UML CENTRALCOMMITTEE TO TAKE UP CONTROVERSIAL CABINET EXPANSION, RESHUFFLE

UML CENTRAL COMMITTEE MEETS 9/20 JUNE TO DISCUSS CONTROVERSIAL CABINET EXPANSION

Kathmandu, 5 May: Following a heated debate in the 39-member politburo Thursday, a UML central committee will discuss Wednesday’s controversial expansion and reshuffle of the government by Prime Minister Jhalanath Khanal who is also party chairman.
The committee will continue discussions 9,10 June after the premier returns from Istanbul where he’s going to attend a conference of least developed countries.
Khanal came under heavy fire from a faction led by former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal and KP Sharma Oli for awarding the home ministry to Maoists ignoring a party directive,
Heated discussions lasted for more than eight hours after the meeting began at noon.
A central committee meeting has been convened as the politburo wasn’t empowered to take decisions, Pradip Nepal said.
Khanal has been charged for ignoring institutional decisions and running the party and government as his fiefdom.
Party bodies had recommended the appointment of Bishnu Paudel as home minister from UML while directing the government chief not to deliver the home ministry to Maoists until the completion of the peace process.
Khanal instead appointed Paudel defence minister.
The government chief defended himself saying he awarded the home ministry to Maoists as per a 7-point accord with Prachanda.
The secret was also rejected by the party as well pressing for its review.
The delayed expansion and reshuffle has under criticism not only within the UM; differences have also surfaced within the Maoist camp and MJFN.
nnnn



FURTHER DETAILS OF UN EACTION TO AGNI DEVKOTA APPOINTMENT

Kathmandu, 5 May: The UN High Commission for Human Rights-Nepal ‘regretted’ the appointment of Agni Sapkota as communication minister.
He was appointed minister even as there’s a search warrant for Sapkota’s arrest.
National Human Rights Commission also objected to his appointment without investigating Sapkota’s antecedents.
nnnn


PRACHANDA, MOHAN BAIDYA DISCUSSIONS UPDATE

Kathmandu, 5 May: Maoist Chairman Prachanda and Vice-chairman Mohan Baidya held discussions Thursday barely 24 hours after two ministers and a state minister loyal to the second ranking leader in the UCPN(Maoist) didn’t take their oaths office and secrecy following their appointment Wednesday night.
“It’s unfortunate. There are differences in the party but they have come out in the open. Unity will be weakened,” Secretary CP Gajurel said referring to Wednesday’s boycott.
nnnn

NEARLY 58,000 APPLY FOR JOBS IN SOUTH KOREA

Kathmandu, 5 May: Nearly 58,000 unemployed youth collected forms from outlets in the capital and Butwal in the last three days to appear for language tests to secure 7,100 jobs in South Korea.
Thursday was the last day to collect the forms, Foreign Employment Department said.
Prospective jobseekers will have to pass language tents being held tor two days from 20 May to secure a job.
South Korea has been recruiting Nepali youth under an official programme for the last three years.
Nnnn


INDIAN SSB WORKER ARRESTED WITH BOMBS

Kathmandu, 5 May: Four Indian nationals, including one person attached with an para-military force Seema Surakshya Bal (SSB), were arrested from a bus with three bombs and explosives Thursday, Jhapa officials said.
Ironically, SSB is deployed along the open 1,700 km border to curb cross-border crime and maintain security.
The bus was heading for Janakpur from Kakarvitta on the Jhapa/ West Bengal border.
Nnnn

KHIL RAJ REGMI NEW CHIEF JUSTICE

Kathmandu, 6 May: Khil Raj Regmi takes over as chief justice Friday.
He’ll be in office for three plus years.
Regmi succeeds Ram Prasad Shrestha who was superannuated Thursday.
Nnnn

OPINION
RECKLESSNESS , REVELATION AND REVISIONISM
Kathmandu, 5 May: By blaming the Nepali Congress’ “recklessness” for King Mahendra’s takeover in December 1960, UCPN-Maoist vice-chairman Baburam Bhattarai may have imperiled his position as our top democrats’ favorite Maoist, Maila Baje writes in Nepali Netbook.
The politically correct version has long held that King Mahendra’s enormous autocratic ambitions led to the overthrow of Nepal’s first elected government and three-decade proscription on multiparty politics.
In subsequent years, deposed prime minister B.P. Koirala had been willing to factor in other national and international developments that worked to the monarch’s advantage. But Koirala’s party has steadfastly and singularly peddled the line of royal ravenousness.
This version has enjoyed almost universal acceptance in the political mainstream, including within our splintered but strong communist movement, a key beneficiary of the royal takeover. So much so that sections of the post-monarchical community of ex-panchas have articulated that assertion without the slightest trace of awkwardness.
So when someone of the stature of Dr. Bhattarai offers an alternative version of history, it is bound to acquire extraordinary attention. But, then, the man has been quite elastic in his assertions, configuring them in tune with the times.
During the second peace talks he conducted with the royal government, in 2003, Maila Baje recalls, Dr. Bhattarai asserted that peace was achievable precisely because the political parties that had mangled the 12 previous years were finally out of the way. Yet when those talks faltered, Dr. Bhattarai lumped Bhimsen Thapa’s and the Ranas’ rule together with that of the monarchs’ to depict a 240 years of crude kingship.
Still, a few questions are in order. Why would Dr. Bhattarai run against the current at a time when he needs to clear all the hurdles he can on his path to the premiership? Could this be a ploy to secure the Nepali Congress’ support for extending the constituent assembly? Failing that, he could then place responsibility for any post-May 28 “accident” squarely on the largest democratic party.
Because of the proximity of the event, Dr. Bhattarai probably didn’t find it necessary to recall how it was the Nepali Congress which led to then-King Gyanendra’s first takeover on October 4, 2005. Or he simply might not have wanted to humor the last monarch so early in the game. Maybe he wanted to perpetuate the guessing game that has held the Maoists in good stead in times of war and peace alike.
As for the Nepali Congress and Satra Sal, Dr. Bhattarai perhaps felt he was merely underscoring what the party understood all along. The fact that two-thirds of its 74 elected representatives in the lower house eventually joined the Panchayat system may not necessarily connote recklessness, but it is certainly revealing.
Nnnn
Home
PRESSING ISSUES IN WAVES OF TISSUES
Kathmandu, 5 May:: Exactly a month remains to go for the self-extended Constituent Assembly to produce a new Constitution for a “new” Nepal. Last year, the CA decided to arrogate one more year after miserably failing to formulate the much-promised Constitution. Both the public and the press expressed serious concerns over the decision that many dubbed as arbitrary. Despite the many differences the various constituents in the CA, when it came to their own privileges and tenure, they gave themselves another year, Trikal Vastavik writes in People’s Review..
Now that the changed deadline is very close at sight, the question is whether the Hon’ble members deserve yet another extension. Many sections want fresh polls. Whatever the rhetoric on democracy, politicians shy away from facing voters if that can be done through misinterpretations, dubious routes and questionable means.
Four months before the June 28 deadline, Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal imperiously announced that the CA term could be extended by a few months. This time, public voice was much louder than previously in opposing the suggestion. The truth is that virtually all CA members want an extension for obvious reasons. It is only that not all admit it openly.
There have been suggestions that a rough draft (“khaka”) could be tabled before the House within the stipulated time period. The CA then could go on for another extension “to give the finishing touches” for the hastily produced document for reasons of sheer expediency. Were that to happen, it would be the biggest political joke of the past two decades. If one were compelled to make a comparison, the conclusion would be that “rough” draft would be too much of a pain than an unpopular extension of the CA.
How the nation’s diplomacy is conducted, and how the national pride has suffered and compromised in “loktantra” are underscored far too often to be listed here. A series of leaders went down to New Delhi in the past couple of months for consultations with the Indian government. At least two politicians, from two political parties, jointly paid a pilgrimage to the Indian industrial capital of Mumbai. They were advised not to publicize the “meeting”. Two other politicians--a woman and a man-- met with a group from Scandinavian front agencies in Delhi.
Of the well-publicized trips to the Indian capital was that of former Prime Minister Surya Bahadur Thapa, still hopeful of becoming a prime minister adding to the record that he was prime minister during partyless panchayat, during panchayat “with suitable reforms”, during multiparty democracy, when there was no parliament, and could very well become so also in “loktantra”.
One can’t blame Thapa for such ambitions if others prove to be worthless enough to see revival of the octogenarian’s prospects. President Ram Baran Yadav considers him to be the only “bhale” among the present crop of leaders. Thapa lost the 2008 elections; his Rastriya Janashakti Party has three seats in the gargantuan House; and is known for ditching anyone he considers an obstacle and embracing any group or ideology if it suits the purpose.
Three Madhesh-based party leaders (Bijaya Gachchhedar, Mahanta Thakur and Rajendra Mahato) made a big fuss about their trip to New Delhi, fed Nepali journalists, while still in the Indian capital, with information on their meetings with Indian leaders, and returned home to say that they would reject the new Constitution if the Madhesh issue was “not properly addressed”.
Of note was that the trio’s voices synched well with that of Surya Bahadur Thapa even if the words and issue-angles raised by the two sides, on the surface, sounded different. The purpose of the visits to New Delhi and the message sought to be given were loud and clear. The Indian government’s Nepali guests relished the media coverage they received. Apparently, they did not realize the disgusted reactions in the general public. Perhaps they just did not care. History, for them, could be damned; personal considerations asserted their priority.
President Ram Baran Yadav seemed to take a cue from these leaders or his own “manaspalat” in expressing “serious concern” over the inordinate delay in the constitution-making process. He loves being seen to be active. His advisors ensure that the media is constantly fed with each and every bit of presidential activity of the convenient type.
The presidential palace is trying to signal that the new Constitution should be passed by not just two-thirds majority but also with the support of the Madheshi groups and Nepali Congress as if other political persuasion do not exist. His advice to political leaders is gleefully leaked to the press, many of which report the same faithfully without daring or caring to comment on the purpose behind the façade of “serious concern”.
Last year, there was pressure from Nepali Congress, of which Yadav was an active and senior leader before stepping into his latest role, to dissolve the CA. But he decided to go for Legislature-Parliament decision of the CA, by the CA and for the CA. His legal advisor Surya Dhungel had privately and publicly pleaded for not extending the CA term.
Dhungel showed his actual worth when it comes to principled stand made public. He has also been writing in the media on issues in a manner not becoming for one drawing salary from the state coffers and serving as an advisor to the president who is supposed to seek and give advice on the quiet. For someone who so openly spoke against extension, it is no surprise if he advises the president to at least comply with the advice this time.
Yadav reads newspapers regularly and fumes whenever he comes across any credible piece critical of him and his activity. Among the members of his kitchen cabinet, he exercises no restraint in venting his feelings, right or wrong. Yadav says that endorsement of the Constitution by two-thirds majority would not be able to avoid future problems. What if Madheshi parties reject the Constitution?
So what? In a country where the majority exclusively says it all, and takes it all, Yadav’s stand is strange. Otherwise, why not suggest a referendum on extremely vital issues like constitutional monarchy, secularism and federalism, with one or more of these issues having been raised by leftist leader like Chitra Bahadur KC and pro-monarchy leader like Kamal Thapa.
Nnnn