ALL-PARTY MEET OF FORMER LAWMAKERS DEMANDING CA REINSTATEMENT BEING HELD THURSDAY Kathmandu, 11 Oct.: An all-party meeting of former lawmakers demanding reinstatement of a dissolved constituent assembly (CA)meets Thursday. Ruling Maoists, who called snap polls for 22 November leading to the automatic CA dissolution now are pushing for its conditional statement, NC President Sushil Koirala oppose the idea along with supporters even as top main opposition leaders Vice-chairman Ram Chandra Paudel and Senior leader Sher Bahadur Deuba are pushing a reinstatement. CPN Maoist are instead pushing for a roundtable conference amid UCPN Maoist fears it will lost its now dominant positioning national politics by opening doors for involvement in national political politics to other parties. The all-party meet is a pressure campaign; former Chairman of CA Subash Nemwang will chair Thursday’s meet. Nemwang argues CA must be reinstated to amend an interim constitution to remove hurdles in ending a deadlock. Nnnn MAOIST OFFICE BEARERS MEET AS CHIEF PRACHANDA LEAVES FOR BELGIUM THURSDAY NIGHT Kathmandu, 11 Oct.: A meeting of UCPN Maoist office bearers is underway Thursday as Chairman Prachanda leaves fir Belgium Thursday night to address a meeting of party activists He’s leading a 12-member team that includes Krishna Bahadur Mahara, organization chief who formerly looked after the foreign department. The party leading the government is finalizing work procedures for its first general convention being held February 2013. Almost 2,000 delegated are to attend the meet. Nnnn MADESHI LEADERS OPTIMISTIC Kathmandu, 11 Oct.: Chairman of Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum-Nepal Upendra Yadav today said unification of Madhesi parties was necessary to emancipate Madhesis from subjugation but unity should not serve as a springboard for opportunists, The Himalayan Times writes. Addressing an interaction on ‘Unification process of Madhesi parties: Prospects and challenges’ organised by Madhesi Youth Forum-Nepal, Yadav said they were open either for a unified Madhesi party or an electoral front but the ideological basis of the unity should be the emancipation of Madhes, and nothing else. “Madhesi ministers are powerless because they care more for their own welfare than the larger cause,” added Yadav. “Madhesis and Janajatis should also fight under an alliance.” Sharat Singh Bhandari, Chairman, National Madhes Socialist Party, said unification of Madhesi parties and an alliance of Madhesi and other marginalised communities of the hills and Himalayas was necessary to achieve a federal constitution. “Marginalised and oppressed groups need a new constitution more than anybody else, and if we fail to forge unity among ourselves, our sons and daughters will have to fight a long battle for their rights,” Bhandari said. “But we must diagnose the causes of the splits that the Madhesi parties suffered in the past,” he added. “But we cannot join hands with those who betrayed Madhesis.” In an oblique reference to his former party colleague Bijaya Kumar Gachhadar, Bhandari said Madhesi leaders do not utter a word when Madhes issues are ignored, but when their ‘favourites are not promoted, they threaten to quit the government’. Chairperson of Nepal Sadbhawana Party (Anandidevi) Sarita Giri said unification of Madhesi parties should be for Madhes empowerment and not merely electoral advantage. “Madhesi parties need to clarify first why they split in the past,” she said, adding that the United Democratic Madhesi Front did not have an independent status. Giri maintained that the issue of federalism might derail if it was not decided by a simple majority in the CA. Vice-chair of Nepal Bar Association Surendra Kumar Mahato said the rise of Madhesi parties was the main reason why Madhesis could now live with dignity and pride in all parts of the country and a united Madhesi force could achieve more for the deprived communities. Unification, he said, is the best preferred option for Madhesi parties. “If you can not unite then go for an electoral alliance,” he added. Columnist CK Lal said Madhesis don’t need to worry even if Madhesi parties don’t unite. “If the hills where half of the population lives can have 40 parties, why can’t Madhes have 17 parties?” he wondered. In the next election, he said, major polarisation will occur between the Maoist and the non-Maoist forces and that Madhesis have the opportunity to create the third front comprising those supporting identity-based federalism. Madhes activist Tula Narayan Sah said it was an irony that those who engineered splits in Madhesi parties in the past were now spearheading the campaign to unite them. “I don’t think Hridayesh Tripathi and Upendra Yadav can stay together. Neither can Mahanatha Thakur and Mahendra Prasad Yadav or Bijaya Kumar Gachhadar and Sharat Singh Bhandari remain in one party,” he said. Nnnn MAOIST CHIEF DAHAL NOW SAYS FRESH POLLS VAGUE Kathmandu, 11 Oct.: : Moving the goalposts is not new in Nepali politics. Days after four major political forces reached an understanding to hold fresh polls, one of the stakeholders — the Unified CPN-Maoist — is back to calling for revival of the dissolved Constituent Assembly, Prakash Dahal writes in The Himalayan Times. UCPN-M Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal today even went on to say that the idea of promulgating a constitution through a new assembly ‘is vague and risky and probably will not pay dividends’. Dahal’s today’s statement forces one to recall the situation that had arisen just before CA’s obituary was being written on May 27. Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and Subas Nembang, in capacity of CA chairman, had then proposed to promulgate the constitution by incorporating the settled issues and leaving the unsettled ones for a new Parliament to deal with. But the ruling coalition partners UCPN-M and United Democratic Madhesi Front turned down the proposal. It’s only a matter of speculation at this time if the country would have found a constitution had the UCPN-M and UDMF agreed to that proposal. More than four months have passed since the CA died and parties despite their repeated commitments have invariably failed to strike a deal on future course. But Dahal, speaking at a programme in the Capital, today said the signatory parties of the 12-point deal now must be ‘ready to promulgate the constitution by reviving the CA’. “The number and names of the federal units can be decided through a new Parliament,” said Dahal, adding that his party took a decision to this effect during yesterday’s party meeting and that his party has already conveyed this to NC. “I hope NC will accept our proposal to save the country.” But NC and UML, which themselves are victim of indecision, are already wary of UCPN-M’s moves and maneuvers. NC leaders of late have been saying that the UCPN-M ‘has a pretty bad record when it comes to translating their words into action’. Dahal, however, said UCPN-M was the one that suffered the most due to CA’s dissolution, but stopped short of telling why his party did not heed to NC, UML’s proposal on the night of May 27. Instead, he tried to assuage NC and UML’s fears, saying if they agreed to UCPN-M’s proposal to revive the CA, they ‘don’t’ have to sacrifice their federalism agendas and that they can take their issues to the new Parliament’. “The next Parliament will give a legitimate verdict on the issue(s). I think it is a win-win situation.” nnnn MEDIA GOOGLE “The general assembly is likely to announce the formation of People’s Liberation Army to fight against those who surrendered.” (Netra Bikram Chand, Secretary CPN Maoist, The Kathmandu Post, 11 Oct.) MMC, NEPAL POLICE CLUB PLAY IN SECOND SEMI-FINAL OF NCELL FOOTBALL CUP TOURNAMENT THURSDAY Kathmandu, 11Oct. : Manang Mashyangddhi Club (MMC) and :Nepall Police play in the second semi-final of the Ncell CupFootball tournament Thursday afternoon. Rani Pokhari Corner Team (RCT) entered the final beating Madhyapur Youth Association 2-0 nnnn APECF, UK FIRM SIGN LUMBINI DEVELOPMENT Kathmandu, 11 Oct : The Asia Pacific Exchange and Cooperation Foundation (APECF) and Britain-based Vertical Theme Park (VTP) Group have inked a deal on developing Nepal´s Lumbini as an international peace city,Purna Basnet writes from Hong Kong.. APEC had last year made public a three billion dollar project on developing the birthplace of Lord Gautam Buddha. VTP Group that has a long experience in development and management of big projects is run by realtors close to the United Kingdom´s royal family members. " VTP Global Special Project Team has signed an agreement on developing Lumbini as an international religious destination," the VTP Group has stated on its website on September 13. As per the deal, VTP would work as the main development manager of the project. Also, Xiao Wunan, executive vice-chairman of APECF, upon his arrival in Hong Kong told Republica that they have reached the deal after a series of discussions with officials from VTP group. "VTP group was keenly observing the Lumbini project for the last one year. The group wants to apply the western concept and role in the project," said Wunan. VTP group is a renowned international company, which has built towers, city centers and tourism destinations. The group is already working on a design of Lumbini Cloud Tower to be built as an "International Symbol of Buddhist Philosophy" in the northern side of the Lumbini Village. "In London, the APECF delegation had an in-depth exchange with VTP Group regarding the Lumbini project and signed MoU with the company. Subsequently the APECF delegation held a discussion with Eric Kuhne, the designer of Lumbini Cloud Tower, and both sides reached consensus," the APECF stated on its website. Last year, the APECF had announced to have reached an agreement with the UN´s Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) on developing Lumbini as an international peace city. But later, the deal was dragged into controversy as the government of Nepal said it had received no notification in this connection. APECF´s involvement in the proposed Lumbini project drew political attention as well because UCPN (Maoist) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal is co-chairman of the foundation and is actively involved in the Lumbini development project. Nnnn LEADERS F BIG THREE LIKE STREET DOGS Kathmandu, 11 Oct : CPN-Maoist Chairman Mohan Baidya on Wednesday compared the leaders of the UCPN (Maoist), Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML to street dogs and instructed his party volunteers to remain alert and fight such elements, Republica reports.. He argued that the leaders of the three major political parties had been continuously fighting for power irrespective of the country´s deteriorating situation in a manner similar to street dogs fighting over a bone or a piece of flesh. He also claimed that they were never serious about drafting a people´s constitution. The UCPN (Maoist) did not want to leave government while the NC and UML wanted power at any cost. “We should beware of such dogs,” said Baidya, addressing the inauguration of the first general convention of the National People´s Volunteers (NPV) in the capital. He also said that they were all compradors. According to him, the NC and UML are the old compradors and Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Dr Baburam Bhattarai the new compradors. “We will fight against both the old and new compradors,” he said, claiming that the deadlock cannot be broken without forming a people´s government. During most of his address, Baidya alleged that Dahal and Bhattarai had betrayed the revolution, that they had exchanged the dreams of the martyrs and their blood for power. He also claimed that they had forgotten about the disappeared, the martyrs and their own cadres after entering Baluwatar. “Dahal and Bhattarai are preparing to suppress the revolution with the backing of reactionaries and expansionists,” Baidya said and pointed out how the Bhattarai government had brutally cracked down on the families of the disappeared at their sit-in at Baluwatar on Tuesday. More than a dozen protesters were injured when police set upon them with staves. Baidya urged the NVP to be ready for revolution and to play the role that the Young Communist League (YCL) played in the initial period of the armed conflict in 1996. Baidya warned that his party would draft the new constitution from the street and announce the provinces if the parties could not come to a roundtable of all stakeholders including political parties. After the Maoist party split, the National People´s Volunteers were formed out of ex-PLA and YCL committed to the CPN-Maoist and other youths below 40 years of age. Nnnn ________________________________________ INTERVIEW PRESIDENT MUST TAKE INITIATIVE DR, RAM SHARAN MAHAT TELLS REPUBLICA When the four major political blocks agreed on CA polls on Sept. 19, the issue of reinstatement of old CA vs. election of a new one was thought to have been settled once and for all. But the unpredictable Nepali politics has taken a new turn with renewed discussions on the revival option after UCPN (Maoist)’s proposal to Nepali Congress leadership that in case of CA’s revival, NC could lead the new government, provided Congress agreed to settlement of contentious constitutional issues beforehand. This proposal seems to have renewed the prime ministerial ambitions of senior NC leaders Sher Bahadur Deuba and Ram Chandra Poudel. Republica’s Biswas Baral and Kosh Raj Koirala talked to another senior NC leader, Ram Sharan Mahat, for his views on the revival option, its impact on Congress politics and broader national politics. How does Nepali Congress view the latest Maoist proposal of CA revival? This proposal is indicative of the inconsistency of the Maoists. Initially, there was an understanding that, if there is agreement on the contents of the constitution, then CA could be revived for a short period. If there was no agreement, we would go straight for fresh polls. We decided to go for fresh election once it was clear that the contents of the constitution could not be agreed at present. The agenda for debate should have been the form of national government, election date, composition and character of the new assembly and modality to bring the derailed constitution back on track. The latest proposal for CA revival has not only created confusion, but also shown how inconsistent the Maoist position is. It is unfortunate that party leaders are raising an issue over which the debate had already been closed. Will it be right to say that the Maoists have capitalized on the existing differences in NC leadership? Let us first agree that the Maoists are in the driver’s seat. They head the government and they are also the largest party, and Prachanda is trying to define the agenda of debate. He has kept everybody confused and has everyone guessing. His real intent seems to be to prolong the Maoist stay in power by keeping other parties engaged in such debates. As for the differences, they exist in all parties. Is there any possibility that NC could again agree to reinstatement? The question is not whether the CA should be revived or not. We have to go to election either way. There must be a fresh election by April-May (2013). The question of reviving the CA for a short while will arise only if there is agreement on the contents of the constitution. But so far, there are no signs of such an agreement. We cannot compromise on our basic premises, particularly on the issue of federalism. We are not for ethnic federalism, we are not for single-ethnic provincial names and we, unlike the Maoists, are for limited number of provinces based just not on ethnic character, but also geography, historical continuity and economic viability. We want to respect the people’s right to choose the province they want to be part of, in case of controversial districts. The CA is the process and a mechanism to endorse the constitution. The basic question is whether we have agreements on the contents of the constitution. Unless there is agreement on constitution, how can the CA be revived? At the moment, bringing the agenda for the CA revival upfront is like putting the cart before the horse. Do you buy the argument that CA revival is essential for amendments in the interim constitution to clear the path for new polls? I don’t. If the CA can be revived following political consensus, why cannot the same principal be applied for fresh polls? Constitution amendment by political consensus can later be endorsed by new parliament also. Let us accept that the constitutional process has broken down. The interim constitution does not envisage a situation where the parliament would be absent. There is also no executive prime minister. There is no constitutional way of reviving the CA or going to fresh polls. So either way, you have to take a political decision. So I don’t buy the argument that CA revival is necessary to amend the constitution. Under which constitutional provision one can revive the CA? Furthermore, the CA came to an end because of the Supreme Court verdict. Last time, the parliament was revived (in 2006) as a result of a popular movement when the people forced the king into complying with their wishes. No such thing is happening now. In their recent proposal to Congress for CA revival, have the Maoists specified a timeline? For instance, do they want CA revived for a day, a month? That has not been decided. But I believe even if we go for that option, the revival should be for a very short period. It could be five days, 10 days, a week, or two weeks. It depends on the procedural requirement to pass the constitution. Let’s come to NC’s internal matters. The party president and two of its top leaders seem to be divided over the issue of reinstatement. How has this debate played out in the party? The position in the party in mixed, in that there is no single opinion. There are people who favor CA revival and there are those who believe we should go straight for fresh election. The party president is doubtful whether revival is a legitimate way out. As I said, it had been more or less agreed before that if there were agreements on all aspects of the constitution, A could be revived for a short while. But at the moment, such agreements look unlikely. Therefore, that option was ruled out some weeks ago. Now Maoists are singing a different tune. What do you make of two of your top leaders taking up the Maoist proposal of revival? I cannot speak for others. But I think it would be foolish to fall for the Maoist bait. Under no circumstances will NC give up on its principle stands just for the sake of prime ministership. The issue of prime ministership is not a major issue. Any election PM will have limited flexibility regarding governance. It will again be figurehead prime ministership. Thus for the sake of this short-lived figurehead prime ministership, NC will not budge from its position on constitutional matters. Maybe the Maoist design is that by dangling the PM’s chair, they can make NC accept their political and constitutional agenda, which will not happen. Given this situation, how do you assess the likelihood of a breakthrough in the near future? Last month, we had come to an agreement. But Prachanda backed out. He said he could not convince others in his party and in the governing coalition. Prachanda says one thing today and something else the next. There is thus no basis to trust his words. We wanted to find a breakthrough by building on past agreements. But when Prachanda backed out, negotiations stalled. The Maoists have been saying that NC leadership would be acceptable only in the case of CA revival, not for an electoral government. What do you make of this? It is natural that Nepal Congress leads any consensus government. This is not a debatable issue. Like I said, prime ministership is not the main issue at present, one should not be dying for the election prime menistership. But as I said naturally, NC will make a strong claim in view of its size in the parliament and past understandings and agreements, and also in view of the fact that we have been successful in holding free and fair elections in the past. But even if it was decided that NC would get the leadership, who from the party will lead the government? Unless and until there is a clear offer of the position to NC, why should we propose a PM candidate? If and when such an offer is made, the central committee will make the final decision. What are the possibilities on the emergence of a fourth candidate besides the three who have been projected as NC PM candidates? We believe even you are in the race. First of all, let me make it clear that, personally, I am not in the race now. If the three leaders can agree to a common candidate, it’s fine. If they can’t, we are capable of devising a formula, and even producing a fourth contender. But personally I believe a candidate will be settled among the three. Now, I hear that Sher Bahadur Deuba is pulling out of the race. The signs that some kind of consensus is being formed is positive. There seems to be disagreements within NC on whether to take to the streets or still continue with the dialogue process. All options are open. But my point is: You don’t need to take to the street to change a government every time. There is also the constitutional way. Taking to the street every time will create a wrong precedent. The prime minister has been relieved of his post. Now he is just a caretaker prime minister. In this situation, I believe it is incumbent on the president to call upon the political parties to suggest a consensus candidate. If such consensus is not coming, he should consult political parties and based on those consultations, he must come to a decision. He should appoint someone who in his opinion commands greater support as the prime minister. The president should have done that long time ago. I hope he will still do it, as the situation is demanding. But at the same time, even to push the president into taking such an action, it is natural for the political parties to use pressure tactics including street agitation. Separately, NC leadership has been saying it cannot work together with the Baidya-led Maoist outfit, given its recent actions. Is that the case? On the question of replacing the present prime minister, the Baidya-led party and NC are on the same page. But we have fundamental differences with them on many other counts, like their current stand on Indian vehicles, cinemas, and foreign investment. We totally oppose these actions. On the basis of current inter-party negotiations, how hopeful are you of a breakthrough? There must be a breakthrough, but I don’t have much hope that it will be possible through political consensus. We have wasted enough time. Thus, as the guardian of the constitution, the president must act to bring the constitutional process back on track. Since the political parties have failed to arrive at a conclusion on the next government, on the next election and on constitutional amendment, the president himself must take the initiative to find a constitutional way out. There is also a view that contentious constitutional issues should be taken to a referendum. If there is no agreement on basic constitutional issues, a referendum cannot be ruled out. If there is agreement on those issues now, you don’t need to make them an election agenda or referendum agenda, which will be a waste of time. If you can avoid the wastage of time by agreeing on the contents of the constitution before hand, well and good. But if you can’t agree, either let the next parliament take the decision or go for a referendum. The Maoists have proposed that a new constitution be promulgated leaving aside contentious issues for later. This is precisely what we proposed before the expiry of the CA on May 27. But Maoists flatly refused and brought the CA to an end. If they now agree with what we proposed then, they must admit they were wrong then. They have no consistency and there is design in their every step. Their position keeps changing depending on immediate interests. How can you trust the Maoists? They say one thing today and another thing tomorrow. But if you can’t trust them, how can there be meaningful negotiations? Despite the serious trust deficit, the reality of the situation demands that we talk to find a solution. We cannot trust them so long as there is no foolproof agreement in the presence of witnesses. As President Ronald Reagan famously said to his countrymen during his negotiations with the Russians on SALT treaty “Trust, but verify”. The president as a constitutional guardian must also be brought into the picture. That is the reason I am insisting that the president himself must take the initiative. Nnnn ________________________________________ S