BIG THREE APPROVE ToR FOR EXPERT PANEL

BIG THREE APPROVE ToR FOR EXPERT PANEL


Kathmandu, 18 Nov.: The Big Three Friday morning approved
terms of reference (ToR) to form an experts panel instead of state restructuring commission to suggest a federal state structure.
The breakthrough agreement between ruling UCPN (Maoist) and opposition NC and UML was reached at a a meeting in Singha Durbar.
There was no agreement between them Thursday
night.
Maoist parliamentary party continued discussions Friday amid
differences on the panel.
The Big Three will now hold discussions with a causes of
janajatis from various parties, including UML—the third largest
party in parliament who opposed ad suspicious of empowering the empowering the panel.
Mohan Baidya faction of UCPN (Maoist) is also opposed to the
empowerment arguing the constituent assembly (CA) responsibilities will be encroached.
UCPN (Maoist) General Secretary Ram Bahadur Thapa has threatened to abort the passage of the government amendment proposal.
nnnn


OPINION
AMNESTY OR DISGRACE

Kathmandu, 18 Nov.: For a ceremonial head of state, President Ram Baran Yadav sure has an aversion to the rubber stamp. As the optimism generated by the Seven-Point Agreement dissipates faster than it bubbled up, it looks like the president is about to restrain a second Maoist prime minister, Maila Baje writes in Nepali Netbook..
Yadav is said to have been troubled by last week’s recommendation by the cabinet that he pardon Maoist legislator Balakrishna Dhungel, who was convicted by the Supreme Court in a murder case.
In an apparent effort to pre-empt the president, Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, accompanied by the attorney general – a Maoist activist – met Yadav last week to press Dhungel’s case. The prime minister’s visit reportedly infuriated the president, who, Maila Baje understands, took it as an act of executive brazenness.
Arguing that the murder took place during the Maoist insurgency – ostensibly when abuses of the ultimate nature were carried out by both sides – the cabinet said Dhungel case was ‘political’ in nature. Accordingly, the Bhattarai government claims, the case falls within the purview of the presidential pardon the interim constitution stipulates.
A section of the Maoists maintains that the pardon stems from the framework of the peace agreement. But that claim cuts little ice. Dr. Bhattarai was roundly criticized by the United Nations, opposition parties, and human rights organizations, among others. Maoist secretary C.P. Gajurel, who belongs to the rival Mohan Baidya faction, wants the government to withdraw the decision forthwith (although his argument is that all conflict-era cases should be resolved together.)
In a statement laced more with mischief than anything else, Maoist chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal claimed that the decision to grant amnesty to Dhungel was taken through consensus when CPN-UML leader Madhav Kumar Nepal was prime minister. Then the Supreme Court stepped in over the weekend, ordering a stay on the amnesty move, in response to a petition by the sister of the murder victim.
Upon arrival from the Maldives after attending the SAARC summit, Dr. Bhattarai trained his guns – for now – on ‘dollar-spinning’ human rights organizations for creating needless controversy. As the prime minister maintained that the cabinet decision was irrevocable, President Yadav has begun consultations with experts and advisers. He is expected to make a decision in two or three weeks.
It is unclear whether the prime minister would retreat or confront the president. If he had his way, Dr. Bhattarai would be disinclined to do another Dahal. Yet he is far more constrained than Dahal was during the controversy surrounding the sacking and subsequent reinstatement of then army chief Rookmangad Katuwal.
The Maoists no longer carry novelty as agents of change. Dr. Bhattarai has squandered much of his political capital through personal gimmicks and haughtiness. Moreover, Deputy Prime Minister Bijay Kumar Gachchaddar, the pivot of his coalition, has virtually challenged the pardon agenda.
All this has prompted Minister for Culture Gopal Kiranti to warn of a conspiracy to have the term of the constituent assembly lapse and revert executive power to the president.
That is a lame ploy. Considering all the experiments that have taken place over the last five years in the name of creating a New Nepal and where they have led, Nepalis might be willing to endure that option.
Nnnn

AWAITING ANOTHER NEPALI SPRING

Kathmandu, 18 Nov.: Four weeks ago, the media gave coverage to Nepali Muslims going to Mecca. My heart swelled with great pride and affection for the elderly Muslim brethren donned in Daura-Surwal and Dhaka Topi. When they landed in Riyadh, they must have been easily recognizable as Nepalis at a time when such identity is supposed to be "regressive" and one that symbolized the "domination" of all past symbols of national unity and identity over "other communities" that are now pressing for the right to self-determination. Anyone who mentions such issues is branded in a negative light by the shady characters, foreign puppets and their cohorts, Trikal Vastavik writes in People’s Review..
"Don't sign any-anti-Nepal accord" and "Don't do anything anti-national" were some of the advices accorded Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai by the various political parties on the eve of his departure for the Indian capital. This sort of consensus does not normally arise when a prime minister heads toward any "friendly" country. Bhattarai, who was busy meeting his Chandigarh college mates from his student of architecture days in India in the 1970s (even if he prefers to be known as "a student of political economy" these days), must have understood the mood of the Nepalis in general.
Given the background that most of the major treaties Nepal has had with India have always generated controversies, public caution is natural. The 1950 Treaty, the Gandk Treaty, the Koshi Treaty, the Tanakpur Treaty are examples of how Nepal and Nepalis suffered inequality and hardships because of betrayal of their expectations. Many sections of the people vehemently opposed the treaties but they were ignored. Of the treaties, the late King Birendra had stated that Nepalis felt "cheated", as a result. It was a remark that most communists in Nepal greatly appreciated.
Understanding the public mood is one thing, responding to it faithfully and transparently quite another. Bhattarai, as is well-known, was the one who contributed the most in drafting the Maoists' 42-point demand at the time they launched their insurgency in 1996. The "intellectual" premier has remained completely silent over the 40 per cent of the demands that were related to India.
Bhattarai now talks of "Mahendra-type nationalism propounded during the Cold War" not being appropriate today! Unwittingly, he credits the late King Mahendra, who introduced the partyless Panchayat system and steered Nepal as a founding member of the Non-aligned Movement, for the timely foreign policy which perhaps others would not have been able to pursue, especially if they had happened to be the likes of the present day leaders.
The Nepali Congress members whose party has been in power the most during the multiparty years (1951-1960 and 1990-2011) consciously avoided being drawn into the issue of "unequal" treaties with India. The communists, too, no longer involve themselves in such discussion. One does not expect the Madhesbadi parties to be engaged in such talks. If they do, it will be in defense of the accords signed "with a friendly country like India with whom we share many things in common since time immemorial," in contrast to the silence by the other parties.
In other words, nationalism has become a dirty word for many political groups. Raising any valid issue strongly but one that does not serve the interest of India is considered "anti-India" stance. "You cannot become a nationalist by simply criticizing India." This is the sort of defense taken by the likes of Lok Raj Baral whose role during the panchayat years needs to be discussed some other time.
So what do we get? Rank bad governance, rampant corruption and leaders without integrity, with the so-called civil society "leaders" parroting INGO agendas and the latest ones adopted by the political groups they are overtly or covertly affiliated with. Political activists associated with all major parties run NGOs. Nepal has become a country where one can get away with anything, as long funds are there to the extent that the president's advisers, the prime ministers coterie, MPs and others in close proximity with influential leaders are associated with NGOs that are the sources of easy, hefty and regular income. This is the backdoor to getting things done. It is not for nothing that impunity has run riot in such manner in the last six years.
In 2005 this month, the Maoists and basically the Nepali Congress and the CPN (UML) signed a 12-point agreement under the aegis of the Indian government in New Delhi. The "People's Movement" 2005 was consequently launched and less than five months later, it culminated in the restoration of a parliament that had been duly dissolved on the recommendation of democratically elected prime minister of a political party that claims to have led "all" successful democratic political movements in the country.
A utopia was promised by the signatories, with an excited nod by their sponsors-cum-hosts. Everything that most Nepalis prided in were, as a consequence, uprooted or mauled beyond recognition, and all in the name of "transitional period".
A couple of months ago, Nepalis were told that the poverty level had stood at only 15 per cent. Five weeks later, they were again briefed that a fifth of the population is living below poverty line. Such doctoring by doctors of planning and development have created hoaxes that well up the sufferings and frustrations of the people in general at a time when nothing can be done or obtained without under-the-counter dealings, influence-peddling or feeding the sheer corrupt or criminal.
This calls for a new and highly rewarding spring unlike the past springs. The 1990 political movement ended in April; so did the 2005-6 movement. The chaos and confusion now prevailing across the Republic of Nepal do not resemble anything of the eve of the 2005 political movement. The situation today is far worse. One has, therefore, no hesitation is yearning for the "regressive" past whose constitution the late Krishna Prasad Bhattarai and the late Ganesh Man Singh praised in lofty terms even if their one-time party made a disgraceful vole face and condemned the same.

Six years ago, with the wisdom of hindsight, there was less corruption, lesser misrule and far less chaos. Political groups today function like a state within the state without the obligation of having to maintain law and order. The "success" has brought no relief to an average Nepali. It is time for another spring of revolution, this time for real. The question is: When?
nnnn