MOTHER OF UPENDRA YADAV DEAD Kathmandu, 23 Oct.: Mother of Madhesi Janadhikar Forum- Nepal (MJF-N) Chairman Upendra Yadav is dead. Fudan Devi, 96, died Monday night. Her last rites is being Tuesday afternoon. Upendra Yadav is the younger among two sons. nnnn ROMNEY RESTRAINED AGAINST OBAMA Kathmandu, Oct 23: President Barack Obama came ready Monday for a fighting finish, deriding Mitt Romney as reckless and overmatched in world affairs. Instead he found a subdued challenger who was eager to agree and determined to show he was not a warmonger. AP reports from Washington Romney starkly moderated his tone and his approach in the closing debate. Playing it safe, he tried not to unnerve undecided voters who are wary of another U.S.-led war, or to upend a race that remains remarkably tight with two weeks to go. No moment was more telling than when Romney had a clear opening to respond to Obama's lecture that he was wrong and irresponsible on foreign affairs. He responded by giving his five-point plan for fixing the economy, leading to a bizarre exchange that took the debate wildly off topic. It showed how much the commander in chief was in his comfort zone, where the challenger regretted that he was not in his. The last debate turned into a mirror of the first one, when Romney had been the aggressor and Obama was intent not to fiercely challenge him. Even in trying to outline differences with Obama, Romney often started by agreeing with him. Suddenly, it was Romney the Republican who was talking about supporting economies abroad, while Obama the Democrat warned against nation-building. From drones to Afghanistan to Syria, Romney and Obama spoke in agreement on goals, if not strategy. The president's biggest vulnerability - last month's deadly assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, and all the unanswered questions that surround it - barely surfaced. Romney seemed to pass on the opportunity to assail Obama's leadership and shifting messages on the attack. Obama accomplished portraying himself as a world leader, facing a former governor who he said had offered positions that sent a mixed, and unsettling, message to allies and the American people. He did so at times mockingly, but faced little fire in return. "I know you haven't been in a position to actually execute foreign policy, but every time you've offered an opinion, you've been wrong," Obama told Romney. He needled Romney the businessman for complaining that today's Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917, trying to hold Romney up as ignorant and unfit for the job. "Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them." Romney's clearest points were to try to turn Obama's most aggressive moments against him, and to outline a more comprehensive strategy for combatting the extremism that has roiled the Middle East and North Africa. Even then, his tone stood out. Politely. "Well, of course I don't concur with what the president said about my own record and the things that I've said," he said. "They don't happen to be accurate. ... Attacking me is not an agenda." With the race extremely tight and several states hanging in the balance, Romney sought to show he was reassuring, poised and in essence, presidential. Yet he seemed to lose some of the edge that gave his campaign a bump in the first debate. Trying to capitalize on the mood of voters, Obama has campaigned as the leader who ends the wars, not the guy who begins new ones. Romney tried to combat that by saying, for example, that he would not get the United States involved militarily in Syria even though he wants to find a way to arm the opposition. Yet millions of viewers at home were often left to discern exactly how much Romney and Obama differ in a world of diplomacy that is enormously difficult and nuanced. Before the debate, Romney aides said they believed viewers would, above all, be looking for Romney to demonstrate leadership and confidence. His answers often appeared driven to show he understand the regions, players and challenges at play instead of undermining the president's positions on them. The moderate Romney was dominant. On Afghanistan, for example, Romney said he also would bring troops home by 2014. Often, though, Romney would agree in principle before saying he would have executed differently. Romney congratulated the president on killing Osama bin Laden, for example, but then said, "We can't kill our way out of this mess." He agreed that sanctions were hurting Iran, but then said he would have initiated them sooner than Obama did. Romney also said he agreed with Obama's decision to stop supporting Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak - "I supported (Obama's) action there" - but said he would have been more "aggressive" in trying to encourage democracy. After a whole year in which foreign affairs has been the undercard of the campaign fight, it got its moment with the stakes right where they should be - high. The presidency is about the world even during inward-looking times. Currency standoffs with China, nuclear showdowns with Iran and military tensions around the globe affect the economy and security of the United States. The debate season ended with Romney looking like he wanted to get off the stage and back on the economy. That, ultimately, is where this election will be settled. nnnn OPINION UML under weight of woes Kathmandu,23 Oct.: One need not give any serious notice to UML leader Madhav Nepal’s diatribe that the Maoists are “destructive.” At a party unit’s function in Bhaktapur the other week, he also lambasted Baburam Bhattarai and Prachanda of being in the habit of speaking “lies”,Trikal Vastavik writes in People’s Review. But the fact is that the UML leader lacks credibility. He, too, is known for saying one thing and doing something quite the opposite. In the wake of the Royal massacre a decade ago, he suggested to the newly Crowned King Gyanendra to institute an inquiry commission. The king accepted the suggestion from the main opposition party leader who, however, backtracked from joining the commission as a member even after initially accepting it. Madhav Kumar used to describe the Maoists during their insurgency, as “terrorists” but he was very enthusiastic about meeting them clandestinely met with the Maoists in Indian cities under the supervision of the Indian intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing. His daughter’s widely publicized case of an average science student obtaining a scholarship for medicine at a coveted institute in India was an indication of his mode of operation. When he was in the prime minister’s chair until his party president Jhala Nath Khanal described the government as “already failure” and replaced him, he had a brother of his posted to a lucrative job in Hong Kong. When Khanal took over, he was accused of surrounding himself with a coterie led by his spouse, for consultations and decisions. Pledging to “form a consensus government,” he had dislodged the party’s former general secretary who served in the powerful post for 16 years. Khadga Prasad Oli, like Madhav Kumar Nepal, lost the 2008 elections. But he did not, or could not, enter the Constituent Assembly hall while Nepal not only got a party member to resign from a proportional representation seat and joined the CA but also headed the committee entrusted with the task of drafting the constitution within two years but failed to do so even after four years. Oli is setting his eyes on the next party elections. The scenario, however, is one of uncertainty. With Khanal trying to create a wedge between Nepal and Oli, he has shown some tilt toward Nepal in order to queer the pitch against the more bitter of the two arch-rivals. Party general-secretary Ishwar Pokharel is keen to retain his post and feels that he could play the decisive role in electing the next president. Khanal is also harboring a long shot in the hope of winning another term at the head of the organization. If there were to be a multi-cornered contest, his chances would brighten. Nepal, who rates his prime ministerial year as “the most effective” in the post-Jana Andolan years that have witnessed five prime ministers, is toying with the idea of being back at the top job. Previously, when the secretary general was all in all, he had ruled for more than a decade and a half. Now that he is neither a prime minister nor party executive, he feels he is swimming in a narrow stream. Two senior members of the UML, at separate meetings, told this author that morale in the party units at level levels was low. One of them said, “Factionalism is the disease that has affected the organization from the top to the bottom. People talk about faction-fighting in the Nepali Congress, but the situation in our party is even worse.” Another UML leader, at a program organized to launch a book on the preaching by a South Korean Christian in September, said:”Tell me who in the party doesn’t take money from Eknath Dhakal?” The lone member of the Family Party, who entered the Constituent Assembly through the proportionate representation seat, Dhakalis reported to be a generous in financing air tickets and other activities of influential politicians. No one asks Dhakal how and from where he collects the resources. Like the proverbial fish, his cash box never seems to be depleted, enough for every potential believer. Comfort and convenience are the factors that have blunted the cutting edge of the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist). In the constant “negotiations” among “major political parties,” UML is a distant fifth force. It is able to endorse decisions but can hardly initiate anything substantive. Going by the comments and reports in the media, Nepali people are aware of the politicians’ greed for power and personal profit. In fact, their disenchantment with party leaders and frustration over the prevailing state of affairs in the once peaceful country have welled up so much that they have been calling for “a dictator” to set things right. Such reaction by no means indicates that Nepalis reject democracy. It indicates to what depth the mess has taken roots and, in desperations, what people want as a surgery for resolving the crisis that began with the 1996 Maoist armed rebellion and turned to penetrate all quarters of state units after the ironically named “Peace accord” seven years ago. Although split into two groups recently, the Maoists are still the key factor in national decision-making process. It is they who set the political agendas. They initiate and others react. The billions of rupees they have piled since 2006 and the investments they have made in various businesses at throwaway prices bear rich profits. The returns from the investments enable the leaders live lifestyles they condemned previously and also help feed, shelter and educate the families of thousands of Maoist cadres. The security thus provided by the Maoist leadership has added to the workers’ commitment to the organization and emboldened them to create their own tactics of intimidating people and extorting “donations” periodically from traders, private schools and contractors. And where has UML been all along? It has two of its senior-most leaders as prime ministers but both left no notable mark in the governance of the state. Not that Pushpa Kamal Dahal and incumbent Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai have done any better. In fact, Bhattarai’s rule is certain to go down in history as the worst since the first general elections in 1959. But the UML as the leading group of leftists in Nepal is no longer valid. If elections were to be delayed and the UML’s ruling elite transformed itself to become a force with vision and mission, the organization might have a fighting chance of making its presence felt strong two years hence. The problems and prospects are obvious. Otherwise, the once-influential party will be unable to stem its decline in the years ahead. (The writer can be reached at: trikalvastavik@yahoo.com) Nnnn From Messiah To Mortal Kathmanndu. 23 Oct.: What a plunge it has been – the thud persists in a rumble that refuses to wane. A man who sought to claim singular credit for turning Nepal into a republic today seeks to preserve his premiership by raising the specter of a return of the monarchy, Maili Baje writes in Nepali Netbook. . Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai began cutting a pathetic figure months after he took that ride on the Mustang. A year later, the Messiah, who had emerged ostensibly to exorcise all our evils of the past, has ended up accumulating new apparitions. Billed as smarter, savvier and more sophisticated than any of his predecessors – commoner and oligarch alike – the incumbent prime minister ignored the pitfalls extending from his persona. Nepalis have never spared a leader who has started off making or implying soaring promises. Nor has any leader ceased blaming everybody else for his or her failures. But when they perceive a narcissist trying to wriggle out of responsibility, Nepalis are unforgiving. They sure still see a trained architect in our prime minister, but one who has demonstrably destructive proclivities in war and peace. Dr. Bhattarai, to be sure, has maintained a reputation for personal probity. Yet he has surrounded himself with the sleazy and slimy. Girija Prasad Koirala did not have a mansion in Kathmandu or a particularly glamorous personal wardrobe, either. That didn’t stop Nepalis from drawing the conclusions of the man that they have. Dr. Bhattarai, Maila Baje feels, made a strategic decision early on. He had spent years railing against the emergence of the equivalent of Sikkim’s Lhendup Dorji at a time when Nepalis needed to redress the external injustices inflicting upon them since the Sugauli Treaty. If he happened to make decisions as premier that seemed to conflict with that expectation, he seemed to have wagered, Nepalis would see them as part of the compulsions of governing a geo-strategically perilous nation. The Chinese understood this psychology well and, with a little tinkering, have left him virtually begging for an invitation to Beijing. But the Indians aren’t cooling their heels, either. It is hardly an accident that they chose to reveal Dr. Bhattarai’s secret contacts with New Delhi when his party – and his own prose – was most virulently anti-Indian in public. Even in the midst of the BIPPA fiasco and the controversy over the circumstances surrounding Dr. Bhattarai’s meeting with his Indian counterpart in Teheran, New Delhi has refused to throw a reliable lifeline. When the Indian ambassador announced a special grant to Dr. Bhattarai’s former school in Gorkha the other day, his wink-wink was barely concealed. Today, a supposedly ceremonial head of state has mustered the will to reminds us that he can’t sit idly by any longer, in effect, issuing a thinly veiled threat to the premier. What’s Dr. Bhattarai going to do next to save his mortal soul? Finally reveal who the real author of his June 6, 2011 ‘Let’s Not Legitimize This New Kot Massacre’ essay was? nnnn