DEUBA CALLS MEETING OF NC CENTRAL LEADERS

Kathmandu, 11 Dec.: Defying request of newly elected NC President Sushil Koirala not to convene a meeting of central leaders, including lawmakers and central committee members, rival Sher Bahadur Deuba convened such a meeting at his residence Saturday.
Top leaders KB Gurung and Arjun Narsingh KC who helped elect Koirala more than two months at a general convention attended the meeting and asked the president to appoint office bearers through understanding and not unilaterally.
Khum Bahadur Khadka said the Deuba faction has a majority in the central committee and Koirala can’t push his appointments.
Koirala has to get the committee approval for the appointments of Ram Chandra Paudel and Krishna Prasad Shitaula as vice-president and general secretary in an amended party statute.
The president was accused for sidelining collective leadership adopted by the party before Girija Prasad Koirala died.
Koirala is attempting to run the party dictatorially like his cousin.
Nnnn

27 PARTIES MEET SUNDAY

Kathmandu, 11 Dec.: Twenty-seven parties represented in the constituent assembly (CA) meet Sunday to consider a report of a Prachanda-led high-powered task force to narrow down differences on 230 contentious issues to be mentioned in a proposed constitution.
The tenure of the body ended Saturday with agreement only on 100 on the contentious issues/
The parties will decide Sunday whether to extend a tenure for the third time Sunday.
The task force has been accused for usurping the CA powers.
A litter more than five months remain for the CA t promulgate a constitution to institutionalize a declared republic.
Nnnn


GIRL CHILD INJURED IN RUKUM BLAST

Kathmandu, 11 Dec.: A girl child was injured in a landmine blast at a military facility in Rukum Saturday.
The child entered a heavily mined area which still has to be de-mined after the 10-year Maoist people’s war.
Nnnn

WHO’S REPUATION IS ON LINE?

Kathmandu, 11 Dec.: Krishna Prasad Sitaula has become the newest emblem of an old malady gripping the Nepali Congress. As a polarizing figure, Sitaula may be non-pareil, but he continues a tradition upheld by men like Bhadrakali Mishra and Surya Prasad Upadhyaya, Maila Baje writes in Nepali Netbook.
While they drew much ire from within the Nepali Congress neither man had enough influence to take over the party like that other polarizer Girija Prasad Koirala eventually would. As long as they lasted, however, Mishra and Upadhyaya had forced the Nepali Congress to learn to live with them.
Critics, including many longtime associates, had called them puppets, whose external masters had devised for them specific roles that could never be clear or conclusive. As politics grew murkier in the 1990s, so did the motives and intentions of the puppeteers. No clear successor to the likes of Mishra or Upadhyaya could thus be established. On specific issues, and during specific contexts, a variety of people came into prominence.
Sitaula, in Maila Baje’s estimation, seemed to do so remarkably swiftly after the royal takeover of February 1, 2005. Safe on Indian territory, a week after the palace struck, Sitaula told Indian reporters that the Nepali Congress was ready to join hands with the Maoists against King Gyanendra. Of course, Sitaula carried the usual proviso that the Maoists must first lay down their arms. But that contention was made redundant in the next paragraph of the Press Trust of India story when Sitaula revealed that Girija Koirala had virtually finalized some kind of a deal with the Maoists, thereby precipitating the royal action.
Regardless, the Sitaula track would have to await the endorsement of the Indian National Congress government, which was still hoping to engage with the royal regime all the while seeking to appease its avowedly republican Marxist allies. When the palace sought to project greater international maneuverability, the Sitaula scheme came to the forefront. His special relations with sections of the Indian Marxists and the intelligence services gave the plan some indigenous cover. The Dhaka SAARC summit, of course, made that line of action inevitable and propelled Sitaula’s politics.
When Sitaula, as Home Minister, escorted Maoist chairman Prachanda to Kathmandu for peace talks, U.S. Ambassador James F. Moriarty felt compelled to ask Prime Minster Koirala to describe the antecedents and implications of the special ties his newest kid on the block seemed to share with the rebels. Many in the Nepali Congress subsequently branded Sitaula as a Maoist all but in name, while Koirala one more than one occasion wondered aloud whose home minister Sitaula really had become.
Still, it fell upon Sitaula to persuade ex-king Gyanendra to hand over the crown and scepter and vacate the palace in favor of the placidity of Nagarjun. However, by then, the Gaur massacre had alienated the Maoists from Sitaula. As Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal departed from the New Delhi-driven 12-point agreement script, Sitaula, predictably enough, became an acerbic critic of the Maoists.
Girija Koirala’s death was thought to have ended Sitaula’s career. Barely on speaking terms with the new party leader Sushil Koirala, Sitaula secured his space. The issue of extending the constituent assembly, we are told, served as the basis for the grand rapprochement.
Fate was propitious to Sitaula. He happened to walk into a heart clinic to visit Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, only to suffer a bout of chest pains. An immediate angioplasty and “stenting” made him fit as a fiddle – ready to confront the resentment smoldering in the party.
Sushil’s nomination of Ram Chandra Poudel and Sitaula as vice-chairman and general secretary, respectively, as his first official action convulsed a party that was supposed to have emerged united after the post-Girija Koirala convention. Sujata Koirala, Arjun Narsingh K.C. and Ram Sharan Mahat – all claimants to the general secretaryship – have now joined Sher Bahadur Deuba’s faction in criticizing Sushil’s act of brazen unilateralism.
Why would Sushil risk grand dissidence in the first place? With little to go beyond his surname in terms of political credentials, Sushil was no long ago named by India’s intelligence community as a leading benefactor of its Pakistani counterpart. By projecting the two most India-friendly members of his party, Sushil must have felt he could redeem his name while putting the onus of victory on someone else.
Indian Ambassador Rakesh Sood has inherited much more than the interventionist traits of a renowned predecessor, C.P.N. Singh. He shares the stodgy Singh’s outspokenness in deriding anti-Indianism as an inherent affliction of the Nepali political class. If the overt external prop these two men supposedly enjoy – and have at times unabashedly flaunted – failed to see them through, then, Sushil knows, that would be more of Sood’s problem.
Nnnn

FROM BAD TO WORSE



Kathmandu, 11 Dec.: Barring some initial murmur about the manner in which the lame-duck Madhav Kumar Nepal's cabinet on November 15 hastily announced that Mahaujjwal Rastradeep would be given to the visiting Saudi Arabian Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, not much public debate has taken place on it, Trikal Vastivak writes in People’s Review..

But then it is such indifference or raging silence that has encouraged our politicians and those in power to take their voters in a cavalier manner. The Saudi prince, reportedly the "19th richest" person in the world, is expected to return to Kathmandu to formally receive the medal.

The question is why is a medal given? Are there any transparent criteria? Or is it an outcome of the whim and fancy of a few in the seat of power?

Medals in Nepal have always created mixed reactions. The vast majority of Nepalis, under partyless Panchayat or multiparty governments, have been consistent in their interest on who is awarded which medal. Those obtaining medals were congratulated with enthusiasm. Things have changed conspicuously with the country becoming the world's youngest republic.

The country's first elected prime minister, B.P. Koirala, was not enamoured of such decoration—at least if the medal happened to be of Nepali origin. Some of his party colleagues at the higher echelon also did not show any interest. The tradition has been maintained by and large. Yet, Nepali politicians now want others to accept and be grateful for what they themselves are reluctant to accept and appreciate. Medals, to them, are good for all others but themselves.

When the list of medals was announced by the State a year ago, controversy instantly arose, with some awardees rejecting the honor outright and others complaining of being not "appropriately" honored. There were many who thought that the name list did not respect the most meritorious.

Medals represent appreciation for something positively significant. The contributions of the awardees are recognized and accepted by society in general. The process of drawing up the honor list should be clear and transparent, triggering no or minimum controversy. In our case, the very political leaders who condemned the medal awarding mechanism in previously have resorted to methods they so loudly condemned till a few years ago.

In this regard, a recent case may be mentioned. Though the government hastily decided to confer the Mahaujjwal Rastradeep medal on the visiting Saudi Arabian Prince Al-Waheed bin Talal on November 15, the latter could not receive the honour due to lack of preparedness. Prince Talal said that he would visit Nepal again to receive the medal. Nepalis came to hear of the Saudi prince only when he visited their country. They are yet to be briefed by the government or the media on the prince's contributions to this young republic.

Saudi Arabia is by no means a democratic country under any guise. Absolute monarchy is prevalent to such an extent that constitutional monarchy in Nepal under the 1990 Constitution can be described as a liberal political system. Religious freedom of non-Muslims is severely restricted in the Islamic kingdom. It is true that thousands of Nepalis have found work in that oil-rich country. There might also be prospects for the ruling class, including Prince Talal, to invest in Nepal. But should this reduce us to go on awarding individuals solely out of commercial considerations?

During the Panchayat years, those who today are at the helms of the state affairs used to criticize the powers that be for the practice of honoring those who made large financial contributions to the Social Services National Coordination Council. Yesterday's critics are, today, resorting to practices far more questionable than previous practices.

It is because of serous shortcomings in awarding medals that the related process and the announcement are looked at poorly. If Talal could be named for the high award, why not, for instance, Sitaram Yechuri who our leaders four and a half years ago assessed as having made immense contributions to bringing together what has come to be known as the seven-party alliance movement.

It is also high time that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and several of his ex-bureaucrats should not be overlooked for high awards in recognition of their active and decisive contributions to the 2005-6 "People's Movement II". In fact, quite a few figures representing INGOs and overseas governments, also merit inclusion in the list of names for high honor.

Why is our government reluctant to announce awards for such friends who helped them and the country so much? Is it fear that the foreign personalities will reject awards that our own leaders are reluctant to receive?

At a time when high-pitch promises are made to bringing about sweeping changes in multifarious ways across the length and breadth of the country, the major political parties (Maoists, Congress and UML) are lost in self-inflicted squabbles much to public disenchantment.

The medal muddle represents a malaise no one is keen to address. It symbolizes many things, epitomizing the extent of the rot Nepalis are witness to. Dismantling institutional frameworks to suit immediate, parochial interests are accorded top priority; positive innovations do not develop even in trickle.

Touted as the "key achievements" of the movement four and a half years ago, with the blessings of a friendly country in New Delhi, republicanism, federalism and secularism seem to be tottering as far as people's faith is concerned. This being only an analysis, the three issues should be put to the test of a national referendum so that they are settled loudly and clearly.

But, the leaders say nay as if they are mere puppets on a chain, activated by a remote control. The so-called civil society, infested as it is with politicized groups and individuals, does not dare to recommend such an exercise. The INGOs and foreign governments that have been funding groups affiliated to political parties pretend as if they have not heard of the call or explain that they do not to interfere in this country's domestic affairs.

All this could lead the country to worse times for the near 30 million Nepalis who have been not just witnesses to but actually suffering greater hardships, chaos, shortages and breakdown in law and order in the recent years. History will surely condemn those responsible for the sorry state of affairs.
Nnnn

v