CONSTITUTION DRAFTING COMMITTEE MEETPOSTPONED UNTIL 2 APRIL

CONSTITUTION DRAFTING COMMITTEE MEET POSTPONED UNTIL 2 APRIL

Kathmandu, 29 March: A meeting of the main constitution drafting
committee headed by Nilambar Acharya was postponed with continued differences between major parties.
The committee can’t draft a basic law without minimum agreement between parties on ,major themes.
A sub-committee headed by Chairman Prachanda Wednesday was
inconclusive while discussing a proposed judicial system.
The meeting was adjourned until 2 April.
nnnnl

OPINION

COMRADE, DON’T SIT ON THE SIDELINES

Kathmandu, 29 March: With many in the country fixated on whether the Maoists might actually capture state power and turn us into inmates of a giant national re-education camp, CPN-UML leader K.P. Oli is crying wolf in the other direction.
The failure to draft the constitution within the latest extended deadline would pave the way for a rightist coup, Oli told an audience in Khandbari, Sankhuwasabha district last week, Maila Baje writes in Nepali Netbook..
The advent of spring once again has instilled the political ambience with much anticipation. So many political surprises have been sprung out of the hat this time of year in the past that you cannot realistically constrain the realm of possibility.
Before you contemplate a restoration of the monarchy, however, consider this: In Oli’s estimation, former king Gyanendra will not be the right-winger grabbing power. Who, pray, then, could be lurking further to the right of the crown?
Let’s ponder a little deeper. Is Oli talking about the reactionary right and its penchant for aristocracy and established religion? Or is he signaling the moderate right and its fixation with limited government and distrust of intellectuals?
Might, on the other hand, the UML leader be referring to the radical right and its espousal of romantic and aggressive nationalism? Or is he indicating the extreme right with all its association with anti-immigration and implicit racism?
Or perhaps the former deputy prime minister is alluding to the neo-liberal right, which combines a belief in a market economy and deregulation with the traditional right’s beliefs in patriotism, elitism and law and order?
Specifically, in our context, this could mean anything between right-wing elements of the national military or other armed forces who believe a gory national makeover is unavoidable and theocrats who deem that Hinduism can no longer take everything coming its way.
Oli is too smart a politician to stop being banal and cryptic. And let’s not forget that he is considered a leading contender to succeeded Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, without, one might add, even being a member of the legislature. (Not that that is something new in his party.) To that extent, Oli has made our task harder.
Impelled by Marx and Lenin to become among Nepal’s first headhunters, Oli has subsequently been in and around power long enough to have finally, as they say, understood Marxism and Leninism. Yet, in the manner of his comrades, he cannot disavow communism outright without risking political irrelevance.
Still, when he sees the Maoist alligator opening its mouth, Oli doesn’t know whether it is trying to smile or preparing to eat him up. Thus, he has emerged as one of the fiercest critics of the Maoists (who consider him a leading rightist).
As a middle-aged communist confronting his own mortality every time he flies out for medical treatment, Oli recognizes the corruption of a dream of justice when he sees it.
Maila Baje cannot claim to have peered into the soul of Oli and ferreted out the preceding sentiments. All this comes from a few books of the greatest quotations of the 20th century on communism.
If Oli thinks such assertions are too banal and cryptic for our own good, then might want to employ a little more candor and tell us what he means by a right-wing power grab.
Nnnn

DELHI’S DRIVE FOR DAMAGE CONTROL

There seems to be a semblance of realization in the corridors of the power centers in India of late that their foreign policy is full of flaws. But their basic perception continues to be blinkered. What the supposedly “new thinking” concludes is that the previous foreign policies, although appropriate and effective in the prevailing
contexts, are no longer in tune with the changing times. This means the experts were right yesterday and will be right tomorrow, Trikal Vastavik writes in People’s Review..
It has been three years since New Delhi began to realize that its long-term interests risked being further damaged if new approaches under a new national policy were not pursued. “They [retired external affairs ministry officials who manage to project themselves as important in South Block] have changed their tone when they meet people other than those they traditionally patronized for buying their loyalty,” said a retired Nepali official who used to operate from Shital Niwas before Ram Baran Yadav moved in.
In an attempt to convey the message that neighboring countries will be treated better, South Block is leaking information and briefing journalists considered “dependable,” to give an impression that better terms are on the way for neighbors. A well-placed Indian contact with good sources at an Indian organization, generally described by the West as “Hindu fundamentalist,” briefed this author at a luxurious hotel in Kathmanmdu’s Battisputali not long back.
Is there anything new in the offing? If so, why the change of heart by a country that styles itself as the world’s largest democracy and a deserving claimant to a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council?
The Maldives is no longer the island grove that New Delhi can dictate upon unlike previously when a long-ruling dictator assured the largest democracy of being sensitive to its security interests. The last two years have witnessed very significant changes with long-term impact. Multiparty system has been introduced, for which New Delhi had no role. For decades, the Indian government did not press Gayoom to allow any political party other than his own to function.
Male’s relations with Colombo have grown these past two years and Colombo’s ties with Beijing have also strengthened specially after China’s stand during the last months of the Sri Lankan forces’ operation in quelling the rebellion in the northern region.
Most political parties in Bangladesh including the main opposition led by former Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia are extremely critical of Indian policy toward their nation. Bhutan undoubtedly dreams of wriggling out of the 1949 treaty that hands over the mountain kingdom’s foreign and defense policies to be “guided” by New Delhi. Prospects of improvement in Indo-Pakistan ties are nowhere within sight.
The late King Birendra once regretted that Nepal was “cheated” by her southern neighbor. Bhutanese also feel the same about their country’s relations with the giant neighbor. Incursions of Indian troops into their territory are humiliating. Bhutanese refugees in Nepal are full of tales of India’s overbearing presence in that country.
In 1990 Indian “peace keeping forces” in Sri Lanka had to return home humiliatingly when Colombo and the Tamil rebels both announced a ceasefire between them and pressed for the foreign troops with pull out. Both the warring groups held the ceasefire but the armed rebels did not stop attacking Indian troops. Eventually, New Delhi recalled its troops to avoid prolonging the highly embarrassing situation.
For 60 years Indian interference has been going on. During the Panchayat years, New Delhi was checked to a large extent, for which it used to brief the willing sections of the Indian media and intelligentsia to pass sweeping comments. The line was that since there was “no democracy” in Nepal, the “regime” in Kathmandu played China against Nepal.
Since 1990 multiparty democracy has been reintroduced in Nepal and, still, the general people are very critical and suspicious of Indian moves and intentions. For the people cannot forget past experiences with the neighbor. New Delhi finds it easier to deal with autocrats. It maintained good relations with a number of South Asian states that had dictators in power and popularly elected parliaments were absent.
The next 20 years will witness many changes in South Asia and other parts of the world for better or worse. With world economic equations changing sides, Asia is most likely to be the world’s economic center. However much India might like to assert its “democratic” status, the fact is that it is still a semi-democratic state, as are also the rest of the South Asian nations.
China in the new millennium has overtaken India in every respect except for the praise from the Western world that promotes multiparty system of government whereas China is a one-party state. Self-aggrandizement through boasts will only delude the Indian establishment while most neighbors are put off by the big brotherly attitude that New Delhi has always been maintaining.
Following the political changes in Nepal since 2006, New Delhi’s interference in Nepal has been unambiguous. This is greatly resented by Nepalis in general. By keeping a few hundred among the growing numbers of Nepali elite happy, New Delhi might have hoped for having its writ run any way but its strategy is destined to fail in the long-term.
Appeasement made through scholarships, free medical treatments in Indian hospitals, money bags littered during election times and patronizing of a few scores of activists from some communities will not guarantee goodwill from the Nepali masses that have seen through New Delhi’s games too often not to resent it. The very fact that the name of Lendhup Dorje, who was instrumental in Sikkim’s disintegration into India in 1975, often tosses up in Nepali debates is an indication of how India and its proxies here are looked upon.
The mass resentment is such that if China, for instance, were to even slightly show active sympathy and support to address the sentiments, India would find developments that would cause immense regrets over its policies toward Nepal for more than 60 years.
India bares its teeth at the slightest pretext of Nepal not being “sensitive” to its security concerns. The economic blockade it clamped upon landlocked Nepal in 1989-90 remains a big blot in its conduct of “friendly relations” and “people-to-people contact” with Nepal and Nepalis. If New Delhi cannot behave properly with a democratic, friendly Nepal, it never can with any of the other South Asian countries, unless, perhaps, they happen to be dictators.
nnnn