Dear Newuser,

Let us continue on our topic. Yesterday, I wrote on India?s role in extracting some vital
(in terms of having long term impact) treaties from us. Another perspective of looking at our(nepali) fate will be the ?introspection?. If we look at our own then we will find no one to blame but us. Given opportunity any nation will benefit from others?.theory of Darwin known as ?Survival of the fittest? applies here. You have to be smart enough to not let other exploit yourself. Viewing from this angle, it is very frustrating that except, very few, there have not been a single leader ? whether king, the panches or the netas of multi party ? to clearly forward the agenda of Nepali janta. In this regard, I don?t want to assign all blame on to leaders for all the mess. We, the people of Nepal, never ever became thoughtful when it came to our hand to decide fate of our nation at the time of election. Even today, the so-called educated mass do not prefer even to talk about politics. How can we change the system if we do not participate on it? It is all up to us to decide our own fate if we believe in democracy.

Having expressed personal view let me focus on the current unfolding situation in Nepal. The very big question at this point of time is how Gyane has been able to take such an unprecedented step and what will happen in future?

Have u given close look to his speech at times? In all speech, he was included words multi party democracy, constitutional monarchy. Give your deep thinking in this. Why would he repeat these words again and again while doing exactly contrary to the spirit of what has been said. He is very cunning( and not intelligent) to not ignore these words. Just compare this with what Parvez Mushaaraf of Pakistan said when he took over Pakistan. Now, relate this with global agenda of president Bush of anti-terrorism philosophy. Until and unless this King can persuade US on terrorism issue, believe me ?..US will never seriously take his anti democratic move. Because of this word ?terrorism? there is now redefinition of ?democracy?. This is now America led vision of democracy not the real democracy founded on its basic norms and values. Moreover, these Americans have kind of ?phobia? with the word ?communist?. They will commit anything to not let communists take over. All these point toward one thing ? Gyane without some assurance from US would never dare to take such a move. If u personally ask me, I really don?t believe any country other than US can influence politics of any other nation, not even UNO, Britain or EU or any other. However, the only other factor to be considered in our case is the India due to our geographical location ? being India locked from three sides. In the present context, India and US, with best of relation in history, will not go contrary to each other. Whatever New Delhi does will be in line and within the eagle eye view of US. Do not forget here that India is desperately trying to get permanent seat in Security Council and without support from US that is virtually impossible. So, definitely, there is some positive correlation between king?s move and the favorable assurance from these influencing external parties (India & US). If this is the case, which I pray to god to not be true, then believe me king will comfortably pacify and oppose any move against him. He has nothing to worry ? he will not have his exchequer go empty until there is this hand of US in his head and the military might of US and India to back him up. He will, damn, not bother about nepali janata.

Let us now imagine differently to above hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis goes like this. It has been 234+ years since ?Shah? regime has reined Nepal with full and final control over Royal Nepal Army. Just give a close look at the structure and composition
of RNA. U will find either Shah, Thapa, or Rana among the top army commanders. This is probably true up to 90% extent. Think who these surnames represent ? just a bunch of feudal attitude close relative of ?Shah? family. In such a situation, u can not expect a real mutiny from within the army. With increased power of army (now 78000), it is virtually impossible to defeat king completely and take over royal palace, by Maoist, even when they use their fullest of strength. Ground reality is that even if we imagine defeat of army around the suburbs of valley and imagine a very unlikely scenario when they(Maoist) enter the valley, the 5000 army (protecting palace) with all the sophisticated arms and ammunition will be impossible to overcome. All these situation are fictitious. But the only point I am trying to make here is the realization of the fact that how can a force built in 9 years defeat the organized army which has existed since last 234+years. This king, going by his nature, will ruin the country but not let his ?gaddi? to be taken away. And he can fabricate many situations to display to the international community that he is not doing this for his throne but to the cause of people. It is better in the interest of Maobadi and Nepali Janta that they adopt different strategy to defeat king. This type of arms struggle will just make king powerful and the country poorer day by day. The only possible option that seems likely is the alliance of political parties and maoist to come up with some deal and establish peaceful movement. I remember Gandhi movement in this context. No one in the contemporary world had ever thought that a man with ?no personality? will one day root out the British raj ? which they were proud to say ?Sun never sets in Great Britain?. Compare this logic with what has been going on in Iraq. Can those insurgents ever win against America? They might create some surprises like 9/11. But give deep thought on what the result has been. America has even become more dominant and more powerful than ever. Thus, it is best in interest of all in Nepali that Maobadi at this point of time negotiates, enters the main line politics, forms a broader coalition with all political leaders and then instigate peaceful movement to curtail right of king. This way, may be, in future, u can completely root out monarchy from Nepal. All this requires a charismatic leadership, which at all, but, seems unlikely to me. However, I am an optimistic person and will never give up my hope.

Contd. Next time.

Waiting for your comment.

"Gandhi was a man with ?no personality".


REALLY!!!!!!!!!!!

anjanp,
there is hardly something that I can't agree with you.

'In all speech, he has included words multi party democracy, constitutional monarchy. Give your deep thinking in this. Why would he repeat these words again and again while doing exactly contrary to the spirit of what has been said. He is very cunning( and not intelligent) to not ignore these words. Just compare this with what Parvez Mushaaraf of Pakistan said when he took over Pakistan.'

parroting the commitment for const. monarchy and mltyprty democracy by the aspirant of a despotic rule is just ridiculous. well said you-He is indeed very cunning. But the US or India would damn care about his contradictory actions untill their interests are preserved by Gyanendra. Gyanendra would do what Bush or Manmohan Singh ask, at whatever price Nepal have to pay to continue his rule. Musharraf said he would restore democracy after fixing political and sectorian problems in Pakistan but he has only strengthened his power ever since.He would not give both of his positions up- the president and the chief of the army. Once in power, it drives you mad, you do not want to leave it. So did Musharraf and if allowed, Gyanendra will do the same. However we cannot compare Gyanendra with Musharraf. True that Musharaff came in power through coup but he is a shrewd and capable leader. He is an instinctive leader with democratic values. He is a great follower of Turkish secular leader Kamal Ataturk and idolises him. Ataturk is the founding father of modern secular muslim Turkey. So Musharaff is following the path of him to restructure Pakistan. However, his actions to thwart Benajir Bhutto and Nawaj Sharif from doing politics is condemnable. But what I mean to say is you cannot compare our Gyanendra with Pakistan's Musharraf. Musharraf is a true scholar, diplomat and a statesman. Gyanendra is too dwarf to be compared with him.

'So, definitely, there is some positive correlation between king?s move and the favorable assurance from these influencing external parties (India & US). If this is the case, which I pray to god to not be true, then believe me king will comfortably pacify and oppose any move against him. He has nothing to worry ? he will not have his exchequer go empty until there is this hand of US in his head and the military might of US and India to back him up. He will, damn, not bother about nepali janata. '

Definitely yes. This is true, your pray is worthless. But although it is true, you cannot say that Gyanendra has nothing to worry about. US and India both cannot be trusted too much. Specially when they deal with relatively less important nations like Nepal, situations can change very fast and they may have to make 90 degree turn. If our prodemocractic movement hits the right target, I mean if some influential US senators and congressmen can be lobbied to restore democratic rights in Nepal, things may go different. For this, cases of serious human rights abuse by the army must be higlighted in the US media. As many abusive cases are highlighted, more will be the chance to pursuade US congress to block assistance to Nepal. Pressure politics is the most important phase for restoring civil rights in Nepal for the time being. But Gyanendra cannot be assured that his exchequer will remain in abundance even if the US didn't bother to ask him for democratic reforms. Direct aid from US will start decreasing from now, lets wait and see.

'Ground reality is that even if we imagine defeat of army around the suburbs of valley and imagine a very unlikely scenario when they(Maoist) enter the valley, the 5000 army (protecting palace) with all the sophisticated arms and ammunition will be impossible to overcome. All these situation are fictitious. But the only point I am trying to make here is the realization of the fact that how can a force built in 9 years defeat the organized army which has existed since last 234+years.'

Very very well judged. Maoists cannot defeat the army at least in the capital. I agree. So maoists must allign with other parties to fulfill their ambition of securing a republic state in Nepal. Baburam Bhattarai has agreed to this notion as well. In an article in Kantipur daily some days ago he has written 'In context of the unique historical and geo-political situation of Nepal,dreaming to achieve any sorts of democracy, communism or socialism without crossing over a sub-phase of democratic republicanism will be equally tragical as the story of 'the father of Som Sharma'(translated quote)
Military power cannot simply make the Maoists victorious. They understand the reality that They can never win. NOt only that, they can never be a single most powerful proposition in Nepali politics. So there best option is to marry with other political parties assuming that a combined political effort to oust monarchy in Nepal is the only way to achieve democratic republicanism. If they don't, Nepal will ruin in civil war for years and years. If they do, either the King will hand over his authority to the democratic alliance and stay as a truely constitutional monarch or fight against democracy till his last breath and end up taking refuge in the United Kingdom and leave Nepal as a republic state in chaos. And a beginning of new era. But that republic state won't be a communist maoist republic but a moderate democratic republic.


AnjanP, why not continue our discussion in the original thread? Cut and paste your opinions in the original thread so many of us can be focussed in our discussion