http://www.kantipuronline.com/Nepal/aabaran.php
अन्ततः नेपाललाई सङ्घीय लोकतान्त्रिक गणतन्त्र घोषणा गरएिको छ तर किस्ताबन्दीका रूपमा । अहिले घोषणा गरएिको गणतन्त्रको कार्यान्वयनचाहि“ संविधानसभाको पहिलो बैठकबाट मात्र गर्ने भनिएको छ । तर, संविधानसभाको संरचना अहिलेका सत्ता-सञ्चालक सात दलले सोचेभन्दा फरक किसिमले बन्यो भने के हुन्छ - अनि, संविधानसभाको निर्वाचन नै भएन भनेचाहि“ के गर्ने -
यसअघि जेठ र मङ्सिरमा गरी दर्ुइपटक हुन नसकेको संविधानसभा निर्वाचन अब २०६४ चैत मसान्तसम्म गर्ने गरी तेस्रोपटक सहमति भएको छ । तर, पुस १३ गते रातीसम्म मिति निर्धारण गर्न सकिएको छैन । के चानचुन तीन महिना मात्र बा“की भएको अवस्थामा मुलुक चुनावी चरणमा प्रवेश गर्ला त - आशङ्कारहित जवाफ नेताहरूकै मुखबाट पनि सुन्न पाइन्न ।
तैपनि, सकारात्मक पक्ष के भने केही महिनादेखि असमझदारीको बाटोमा हि“डिरहेका सात दलका नेताहरू अन्ततः २३ बु“दे नया“ सहमति गर्न सफल भएका छन् । र, त्यसैका जगमा गणतन्त्रको घोषणादेखि संविधानसभा निर्वाचनको नया“ तिथिसम्म निर्धारण गरएिको छ । केही समयदेखि वाक्युद्धमा लागेका नेपाली काङ्ग्रेस र नेकपा माओवादी समझदारीमा पुगेका छन् ।
खासगरी माओवादीले आफ्ना मागहरू पर्ूण्ा रूपमा सम्बोधन नभए पनि पछिल्लो समयमा उनीहरूले चुनावको अपरहिार्यता स्वीकार्दै सहमति गरेका छन् । अनि, काङ्ग्रेस पनि आफ्नो पर्ूवअडान छाडेर सम्झौता गर्ने तहमा झरेको छ । आखिर दुवै पक्ष कसरी आ-आफ्ना अडानहरूलाई पुनःविचार गर्न तयार भए - त्यसका पछाडि एउटा लामै सिलसिला जोडिएको छ ।
सहमतिको अन्तरकथा
पहिलोपटक ०६३ जेठमा गर्ने भनिएको संविधानसभा निर्वाचन प्राविधिक तयारीको अभाव देखाउ“दै स्थगन गरएिको थियो । त्यतिखेर चुनावको तयारी सुस्त गतिमा गरेको भन्दै वामपन्थी दलहरूले काङ्ग्रेस र उसले नेतृत्व गरेको सरकारलाई दोष लगाए । नेपाली काङ्ग्रेस र नेपाली काङ्ग्रेस प्रजातान्त्रिकबीच पार्टर्ीीकीकरण नभइसकेकाले पनि त्यतिखेर चुनावको तयारी नगरएिको भन्दै काङ्ग्रेसमाथि प्रहार गरएिको थियो ।
चुनाव हुन नसकेपछि सात दल र माओवादीबीच अनेक चरणमा अनेक वार्ताहरू भइरहेका थिए । अन्ततः ०६४ जेठ १७ गते आठ पार्टर्ीीे बैठकले मङ् सिरमा चुनाव गर्ने निर्ण्र्ाागर्यो । त्यसबेला नागरकि समाज र विभिन्न जातीय समूहहरूले गणतन्त्रको घोषणा, समानुपातिक निर्वाचन प्रणालीको कार्यान्वयनलगायतका माग अगाडि सारेका थिए । तर, त्यसबेला माओवादीले ती मागहरूप्रति अडान राखिरहेन । "त्यतिखेर माओवादीले अडान लिएको भए राम्रो हुन्थ्यो, आमर्समर्थन पनि रहन्थ्यो," नेकपा एकताकेन्द्र-मसालका महामन्त्री प्रकाश भन्छन्, "तर, माओवादीले त्यतिखेर अडान छाडिदियो ।"
परण्िााम माओवादीभित्रै असन्तुष्टिको बीउ रोपियो । गत साउनको तेस्रो साता सम्पन्न माओवादीको पा“चा“ै विस्तारति बैठकले गणतन्त्रको घोषणा र पर्ूण्ा समानुपातिक निर्वाचन प्रणालीलाई पर्ूवर्सत बनाउने, नत्र संविधानसभामा भाग नलिने/हुन नदिने निष्कर्षहितको निर्ण्र्ाागर्यो । र, गठबन्धन सरकारबाट समेत बाहिरयिो । झन्डै दर्ुइ महिनासम्म माओवादी मागमा सहमति नभएपछि असोज १८ मा आएर पार्टर्ीीले दोस्रोपटक संविधानसभाको निर्वाचन स्थगन गरे ।
त्यसपछि सुरु भएको हो नया“ प्रयास, जसको परण्िाामस्वरूप अहिले आएर दलहरूबीच २३ बु“दे सहमति सम्भव भएको छ । त्यसको पृष्ठभूमिमा एमाले, माओवादी र जनमोर्चालगायतका वामपन्थी दलहरूबीच भएको अन्तरक्रियाले पनि भूमिका निर्वाह गरेको छ । ती पार्टर्ीीबीच चुनाव नहु“दाका सम्भावित परण्िाामबारे छलफल गर्न सुरुमा बैठकहरू भए । माओवादीहरू चुनावको मिति र्सदै जा“दा उत्पन्न हुने अराजकताले क्रान्तिकारी शक्तिहरूलाई फाइदा गर्ने तर्क गर्थे भने एमालेलगायत वामपन्थी शक्तिहरू चुनाव र्सदै जा“दा ००७ देखि ०१७ सालबीचको इतिहास दोहोरनिे आशङ्का । त्यस्तो छलफल निष्कर्षा नपुगे पनि वामपन्थी शक्तिहरूबीच निकटताचाहि“ बढ्दै गयो ।
वाम ध्रुवीकरणको परण्िााम देखियो माओवादी अग्रसरतामा बोलाइएको विशेष अधिवेशनमा । गणतन्त्रको सवालमा संसद्बाट राजनीतिक प्रस्ताव पारति गर्ने र पर्ूण्ा समानुपातिक निर्वाचन प्रणालीमा जानर्ुपर्ने माओवादीको प्रस्तावलाई काङ् ग्रेसले त ठाडै अस्वीकार गर्यो । तर, मतदानका बेलामा गणतन्त्र घोषणासम्बन्धी एमालेको संशोधन प्रस्तावप्रति माओवादीले र्समर्थन जनायो भने समानुपातिक प्रणालीसम्बन्धी माओवादीको प्रस्तावलाई एमालेले सघायो । संसद्मा काङ्ग्रेस अल्पमतमा पर्यो । त्यसपछि त वामपन्थी शक्तिहरू झन् बढी नजिकिए । कतिसम्म भने माओवादी अध्यक्ष प्रचण्डले एमाले महासचिव माधवकुमार नेपाललाई प्रधानमन्त्री गिरजिाप्रसाद कोइरालाको विकल्पका रूपमा प्रस्तुत गरे ।
काङ्ग्रेस नेता डा प्रकाशशरण महतका भनाइमा, संसद्का बहुमत सदस्यहरूको निर्ण्र्ााे काङ्ग्रेसलाई राजनीतिक र नैतिक दुवै हिसाबले अप्ठ्यारोमा पार्यो । एकातिर संसद्को निर्ण्र्ााकार्यान्वयन गर्नुपर्ने नैतिक दबाब र अर्काेतिर माओवादीबिना चुनावमा जान नसकिने राजनीतिक परविेशका कारण काङ्ग्रेस लचिलो बन्न बाध्य भयो । र, संसद्बाट गणतन्त्र घोषणा गर्न सहमत भयो ।
सुरुमा काङ्ग्रेस नेताहरू संविधानमै गणतन्त्र लेख्ने पक्षमा थिएनन् । "हामीले संविधानमा नलेखौ“, बरु सबै दलले प्रतिबद्धता व्यक्त गरौ“ भनेका थियौ“," काङ्ग्रेस नेता डा महत भन्छन्, "तर, संविधानमै लेख्नर्ुपर्ने जोड माओवादीको रह्यो ।" त्यही भयो । तर, गणतन्त्रको कार्यान्वयन संविधानसभाको पहिलो बैठकबाट गर्ने काङ्ग्रेसको प्रस्तावमा वामपन्थीहरू पनि सहमत भए ।
समानुपातिक निर्वाचनको एजेन्डालाई पनि काङ्ग्रेसले सुरुमा ठाडै अस्वीकार गरेको थियो । पछि समानुपातिक प्रतिनिधित्वको सीट सङ्ख्या बढाउने कुरामा मत मिल्यो । तर, कति-कति प्रतिशत राख्ने - फेर िमतैक्यता भएन । एकताकेन्द्र-मसालका महामन्त्री प्रकाशको भनाइमा, अमेरकिाका पर्ूवराष्ट्रपति जिमी कार्टरले समानुपातिक निर्वाचनका लागि ७० र प्रत्यक्षका लागि ३० प्रतिशत छुट् याउनुपर्ने सुझाव दिएको तथा भारतीय प्रधानमन्त्री मनमोहन सिंहका विशेष दूत श्यामशरणले ६० र ४० को अनुपातमा जान भनेकाले पनि उनीहरूको 'डिक्टेसन' अनुरूप नचल्न त्यसमा केही हेरफेर गरयिो । अनि, ५८ -समानुपातिक) र ४२ -प्रत्यक्ष) को अनुपात रहन गयो ।
सत्ता बा“डफा“ट विवादको अर्काे मुद्दा थियो । गृह, अर्थ र रक्षाजस्ता शक्तिशाली मानिएका मन्त्रालयहरू काङ्ग्रेस, एमाले र माओवादीले एक-एकवटा पाउनर्ुपर्ने माग माओवादीले अगाडि सारेको थियो, जसलाई एमालेले पनि र्समर्थन गर्यो । तर, काङ्ग्रेस आफूले सम्हाल्दै आएका ती मन्त्रालय छाड्न तयार भएन । त्यसपछि माओवादीले उपप्रधानमन्त्रीको व्यवस्था गर्नुपर्ने माग अघि सारे । काङ्ग्रेसले तीनवटा उपप्रधानमन्त्रीको प्रावधान राखी वरष्िठ उपप्रधानमन्त्रीचाहि“ आफ्नै भएमा विचार गर्न सकिने जवाफ दियो । काङ्ग्रेसले प्रधानमन्त्रीपछिको 'पोर्टफोलियो' छाड्न तयार नभएपछि यस एजेन्डामाथि त्यति धेरै छलफल भएन । र, पुरानै जिम्मेवारी लिने कुरामा सहमति बन्यो ।
आमव्रि्रोह गरेर सत्ता कब्जा गर्न सम्भव नभएको, दर्ीघकालीन जनयुद्धमा फर्केर त्यस अनुरूप क्रान्ति गर्न पनि तत्काल सम्भव नभएको कुरालाई माओवादी नेतृत्वले स्वीकार गरेकाले पनि सहमति हुनसकेको एकता-केन्द्र मसालका महामन्त्री प्रकाशको भनाइ छ । उनको भनाइमा पछिल्लो समय संविधानमा लेखिएको गणतन्त्रलाई संस्थागत गर्न चुनावमा जानर्ुपर्छ भन्ने कुरामा वामशक्तिहरू सहमत भएको र त्यसै अनुरूप माओवादीले मूलधारको राजनीतिलाई स्वीकार गरेको उनको दाबी छ ।
काङ्ग्रेसका अगाडि पनि माओवादीबिना चुनावमा जान सम्भव थिएन । अझ पछिल्लो समय वामपन्थीहरूको अघोषित गठबन्धनले गर्दा त काङ् ग्रेस नचाह“दानचाह“दै पनि लचिलो हुन बँध्य भयो । छ दल र माओवादीबीच भएको सहमतिका पछाडि भारतीय गुप्तचर एजेन्सी 'र' का प्रमुख अशोक चतर्ुवेदीको काठमाडौ“ भ्रमणलाई पनि जोडेर हर्ेने गरएिको छ -हर्ेर्नुहोस्, पछिल्लो पानाको सामग्री) ।
उस्तै छ चुनौती
छ दल र माओवादीबीच २३ बु“दे सहमतिस“गै ०६४ सालभित्र संविधानसभाको निर्वाचन गर्ने प्रतिबद्धताले राजनीतिक स्थायित्वको आशा बढाएको छ । तर, चुनौतीहरू पनि उत्तिकै छन् । सहमतिले निर्वाचनका लागि बाटो खोले पनि विश्वसनीयताको सङ्कट कायमै छ । सहज किसिमले सहमति गर्नुभन्दा पनि सबैका लागि बाध्यात्मक परििस्थति सिर्जना भएपछि सहमति गरनिुले उनीहरूबीच बढ्दो अविश्वास झल्काउ“छ ।
काङ्ग्रेस, एमाले र माओवादी तीन मुख्य दलमध्ये कुनै एकले मात्र नचाहेको अवस्थामा फेर िपनि कुनै बहानामा चुनाव स्थगन हुने स्िथति छ । शान्तिसुरक्षा अर्को चुनौतीका रूपमा देखिएको छ । तर्राईमा देखिएको असहज स्िथति र तर्राईका नाममा सुरु भएको नया“ पार्टर्ीीाजनीति पनि चुनाव अनुकूल छैन । सहमति भएका विषयहरूको कार्यान्वयन स्वयम् प्रमुख चुनौतीका रूपमा देखापरेको छ ।
२३ बु“दे सहमतिमा संविधानसभा निर्वाचनस“गै १० वर्ष युद्ध व्यवस्थापनको पाटोमा पनि उत्तिकै जोड दिइएको छ । जस्तो, बेपत्ता पारएिकाहरूबारे छानबिन आयोग, सत्य निरूपण तथा मेलमिलाप आयोग, सशस्त्र द्वन्द्वका क्रममा मारएिका परविार र बेपत्ता पारएिकाहरूको परविारलाई क्षतिपर्ूर्ति तथा घाइते भएकाहरूलाई राहत र विस्थापित भएकाहरूलाई घर फर्किने वातावरण निर्माण गर्ने सहमति । त्यस्तै, माओवादी लडाकूहरूलाई दिनर्ुपर्ने रकम सहमति अनुसार दिने र अन्तरमि संविधानमा उल्लेख भएबमोजिम माओवादी सेनाको समायोजन गर्न मन्त्रिपरष्िाद्ले बनाएको विशेष समितिमार्फ छलफल अगाडि बढाउने पनि सहमतिमा उल्लेख छ ।
माओवादीको अबको प्राथमिकता यिनै कुरामा रहने देखिन्छ । त्यसैले, सहमतिका यी मुद्दामा ध्यान दिइएन भने समस्या फेर िपनि देखा पर्नसक्छ । अर्थात्, त्यस्तो अवस्थामा माओवादी नेतृत्व फेर िपनि चुनावलाई गौण बनाउने दिशातिर जानसक्छ ।
पछिल्लो सहमतिमा गणतन्त्र र संसद् सदस्य सङ्ख्याको व्यवस्थाबाहेक अन्य कुराहरू पुरानै हुन् । एक हिसाबले भन्ने हो भने विगत १२ बु“दे सहमतियता भएका विभिन्न सहमतिहरूकै नवीकरण हो । तर, पछिल्लो सहमतिको कार्यान्वयन पनि सुस्त गतिमा हु“दैछ । सहमति भएको पा“च दिनपछि मात्रै संविधान संशोधन गरएिको छ भने विभिन्न आयोगहरूको गठनतिर दलहरूले तत्परता देखाएका छैनन् । बरु, एकले अर्काेलाई आक्षेप लगाउने र्सार्वजनिक अभिव्यक्ति जारी राखेका छन् ।
एमाले महासचिव माधवकुमार नेपालले आगामी चैतमा पनि संविधानसभाको निर्वाचन नभए प्रधानमन्त्री दोषी हुने अभिव्यक्ति दि“दै आएका छन् । माओवादीको धारणा पनि एमालेस“ग मिल्दोजुल्दो छ । वामपन्थीहरूबीच बढ्दै गएको यस किसिमको अघोषित एकताले काङ्ग्रेसलाई हरपल झस्काइरहेको आभास हुन्छ । चुनावमा सम्भावित वामपन्थी सहकार्य उसका निम्ति टाउको दुखाइको अर्को विषय हो । तर, काङ्ग्रेस नेता डा प्रकाशशरण महतको भनाइमा वामपन्थीहरूबीच चुनावका लागि कार्यगत एकता हुने स्िथति आएको खण्डमा पनि काङ्ग्रेस निर्वाचनबाट पछाडि हट्ने स्िथति आउ“दैन । दर्ुइ काङ्ग्रेसको एकीकरणपश्चात् पनि पार्टर्ीीे जिल्ला र स्थानीय तहमा भावनात्मक एकता कायम नभइसकेको पक्षलाई मिलाउनतिर बरु चा“डो लाग्ने उनको भनाइ छ ।
सात दल चुनावका लागि तत्पर हु“दाहु“दै पनि मधेसमा विद्यमान असहजताले अनेक आशङ्का कायमै राखेको छ । कथम्कदाचित मधेसलगायतका समस्याका कारण फेर िपनि चुनाव हुन सकेन भने प्रस्ट छ, वामपन्थी दलहरूले त्यसको दोष काङ्ग्रेस र त्यसमा पनि मुख्यतः प्रधानमन्त्री कोइरालामाथि थोपर्ने छन् । उनीहरूका पछिल्ला अभिव्यक्तिहरूले त्यस्तै देखाएको छ । सम्भवतः त्यस्तो अवस्थामा कोइराला नेतृत्वको सरकार चरम सङ्कटमा त पर्नेछ, साथसाथै सातदलीय गठबन्धन पनि हालकै रूपमा रहने छैन । एमाले महासचिव नेपालले भनेझै“ चुनाव गर्न नसकेर कोइराला पदच्यूत भएको खण्डमा उनको पार्टर्ीी माओवादीको अगुवाइमा वैकल्पिक सरकार त बन्न सक्छ । तर, काङ्ग्रेसबिनाको त्यस गठबन्धनको आयु पनि धेरै लामो हुने देखिन्न ।
यदि तेस्रोचोटि पनि संविधानसभाको चुनाव गर्न नसकेर सात दल छिन्नभिन्न भएका खण्डमा डेढ वर्षेखि कायम रहेको नया“ राजनीतिक सन्तुलन मात्र खलबलिने छैन, जनआन्दोलनको जनादेश भन्दै हालसम्म गरएिका गणतन्त्र घोषणासम्मका राजनीतिक निर्ण्र्ाारूको वैधतामाथि नै प्रश्न उठ्नेछ । त्यो त्यस्तो अवस्था हुनेछ, जहा“ दल र नेताहरूप्रति चरम निराशा उब्जिसकेको हुनेछ वा त्यस्तो माहोल पर््रदर्शन गरनिेछ । राजनीतिक दलहरूलाई असफल तुल्याउन चाहने तत्त्वहरू त्यस्तै माहोलको तानाबाना बुनिरहेका छन्, ताकि संविधानसभा निर्वाचन हुनै नसकोस् ।
तिलक पाठक
Sunday, December 30, 2007
ँसात दलको शीर्ष नेतृत्व असफल भयो’ - शम्भु थापा
http://www.kantipuronline.com/Nepal/sambad.php
नेपाल बार एसोसिएसनका पर्ूवअध्यक्ष शम्भु थापा, ५०, शाही शासनविरुद्धको नागरिक आन्दोलनका अगुवामध्येका एक । अन्तरिम संविधान मस्यौदा समितिका सदस्य थापा अहिले सात दलको शर्ीष्ा नेतृत्व र संसद्प्रति निकै आक्रामक हुनुहुन्छ । प्रस्तुत छ, उहा“स“ग माधव ढुङ्गेलले लिएको अन्तर्वार्ता ः
प्रधानमन्त्री गिरिजाप्रसाद कोइरालाले अन्तरिम संविधान बनाएकामा पछुतो मान्दै भन्नुभएको छ- २०४७ सालको संविधानमै संशोधन गरेर जाने सुझाव मलाई शम्भु थापाले पनि दिएका थिए । त्यस्तै हो -
त्यसबेला दुइटा धार थिए । एउटा, जनआन्दोलनलाई संस्थागत गर्न अन्तरमि संविधान नै चाहिन्छ भन्ने । अर्को, स्थायी संविधान भइरहेको अवस्था भएकाले जनआन्दोलनका उपलब्धिलाई ०४७ सालकै संविधानभित्र समेट्न संविधान संशोधन गर्ने भन्ने । राजनीतिज्ञहरू नया“ संविधान नै चाहन्थे । तर, कानुनी राजमा आस्था राख्ने मलगायत धेरै कानुन व्यवसायीहरू संशोधनको पक्ष्ँमा थियौ“ तर यो धार एकदम कमजोर थियो । मेरो दृष्टिकोण थियो- ०४७ सालको संविधानबाट राजासम्बन्धी व्यवस्थाहरू हटाउने र संसद्को घोषणा राख्ने । आखिर त्यो राजाले पनि खान नसकेको संविधान हो । र, जनआन्दोलनकै बलमा आएको संविधान हो, त्यसैको आडमा बसेर हामीले आन्दोलन गरेका हौ“ ।
प्रधानमन्त्री कोइरालालाई तपार्इंले के परामर्श दिनुभएको थियो, जो अहिले उहा“ झल्झली सम्भिmरहनुभएको छ -
मेरो भनाइ के मात्र थियो भने तपाईंलगायत शर्ीष्ा नेताहरू एकै ठाउ“मा बसिदिनूस् । हिजोको दुष्कृति कसरी आयो, त्यसलाई बुझेर नेपाललाई हा“क्ने नया“ दर्शन बनाउनूस् । अग्रगमनमा विवाद छैन, यस्तो केही कुरा दिने किसिमको संयन्त्रको विकास गरौ“ भन्ने थियो । मैले उहा“लाई तपाईंले सोचेका बेला निर्वाचन हुने मैले देखेको छैन पनि भनेको थिए“ ।
अन्तरिम संविधानले जनआन्दोलनको भावनालाई समेटेन त -
संवैधानिक दृष्टिकोणले चाहि“ समेटेन तर सशस्त्र युद्धको अन्त्य हुनर्ुपर्छ, युद्धकारी र राज्यपक्ष्ँ नभएर सबै दलहरू एक ठाउ“मा आएर वार्ता होस् भन्ने जनआन्दोलनको मूल केन्द्रलाई चाहि“ संस्थापन गर्यो ।
अन्तरिम संविधानले निलम्बित नै सही, राजाको अस्तित्व त जोगाइदियो नि होइन -
राजतन्त्रको भविष्य संविधानसभाले निर्ण्र्ाागरेबमोजिम हुने भनेर पनि हाम्रै मस्यौदामा लेखिएको छ । श्रीपेच नलगाउने भएपछि राजा हु“दैनन् । श्रीपेच टुट्यो, मतलब राजतन्त्र सकियो । राजतन्त्र त अन्तरमि संविधानको व्यवस्थाले नै सकिसकेको हो ।
सकिएको भए जारी गर्ने बेलामै प्रस्टस“ग गणतन्त्र किन नलेखिएको त -
त्यो निर्वाचित अङ्ग थिएन, आयोगमा विभिन्न राजनीतिक दलको प्रतिनिधित्व गर्नेहरू हुनुहुन्थ्यो । उहा“हरू आ-आफ्ना दलले दिएका सुझावबाट टाढा जान सक्नुहुन्नथ्यो । नेपाली काङ्ग्रेसको अडान संविधानसभाले निर्ण्र्ाागरेबमोजिम हुन्छ भन्ने, माओवादीको गणतन्त्र लेख्नर्ुपर्छ भन्ने थियो । त्यसकारण त्यो बीचको लाइन हामीले निकालेका हौ“ ।
तर, अन्तरिम संविधान जारी भएको पर्सिपल्टबाटै मधेस दन्कियो नि -
भित्री हृदयले के मान्नर्ुपर्छ भने मधेस र सिङ्गै तर्राईमा बस्नेहरू पनि नेपाली नै हुन् । उनीहरूले नेपाली राष्ट्रियताकै प्रतिनिधित्व गर्छन् । पहाडको गोरो छाला भएकाले मात्र राष्ट्रियताको प्रतिनिधित्व गर्छ भन्ने भावना हामीले त्याग्नर्ुपर्छ । धोती-कर्ुता पनि दौरा-सुरुवाल समान हो भन्ने ठान्नर्ुपर्छ । नेपालमा बस्ने सबै नेपाली हुन् भनिसकेपछि राष्ट्रियता कसैको सा“घुरो र व्यापकता छ भन्ने जुन दृष्टिकोण रहिआएको छ, त्यो फाल्न नसकेका कारण समस्या आएको हो ।
अहिलेको विधिको शासनले त्यसलाई सम्बोधन गर्ला -
विधि होइन, अहिले शक्तिको शासन छ । देश बल र भीडको शासनतिर गइरहेको छ । हिजो वञ्चित भएका कुरालाई आधार बनाएर अझ ठूलो दूरी बढाउनेतिर गइरहेको छ । विधिको शासनतर्फगएको भए त म अध्यक्ष्ँ हु“दै नेपाल बार एसोसिएसनले यो संविधान मिलेको छैन भनेर घोषणा गरेको हो, खोइ काम लाग्यो त -
प्रधानमन्त्री कोइरालाकै शब्दमा ँऊ“ट संविधान’ तपाईंहरूले नै बनाएको होइन -
हामीले त के लेख्यौ“ र - यो संविधान त बालुवाटारमा अनुहार नै नदेखेका मान्छेहरूको निर्देशनमा एक रातमा लेखिएको हो । अमरेश कि के नाम रे - उहा“ हुनुहुन्थ्यो रे खेलाडी † रातभर िनसुती एक रातमै तयार हुने वस्तु हो र संविधान - एक धारादेखि अन्तिम धारासम्म छलफल हुनर्ुपर्छ । धाराहरू आपसमा काटिनुहु“दैन । तर, त्यस्तो केही विचार पुर्याइएन ।
एक वर्षनपुग्दै तेस्रो संशोधन हु“दैछ, यसले संविधानप्रति अनास्था बढाउ“दैन -
संविधान त चलाउनै हु“दैन । संविधानले देशलाई युगौ“सम्मको गन्तव्य तय गर्नुपर्छ । त्यसैले संविधान बनाउने नेतृत्व दूरदृष्टि राख्ने हुनर्ुपर्छ । संविधान जारी भएको भोलिपल्टदेखि आन्दोलन दन्कियो । एक महिना नपुग्दैदेखि संशोधन थालियो । यसबाट पनि देखिन्छ कि हाम्रो राजनीतिक नेतृत्व कति अदूरदर्शी छ भनेर । पटकपटक संशोधन गर्नु भनेको नया“ संविधानको निर्माण गरेर जनतालाई अधिकारसम्पन्न बनाउने होइन, यसै अन्तरमि संविधानमा सबैथोक खोज्नु हो । संविधानसभा चुनाव गर्नका लागि लेखिएको हो- अन्तरमि संविधान । तर, चुनावलाई पछाडि धकेल्दै जानु अनि संविधानचाहि“ संशोधन गर्दै जानु भनेको जनताको अधिकार हनन गर्नु हो ।
सङ्घीय लोकतान्त्रिक गणतन्त्रको व्यवस्था गर्नु पनि जनचाहनाको कदर होइन -
राजाको भूमिका यसअघि नै समाप्त भइसकेको छ । यो त शब्दजाल मात्र हो । संविधानमा गणतन्त्र लेख्दैमा राजाले नारायणहिटी छाड्ने होइनन् । संविधानसभाको पहिलो बैठकले निर्ण्र्ाागर्ने प्रतिबद्धता पूरा गर्न नसक्ने अनि अहिलेकै संसद्को आयु लम्ब्याउने खेल मात्र हो ।
त्यसो भए सात दल असफल नै भएका हुन् त -
सात दल नै त भन्दिन“, यसको शर्ीष्ा नेतृत्व भने असफल भएको छ । संशोधन गरेर छ सय एक सदस्यीय संविधानसभा बनाउने सहमति भएको छ । संविधानसभा जहिले जति मन लाग्यो, त्यति सदस्यीय बनाउन मिल्ने कुरा होइन । जनसङ्ख्या र भूगोलका आधारमा प्रतिनिधि तोकिनर्ुपर्छ । कति जनसङ्ख्या बराबर एक सदस्य, केही छैन । एकपटक संविधानमा लेखिसकेपछि चुनावै नगरी त्यसै फेर िसङ्ख्या थप्न मिल्दै मिल्दैन ।
चैतभित्र संविधानसभा निर्वाचन नभए अहिलेकै संसद् स्वतः संविधानसभामा परण्िात हुनेछ भन्ने संशोधन प्रस्तावसमेत दर्ता भयो, भलै यो फिर्ता भइसकेको छ । यसले अहिलेका सांसदहरूको मानसिकता देखाएको छ । यस्तो पनि हुन्छ - यसभन्दा त बरु अहिलेकै सांसदहरू आजीवन रहने, ऊ मरेमा श्रीमती, त्यसपछि छोरा सांसद हुने भनेर लेखे भइगयो नि †
सात दलको विकल्प छ त -
सात दलका शर्ीष्ा नेताहरूको भने विकल्प खोज्नर्ुपर्छ । कम्तीमा पनि सात दलको शर्ीष्ा-नेतृत्वले संविधानसभा चुनाव लड्नु हु“दैन । उहा“हरूले यो देशका लागि केही गर्नुभएन भन्ने होइन, धेरै गर्नुभयो । तर, अब पुग्यो । अझै योगदान गर्न मन छ भने बरु सल्लाहकारको भूमिका निर्वाह गरे हुन्छ । तेस्रो पुस्तामा नेतृत्व नपुगी देश उ“भो लाग्दैन । अब सात दलको 'कार्टर्ेेङ्' विरुद्ध नागरकि समाजले प्रतिपक्ष्ँको भूमिका निर्वाह गर्नुपर्छ ।
पुसको आधा बितिसक्दा पनि संविधानमा त मङ्सिर महिनाभित्र संविधानसभा निर्वाचन गर्ने प्रावधान जीवितै छ । संवैधानिक सङ्कट परेन देशमा -
संवैधानिक सङ्कट होइन, संविधानको पालना नगर्ने संसद्को औचित्य समाप्त भएको छ । नेपाली जनताको पसिनाबाट मह“गो तलब खाने तर देशको संविधानको भने पालना नगर्ने व्यवस्थापिका-संसद् असफल भएको छ । संविधानको पालना गर्ने हो भने मङ्सिर ६ अघि नै यो प्रावधान संशोधन गरसिक्नुपथ्र्यो, जुन गरएिन । उल्टै राज्यका निर्देशक सिद्धान्तको पालना बाध्यकारी नभएको भन्नेसम्मका अभिव्यक्ति आइरहेका छन् । तर, बुझ्नुपर्ने के भने संसद्ले आफ्नो भूमिका निर्वाह गर्न सकेन भन्दैमा नेपाली जनताको संविधान मर्दैन ।
अहिलेको सङ्क्रमणकालमा सत्तारुढ सात दललाई कानुनीभन्दा पनि जनआन्दोलनले दिएको राजनीतिक वैधानिकता प्राप्त छ भन्ने लाग्दैन -
राजनीतिक वैधानिकता कतिञ्जेल हुन्छ - राजनीतिक वैधानिकताका नाममा सधै“ खाइरहन मिल्दैन । अब त राजनीतिक वैधानिकता पनि सकिइसक्यो । जनआन्दोलनको त सा“वा मात्र होइन, ब्याजसमेत खाइसक्नुभयो उहा“हरूले ।
संविधानसभाले यो सबै समस्याको निकास देला नि त, होइन -
राजनीतिक कार्यकर्ताहरूको समूह मात्रै संविधानसभामा गएर निकास निस्कि“दैन । विभिन्न प्रश्नमा बौद्धिक बहस गर्दै संवैधानिक र दार्शनिक छलफल गर्ने मान्छेहरू संविधानसभामा गए भने मात्र निकास निस्कन्छ । दलहरूले आफ्नै कार्यकर्ता मात्र संविधानसभामा भर्ती गरे भने केही निकास निस्कनेवाला छैन ।
नेपाल बार एसोसिएसनका पर्ूवअध्यक्ष शम्भु थापा, ५०, शाही शासनविरुद्धको नागरिक आन्दोलनका अगुवामध्येका एक । अन्तरिम संविधान मस्यौदा समितिका सदस्य थापा अहिले सात दलको शर्ीष्ा नेतृत्व र संसद्प्रति निकै आक्रामक हुनुहुन्छ । प्रस्तुत छ, उहा“स“ग माधव ढुङ्गेलले लिएको अन्तर्वार्ता ः
प्रधानमन्त्री गिरिजाप्रसाद कोइरालाले अन्तरिम संविधान बनाएकामा पछुतो मान्दै भन्नुभएको छ- २०४७ सालको संविधानमै संशोधन गरेर जाने सुझाव मलाई शम्भु थापाले पनि दिएका थिए । त्यस्तै हो -
त्यसबेला दुइटा धार थिए । एउटा, जनआन्दोलनलाई संस्थागत गर्न अन्तरमि संविधान नै चाहिन्छ भन्ने । अर्को, स्थायी संविधान भइरहेको अवस्था भएकाले जनआन्दोलनका उपलब्धिलाई ०४७ सालकै संविधानभित्र समेट्न संविधान संशोधन गर्ने भन्ने । राजनीतिज्ञहरू नया“ संविधान नै चाहन्थे । तर, कानुनी राजमा आस्था राख्ने मलगायत धेरै कानुन व्यवसायीहरू संशोधनको पक्ष्ँमा थियौ“ तर यो धार एकदम कमजोर थियो । मेरो दृष्टिकोण थियो- ०४७ सालको संविधानबाट राजासम्बन्धी व्यवस्थाहरू हटाउने र संसद्को घोषणा राख्ने । आखिर त्यो राजाले पनि खान नसकेको संविधान हो । र, जनआन्दोलनकै बलमा आएको संविधान हो, त्यसैको आडमा बसेर हामीले आन्दोलन गरेका हौ“ ।
प्रधानमन्त्री कोइरालालाई तपार्इंले के परामर्श दिनुभएको थियो, जो अहिले उहा“ झल्झली सम्भिmरहनुभएको छ -
मेरो भनाइ के मात्र थियो भने तपाईंलगायत शर्ीष्ा नेताहरू एकै ठाउ“मा बसिदिनूस् । हिजोको दुष्कृति कसरी आयो, त्यसलाई बुझेर नेपाललाई हा“क्ने नया“ दर्शन बनाउनूस् । अग्रगमनमा विवाद छैन, यस्तो केही कुरा दिने किसिमको संयन्त्रको विकास गरौ“ भन्ने थियो । मैले उहा“लाई तपाईंले सोचेका बेला निर्वाचन हुने मैले देखेको छैन पनि भनेको थिए“ ।
अन्तरिम संविधानले जनआन्दोलनको भावनालाई समेटेन त -
संवैधानिक दृष्टिकोणले चाहि“ समेटेन तर सशस्त्र युद्धको अन्त्य हुनर्ुपर्छ, युद्धकारी र राज्यपक्ष्ँ नभएर सबै दलहरू एक ठाउ“मा आएर वार्ता होस् भन्ने जनआन्दोलनको मूल केन्द्रलाई चाहि“ संस्थापन गर्यो ।
अन्तरिम संविधानले निलम्बित नै सही, राजाको अस्तित्व त जोगाइदियो नि होइन -
राजतन्त्रको भविष्य संविधानसभाले निर्ण्र्ाागरेबमोजिम हुने भनेर पनि हाम्रै मस्यौदामा लेखिएको छ । श्रीपेच नलगाउने भएपछि राजा हु“दैनन् । श्रीपेच टुट्यो, मतलब राजतन्त्र सकियो । राजतन्त्र त अन्तरमि संविधानको व्यवस्थाले नै सकिसकेको हो ।
सकिएको भए जारी गर्ने बेलामै प्रस्टस“ग गणतन्त्र किन नलेखिएको त -
त्यो निर्वाचित अङ्ग थिएन, आयोगमा विभिन्न राजनीतिक दलको प्रतिनिधित्व गर्नेहरू हुनुहुन्थ्यो । उहा“हरू आ-आफ्ना दलले दिएका सुझावबाट टाढा जान सक्नुहुन्नथ्यो । नेपाली काङ्ग्रेसको अडान संविधानसभाले निर्ण्र्ाागरेबमोजिम हुन्छ भन्ने, माओवादीको गणतन्त्र लेख्नर्ुपर्छ भन्ने थियो । त्यसकारण त्यो बीचको लाइन हामीले निकालेका हौ“ ।
तर, अन्तरिम संविधान जारी भएको पर्सिपल्टबाटै मधेस दन्कियो नि -
भित्री हृदयले के मान्नर्ुपर्छ भने मधेस र सिङ्गै तर्राईमा बस्नेहरू पनि नेपाली नै हुन् । उनीहरूले नेपाली राष्ट्रियताकै प्रतिनिधित्व गर्छन् । पहाडको गोरो छाला भएकाले मात्र राष्ट्रियताको प्रतिनिधित्व गर्छ भन्ने भावना हामीले त्याग्नर्ुपर्छ । धोती-कर्ुता पनि दौरा-सुरुवाल समान हो भन्ने ठान्नर्ुपर्छ । नेपालमा बस्ने सबै नेपाली हुन् भनिसकेपछि राष्ट्रियता कसैको सा“घुरो र व्यापकता छ भन्ने जुन दृष्टिकोण रहिआएको छ, त्यो फाल्न नसकेका कारण समस्या आएको हो ।
अहिलेको विधिको शासनले त्यसलाई सम्बोधन गर्ला -
विधि होइन, अहिले शक्तिको शासन छ । देश बल र भीडको शासनतिर गइरहेको छ । हिजो वञ्चित भएका कुरालाई आधार बनाएर अझ ठूलो दूरी बढाउनेतिर गइरहेको छ । विधिको शासनतर्फगएको भए त म अध्यक्ष्ँ हु“दै नेपाल बार एसोसिएसनले यो संविधान मिलेको छैन भनेर घोषणा गरेको हो, खोइ काम लाग्यो त -
प्रधानमन्त्री कोइरालाकै शब्दमा ँऊ“ट संविधान’ तपाईंहरूले नै बनाएको होइन -
हामीले त के लेख्यौ“ र - यो संविधान त बालुवाटारमा अनुहार नै नदेखेका मान्छेहरूको निर्देशनमा एक रातमा लेखिएको हो । अमरेश कि के नाम रे - उहा“ हुनुहुन्थ्यो रे खेलाडी † रातभर िनसुती एक रातमै तयार हुने वस्तु हो र संविधान - एक धारादेखि अन्तिम धारासम्म छलफल हुनर्ुपर्छ । धाराहरू आपसमा काटिनुहु“दैन । तर, त्यस्तो केही विचार पुर्याइएन ।
एक वर्षनपुग्दै तेस्रो संशोधन हु“दैछ, यसले संविधानप्रति अनास्था बढाउ“दैन -
संविधान त चलाउनै हु“दैन । संविधानले देशलाई युगौ“सम्मको गन्तव्य तय गर्नुपर्छ । त्यसैले संविधान बनाउने नेतृत्व दूरदृष्टि राख्ने हुनर्ुपर्छ । संविधान जारी भएको भोलिपल्टदेखि आन्दोलन दन्कियो । एक महिना नपुग्दैदेखि संशोधन थालियो । यसबाट पनि देखिन्छ कि हाम्रो राजनीतिक नेतृत्व कति अदूरदर्शी छ भनेर । पटकपटक संशोधन गर्नु भनेको नया“ संविधानको निर्माण गरेर जनतालाई अधिकारसम्पन्न बनाउने होइन, यसै अन्तरमि संविधानमा सबैथोक खोज्नु हो । संविधानसभा चुनाव गर्नका लागि लेखिएको हो- अन्तरमि संविधान । तर, चुनावलाई पछाडि धकेल्दै जानु अनि संविधानचाहि“ संशोधन गर्दै जानु भनेको जनताको अधिकार हनन गर्नु हो ।
सङ्घीय लोकतान्त्रिक गणतन्त्रको व्यवस्था गर्नु पनि जनचाहनाको कदर होइन -
राजाको भूमिका यसअघि नै समाप्त भइसकेको छ । यो त शब्दजाल मात्र हो । संविधानमा गणतन्त्र लेख्दैमा राजाले नारायणहिटी छाड्ने होइनन् । संविधानसभाको पहिलो बैठकले निर्ण्र्ाागर्ने प्रतिबद्धता पूरा गर्न नसक्ने अनि अहिलेकै संसद्को आयु लम्ब्याउने खेल मात्र हो ।
त्यसो भए सात दल असफल नै भएका हुन् त -
सात दल नै त भन्दिन“, यसको शर्ीष्ा नेतृत्व भने असफल भएको छ । संशोधन गरेर छ सय एक सदस्यीय संविधानसभा बनाउने सहमति भएको छ । संविधानसभा जहिले जति मन लाग्यो, त्यति सदस्यीय बनाउन मिल्ने कुरा होइन । जनसङ्ख्या र भूगोलका आधारमा प्रतिनिधि तोकिनर्ुपर्छ । कति जनसङ्ख्या बराबर एक सदस्य, केही छैन । एकपटक संविधानमा लेखिसकेपछि चुनावै नगरी त्यसै फेर िसङ्ख्या थप्न मिल्दै मिल्दैन ।
चैतभित्र संविधानसभा निर्वाचन नभए अहिलेकै संसद् स्वतः संविधानसभामा परण्िात हुनेछ भन्ने संशोधन प्रस्तावसमेत दर्ता भयो, भलै यो फिर्ता भइसकेको छ । यसले अहिलेका सांसदहरूको मानसिकता देखाएको छ । यस्तो पनि हुन्छ - यसभन्दा त बरु अहिलेकै सांसदहरू आजीवन रहने, ऊ मरेमा श्रीमती, त्यसपछि छोरा सांसद हुने भनेर लेखे भइगयो नि †
सात दलको विकल्प छ त -
सात दलका शर्ीष्ा नेताहरूको भने विकल्प खोज्नर्ुपर्छ । कम्तीमा पनि सात दलको शर्ीष्ा-नेतृत्वले संविधानसभा चुनाव लड्नु हु“दैन । उहा“हरूले यो देशका लागि केही गर्नुभएन भन्ने होइन, धेरै गर्नुभयो । तर, अब पुग्यो । अझै योगदान गर्न मन छ भने बरु सल्लाहकारको भूमिका निर्वाह गरे हुन्छ । तेस्रो पुस्तामा नेतृत्व नपुगी देश उ“भो लाग्दैन । अब सात दलको 'कार्टर्ेेङ्' विरुद्ध नागरकि समाजले प्रतिपक्ष्ँको भूमिका निर्वाह गर्नुपर्छ ।
पुसको आधा बितिसक्दा पनि संविधानमा त मङ्सिर महिनाभित्र संविधानसभा निर्वाचन गर्ने प्रावधान जीवितै छ । संवैधानिक सङ्कट परेन देशमा -
संवैधानिक सङ्कट होइन, संविधानको पालना नगर्ने संसद्को औचित्य समाप्त भएको छ । नेपाली जनताको पसिनाबाट मह“गो तलब खाने तर देशको संविधानको भने पालना नगर्ने व्यवस्थापिका-संसद् असफल भएको छ । संविधानको पालना गर्ने हो भने मङ्सिर ६ अघि नै यो प्रावधान संशोधन गरसिक्नुपथ्र्यो, जुन गरएिन । उल्टै राज्यका निर्देशक सिद्धान्तको पालना बाध्यकारी नभएको भन्नेसम्मका अभिव्यक्ति आइरहेका छन् । तर, बुझ्नुपर्ने के भने संसद्ले आफ्नो भूमिका निर्वाह गर्न सकेन भन्दैमा नेपाली जनताको संविधान मर्दैन ।
अहिलेको सङ्क्रमणकालमा सत्तारुढ सात दललाई कानुनीभन्दा पनि जनआन्दोलनले दिएको राजनीतिक वैधानिकता प्राप्त छ भन्ने लाग्दैन -
राजनीतिक वैधानिकता कतिञ्जेल हुन्छ - राजनीतिक वैधानिकताका नाममा सधै“ खाइरहन मिल्दैन । अब त राजनीतिक वैधानिकता पनि सकिइसक्यो । जनआन्दोलनको त सा“वा मात्र होइन, ब्याजसमेत खाइसक्नुभयो उहा“हरूले ।
संविधानसभाले यो सबै समस्याको निकास देला नि त, होइन -
राजनीतिक कार्यकर्ताहरूको समूह मात्रै संविधानसभामा गएर निकास निस्कि“दैन । विभिन्न प्रश्नमा बौद्धिक बहस गर्दै संवैधानिक र दार्शनिक छलफल गर्ने मान्छेहरू संविधानसभामा गए भने मात्र निकास निस्कन्छ । दलहरूले आफ्नै कार्यकर्ता मात्र संविधानसभामा भर्ती गरे भने केही निकास निस्कनेवाला छैन ।
Reality check: Seven-party legitimacy under a cloud
AjayaBhadra Khanal
Kathmandu, December 30:
http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullstory.asp?filename=aFanata0scqzpba7Va5a8a.axamal&folder=aHaoamW&Name=Home&dtSiteDate=20071231
Does the seven-party alliance represent the Nepali people? It is a question that is being emphasised, in two opposite ways.
First, the issue of people’s representation has been raised by people and parties associated with the right. Their claim: the seven parties have encroached upon the rights of the people to decide the fate of monarchy.
Most people opposing the declaration of republic pending “implementation,” curiously, were once the champions of monarchy, who wholeheartedly implemented the constitutions that had been handed down by the Kings. Every constitution in the past has been “given” to the people by the Kings. Compared to these practices, the current move by the seven major political parties, who once garnered more than 80 per cent of popular vote, can be considered a progress.
The move, however, can be challenged, whether by the right or the left, based on the principle that the people have a right to decide the fate of monarchy and the political system of the country.
There is another logic, based on the historical development of the idea of democracy and modernisation, that monarchy is an institution that is inherently contradictory to a rational and democratic society. Opting to retain monarchy would be similar to voting to adopt an authoritarian political rule. While popular will might be able to support monarchy, rationality would always have to oppose it.
The issue of legitimacy and representation has also been raised by the civil society and the international community which does not support monarchy. Under normal democratic practice, no government or parliament can claim legitimacy without the acid test of popular consent. With the last elections held nine years ago, and the Maoists not having undergone this test, the SPA faces questions about its legitimacy.
A more pressing concern, however, is the ability of the SPA to represent the interests of groups not included in the government and the parliament. Does this mean that we need a restructuring of the interim government and the interim parliament before the Constituent Assembly elections?
There are two clear answers to this question. The interim government can continue if it is able to convince groupings not in the SPA that it can legitimately represent their interests.
If the SPA is unable to earn their trust, then there must be a restructuring to represent groupings not included in the current structure. So far, there are little signs that the SPA has the will to go the length to earn the consent of outside political groupings.
Kathmandu, December 30:
http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullstory.asp?filename=aFanata0scqzpba7Va5a8a.axamal&folder=aHaoamW&Name=Home&dtSiteDate=20071231
Does the seven-party alliance represent the Nepali people? It is a question that is being emphasised, in two opposite ways.
First, the issue of people’s representation has been raised by people and parties associated with the right. Their claim: the seven parties have encroached upon the rights of the people to decide the fate of monarchy.
Most people opposing the declaration of republic pending “implementation,” curiously, were once the champions of monarchy, who wholeheartedly implemented the constitutions that had been handed down by the Kings. Every constitution in the past has been “given” to the people by the Kings. Compared to these practices, the current move by the seven major political parties, who once garnered more than 80 per cent of popular vote, can be considered a progress.
The move, however, can be challenged, whether by the right or the left, based on the principle that the people have a right to decide the fate of monarchy and the political system of the country.
There is another logic, based on the historical development of the idea of democracy and modernisation, that monarchy is an institution that is inherently contradictory to a rational and democratic society. Opting to retain monarchy would be similar to voting to adopt an authoritarian political rule. While popular will might be able to support monarchy, rationality would always have to oppose it.
The issue of legitimacy and representation has also been raised by the civil society and the international community which does not support monarchy. Under normal democratic practice, no government or parliament can claim legitimacy without the acid test of popular consent. With the last elections held nine years ago, and the Maoists not having undergone this test, the SPA faces questions about its legitimacy.
A more pressing concern, however, is the ability of the SPA to represent the interests of groups not included in the government and the parliament. Does this mean that we need a restructuring of the interim government and the interim parliament before the Constituent Assembly elections?
There are two clear answers to this question. The interim government can continue if it is able to convince groupings not in the SPA that it can legitimately represent their interests.
If the SPA is unable to earn their trust, then there must be a restructuring to represent groupings not included in the current structure. So far, there are little signs that the SPA has the will to go the length to earn the consent of outside political groupings.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Democracy – Nepali Style - (Courtesy: Roop Joshi)
Saturday, December 29, 2007
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/12/democracy-nepali-style.html
December 28th was another busy day for the unelected interim parliament of Nepal. With 3 dissenting votes, it approved the declaration of Nepal as a Federal Democratic Republic – to be “implemented” by a simple majority of the 601-member Constituent Assembly when elected by mid-April 2008. The declaration had been made public a couple of days earlier with the machination and blessings of the leaders of the three major political parties in Nepal.
International media, CNN and BBC in this case, have trumpeted the headlines “Nepal abolishes its 240 years old monarchy”, “Nepal ceases to be the last Hindu Kingdom in the world”, and so forth. The headlines, of course, ignore the “implementation” part of the parliamentary approval though it does appear inconspicuously in the body of the news stories. They do not question why the CA is needed if this parliament is going to do its work. For all purposes, the World woke up today to discover that in one fell swoop Nepal is now a republic. Voila!
I have always been under the impression that “democracy” is rule by the people (of the people, for the people – if you want the full American definition). I am bemused that a parliament which has not been elected, at the instigation of three political leaders – one an octogenarian with ambitions to be the first President of Nepal before it is too late; another a leftist politician who has hopes of somehow being the first Prime Minister of a republican Nepal; and the third whose political party is in government solely from the effects and future threats of its guns – has declared this country a republic without finding out what the Nepali Public wants.
Further, this declaration goes against the Comprehensive Peace Accord between the then government and the Maoists which clearly stated that the issue of republic versus monarchy would be decided by a two-thirds majority of the Constituent Assembly, when elected. Of course, the CA elections have been postponed first in June 2007, then in November 2007, and are now vaguely planned for April 2008. In short, the common Nepali in the street has never been asked whether he wants a republic or wants to maintain a constitutional or ceremonial monarchy. This “asking” is commonly known as a Referendum.
If Nepal is to be a modern multi-party DEMOCRACY, it is time for Nepalis who love this country to practice wisdom and rationality and take this declaration as a direct insult to their intelligence and basic human rights. If Jana Andolan I (1990) put an end to the Panchayat system and Jana Andolan II (2006) to an autocratic government, it may be opportune now for Jana Andolan III. This one will put an end to the high-handedness of an oligarchic government controlled by a triumvirate of power hungry politicians.
One might also ask what the Nepal Army is doing about this despotic declaration. The Chief of the NA has clearly stated that the NA will support democracy and the legitimate government of Nepal. It is time now to ponder on the legitimacy of an unelected government which seeks changes based on the agreement of three politicians and their mostly befuddled parties.
Half of the world’s population is below the age of 25. At a time when National Leaders all over the world are taking the helm of their countries while they are below the age of 50 – France’s President Sarkozy is a recent example – the youth of Nepal confine their involvement in politics to senseless “mobism”, indoctrination into obsolete political ideologies, or being the stooges of wily old politicians.
As per data from the “2006 Demographic and Health Survey – Nepal”, almost 40% of Nepal’s population is between the ages of 10 and 29. If ages 30 to 34, which really are young enough to be considered youths, are included, the figure rises to over 45%. The present political leaders have followed the near-sighted power-crazed policy of not grooming young political leaders. This is one reason why our political leadership is well beyond the range of what can be called youths. This alone however does not give almost half the population of Nepal under the age of 35 the excuse to sit quietly while the country is robbed of its right to Democracy. It is time Nepali youths use their education, nationalism and vision to speak out with firmness and non-violence. The country awaits you to lead Jana Andolan III!
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/12/democracy-nepali-style.html
December 28th was another busy day for the unelected interim parliament of Nepal. With 3 dissenting votes, it approved the declaration of Nepal as a Federal Democratic Republic – to be “implemented” by a simple majority of the 601-member Constituent Assembly when elected by mid-April 2008. The declaration had been made public a couple of days earlier with the machination and blessings of the leaders of the three major political parties in Nepal.
International media, CNN and BBC in this case, have trumpeted the headlines “Nepal abolishes its 240 years old monarchy”, “Nepal ceases to be the last Hindu Kingdom in the world”, and so forth. The headlines, of course, ignore the “implementation” part of the parliamentary approval though it does appear inconspicuously in the body of the news stories. They do not question why the CA is needed if this parliament is going to do its work. For all purposes, the World woke up today to discover that in one fell swoop Nepal is now a republic. Voila!
I have always been under the impression that “democracy” is rule by the people (of the people, for the people – if you want the full American definition). I am bemused that a parliament which has not been elected, at the instigation of three political leaders – one an octogenarian with ambitions to be the first President of Nepal before it is too late; another a leftist politician who has hopes of somehow being the first Prime Minister of a republican Nepal; and the third whose political party is in government solely from the effects and future threats of its guns – has declared this country a republic without finding out what the Nepali Public wants.
Further, this declaration goes against the Comprehensive Peace Accord between the then government and the Maoists which clearly stated that the issue of republic versus monarchy would be decided by a two-thirds majority of the Constituent Assembly, when elected. Of course, the CA elections have been postponed first in June 2007, then in November 2007, and are now vaguely planned for April 2008. In short, the common Nepali in the street has never been asked whether he wants a republic or wants to maintain a constitutional or ceremonial monarchy. This “asking” is commonly known as a Referendum.
If Nepal is to be a modern multi-party DEMOCRACY, it is time for Nepalis who love this country to practice wisdom and rationality and take this declaration as a direct insult to their intelligence and basic human rights. If Jana Andolan I (1990) put an end to the Panchayat system and Jana Andolan II (2006) to an autocratic government, it may be opportune now for Jana Andolan III. This one will put an end to the high-handedness of an oligarchic government controlled by a triumvirate of power hungry politicians.
One might also ask what the Nepal Army is doing about this despotic declaration. The Chief of the NA has clearly stated that the NA will support democracy and the legitimate government of Nepal. It is time now to ponder on the legitimacy of an unelected government which seeks changes based on the agreement of three politicians and their mostly befuddled parties.
Half of the world’s population is below the age of 25. At a time when National Leaders all over the world are taking the helm of their countries while they are below the age of 50 – France’s President Sarkozy is a recent example – the youth of Nepal confine their involvement in politics to senseless “mobism”, indoctrination into obsolete political ideologies, or being the stooges of wily old politicians.
As per data from the “2006 Demographic and Health Survey – Nepal”, almost 40% of Nepal’s population is between the ages of 10 and 29. If ages 30 to 34, which really are young enough to be considered youths, are included, the figure rises to over 45%. The present political leaders have followed the near-sighted power-crazed policy of not grooming young political leaders. This is one reason why our political leadership is well beyond the range of what can be called youths. This alone however does not give almost half the population of Nepal under the age of 35 the excuse to sit quietly while the country is robbed of its right to Democracy. It is time Nepali youths use their education, nationalism and vision to speak out with firmness and non-violence. The country awaits you to lead Jana Andolan III!
Spotlight editorial - Madhav Kumar Rimal
VOL. 27, NO. 16, December 28, 2007 (Paush 13 2064 B.S.)
The Seven Party Alliance have, once again, agreed to amend the constitution so that this unconstitutional parliament may declare Nepal a Republic to be ratified by the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly.
The CPN (Maoists) too have agreed to rejoin the SPA government. This new development has cleared all obstacles to SPAM’s unrestricted authoritarian rule in the country for any length of time. The proposed elections to the constituent assembly before the end of Chaitra 2064, (in less than four months), cannot be accomplished by this SPAM government.
According to a senior SPAM politician neither the SPA nor the Maoist are willing to go to the polls. This drama of consensus was only to take the poor Nepalis and the donor countries for a ride. As things stand now this government has no control over the law and order situation in the whole country and they won’t be able to hold the elections in the capital valley even. Moreover, the Madhesi behavior is a loud and clear writing on the wall, warning the SPAM government. If one cannot read that one must be blind. And what force is aiding and abetting the Madhesis is also crystal clear on the horizon.
It is also widely rumored at high places in Kathmandu that those surrounding the Head of SPAM government would not let him use his judgment as they are not at all keen to relinquish their hold on the administration. And poor head of the government, as recent events have shown, has even poorer judgment. Consequently, the poor country and the millions of poor Nepalis have to go on suffering if they cannot rise against the tyranny of the SPAM.
There are people who seem quite unhappy at the indifferences of the so called big donors and democratic countries who are unabashedly not only condoning but supporting the anti national behavior of self oriented politicians. For those who understand international politics there is nothing strange in such a behavior There are examples galore to prove that Nepal is not the only country to suffer from the hypocritical behavior of big countries. No country sacrifices even on an iota of its interest to help the needy and poor countries in distress. Since the money they provide as assistance cannot be best utilized when the country is in turmoil, millions of rupees would go waste as proved by past experiences, if peace, law and order are not restored. Omens in the Nepali sky don’t warrant them and if the poor people are not benefited it is their misfortune. What can the donors do about it? As such it is the people themselves who have to rise up and defend their rights and privileges.
Politicians who shout at the top of their voice in the floor of the parliament criticizing the government have to go to the streets and lead the people to bring down the government that is taking the country to the dogs. Since the elections to the C.A. are indispensable and this government is neither keen nor competent to hold them, the country urgently needs a new caretaker government of honest and patriotic Nepalis to conduct a free and fair elections. Our security forces, the army and the police can no more afford to stay as silent spectators and must take upon themselves the responsibility to impress upon SPAM to make room for the new government without delay.
And it is really high time for the powers that be to become more sensitive to the miseries of millions of poor Nepalis and for a change, stop supporting the corrupt and incompetent government and help and to bring it in an honest and competent government to power so that the Nepali people might get redress from their unending miseries and look forward to a better future.
The Seven Party Alliance have, once again, agreed to amend the constitution so that this unconstitutional parliament may declare Nepal a Republic to be ratified by the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly.
The CPN (Maoists) too have agreed to rejoin the SPA government. This new development has cleared all obstacles to SPAM’s unrestricted authoritarian rule in the country for any length of time. The proposed elections to the constituent assembly before the end of Chaitra 2064, (in less than four months), cannot be accomplished by this SPAM government.
According to a senior SPAM politician neither the SPA nor the Maoist are willing to go to the polls. This drama of consensus was only to take the poor Nepalis and the donor countries for a ride. As things stand now this government has no control over the law and order situation in the whole country and they won’t be able to hold the elections in the capital valley even. Moreover, the Madhesi behavior is a loud and clear writing on the wall, warning the SPAM government. If one cannot read that one must be blind. And what force is aiding and abetting the Madhesis is also crystal clear on the horizon.
It is also widely rumored at high places in Kathmandu that those surrounding the Head of SPAM government would not let him use his judgment as they are not at all keen to relinquish their hold on the administration. And poor head of the government, as recent events have shown, has even poorer judgment. Consequently, the poor country and the millions of poor Nepalis have to go on suffering if they cannot rise against the tyranny of the SPAM.
There are people who seem quite unhappy at the indifferences of the so called big donors and democratic countries who are unabashedly not only condoning but supporting the anti national behavior of self oriented politicians. For those who understand international politics there is nothing strange in such a behavior There are examples galore to prove that Nepal is not the only country to suffer from the hypocritical behavior of big countries. No country sacrifices even on an iota of its interest to help the needy and poor countries in distress. Since the money they provide as assistance cannot be best utilized when the country is in turmoil, millions of rupees would go waste as proved by past experiences, if peace, law and order are not restored. Omens in the Nepali sky don’t warrant them and if the poor people are not benefited it is their misfortune. What can the donors do about it? As such it is the people themselves who have to rise up and defend their rights and privileges.
Politicians who shout at the top of their voice in the floor of the parliament criticizing the government have to go to the streets and lead the people to bring down the government that is taking the country to the dogs. Since the elections to the C.A. are indispensable and this government is neither keen nor competent to hold them, the country urgently needs a new caretaker government of honest and patriotic Nepalis to conduct a free and fair elections. Our security forces, the army and the police can no more afford to stay as silent spectators and must take upon themselves the responsibility to impress upon SPAM to make room for the new government without delay.
And it is really high time for the powers that be to become more sensitive to the miseries of millions of poor Nepalis and for a change, stop supporting the corrupt and incompetent government and help and to bring it in an honest and competent government to power so that the Nepali people might get redress from their unending miseries and look forward to a better future.
Friday, December 28, 2007
‘The King May Decide In A Week’ - Interview
RABINDRA NATH SHARMA
http://www.nepalnews.com/contents/2007/englishweekly/spotlight/dec/dec28/national4.php
RABINDRA NATH SHARMA is the chairman of Nepal’s only major political party that still supports the continuation of constitutional monarchy. The monarchy is on the throes of elimination today. But the 77-year-old veteran politician has however not met King Gyanendra since last two months. As it turned out, the monarch has apparently not felt the need to meet the chairman of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal. As Sharma reveals, the king has not met other senior leaders of the party, either, in recent days. Excerpts of interview with KESHAB POUDEL on Tuesday evening at his Budhanilkantha.
As the monarchy’s future looks almost sealed following the recent constitution amendment moves by the seven party alliances, you must have met the king to discuss the new situation. After all, you are the chairman of a pro-monarchy party.
No, I have not met the king lately. The last time I met him was about two months ago. Even the people close to the king are not in touch with me.
Other senior leaders of your party may have been in touch with the king.
I have no idea about it. But I hear that the king has been meeting some other persons lately. I am not aware of their utility. Since we don’t have major strength, arms and ammunition and are unable to go to people at the moment, we are perhaps not useful to the king at present. It is either the representatives of international community or the army whom the king needs to see more.
If the king does not see the need to meet monarchists like you at this critical juncture, does not it imply that the king himself is not interested in retaining the monarchy?
There is logic in your question. But, there is another part. As the king is yet to set his mind, there may not be at point in meeting with us now. Once the king sets his mind about the future, which I think is likely within a few days; our advice can be useful and meaningful.
What option the king is left with, now that a move to declare the country a republic is already in parliament?
In normal situation, the king’s strength is the army and the people. Either the people have to rise to defend the monarchy or the army should resent the republican move. I have not seen any possibility of the people’s revolt or the army’s open resentment against the decision of the seven parties.
The army can not come to his rescue?
It can, only if there is a guarantee of its supply lines. This depends on the direct support of India or China and indirect support of the United States. I do not see the guarantee of the supply lines if the army moved in to defend the monarchy
So, these countries especially India is now supportive of the republic move which is under consideration of the interim parliament?
The wording of India’s official statement on the 23-point seven-party deal has double meaning. It is not clear if India has welcomed the fresh election commitment only or the entire deal that includes the declaration of a republic.
What do you think will the king’s move be, now?
If the Indian statement was clear, we could have predicted the king’s likely move. Since there is confusion, no one can predict the situation. The king is perhaps waiting to see the new constitutional provisions. Only after that he will decide his future course. The king will have to take a decision after that. It should come out within a week.
Why not, right now?
No matter how big claims we make, no internal players of Nepal are in a decisive position. Our decision is always influenced by the international community particularly the two neighbors. The king knows that.
When the seven parties have already moved a bill to declare Nepal a republic and
India’s new stand is also confusing, would not it be prudent for the king to pack his bag and leave the palace?
As the picture is still unclear, the king will wait and see.
Constitutionally, the country may have become a republic now. But confusion remains. If the republic is put in the preamble of the constitution, it will have a decisive meaning which will be totally different if it is mentioned under other articles. Despite declaring Nepal as a republic, the seven party’s alliance has not yet made it clear that they will control the command of the Narayanhiti palace.
What is the actual status of Nepal right now? A republic or still a kingdom?
The interim parliament is republic-oriented, but the country is not. The seven parties are republic-headed, but the most people are not.
And the powerful army?
Even today there are many officers and soldiers in army’s rank and file who are loyal to the king.
Newspaper reports said that a highest ranking intelligence official of India was in Nepal ahead of the recent seven-party. Do you see any link?
Based on my past experience, I can say that such visit does not take place without a purpose. As for a possible link that referred to, it is anybody’s guess. But I have no substantive evidence to back it up.
But it is clear that India has gone for a republican Nepal?
I don’t think so. India has still left a place for monarchy. I think India is negotiating with the king,
What about the Indian position on the Maoists?
India knows that the Maoists cannot be their permanent friend.
If so, why did it welcome the Maoists-engineered 23-point deal?
It uses the Maoists, but does not fully trust them.
What about the Chinese position on the new political situation?
In the past, China was never involved in Nepal’s internal politics. After April 2006, China’s interest has been growing. Almost every month, a high level Chinese delegation has been visiting Nepal. China has already made it clear that it consistently follows the policy propounded by Marshal Chen-Yi in 1960 that China will retaliate against any foreign intervention in Nepal. It has given its message. However, I don’t see any possibility of a direct conflict between India and China in Nepal before the Beijing Olympics next year.
China will not bother over the boiling Terai on Nepal’s borders with India?
It certainly will. If India increases its influence in Terai through its proxy forces, China will definitely react. They have already given clear indications about it.
http://www.nepalnews.com/contents/2007/englishweekly/spotlight/dec/dec28/national4.php
RABINDRA NATH SHARMA is the chairman of Nepal’s only major political party that still supports the continuation of constitutional monarchy. The monarchy is on the throes of elimination today. But the 77-year-old veteran politician has however not met King Gyanendra since last two months. As it turned out, the monarch has apparently not felt the need to meet the chairman of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal. As Sharma reveals, the king has not met other senior leaders of the party, either, in recent days. Excerpts of interview with KESHAB POUDEL on Tuesday evening at his Budhanilkantha.
As the monarchy’s future looks almost sealed following the recent constitution amendment moves by the seven party alliances, you must have met the king to discuss the new situation. After all, you are the chairman of a pro-monarchy party.
No, I have not met the king lately. The last time I met him was about two months ago. Even the people close to the king are not in touch with me.
Other senior leaders of your party may have been in touch with the king.
I have no idea about it. But I hear that the king has been meeting some other persons lately. I am not aware of their utility. Since we don’t have major strength, arms and ammunition and are unable to go to people at the moment, we are perhaps not useful to the king at present. It is either the representatives of international community or the army whom the king needs to see more.
If the king does not see the need to meet monarchists like you at this critical juncture, does not it imply that the king himself is not interested in retaining the monarchy?
There is logic in your question. But, there is another part. As the king is yet to set his mind, there may not be at point in meeting with us now. Once the king sets his mind about the future, which I think is likely within a few days; our advice can be useful and meaningful.
What option the king is left with, now that a move to declare the country a republic is already in parliament?
In normal situation, the king’s strength is the army and the people. Either the people have to rise to defend the monarchy or the army should resent the republican move. I have not seen any possibility of the people’s revolt or the army’s open resentment against the decision of the seven parties.
The army can not come to his rescue?
It can, only if there is a guarantee of its supply lines. This depends on the direct support of India or China and indirect support of the United States. I do not see the guarantee of the supply lines if the army moved in to defend the monarchy
So, these countries especially India is now supportive of the republic move which is under consideration of the interim parliament?
The wording of India’s official statement on the 23-point seven-party deal has double meaning. It is not clear if India has welcomed the fresh election commitment only or the entire deal that includes the declaration of a republic.
What do you think will the king’s move be, now?
If the Indian statement was clear, we could have predicted the king’s likely move. Since there is confusion, no one can predict the situation. The king is perhaps waiting to see the new constitutional provisions. Only after that he will decide his future course. The king will have to take a decision after that. It should come out within a week.
Why not, right now?
No matter how big claims we make, no internal players of Nepal are in a decisive position. Our decision is always influenced by the international community particularly the two neighbors. The king knows that.
When the seven parties have already moved a bill to declare Nepal a republic and
India’s new stand is also confusing, would not it be prudent for the king to pack his bag and leave the palace?
As the picture is still unclear, the king will wait and see.
Constitutionally, the country may have become a republic now. But confusion remains. If the republic is put in the preamble of the constitution, it will have a decisive meaning which will be totally different if it is mentioned under other articles. Despite declaring Nepal as a republic, the seven party’s alliance has not yet made it clear that they will control the command of the Narayanhiti palace.
What is the actual status of Nepal right now? A republic or still a kingdom?
The interim parliament is republic-oriented, but the country is not. The seven parties are republic-headed, but the most people are not.
And the powerful army?
Even today there are many officers and soldiers in army’s rank and file who are loyal to the king.
Newspaper reports said that a highest ranking intelligence official of India was in Nepal ahead of the recent seven-party. Do you see any link?
Based on my past experience, I can say that such visit does not take place without a purpose. As for a possible link that referred to, it is anybody’s guess. But I have no substantive evidence to back it up.
But it is clear that India has gone for a republican Nepal?
I don’t think so. India has still left a place for monarchy. I think India is negotiating with the king,
What about the Indian position on the Maoists?
India knows that the Maoists cannot be their permanent friend.
If so, why did it welcome the Maoists-engineered 23-point deal?
It uses the Maoists, but does not fully trust them.
What about the Chinese position on the new political situation?
In the past, China was never involved in Nepal’s internal politics. After April 2006, China’s interest has been growing. Almost every month, a high level Chinese delegation has been visiting Nepal. China has already made it clear that it consistently follows the policy propounded by Marshal Chen-Yi in 1960 that China will retaliate against any foreign intervention in Nepal. It has given its message. However, I don’t see any possibility of a direct conflict between India and China in Nepal before the Beijing Olympics next year.
China will not bother over the boiling Terai on Nepal’s borders with India?
It certainly will. If India increases its influence in Terai through its proxy forces, China will definitely react. They have already given clear indications about it.
Thapa’s “informers” of the past……
http://www.telegraphnepal.com/news_det.php?news_id=2532
N.P.Upadhyaya - It is said that the State runs through “informers” who collect the news and views about the State being commented by politicians, leaders and the media in opposition. The State thus pays some amount to the one who “informs”.
We are told that any State at any time seeks the need of such informers and does the needful in order to quell the possible unrest that the men in the opposition might bring for the State machinery any time in the future. And thus the need for such informers.
We are even told that during the time when Sher Bahadur Deuba was the home minister in the early 1990s, one media men who was very close to Deuba used to leak the strategies that Nepal was going to adopt as regards the Bhutanese refugee crisis. Such a leak approached the Bhutan government much ahead of the Nepali team either went to Bhutan or a bilateral talks team was in Kathmandu for resolving the refugee issue. The “leak” thus allowed some more space for the other side to devise mechanisms in order to “linger” the issue and this is what has exactly been happening even as of today.
It is said that such a leak by that particular informer, a Nepali citizen in effect, benefited the Bhutanese regime and in lieu of such “substantial” support, the Nepali media man used to get his “salary” in Indian currency through one of the trusted men of the Bhutanese regime based in Kathmandu.
We are told that the same media man is still the pay roll of the Bhutanese regime. Or in other words, the same media man over the years for the “service” rendered to Bhutan government must have amassed wealth which would be sufficient for generations to come.
The next part of the story runs like this.
When the Lokendra Bahadur Chand’s government failed or had to resign only to be replaced by Surya Bahadur Thapa government in the late 1990s, a press meet was organized by one of the media society in Kathmandu. The media society had invited the new prime minister of this country for a chit chat over a cup of tea.
One journalist who is a self-styled “democrat” to which he is not, made a sharp question to Thapa-the country’s Prime Minister Thapa perhaps hoping that the new PM would be pretty annoyed. However, contrary to his thinking, Thapa-a noted conspiratorial brain of this country, responded in a some what different manner much to the chagrin of the self styled media man.
The question ran like this, “Well Mr. Prime Minister, how you have been feeling in being the Prime Minister of a democratic country given your past back ground that you have had served many a times the Royal regime in the past?”
PM Thapa took this question in a lighter vein and pat came the reply from the new PM that, (sic) “Well, I am pleased to know that those media men whom I had put into the service of collecting information in the Panchayat days for 20-30 rupees per month appear now to have come of their age”.
This was Thapa’s answer. And how the media man felt listening upon Thapa’s befitting response is any body’s guess.
The gist of my writing is that those who make tall claims be it in the media sector or some where else, are the real converts and informers.
What else I can say of this “august” journalist who is, I am told, is still in the Bhutan government’s pay roll.
Shame would be the fitting words perhaps for such a Nepali who is “supplying” information to some alien forces in lieu of some money and in the process he is “insulting” his credentials of being a Nepali as well.
2007-12-19 06:36:26
N.P.Upadhyaya - It is said that the State runs through “informers” who collect the news and views about the State being commented by politicians, leaders and the media in opposition. The State thus pays some amount to the one who “informs”.
We are told that any State at any time seeks the need of such informers and does the needful in order to quell the possible unrest that the men in the opposition might bring for the State machinery any time in the future. And thus the need for such informers.
We are even told that during the time when Sher Bahadur Deuba was the home minister in the early 1990s, one media men who was very close to Deuba used to leak the strategies that Nepal was going to adopt as regards the Bhutanese refugee crisis. Such a leak approached the Bhutan government much ahead of the Nepali team either went to Bhutan or a bilateral talks team was in Kathmandu for resolving the refugee issue. The “leak” thus allowed some more space for the other side to devise mechanisms in order to “linger” the issue and this is what has exactly been happening even as of today.
It is said that such a leak by that particular informer, a Nepali citizen in effect, benefited the Bhutanese regime and in lieu of such “substantial” support, the Nepali media man used to get his “salary” in Indian currency through one of the trusted men of the Bhutanese regime based in Kathmandu.
We are told that the same media man is still the pay roll of the Bhutanese regime. Or in other words, the same media man over the years for the “service” rendered to Bhutan government must have amassed wealth which would be sufficient for generations to come.
The next part of the story runs like this.
When the Lokendra Bahadur Chand’s government failed or had to resign only to be replaced by Surya Bahadur Thapa government in the late 1990s, a press meet was organized by one of the media society in Kathmandu. The media society had invited the new prime minister of this country for a chit chat over a cup of tea.
One journalist who is a self-styled “democrat” to which he is not, made a sharp question to Thapa-the country’s Prime Minister Thapa perhaps hoping that the new PM would be pretty annoyed. However, contrary to his thinking, Thapa-a noted conspiratorial brain of this country, responded in a some what different manner much to the chagrin of the self styled media man.
The question ran like this, “Well Mr. Prime Minister, how you have been feeling in being the Prime Minister of a democratic country given your past back ground that you have had served many a times the Royal regime in the past?”
PM Thapa took this question in a lighter vein and pat came the reply from the new PM that, (sic) “Well, I am pleased to know that those media men whom I had put into the service of collecting information in the Panchayat days for 20-30 rupees per month appear now to have come of their age”.
This was Thapa’s answer. And how the media man felt listening upon Thapa’s befitting response is any body’s guess.
The gist of my writing is that those who make tall claims be it in the media sector or some where else, are the real converts and informers.
What else I can say of this “august” journalist who is, I am told, is still in the Bhutan government’s pay roll.
Shame would be the fitting words perhaps for such a Nepali who is “supplying” information to some alien forces in lieu of some money and in the process he is “insulting” his credentials of being a Nepali as well.
2007-12-19 06:36:26
Maoists, Marxists and the Monarchy
Shashi P.B.B. Malla & Chandra Bahadur Parbate
http://peoplesreview.com.np/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4227&Itemid=94
In a most unusual development, last week the Maoists' top honcho Prachanda proposed cooperation between his own party, the other 'parliamentary' parties and the royalists. This was indeed a complete departure from the previous stance of the Maoists, until now bitterly opposed to the palace in general and King Gyanendra in particular.
It was also remarkable that Prachanda chose to explode this bombshell at a function organized by the Federation of Nepalese Journalists (FNJ). The FNJ and the Maoists have been at daggers drawn, ever since some journalists had been abducted and either been tortured or murdered by the former terrorists. In fact, he had no compunction to call upon the media to "appreciate" the importance of such an "alliance" and to promote it accordingly. He qualified his statement by saying that even among the royalists, there were those that loved their country very much. Thus, in a situation where the King had been totally sidelined, the necessity to forge such a tripartite alliance including the nationalists among the royalists was indeed essential. He even stressed the fact that there was "no alternative to this national necessity".
All things considered, it should not be deduced from all this that there has been a change of heart in Prachanda or even the Maoists. They remain absolutely opposed to the monarchy. Their aim of achieving a totalitarian Communist republic remains. This objective is diametrically opposed to the royalist aspiration to at least preserve the monarchy to perhaps a limited degree. These political positions are irreconcilable. However, Prachanda was implying that there was at least a common denominator between these two objectives: patriotism.
Appealing to the 'supposed' common ground this speech was aimed at those royalists, who are for the King at any price, and the monarchists, who are only for constitutional monarchy, which is not bound to any one person, i.e. not necessarily for King Gyanendra, and are convinced that the monarchy is essential for the viability of the nation. It was aimed at giving them a sense of well-being and complacency; however at the same time calling on them to abandon the common ground between royalists and monarchists: to abandon hope that the embattled monarchy could be saved. In point of fact, the Maoists and their collaborators are on the verge of achieving their aim of the proclamation of a republic through the so-called 'interim parliament', without the people having any say at all. Once a fait accompli was achieved, there would be many options for the Maoists and their real Communist allies.
Secondly, the statement was aimed at the Maoists' former government allies in the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) giving notice that unless they toe the Maoist line and realize the Maoist agenda, they (the Maoists) were quite capable of forging a new alliance and treading a new path. On the same occasion, Prachanda accused PM Koirala of giving more priority to the CA-elections than to the peace process and compared his actions to that of King Gyanendra in 2005 who had ordered local elections amidst boycott by the political parties and questions of legitimacy. He also made it clear that it was also the big media houses that were opposing the Maoists forming a government under their leadership.
That Prachanda is a complete bundle of contradictions was made clear from the fact that in a separate informal meeting with editors in the capital, he underlined the necessity for CA-elections in order to bring movement to society and the country, and use the opportunity "to reform our cadres"! He has also warned that if the political parties did not reach a consensus on the political deadlock within a week, a change of guard in the government was in the offing. Hence, in summary, the Maoist antics thus amount to undiluted skullduggery.
Thirdly, he cleverly used the opportunity to underline the bona fides of the Maoists in the eyes of the diplomats in Kathmandu and also the international community at large. They have already garnered the support of the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative, Ian Martin. Compared to PM Koirala, home minister Sitaula and the SPA, the Maoists' public relations act is quite impressive.
Not a day passes without the Maoist top dogs waxing eloquent on some aspect of domestic politics. This way, they seem to hog the limelight, and people cannot but be impressed. However, it is easy to mistake shadows for substance, fantasy for facts. It can only be hoped that the international community is not hoodwinked by the Maoists, and also the SPA regarding their so-called good intentions. The taste of the pudding is in the eating, and it must not be forgotten that the Maoists have not honoured a single agreement that they have signed, nor that the SPA is not exactly hurrying along with the organization of the CA-elections.
The nominally democratic and largest party in the coalition, the Nepali Congress (NC) does not seem to be able to make up its mind with regard to Maoist and Communist demands. Krishna Prasad Sitaula (branded as a Maoist collaborator even by some NC leaders, including Sujata Koirala, the PM's daughter) differed with Prachanda. He insisted that the monarchists could never be nationalists and that they were always in favour of a despotic regime (sic). At the same time he made the tall claim that only the seven political parties were "the biggest nationalist forces". Apparently, this poor man is hopelessly caught up in enigmas.
Former PM Sher Bahadur Deuba (NC) firmly reiterated his stand that the country could be declared a republic only after the CA-elections. Many leading luminaries of the NC at the central level-including former House speaker Tara Nath Ranabhat, General-Secretary K.B. Gurung and former minister Khum Bahadur Khadka - have come out openly for constitutional monarchy as the sine qua non for the independence and territorial integrity of the nation. They have sharply criticized Girija Koirala and his cronies for giving in to the Maoists and Communists.
Dev Gurung (terrorist turned lawmaker, aka Kancha Bahadur und assessed as No.8 in the Maoist hierarchy) has demanded the punishment of these NC-MPs. Being a Maoist (and arguably a non-democrat consequently) he can be forgiven for not being aware that MPs are only obligated to their voters and their conscience. While it has often been stated in this space that the MPs of the current parliament have not been legitimated by a vote, it can be said in this instance that at least they seem to be motivated by their conscience. Conversely, our good comrade is not motivated by either.
Another former PM, Surya Bahadur Thapa, chairman of the Rashtriya Janshakti Party (an offshoot of the Rashtriya Prajatantra Party) rejected outright the attempts to coax the 'nominated parliament' to "initiate the process for a republic". Thus, on the important question of proclaiming a republic before or after the CA-elections, there does seem to be coalescing a polarization of forces between the Maoists and Communists on the one hand, and democratic parties on the other.
Above all, the international community must take cognizance of the fact that the Maoists are vociferously and violently against the idea of CA-elections. Last Saturday, the nominally number 2 boss, Baburam Bhattarai again insisted that the CA-elections would be impossible without first declaring the country a republic. For the Maoists this remains the bottom line. He also rubbished Prachanda's call for all nationalistic forces (including royalists) to forge an alliance (without saying so specifically, but indicating that Chairman Prachanda's statement had been distorted!).
Bhattarai would have us believe that he exudes an air of a dispassionate intellectual, but he remains a transparent and iconoclastic Maoist-Communist rabble-rouser wedded to double-speak. In a revealing but thick-headed statement, he has let the cat out of the bag by saying that for the Maoists that have already established a "progressive political agenda" (implying that this is all that is needed), any elections would be meaningless (i.e. a farce), if the Maoists were to lose! He divulged his mind-set in a supercilious manner and exposed the Maoists for what they really are. Only genuine nationalists believe that electoral democracy will pave the way for real reforms.
In the meantime last Saturday, the independent Transparency International's Index of Corruption has placed Nepal among the most corrupt countries. This has been a massive blow to the country's international standing and is also a reliable political barometer for the record of governance of the Gang of Eight (the SPA and the Maoists dictating from outside the government). It is also an indication of the utter rotten state of affairs.
Nepal's position in 2006 at 131 out of 163 countries in the corruption index fell from 117th among 159 countries in 2005 - a total disgrace for SPAM after announcing "a new Nepal" under total democracy (loktantra) after the so-called Peoples' Movement II ( Jan Andolan). The country's corruption was concentrated heavily in the public sector. The international community is definitely aware that there is always a tendency towards corruption in authoritarian states.
As the brilliant author Will Hutton (in: The Writing on the Wall. China and the West in the 21st Century) has written: " ... the depth of corruption at the apex of government.... is chronically dysfunctional and even threatens the integrity of the state." The Chief Justice, Kedar Prasad Giri rightly condemned this 'regression' as resulting from the absence of the rule of law.
One day earlier, in a twist of fate, the World Bank rewarded the current, most corrupt regime since the restoration of democracy in 1990, the highest ever grant of $ 253 million for education, irrigation and roads! This is a mockery of the process of encouraging democratic norms and a direct stimulation of lawlessness and autocratic government.
What were the directors of the Bank - "the Lords of Poverty" - thinking when making such a huge grant to such a regime at a most inappropriate time? The grant will in no way address the root causes of the (Maoist) conflict as the key to ensuring lasting peace. A visiting delegation of the European Union has concluded that the peace process has lost momentum. Inequality and social exclusion are definitely among Nepal's foremost development challenges, but the claim that "the package approved demonstrates the WB's commitment to ensure social and economic inclusion of the poor, marginalized and less developed regions" is seriously flawed in conception, content and timing.
The writers can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com
http://peoplesreview.com.np/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4227&Itemid=94
In a most unusual development, last week the Maoists' top honcho Prachanda proposed cooperation between his own party, the other 'parliamentary' parties and the royalists. This was indeed a complete departure from the previous stance of the Maoists, until now bitterly opposed to the palace in general and King Gyanendra in particular.
It was also remarkable that Prachanda chose to explode this bombshell at a function organized by the Federation of Nepalese Journalists (FNJ). The FNJ and the Maoists have been at daggers drawn, ever since some journalists had been abducted and either been tortured or murdered by the former terrorists. In fact, he had no compunction to call upon the media to "appreciate" the importance of such an "alliance" and to promote it accordingly. He qualified his statement by saying that even among the royalists, there were those that loved their country very much. Thus, in a situation where the King had been totally sidelined, the necessity to forge such a tripartite alliance including the nationalists among the royalists was indeed essential. He even stressed the fact that there was "no alternative to this national necessity".
All things considered, it should not be deduced from all this that there has been a change of heart in Prachanda or even the Maoists. They remain absolutely opposed to the monarchy. Their aim of achieving a totalitarian Communist republic remains. This objective is diametrically opposed to the royalist aspiration to at least preserve the monarchy to perhaps a limited degree. These political positions are irreconcilable. However, Prachanda was implying that there was at least a common denominator between these two objectives: patriotism.
Appealing to the 'supposed' common ground this speech was aimed at those royalists, who are for the King at any price, and the monarchists, who are only for constitutional monarchy, which is not bound to any one person, i.e. not necessarily for King Gyanendra, and are convinced that the monarchy is essential for the viability of the nation. It was aimed at giving them a sense of well-being and complacency; however at the same time calling on them to abandon the common ground between royalists and monarchists: to abandon hope that the embattled monarchy could be saved. In point of fact, the Maoists and their collaborators are on the verge of achieving their aim of the proclamation of a republic through the so-called 'interim parliament', without the people having any say at all. Once a fait accompli was achieved, there would be many options for the Maoists and their real Communist allies.
Secondly, the statement was aimed at the Maoists' former government allies in the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) giving notice that unless they toe the Maoist line and realize the Maoist agenda, they (the Maoists) were quite capable of forging a new alliance and treading a new path. On the same occasion, Prachanda accused PM Koirala of giving more priority to the CA-elections than to the peace process and compared his actions to that of King Gyanendra in 2005 who had ordered local elections amidst boycott by the political parties and questions of legitimacy. He also made it clear that it was also the big media houses that were opposing the Maoists forming a government under their leadership.
That Prachanda is a complete bundle of contradictions was made clear from the fact that in a separate informal meeting with editors in the capital, he underlined the necessity for CA-elections in order to bring movement to society and the country, and use the opportunity "to reform our cadres"! He has also warned that if the political parties did not reach a consensus on the political deadlock within a week, a change of guard in the government was in the offing. Hence, in summary, the Maoist antics thus amount to undiluted skullduggery.
Thirdly, he cleverly used the opportunity to underline the bona fides of the Maoists in the eyes of the diplomats in Kathmandu and also the international community at large. They have already garnered the support of the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative, Ian Martin. Compared to PM Koirala, home minister Sitaula and the SPA, the Maoists' public relations act is quite impressive.
Not a day passes without the Maoist top dogs waxing eloquent on some aspect of domestic politics. This way, they seem to hog the limelight, and people cannot but be impressed. However, it is easy to mistake shadows for substance, fantasy for facts. It can only be hoped that the international community is not hoodwinked by the Maoists, and also the SPA regarding their so-called good intentions. The taste of the pudding is in the eating, and it must not be forgotten that the Maoists have not honoured a single agreement that they have signed, nor that the SPA is not exactly hurrying along with the organization of the CA-elections.
The nominally democratic and largest party in the coalition, the Nepali Congress (NC) does not seem to be able to make up its mind with regard to Maoist and Communist demands. Krishna Prasad Sitaula (branded as a Maoist collaborator even by some NC leaders, including Sujata Koirala, the PM's daughter) differed with Prachanda. He insisted that the monarchists could never be nationalists and that they were always in favour of a despotic regime (sic). At the same time he made the tall claim that only the seven political parties were "the biggest nationalist forces". Apparently, this poor man is hopelessly caught up in enigmas.
Former PM Sher Bahadur Deuba (NC) firmly reiterated his stand that the country could be declared a republic only after the CA-elections. Many leading luminaries of the NC at the central level-including former House speaker Tara Nath Ranabhat, General-Secretary K.B. Gurung and former minister Khum Bahadur Khadka - have come out openly for constitutional monarchy as the sine qua non for the independence and territorial integrity of the nation. They have sharply criticized Girija Koirala and his cronies for giving in to the Maoists and Communists.
Dev Gurung (terrorist turned lawmaker, aka Kancha Bahadur und assessed as No.8 in the Maoist hierarchy) has demanded the punishment of these NC-MPs. Being a Maoist (and arguably a non-democrat consequently) he can be forgiven for not being aware that MPs are only obligated to their voters and their conscience. While it has often been stated in this space that the MPs of the current parliament have not been legitimated by a vote, it can be said in this instance that at least they seem to be motivated by their conscience. Conversely, our good comrade is not motivated by either.
Another former PM, Surya Bahadur Thapa, chairman of the Rashtriya Janshakti Party (an offshoot of the Rashtriya Prajatantra Party) rejected outright the attempts to coax the 'nominated parliament' to "initiate the process for a republic". Thus, on the important question of proclaiming a republic before or after the CA-elections, there does seem to be coalescing a polarization of forces between the Maoists and Communists on the one hand, and democratic parties on the other.
Above all, the international community must take cognizance of the fact that the Maoists are vociferously and violently against the idea of CA-elections. Last Saturday, the nominally number 2 boss, Baburam Bhattarai again insisted that the CA-elections would be impossible without first declaring the country a republic. For the Maoists this remains the bottom line. He also rubbished Prachanda's call for all nationalistic forces (including royalists) to forge an alliance (without saying so specifically, but indicating that Chairman Prachanda's statement had been distorted!).
Bhattarai would have us believe that he exudes an air of a dispassionate intellectual, but he remains a transparent and iconoclastic Maoist-Communist rabble-rouser wedded to double-speak. In a revealing but thick-headed statement, he has let the cat out of the bag by saying that for the Maoists that have already established a "progressive political agenda" (implying that this is all that is needed), any elections would be meaningless (i.e. a farce), if the Maoists were to lose! He divulged his mind-set in a supercilious manner and exposed the Maoists for what they really are. Only genuine nationalists believe that electoral democracy will pave the way for real reforms.
In the meantime last Saturday, the independent Transparency International's Index of Corruption has placed Nepal among the most corrupt countries. This has been a massive blow to the country's international standing and is also a reliable political barometer for the record of governance of the Gang of Eight (the SPA and the Maoists dictating from outside the government). It is also an indication of the utter rotten state of affairs.
Nepal's position in 2006 at 131 out of 163 countries in the corruption index fell from 117th among 159 countries in 2005 - a total disgrace for SPAM after announcing "a new Nepal" under total democracy (loktantra) after the so-called Peoples' Movement II ( Jan Andolan). The country's corruption was concentrated heavily in the public sector. The international community is definitely aware that there is always a tendency towards corruption in authoritarian states.
As the brilliant author Will Hutton (in: The Writing on the Wall. China and the West in the 21st Century) has written: " ... the depth of corruption at the apex of government.... is chronically dysfunctional and even threatens the integrity of the state." The Chief Justice, Kedar Prasad Giri rightly condemned this 'regression' as resulting from the absence of the rule of law.
One day earlier, in a twist of fate, the World Bank rewarded the current, most corrupt regime since the restoration of democracy in 1990, the highest ever grant of $ 253 million for education, irrigation and roads! This is a mockery of the process of encouraging democratic norms and a direct stimulation of lawlessness and autocratic government.
What were the directors of the Bank - "the Lords of Poverty" - thinking when making such a huge grant to such a regime at a most inappropriate time? The grant will in no way address the root causes of the (Maoist) conflict as the key to ensuring lasting peace. A visiting delegation of the European Union has concluded that the peace process has lost momentum. Inequality and social exclusion are definitely among Nepal's foremost development challenges, but the claim that "the package approved demonstrates the WB's commitment to ensure social and economic inclusion of the poor, marginalized and less developed regions" is seriously flawed in conception, content and timing.
The writers can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com
Cautious Words - India and China have been quick to react to the recent seven-party deal. But the tone is different.
By SUSHIL SHARMA
http://www.nepalnews.com/contents/2007/englishweekly/spotlight/dec/dec28/national.php
As the powerful west including the United States got engrossed in the Christmas celebrations, it was business as usual for Nepal's big, rival, neighbours.
Less than 24 hours after Nepal's seven parties inked an agreement in Baluwatar to virtually evict the king from Narayanhiti, India came out with a statement that was conspicuously silent on the fate of monarchy.
The external affairs ministry spokesman's statement lauded the fresh election commitment, dubbing it "an encouraging development in the right direction."
To him, it was important that seven-party agreement "accorded CA elections the central importance."
In Nepal, however, even as the central importance was being attached to the move to incorporate "federal democratic republic" in the interim constitution, most people and the parties alike remain only cautiously optimistic, if at all, about the polls.
A day after the Indian response to the seven-party deal came the Chinese reaction.
Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang welcomed the "progress made in the peace process" of Nepal.
"As a good neighbour, we sincerely hope the peace process will keep going to realize the political stability and economic development."
But going by a Beijing date-lined report by the official Xinhua news agency (The Kathmandu Post, December 26), the spokesperson did not refer to the 23-point agreement of the seven parties of Nepal.
While reiterating the traditional principles of "non-interference in other country's internal affairs", the spokesperson was silent on the constituent assembly elections commitment, unlike her Indian counterpart.
But like the latter, the Chinese too did not feel the need to make reference to the republic move.
The two big neighbours that have the highest stakes in Nepal remain tight-lipped on an issue that is shaking the earth beneath the Nepal Himalayas.
But, coincidentally, both speak out and apparently share views on the importance of "stability" in their strategically located neighbour.
India expressed "readiness, as ever, to assist in all possible ways Nepal's transition to a democratic, stable, peaceful and prosperous State."
China was quick to follow, "we will continue to play constructive role in the peace and stability of Nepal."
The future Nepal including that of the beleagurered monarchy will depend on what roles the two neighbours plan to play – and how.
As of now, there are confusing signals. Quipped a regional analyst, "the mutually wary neighbours are as confused as the ordinary Nepali people are."
It will take some time before the dust settles and the picture becomes clear, he added.
http://www.nepalnews.com/contents/2007/englishweekly/spotlight/dec/dec28/national.php
As the powerful west including the United States got engrossed in the Christmas celebrations, it was business as usual for Nepal's big, rival, neighbours.
Less than 24 hours after Nepal's seven parties inked an agreement in Baluwatar to virtually evict the king from Narayanhiti, India came out with a statement that was conspicuously silent on the fate of monarchy.
The external affairs ministry spokesman's statement lauded the fresh election commitment, dubbing it "an encouraging development in the right direction."
To him, it was important that seven-party agreement "accorded CA elections the central importance."
In Nepal, however, even as the central importance was being attached to the move to incorporate "federal democratic republic" in the interim constitution, most people and the parties alike remain only cautiously optimistic, if at all, about the polls.
A day after the Indian response to the seven-party deal came the Chinese reaction.
Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang welcomed the "progress made in the peace process" of Nepal.
"As a good neighbour, we sincerely hope the peace process will keep going to realize the political stability and economic development."
But going by a Beijing date-lined report by the official Xinhua news agency (The Kathmandu Post, December 26), the spokesperson did not refer to the 23-point agreement of the seven parties of Nepal.
While reiterating the traditional principles of "non-interference in other country's internal affairs", the spokesperson was silent on the constituent assembly elections commitment, unlike her Indian counterpart.
But like the latter, the Chinese too did not feel the need to make reference to the republic move.
The two big neighbours that have the highest stakes in Nepal remain tight-lipped on an issue that is shaking the earth beneath the Nepal Himalayas.
But, coincidentally, both speak out and apparently share views on the importance of "stability" in their strategically located neighbour.
India expressed "readiness, as ever, to assist in all possible ways Nepal's transition to a democratic, stable, peaceful and prosperous State."
China was quick to follow, "we will continue to play constructive role in the peace and stability of Nepal."
The future Nepal including that of the beleagurered monarchy will depend on what roles the two neighbours plan to play – and how.
As of now, there are confusing signals. Quipped a regional analyst, "the mutually wary neighbours are as confused as the ordinary Nepali people are."
It will take some time before the dust settles and the picture becomes clear, he added.
Nullifying The CA - Spotlight Newsmagazine
http://www.nepalnews.com/contents/2007/englishweekly/spotlight/dec/dec28/national3.php
By A CORRESPONDENT - Just a few hours after signing the 23-points agreement among the seven political parties, one of the prominent leaders of Nepali Congress from Terai region Jaya Prakash Gupta resigned from the member of interim legislature charging that leaders are not serious about the problem in Terai.
Similarly, armed rebels shot dead Sunil Shrestha, a senior official of Nepal Bank, in Birgunj, the gateway to Nepal near Indian border. Two socket bombs were detonated in front of emergency ward of Nobel Medical College in Biratnagar in eastern border town.
At a time when leaders of seven parties are terming their 23-points agreement as historic to settle all of the country's problems including in terai, voices echoed by regional leaders like Gupta and violent acts committed by armed rebels in terai indicate otherwise.
The message from southern border is clear as they have told seven political parties that their 23-points new agreement has nothing to do with their demands. With the announcement of agitation beginning from December 30, Madhesi Janadhikar Forum led by Upendra Yadav and Nepal Sadbhavana Party led by former minister Rajendra Mahato have challenged that the government of seven party will be made defunct.
As news of people of hilly origin including Janajatis and Dalits getting displaced in thousands from plain areas have been coming up in media and amid threat by newly formed regional-based party to launch a new phase of agitation from next week, it shows that the accord including a point declaring Nepal as a federal republic is not a panacea for country's ills.
After signing the accord at night on December 23, 2007 at prime minister's residence in Baluwatar, leaders of seven parties declared that all the problems related to CA have been settled now and that they will hold the election for CA in mid April 2008.
"Twenty-three points agreement is another historic step in Nepal's political history. This will address all the problems including Terai," declared CPN-UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal. "Our focus should be now to hold the elections for Constituent Assembly."
The government tabled constitution amendment bill in legislative parliament as per the agreement on December 24. This will be passed by the parliament on 28 of December. Major aspects of constitution amendment bill are: to declare Nepal as a federal republic subject to implementation by first sitting of elected CA, hold an election for CA within mid April, 2008 and increase the number of CA members from 497 to 601.
Under the third Constitution Amendment Bill, the government proposes the amendment of Article 159 to replace the provisions regarding the King by provisions of the head of state. After approval of the bill, Nepal will be republic to be implemented by the first meet of the CA. But a two third majority of the existing members of the interim house can declare a republic even earlier if the King creates obstacles in holding the CA polls, it says.
The amendment has added provision whereby 240 members will be elected in first-past-the-post system. The bill also proposes 335 to be elected under the proportional system. The bill also proposes 26 members to be nominated by the cabinet.
Although leaders of seven political parties launched the joint agitation two years ago to make the people of Nepal sovereign by giving them opportunity to choose the forms of government and nature of state through the CA polls, by signing the 23-points agreement and declaring Nepal as a federal republic, seven party leaders have nullified the objective of CA.
Unfortunately, even after having sacrificed all the values and principles of democracy in the name of people, these party leaders have failed to bring normalcy in southern plain and woo the leaders of regional parties. This indicates that amendment of interim constitution and declaring Nepal as a federal republic cannot solve all the problems and neither can it create conducive atmosphere to hold the election.
By A CORRESPONDENT - Just a few hours after signing the 23-points agreement among the seven political parties, one of the prominent leaders of Nepali Congress from Terai region Jaya Prakash Gupta resigned from the member of interim legislature charging that leaders are not serious about the problem in Terai.
Similarly, armed rebels shot dead Sunil Shrestha, a senior official of Nepal Bank, in Birgunj, the gateway to Nepal near Indian border. Two socket bombs were detonated in front of emergency ward of Nobel Medical College in Biratnagar in eastern border town.
At a time when leaders of seven parties are terming their 23-points agreement as historic to settle all of the country's problems including in terai, voices echoed by regional leaders like Gupta and violent acts committed by armed rebels in terai indicate otherwise.
The message from southern border is clear as they have told seven political parties that their 23-points new agreement has nothing to do with their demands. With the announcement of agitation beginning from December 30, Madhesi Janadhikar Forum led by Upendra Yadav and Nepal Sadbhavana Party led by former minister Rajendra Mahato have challenged that the government of seven party will be made defunct.
As news of people of hilly origin including Janajatis and Dalits getting displaced in thousands from plain areas have been coming up in media and amid threat by newly formed regional-based party to launch a new phase of agitation from next week, it shows that the accord including a point declaring Nepal as a federal republic is not a panacea for country's ills.
After signing the accord at night on December 23, 2007 at prime minister's residence in Baluwatar, leaders of seven parties declared that all the problems related to CA have been settled now and that they will hold the election for CA in mid April 2008.
"Twenty-three points agreement is another historic step in Nepal's political history. This will address all the problems including Terai," declared CPN-UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal. "Our focus should be now to hold the elections for Constituent Assembly."
The government tabled constitution amendment bill in legislative parliament as per the agreement on December 24. This will be passed by the parliament on 28 of December. Major aspects of constitution amendment bill are: to declare Nepal as a federal republic subject to implementation by first sitting of elected CA, hold an election for CA within mid April, 2008 and increase the number of CA members from 497 to 601.
Under the third Constitution Amendment Bill, the government proposes the amendment of Article 159 to replace the provisions regarding the King by provisions of the head of state. After approval of the bill, Nepal will be republic to be implemented by the first meet of the CA. But a two third majority of the existing members of the interim house can declare a republic even earlier if the King creates obstacles in holding the CA polls, it says.
The amendment has added provision whereby 240 members will be elected in first-past-the-post system. The bill also proposes 335 to be elected under the proportional system. The bill also proposes 26 members to be nominated by the cabinet.
Although leaders of seven political parties launched the joint agitation two years ago to make the people of Nepal sovereign by giving them opportunity to choose the forms of government and nature of state through the CA polls, by signing the 23-points agreement and declaring Nepal as a federal republic, seven party leaders have nullified the objective of CA.
Unfortunately, even after having sacrificed all the values and principles of democracy in the name of people, these party leaders have failed to bring normalcy in southern plain and woo the leaders of regional parties. This indicates that amendment of interim constitution and declaring Nepal as a federal republic cannot solve all the problems and neither can it create conducive atmosphere to hold the election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)