunteering. “The focus is in the UN of course,” said Anjila, left, “because that’s world wide.”

[Here is what I reported in today’s Kantipur about the event. This blog post was originally written for and published at WSJ. And here is a comment.]

By Dinesh Wagle
Wagle Street Journal

I was in Basantapur (Kathmandu Durbar Square) yesterday to report about an event organized on the occasion of International Volunteer Day. Many young people from Kathmandu and other parts of Nepal had gathered there responding to advertisements that were published in some newspapers (including Kantipur where I work) that day. The advertisements that featured a statement issued by the UN General Secretary General on the occasion asked the readers to come to Basantapur. “If you want to become a volunteer, visit our exhibition at Basantapur on 5th December at 11:30,” said the adverts. Those who invited the readers were the UN Volunteers, JICA (Japan), KOICA (Korea), MS Nepal (Danish) and other organizations. Majority of the visitors were young and many of them had gone there hoping to get recruited as volunteer or get their CVs seen by the UN Volunteers officials. I met two girls and many other boys who said their main intention was to get enrolled into UNV.

Separate Statehood For Nepali Indians Is Needed

The demand of separate statehood in Darjeeling and surrounding areas in India by the Gorkhas (Nepali Indians) has gained momentum yet again in recent months. The winning of the Indian Idol title by Prashant Tamang, a local boy from Darjeeling, a few weeks ago has also kindled a new hope of separate statehood among the Nepalis in India. It’s a fact that Nepali Indians aren’t represented rightly and justifiably in the central government of India. They have been marginalized and grossly underrepresented.
Nepali Indians fought for separate statehood in the 80s which ended up as Darjeeling Hill Council (DHC) after the movement’s leader Subhash Ghising postponed the movement on the request of then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi two years later. The news is that the Indian government is preparing to table a new bill in the parliament that grants full autonomy to the Darjeeling Hill Council.

We think that is not enough. Full autonomy is not what the Nepali people in India are demanding. They are demanding a separate state within India. The latest government move appears to have come to pacify the recent editions of agitation by the Nepali Indians, we think the government motion will not fully address the genuine issue raised by the people. These latest rounds of agitation are part of the larger struggle of identity of Nepalipan. Even in Nepal, several indigenous groups are agitating for their identity and the Nepal government has reached an agreement with some groups. We are at least talking about going to CA elections which will play role in solving these identity problems among others.

The situation in India is different. We see no reason for the Indian government not go give the right to have a separate state of Nepali people in that country.

Related News Link:
Indian govt plans bill to grant Darjeeling autonomy; ‘Bill aimed at foiling Gorkhaland movement’ (eKantipur)