UML CENTRALCOMMITTEE MEETS Kathmandu, 13 Jan.: A opposition UML central committee meeting Sunday in debating Chairman Jhalanath Khanal’s report dwelling on the current political crisis and party strategy. The party has opted to go on protests to topple the government of Prime MINister Baburam Bhattarai. Secretary General Ishwor Pokhrel is presenting a report of planned changes isn party statute. nnnn YOUTH ARRESTED FOR CHILD RAPE IN SARLAHI Kathmandu, 13 Jan.13: A youth has been arrested for raping a child of Haripur-1 in Sarlahi Saturday. The teenager has been identified as a 17-year-old. and raped her at around 5 pm on Saturday. nnnn OPINION FIXATION WITH A NONPARTICAN FIX. Kathmandu, 13 Jan.:The prospect of an ‘independent’ personality being appointed premier has posed a real dilemma to the political class. (Forget for the moment the absurdity of trying to identify a politically autonomous individual from the midst of our entrenched polarization and alignments into brotherhoods and sisterhoods of one party or the other), Maila Baje writes in Nepali Netbook. The mere acceptance of such a personality would be tantamount to a collective confession of failure on the part of our professional politicians. Yet a non-political prime minister, Maila Baje contends, would allow the traditional political fraternity to evade responsibility for the greater calamity likely to ensue from our prolonged national quandary. That President Ram Baran Yadav and Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai can still feign credibility in their respective assault on the constitutionality of the other amplifies the emptiness of the external hand behind the contrived change under way here. The aliens we are talking about are far less likely to concede failure. The erstwhile Seven Party Alliance and the Maoists were far too competent not to comprehend the absurdity of presiding over the kind of transformation that was never part of what drove the Nepali masses to rise up against direct royal rule in April 2006. When the proverbial chickens came home to roost, elements of the ascendant political class found it tempting to play the blame game. Unable to impress the wary spectators, some now see virtue in bringing in someone new to fix the unfixable. The idea of an independent prime minister has been both welcomed and ridiculed from across the political spectrum. Yet the Nepali Congress, aggrieved by its failure to reach what finally seemed to be within grasp this time, has been the most vociferous about letting the politicians do the politicking. After all, as Dr. Shekhar Koirala reminded us the other day, the Maoists, the CPN-UML and the Madhesi Front had asked the party to name its prime ministerial candidate in what was projected as a gesture of conciliation. Sushil Koirala finally readies himself for the job and suddenly this talk emerges of an independent personality at the helm? Just because four commie premiers in a row failed to fulfill the promise that had never really been made seven springs ago? Amid the diminishing prospects for consensus with deadline extension, Nepali Congress Vice-President Ram Chandra Paudel has come out with a novel idea. He insists that the president, being the guardian of the nation, should himself pick the new prime minister. As someone who endured 17 rounds of legislative balloting and still failed both to gain the top job and ensuring the sturdiness of the democratic process, Poudel understands the perils of a futile pursuit. Perhaps he has far too much faith in the president’s ability to pull off what the king could not, when it comes to exercising guardianship. What we have today is a crisis of institutions, where the head of state and head of government each believes he is on the right side of history, geography and everything in between. This plays into the hands of those who want everything else but a solution. In such a situation, half-measures like the president peremptorily picking a prime minister would do little to improve the situation. Instead, President Yadav might want to appoint himself head of government, too, move beyond vacuous expressions of concern and actually try to put things in order. Or would he prefer Prime Minister Bhattarai assuming the presidency as well and pressing ahead? Nnnn CRIMINALIZATION OF POLITICS Kathmandu, 13 Jan.: In its editorial, “Madhupark,” the state-owned publishing house, in its latest issue politely suggested that the the practice of withdrawing criminal cases should be “revised.” Citing how convicted criminals get off the hook prematurely, the literary journal called for a review of the practice. Trikal Vastavil writes in People’s Review. Probably, the journal’s other sister news publications have never bothered to raise this issue. The country’s oldest existing “Gorkhapatra,” or “The Rising Nepal” would perhaps think several times before putting in such suggestions. Their regular readers who monitor the contents might be able to shed light in this aspect of the publications’ functioning. Thousands of individuals, described as “regressive” and “anti-democratic elements” by mainstream, “democray-loving” parties that claim to have many stupendous sacrifices, are responsible for engineering state reprieve to hardened criminals whose life sentences are commuted on the recommendation of the moneyed or political horsetrading. Not surpringly, goons and brokers began to develop easy access to influential leaders and short-circuit the legal process in letter and spirit. Their political patrons make common cause in protecting criminals and convicted criminals. Coverup of corruption, protection from imprisonment and getting criminals out of the iron bars became a relatively quiet but highly handy and lucrative industry for the politically mighty and financially bagful. Such practice began from the very year an interim government representing basically the parties that spearheaded the 1990 movement for the restoration of multiparty political system was formed. Those in close proximity to the powers that be or those with bags of hard cash to contribute to parties and party leaders were widely believed to have had their people let loose from prison bars. Succeeding governments found this a big source of showering favors on party activists and also in lining party cofferes and individual wallets. The so-called intellectual community and civil society members, polarized as most of them are on politically ideological lines, raise voices of opposition against the “malpractice” when their own group is not in power. Predictably, but most disgustingly, they choose to remain mum when their own party is in power. The selectivity thus applied has eaten into the standings of these groups and the public is yet to be supported by a consistently credible and effectively alert, active civil society that represents genuine public opinion. The worth of a civil society is in the fearless and timely manner in which they become pro-active in raising issues of public concern. Unfortunately, many civil society leaders have made it a profession in their campaigns whose agendas are funded, initiated, directed and implemented by paymasters in the garb of “donors,” “aid agencies,” INGOs, “foundations” and such other synonyms in the dictionary of what Nepalis have experienced much to their chagrin particularly these past seven years. Public frustration has welled up to the boiling point and the volcano of public disgruntlement, disenchatment and deep disappointment will require an appropriate outlet sooner or later, failing which a reign of terror in the guise of “interim period” will set in. In the name of “democracy” and “loktantra,” a few groups have developed the practice of claiming to speak for all Nepalis across the country. The beneficiaries of their version of “good governance” are few and far between. That is why three top-most leaders of the three largest political parties were roughed up in public so humilatingly. The individuals resorting to such violence were all party members of the particular leader they each attacked physically. That except for the party members concerned the majority of other Nepalis did not condemn the attacks in any strong term has a meaning all its own. Ignoring the writing on the wall would be a costly error. Padam Kunwar, on failing to pay Rs. 28,000 as a fine for attacking Maoist supremo Pushpa Kamal Dahal, received several times the required amount from Nepalis within and outside of Nepal in no time. Apparently, in a show of solidarity, the contributors were sending their own signals of disenchantment with the political leaders who have been making key decisions as if nepali citizens did not exist. Dahal, under the circumstance, made a tactful move by rushing bail money to have Kunwar released and avoid the public focus caused by related debates on the embarassing incident that reverberated all over the country. In principle, what Kunwar did cannot be condoned. But the way he seemed to attract sympathy after being beaten black and blue by Maoist caders in the presence of their leaders could leave a deep scar in Kunwar’s attitude. People have begun assessing the performances of leaders whose indifference to issues of grave public concern and preoccupatiopn with grabbing power or sticking to the seat of power at any cost are the bane of the country’s contemporary political development in general. Another area of widespread public concern is the overbearing pontification and blatant interference in this country’s domestic affairs by officials of various foreign missions. Should foreign interference continue uncurbed, its long-term consequences will prove to be grievous for the forces that will be held responsible for the manifold causes of dissatisfaction and sufferings of the vast majority of Nepalis. “Marta hai to karta kya” syndrome will take effect, and the spills of the consequences will render what complacency might have grossly dimmed the vision of those wielding power as if this country were a fiefdom of the 19th century. It is not purely democratic governance that preoccupies political leaders, foreign aid agencies and diplomatic missions in Nepal. The many activities that unfolded since the winter of 2006 after seven parties were assembled in New Delhi to launch a protest movement in Nepal soon after have by now jolted Nepalis out of the slumber they had fallen into. People feel they have been laid the garden path by groups and foreign agendas couched in fancied slogans that have finally begun to draw criticism at the grassroots level. Whatever the unconvincing claim by political parties, Nepalis have lost peace, stability and whatever political integrity that remained on the eve of the launch of the seven-party movement seven years ago. If there were doubts earlier, it no longer the case today. The much promised new Constitution proved to be a promise as good as a damp squib. Who are to be blamed? Unfortunately for the major parties they do not have any other force to put the blame on. They cannot blame the “rightists” or the “royalists.” Now and then they blame one another. They play their tunes any which way they like while Nepalis suffer relentless pain and anguish. (The writer can be reached at: trikalvastavik@yahoo.com) nnnn