FreeNepal.org

WHEN ONLY THE WRONG PARTIES ARE=20 RIGHT

BY DR. DEEPAK KHADKA

Nepal's King presented the case of the ruling = political=20 parties' failure to provide good governance, and their = inability to solve the communist insurgency, as = excuses for=20 his Feb 1 coup d'etat. The case he makes is right. = What=92s=20 wrong is his implication that the institution of = monarchy has=20 nothing to do with these failures.

The fact is, it was the constitutional obligation = of the=20 government to protect the monarchy that handicapped = the=20 political parties in dealing with the Maoists. The = Maoists are=20 always ready to settle down with the multiparty = democracy=20 without the kingship.

The link between the existence of monarchy and the = failure=20 of political parties to provide good governance might = not be=20 immediately apparent. But the fact that no governments = ever=20 initiated the first order of the business--that is, = the=20 crucial matter of bringing the pre-democracy = corruption into=20 the book--points to the power the passive monarchy = still held=20 after the democracy.

The Maoists started their insurgency a decade ago = after=20 observing the six years of =93constitutional = monarchy=94 that=20 followed the 1990 democracy revolution and concluding = several=20 things: First, that the monarchy still retained the = real power=20 in the shadows; and second, that the ruling political = parties=20 submitted themselves to this power, and thus would be = unable=20 to bring about social-economic reforms in the country.

The rebels=92 conclusions were right, as proven by = every=20 single political development since that time. The = Maoists=92=20 only wrong conclusion=96although this, too, is in all = fairness=20 yet to be proven=97has been their calculation that = they can=20 exploit the weakness of the political parties and = eventually=20 establish a communist regime in Nepal.

What went wrong that led these two wrong parties to = say=20 such right things in such ironically wrong ways? What = caused=20 the political parties to fail? The answer to this = question=20 will be the answer to Nepal's crisis.

The incompetence or corruption of the major leaders = of=20 ruling parties has been perceived as the major = explanation to=20 the political parties' failures. Leaders are generally = seen as=20 abusers of the unlimited political power and freedom = that=20 democracy provided to them. However, of late, = particularly=20 after October 2002 when the executive power was held=20 essentially by the King, the limitations of their = power and=20 freedom have been revealed. It is becoming clearer = that the=20 political parties have power and freedom enough to = abuse, but=20 not enough to challenge the King and his interests.=20

Does this inadequacy have something to do with the=20 degradation of the political parties? If with great = power=20 should come great responsibility, then inadequate = power=20 perhaps brings an inadequate sense of responsibility.

The Feb. 1 coup was crafted foolishly, both in a = moral=20 sense and in terms of its practical miscalculations. = However,=20 it is still proving a clever and successful maneuver = in=20 distracting the international community from the = dangerous=20 questions like the one above, which can expose the = institution=20 of monarchy to a questioning of its relevancy. Now all = that=20 the international community wants is to see the coup = reversed,=20 bless the old =93constitutional monarchy,=94 and take = a long sigh=20 of relief.

The coup thus appears to be a =93two steps forward, = one step=20 backward=94 bargaining strategy in terms of the = continued=20 existence of Nepal's monarchy. Unfortunately, this is = proving=20 a huge blunder on the domestic front. The slowly = emerging=20 voices for doing away with the ever ambitious monarchy = have=20 become louder and are spreading rapidly among = political party=20 workers since Feb 1.=20

The submission of the political parties to the = power of the=20 monarch in the shadows got its first jolt not on Feb = 1, 2005,=20 but three years ago, on October 4, 2002, when the King = decided=20 not to remain in the shadows and determined to show = everybody=20 who had the real power in Nepal by sacking the elected = government with an authority he did not legitimately = wield.=20

This shocked the political parties. However, they = were=20 unable to challenge the monarch. They simply lacked = the moral=20 authority to do so, due to their legacy of protecting = the=20 monarchy and their widespread corruption that mirrored = the=20 corruption of the Panchas before them.=20

After all, the political parties--even after = learning=20 through three rounds of formal talks with the rebel = that the=20 rebels were ready to end the insurgency for a = democratic=20 republic, or at least for the acceptance of a = democratic=20 process geared toward that possibility--unanimously = decided to=20 crush the rebels militarily and protect the monarchy = by=20 declaring the state of emergency on November 26, 2001.

Things have been changing since Feb 1, 2005. The = leaders of=20 political parties are coming forward to admit, = although=20 reluctantly, that they have made mistakes in the past. = However, there have been just too many mistakes for = too long a=20 time to admit to all of them. And, more importantly, = they have=20 yet to present clear roadmaps to convince the common = people=20 that they really intend to and have the capability to = rectify=20 all the mistakes of the past 15 years. Basically, that = is what=20 will decide if the wrong parties will still be able to = maintain their ironic relevance as sayers of the right = thing=20 in Nepal.

The job is not simple. That=92s because the = mistakes are not=20 in the simple nature of a minor weakness, such as a = few bad=20 apples in a basically good batch of leaders. It was = the=20 collective failure of all parties, all the time.

Basically, the parties have been the victim of a = compromise=20 which developed into a national denial and started to = eat up=20 the system like termites. The 1990 revolution of = democracy was=20 an incomplete one, not because of some unintended = compromise=20 made but because it was started from the beginning = with the=20 goal of an incomplete democracy.=20

As a matter of fact, the goals were so modest that = our=20 leaders actually thought we disempowered the monarchy = more=20 than we had intended. Ganesh Man Singh, the commander = of the=20 1990 movement, famously said, "We went to the palace = hoping=20 for a bowlful, but came back with a jarful."

That sense of gratitude overshadowed the awareness = of an=20 incomplete job, and sidelined the work of keeping up = the fight=20 for full democracy. Our international communion of = democracy=20 certified that what we have is an allegedly genuine = and full=20 democracy. The Constitutional Monarchy and Multiparty = system=20 were declared to be the two pillars of democracy in = Nepal. We=20 have heard that democracy is a self-correcting system. = So we=20 deluded ourselves into believing that there was really = nothing=20 for us to worry about. We became oblivious to the fact = that=20 what we had was still a quasi-democracy, and a = quasi-democracy=20 is not a self-correcting but a self-destroying system. =

In this whole development of national denial, = collective=20 loss of memory, and general unawareness, the only = guard should=20 have been the Nepali intelligentsia. Why and how it = failed is=20 a good and timely topic for research. The = responsibility of=20 the Nepali intelligentsia in failing Nepal's democracy = has yet=20 to be exposed.=20

The continuous failure of this class becomes = evident when=20 the words that Maoist ideologue Dr. Baburam Bhattari = writes in=20 national dailies become the most stimulating and bold = ideas=20 ever read by common people in Nepal. Of course, Dr. = Bhattarai=20 adds a good amount of communist absurdity in his = writing.=20 However, it must be admitted that there are =93right = things=94 in=20 his writings that common Nepali readers cannot find in = writings of any other famous Nepali intellectuals.

The wrong parties are saying the right things in = Nepal.=20 That's what Nepal's crisis is all about.

Comment=20

goodby=20 party Posted On: 2005-04-01=20 10:17:40.545 By: goodby party =
only now these party = people lose=20 their power, and realise the comftorble = chair can=20 be yanked out, now they are saying the = right=20 thing. the king made them fall on there = rear, so=20 they have woke up. now lot of people see = we need=20 goodby party for this midivel system! =
Reply=20 to this
=

Reply to=20 "Goodbye Party" ji:
Posted=20 On: 2005-04-07=20 00:21:25.528
By: Deepak Khadka =

To be correct, the = political=20 parties are not saying the right things, =
not=20 just yet. Their top leadership is still = expressing=20 their willingness to piggyback the = monarchy. All=20 they essentially want is the return to the = pre-Oct=20 4, 2002 status quo. That is all they know = and that=20 is all they care about democracy.

The unwaned faith of the top = leaders of=20 the political parties in monarchy = vis-a-vis it's=20 lower level counterpart's growing = disenchantment=20 with monarchy, which goes so far as to = call for a=20 republic state, is interesting but not = surprising.

Lack of intelligence and = vision, lust=20 for power, abhorrence with internal = democracy and=20 practice of dictatorship in the party-all = these=20 have reduced the top leaders to what Dr. = Baburam=20 Bhattarai famously nicknamed, = "raja-rajauta"; so=20 their faith in monarchy is
something = like=20 raja-rajauta's faith in a Maharaja-an = affinity=20 among
the same species, so to speak.

So it will be reasonable to = think that=20 only the goodbye party that will = successfully bid=20 farewell to the intra-party monarchy will = do the=20 same with the national monarchy.

Reply=20 to this

Naive about=20 Maoists? Posted On: 2005-04-04 = 10:30:45.634 By: sally
Deepak ji, = While a lot of=20 people say that Maoists started their = insurgency=20 after observing six years of = constitutional=20 monarchy, that seems a bit naive. Isn't = there at=20 least some reason to believe they were = ALWAYS=20 intending to make a "class revolution"? = The way=20 it's sometimes painted, one can get the = impression=20 that Prachanda, Bhattarai et al just sat = in the=20 background for 6 years, observing, and = then were=20 so aghast at the way democracy was working = that=20 they took to the jungles. Chitra Tiwari = has said=20 that they had only two shotguns to start = with. I=20 find that a bit hard to swallow. = Regardless of any=20 rightness or wrongness of the Maoists = theoretical=20 conclusions regarding the monarchy, etc, I = don't=20 buy the notion that they started their = rebellion=20 as a response to 6 years of faltering = democracy.=20 Your thoughts?
Reply=20 to this
=

Reply to=20 Sally ji:
Posted = On: 2005-04-07=20 00:23:41.212
By: Deepak Khadka =

The Maoists are very = clear about=20 their goal and strategies. As a matter of = fact,=20 International Crisis Group in it's report = on=20 Nepal's crisis published on March 24, 2005 = has=20 this to say, "As Crisis Group has warned = before,=20 the Maoists are the only party in Nepal's = complex=20 conflict with a clear strategy."

The Maoists have their stated = ultimate=20 goal of establishing a "people's republic" = (one=20 party communist regime) in Nepal. So this = should=20 leave no room for any confusion or naivety = about=20 them.

The advantage the clarity of = Maoist=20 goals and strategies offers us is to allow = us to=20 determine precisely where and how can we = stop them=20 for good.

We know the ultimate goal of = the=20 Maoists is to establish a "people's =
republic"=20 in Nepal. But we also know that they do = not view=20 that as immediately feasible--both = practically and=20 in theory, the Maoist one of course. And = that=20 brings Maoists' willingness to settle down = with a=20
"democratic republic"- a feasible, = more=20 progressive than present one
and a = widely=20 acceptable system.

This clarity was so dangerous = to=20 certain power and it's allies in the =
country,=20 it actually became more advantageous to = them to=20 let there be
a confusion about the = Maoists in=20 all kind of positive lights than to let = negative=20 clarity of the Maoists exposed to the = public.=20 Words of praise to the Maoists from very=20 conservative and reactionary quarters of = the=20 country can be understood in this light.

So I do agree with you that = there are=20 all kind of na=EFve notions, theorizations = as well=20 as unfounded fears about the Maoists = prevalent=20
in the country. Nothing to be = surprised of or=20 even worry about if I
may. Because the = most=20 important task for us is to stop the = Maoists for=20 good. And when we focus on that, it does = not take=20 a rocket scientist to
figure out which = will=20 work--to ask the Maoists to surrender to = the=20 monarchy or to ask the Maoists to prove = their=20 commitment to the democratic republic of = Nepal.

We do have solution to the = Maoist=20 problem. But do we have guts? That's the = question.=20

Reply=20 to this

Criticism=20 from Nepal Posted = On: 2005-04-12=20 09:49:21.191 By: A Nepali in Nepal =
I have been involved = with the=20 people and really felt poverty. I don't = think any=20 of the people that wrote on your column = can say=20 that. I have experienced the life as it is = in the=20 villages for 8 years working for a = nonprofit going=20 to remote villages in far western Nepal = for months=20 at a stretch. It was after 1998 that = trouble=20 really started in the villages. = The=20 reporters, human rights activist only skim = the=20 surface of reality. Reality is living in = the=20 villages with the Maoists, the security = personnel=20 and not just being in some foreign country = and=20 being worried about your motherland. The=20 hypocritical human rights activists = and=20 reporters do not seem to have any idea = what they=20 are talking about. It seems so = superfluous.=20 Do you think that they would know = the=20 intensity of the problems by just visiting = a few=20 places in Nepal or just by listening = to other=20 people's stories? People living a = luxurious life=20 abroad have no right to comment on = anything about=20 Nepal. If they want to make a difference = then they=20 should do it here. Writing biased comments = about=20 Nepal does no good for the country. How = were the=20 Maoist born? Was it not because of the 12 = years of=20 bad governance? Was it not because people = in the=20 cities only thought about how to get rich? =
Reply=20 to this
=

Maoists are=20 hijackers, not custodians Posted=20 On: 2005-04-13=20 21:35:07.256 By: Deepak Khadka =
Nepali ji,=20 The young and innocent = boys and=20 girls who are recruited by the Maoists are = indeed=20 rebelling against neglect, discrimination = and=20 poverty as they believe so. However, the = same can=20 not be said about the not-so-innocent = leadership=20 of the Maoists. The Maoist = leadership is primarily fighting for a = chance to=20 perform on Nepal a political experiment = that has=20 failed in every part of the world it was = tested-=20 the communism. Full = democracy,=20 social justice and other progressive = agenda they=20 are talking about are secondary and = auxiliary to=20 the primary one or, to be precise, for = strategic=20 importance only. So you better not trust = the=20 Maoists. It is true that = it is=20 these secondary progressive and = pro-democratic=20 agenda- that were neglected and forgotten = by the=20 so called 'democratic force' of the = country- gave=20 the Maoists a deceptive legitimacy, = relevance and,=20 as a natural consequence of which, growing = strength and power, which, they, by the = way, have=20 abused freely and aplenty- competing with = the=20 notoriety of the state security forces in = doing=20 the same. Now that the = King has=20 liberated the "democratic forces"- = thanks=20 to the Feb 1 take over- from the = service=20 they were providing to the former, there = is a=20 chance- for the first time ever since the = Maoists=20 hijacked what should have been = their=20 agenda- to review the lapse of their = judgments and=20 snatch those agenda back from the Maoists = and thus=20 put the country and themselves on the = right track.=20 That was the message and the limit of my = article.=20 Now to your criticism of = human=20 right workers for being comfort-minded and = failing=20 to report the real horror the people in = villages=20 are living with, I agree with you. = However,=20 whatever is being reported is already = horrific=20 enough to alert all, if that's what is = your=20 concern. However, there is = very=20 important point related to human right = abuse your=20 criticism brings forward- the importance = of a=20 meticulous documentation of the abuses and = a loud=20 and clear reminder to the abusers that = they are=20 not going to get away with what they have = done. No=20 matter what, time will come when they will = be=20 brought to justice. While = the=20 documentation will be valuable in future = in=20 providing justice, the warning will = discourage the=20 abusers and at the same time will give = hope of=20 justice to the abused. The = hope of=20 justice is even more important than the = justice=20 itself. And finally, to = your final=20 note, I believe in counting every = contribution -=20 small or big, right in the country or from = far=20 away- to worthy causes. So I will not = discourage=20 fellow Nepalis or friends of Nepal living = in=20 foreign countries doing whatever small = things they=20 could do for Nepal.
Reply=20 to this
=

Reply to A=20 Nepali in Nepal Posted = On: 2005-04-16=20 20:04:02.192 By: Homraj
Dear A Nepali in Nepal, = You have raised a valid concern = and I=20 agree with you on most things you have = said.=20 However, there are a number of assumptions = you=20 have been making and some of these = assumptions are=20 somewhat incorrect, though probably shared = by many=20 people, particularly since this site is = based in=20 U.S. So first let me address these, = becuase I=20 think it is important. I am = referring to=20 your statement where you begin=97=93I have = been=20 involved with the people and really felt = poverty.=20 I don't think any of the people that wrote = on your=20 column can say that. I have experienced = the life=20 as it is in the villages for 8 years = working for a=20 nonprofit going to remote villages in far = western=20 Nepal for months at a stretch.=94 = First of=20 all, I really appreciate the fact that you = actually acknowledged your privilege. That = is=20 something rare. I have argued elsewhere = that=20 because of access to power, education and = ideas,=20 the urban based, new professional classes = are=20 particularly well suited to dominate = democratic=20 discourse. In most cases that seems to = happen, but=20 15 years of democracy has taught people so = much=20 more than we are giving credit for. = To get=20 back to your charge that people writing = for=20 FreeNepal cannot say they have lived and = felt=20 poverty, I would say some people writing = here have=20 lived the lives of lowest common = denominator in=20 Nepal. You went and lived in remote and = rural=20 areas as a development professional. Some = of us=20 actually were at the receiving end of = development.=20 Those of us who actually grew up in = villages,=20 where you had to walk for an hour to get = to the=20 waterhole and had to spend almost half of = the=20 entire day collecting firewood in the = jungle,=20 certainly know what the life in the = village is=20 like. There are writers in this = team who=20 attended not only high schools in = villages, but=20 also attained colleges by riding bicycles = for at=20 least hour and half each way on dirt = paths. I am=20 writing this not because I do not agree = with you=20 on what you have said, but to clarify some = of the=20 assumptions that you and indeed many = others may=20 make, and which need clarifications. = Some=20 of us who have written for FreeNepal not = only have=20 felt poverty, but lived in it for a long = time, and=20 know what it means to have no voice, no = access and=20 no choice. And some of us have indeed been = giving=20 back and are working in Nepal to give = voice to the=20 voiceless, choice to the choice to the = choice-less=20 and access to those who do not have = access.=20 Anyway, thank you very much for = bringing=20 up these issues. You have touched on very=20 important aspect I have been thinking = about for a=20 long time. It is true that human = activists,=20 journalists, etc. don=92t necessarily = understand the=20 deep rooted poverty and social inequality, = precisely because they tend to belong to = the new=20 professional class and do not have the = lived=20 experience. The rural urban divide = transcends any=20 other divide. Best, Homraj=20
Reply=20 to this
=

marx and the=20 British Library Posted = On: 2005-04-21=20 19:52:54.412 By: anup k pahari =
Folks: populism is = seductive.=20 in politics being able to claim one is of = the=20 grassroots is even more seductive. = however, didn't=20 the greatest populist of all time karl = marx, write=20 his entire opus from the confines of the = british=20 library, occasionally venturing out to = this or=20 that worker's protest? there are = many=20 people in Nepal who are true blue "gaunle" = folk=20 who are 200% against freedom and = democracy. and=20 there are many people who grew up in the = valley=20 and have not been out it who are 200% for = a free=20 and equal society. In this day and = age=20 only so much mileage can be milked from = populism.=20 after the pleasure of populism wanes, its=20 substantive ideas and effectiveness that = matter.=20 just my 2 cents anup =
Reply=20 to this
=

Forget Marx=20 Posted On: 2005-04-21=20 23:13:16.874 By: Homraj
Very interesting = perspective,=20 Anup-ji. First of all, how is Marx = a=20 populist? Populism is =93the belief that = greater=20 popular participation in government and = business=20 is necessary to protect individuals from=20 exploitation by inflexible bureaucracy and = financial conglomerates.=94 That = is not=20 Marx. Marx was an ideologue who was a good = observer and researcher of what was going = on 150=20 years ago, but his ideas have not led to = democracy=20 and have not led to greater popular = participation.=20 Anyway the story of the British library = museum is=20 mainly a myth. So instead let us = speak of=20 democracy. The American Founding Fathers, = with the=20 exception of Benjamin Franklin who was = from a poor=20 background, came from educated scholarly,=20 professional classes. But they did not = shut down=20 or minimalize or trivialize or feel = threatened by=20 the emergence of grassroots people who = truly had=20 something to say. In fact, they encouraged = it and=20 created a system that encouraged it. = If=20 somehow the grassroots perspectives had = been shut=20 down, had been accused of being merely = =93populist=94=20 and =93seductive,=94 there would have been = no Abraham=20 Lincoln and no Frederick Douglass. Both of = them=20 came from very grassroots level and were = able to=20 change the very history of America. They = did so=20 with much opposition from some educated = and elite=20 people, and much support from other = educated and=20 elite people who worked hand in hand with = them and=20 shared ideas that made a true difference.=20 One of the reasons that Nepali = democracy=20 has not been optimally successful is that = there=20 has always been unwillingness to listen to = the=20 real experiences of people who do not have = access=20 to the power structure. Society that has = the=20 foundation of feudalism will always feel=20 threatened when the people from the = grassroots=20 start to make inroads into realm of = elites. But=20 hopefully minorities, rural people, women, = dalits,=20 will be encouraged and welcome to tell = their=20 experiences and participate truly in = democratic=20 platform without being scolded for sharing = their=20 life experiences. Democracy in = Nepal had=20 been bearing fruit and creating a platform = for=20 grassroots voices. It is true that all = =93gaunles=94=20 may not be for freedom and democracy, but = those=20 who are should be encouraged, and those = who aren=92t=20 also deserve to have their voice heard = even if we=20 disagree. That is the whole idea of = creating a=20 culture of democracy, and not just using = the word=20 democracy. Best, Hom Raj = Acharya=20
Reply=20 to this
=

The = "grassroots" of Social Conservatism in=20 Nepal Posted On: 2005-04-22=20 13:23:23.137 By: Anup Pahari =
Homraj ji: = Thanks for=20 your reply and for giving me the = opportunity to=20 expand on my original short post. I enjoy = visiting=20 this site and thanks to you, sally ji, and = whoever=20 else for maintaining it. First,=20 communism/socialism/populism have been = close=20 cousins throughout history. There is no = denying=20 that there is a strong populist component = to Marx=20 -- the idea that only the "proletariat's=20 experience is authentic, and the proper = subject of=20 history" and its many variants.... Of = course, you=20 are correct to say that Marx was not ONLY = a=20 populist, but a pol-econ. theorist, whose=20 theories, however, are decreasingly = relevant to=20 the discourse of democracy today. = Moving=20 on, as you point out, there has always = been an=20 intermingling in democracy of various = perspectives=20 and "milieu" . Without the need to come as = far as=20 the USA, closer to Nepal, Indian democracy = is a=20 classic example of an elite-led democracy = movement=20 with strong popular/grass roots component. = While=20 Western enlightenment rationality and = political=20 philosophy were the key underpinnings of = the=20 Indian freedom Movement, without the = crucial link=20 to the masses supplied by Gandhi's = deployment of=20 swadesh and ahimsaa, the movement would = have most=20 likely stalled. However, without the = secular and=20 liberating discourse of western liberalism = that=20 Indian elites (Nehru, Ambedkar, Patel,=20 Rajgopalachari, Rajendra Prasad, etc.) = picked up=20 though English education, liberal = democracy as we=20 know it in India would have been scarcely=20 conceivable. My larger point, = which=20 perhaps I did not make clear in my earlier = post,=20 is the following. We must be a = little=20 cautious before uncritically labeling = everything=20 that comes out the "gau" as "grassroots" = and hence=20 more authentic and/or desirable than other = lived=20 experiences in Nepal. This is because, = like in the=20 rest of South Asia, the "gau" in Nepal = tends to be=20 the crucible of social and cultural = conservatism.=20 Whether we talk of strict caste practices, = or of=20 gender discrimination, or of archaic forms = of=20 economic, sexual and inter-personal = inequalities=20 and exploitation, these have a far more = visceral=20 and pernicious presence in the villages of = Nepal=20 than they do in most urban areas. And this = is true=20 not only of Nepal, but all Asian (and even = European/US) societies. Of course, newer = forms of=20 exploitation like prostitution and = sweatshops=20 evolve in urban contexts as part of the = dynamic of=20 capitalism and globalization, but I = digress=85.=20 Again, looking at India, the = "grassroots"=20 Hindu groups of UP, Bihar, etc. tend to be = concentrated in rural areas and small = towns. (Yes,=20 this migrates to urban areas too; but = without a=20 groundswell rural base it would die out).=20 In Nepal too, the strictest = practitioners=20 of caste, gender taboos (eg. treatment of = Badi and=20 mensurating women, and new mothers in far = west=20 Nepal) are rural not urban practices. And = no=20 matter their "grassroots" origins, these = practices=20 have no place in a democratic society. = I=20 have witnessed many instance of the = incredible=20 power of Hindu social/cultural paranoia = and=20 conservatism in the mid-hills of Nepal; = and the=20 approval and sanction it receives from its = rural=20 clientele. the real roots of social = conservatism=20 in Nepal are the rural mid-hills, followed = closely=20 by the rural tarai. Before we = uncritically=20 label everything with rural roots as = somehow=20 inherently progressive and better for = democracy=20 than other experiences and discourses, let = us=20 remember that in all societies rural areas = are=20 also the bastions of conservatism. = Whether=20 it is racism in the US, or the Taliban in=20 Afghanistan, or ultra-Hindus in India, or = rural=20 Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka, a key source = (but not=20 only source) of social/cultural, = political, and=20 economic conservatism (and hence = exclusion) is the=20 rural milieu and worldview. Urban society=20 everywhere, and particularly those in = highly=20 tradition bound countries like Nepal, = India, Iran=20 and Afghanistan, is more liberal, = liberated, and=20 liberating on many fronts (Blue Diamond = Society in=20 KTM, Lolita fan clubs in Tehran). These = are=20 possible in rural areas, but only after = overcoming=20 great traditional inertia. It is not for = no reason=20 that democracy flourished in Greece in = city=20 states. Democracy will flourish in Nepal = when=20 villages incorporate the secular, = egalitarian, and=20 individual-centered discourses brewing in=20 urban/educated milieus. On the other hand, = if=20 urban Nepal simply inherits the = conservative ethos=20 of village Nepal, democracy will be along = time in=20 the coming. People like you can be = (and=20 are, in your particular case) important = agents of=20 change because you know the rural = landscape so=20 well, but are also able to remove yourself = from=20 the immediate cultural/social milieu of = the "gau"=20 sufficiently enough to be able to see the=20 contradictions and to address them. You = are=20 members of the rural educated elite who = have=20 become aware by going outside the rural = confines=20 (both physically and intellectually) that=20 everything rural is not hunky dory. Of = course,=20 many people who never leave the villages = are also=20 able to see and act on these = contradictions. These=20 as the =93organic=94 elites, in = Gramsci=92s words. But=20 most rural denizens don=92t see them (or = simply=20 refuse to see or acknowledge them). Most = rural so=20 called upper castes will not drink from = the water=20 source used by dalit castes, even if they = know it=20 is wrong. The same rural so called upper = caste=20 person studying in Kathmandu will eat = buffalo meat=20 served by a Newar =93low caste=94 in = Kirtipur campus=20 without thinking about it twice. = The=20 minority voices in rural Nepal who are = speaking up=20 today are mostly people who have had = strategic=20 encounters with the outside world(s). They = may be=20 returned lahures, or those who came in = contact=20 with various NGO or INGOs, or radical = teachers who=20 brought the discourse of =93speaking = out,=94=20 =93participating,=94 and =93consciousness = raising=94.=20 Despite the fact that the majority of MPs = in Nepal=20 after 1990 came from rural constituencies, = they=20 ultimately became witting or unwitting = agents in=20 suppressing such voices from below. = Instead, in=20 most instances, they just went along with = the=20 conservative rural power structure. The = Maoists,=20 of course, famously capitalized on this = political=20 and inclusion gap which, ironically, was=20 reproduced via the politics of = =93grassroots=94=20 politicians of NC, UML and NSP and RPP. = To=20 conclude, there is no suggestion in my = opinions=20 that =93grassroots=94 voices be excluded,=20 =93minimalized=94, =93trivialize=94 or any = impulse to=20 =93feel threatened=94 by the = =93grassroots.=94 My point is=20 simply this: let=92s be critical, = radically=20 deconstructionist of all social and = political=20 claims and claimants instead of = privileging any=20 particular position as inherently more = reflective=20 of the voices of the excluded. In this = regard, we=20 should be equally questioning of the NGO=20 entrepreneur of bonafide rural = =93grassroots=94=20 origins who skims development aid as of = the urbane=20 politician and/or business house that milk = the=20 public treasury, or of the palace cronies = yearning=20 for the bad old days. We do = strongly=20 agree, however, that inclusion of those=20 traditionally excluded from cultural, = political,=20 social, literary, economic production is a = pre-condition for a successful and = meaningful=20 democracy in Nepal. Your points that a = good=20 democracy invites, upholds and values the = voices=20 of those outside inherited power = structures are=20 excellent and completely unassailable. In = fact,=20 they form the cornerstones of the = =93Liberal=20 Democracy Nepal=94 web endeavor you, I and = many=20 others recently embarked on=20 (www.liberaldemocracynepal.org). = Likewise,=20 I hope I have been able to convey to you = my point=20 about the need to be vigilant, critical = and=20 radical in our understanding of the = =93grassroots=94=20 (and its associated concepts) and how this = must be=20 refined and defined in the context of a = legacy of=20 social conservatism endemic in rural = Nepal. Yes to=20 excluded and dissenting, voices regardless = of=20 their =93politics=94 . But, no to = uncritically=20 accepting x,y, or z as the =93authentic=94 = voice of=20 any particular =93samuha.=94 This is what = landed us in=20 trouble with our democratic = =93representatives=94 in=20 the first place. Let=92s not go that route = again.=20 Instead, let=92s try to create conditions = whereby=20 all the various =93samuhas=94 in Nepal can = continuously challenge those that wish to = or claim=20 to speak for their interests. Only then = perhaps=20 will a truly =93representative=94 = democracy emerge in=20 Nepal. Best, Anup =
Reply=20 to this
=

On = the=20 Question of Authenticity Posted=20 On: 2005-04-23=20 00:57:47.864 By: homraj
Anup ji, I = always=20 appreciate your challenges and stimulating = ideas,=20 and your willingness to come out and = participate=20 and contribute to the discourse. I think = this is a=20 great way to begin conversations on = important=20 issues like this one as we all try to work = toward=20 furthering the democratic cause. = As a=20 person who has lived in real villages with = real=20 circumstances, I get so tired of hearing = people=20 romanticize rural life, or imagine it as = the locus=20 of an imaginary progressive movement. Your = honest=20 defense of urban, westernized values and=20 identification of them with the = progressive forces=20 of South Asian life are refreshing. = But we=20 must be cautious about implying that we = view the=20 urban, westernized experience as the locus = and=20 origin of the "good," while characterizing = the=20 rural experience only in its aspect as=20 "backwards." To speak of = =93strategic=20 encounters with NGOs=94 and life abroad as = lahures=20 and attribute the ability to speak out = against=20 injustice to such alleged encounters is = again to=20 minimalize the strengths of people who = utilize=20 their own cultural processes to decipher = and=20 describe not only their own surrounding = but the=20 external world. Though undoubtedly it is = not your=20 intention to minimalize, marginalize or=20 trivialize, that is the result. = When you=20 talk about =93strategic encounters=94 with = NGOs, what=20 specific encounters are you implying? Are = you=20 talking about attending conferences, = participating=20 in training programs, going out to = district=20 headquarters to network with other NGO = people? Or=20 the occasional visit of a boarding school = graduate=20 or a Westerner to a village as aid worker? = Are we=20 really to believe the claims of aid = entrepreneurs=20 that their work (with much money often = skimmed off=20 the top as you said) has such a vast = result?=20 Though I am sure it is not your intent, = this is a=20 missionary perspective and reveals a = top-down=20 approach to development. On = authenticity:=20 We need to be clear on what we mean by=20 authenticity and how we characterize it. = Being=20 urban or rural does not necessarily make = one=92s=20 viewpoint authentic or inauthentic. Both=20 viewpoints are authentic in their own = respective=20 areas. However, one must always be aware = that=20 majority of people in Nepal do live in = rural=20 areas, and majority of opinions are in = villages.=20 By that definition, yes, the authentic = voice of=20 the majority should not be discredited. = But that=20 does not mean they are the only authentic=20 democratic voices. I am not trying to = claim=20 authenticity of anything. What I am = claiming is=20 democratic space must be provided to those = who=20 don=92t have access to that space. That = does not=20 mean idealizing rural life. That means = simply=20 talking about something that hasn=92t been = talked=20 about, or encouraging something that has = never=20 been encouraged. The question is, = are we=20 willing to allow authentic voices to be = heard? Or=20 must they be mediated by NGOs through = =93strategic=20 encounters=94 before they are politically = correct=20 enough or articulate enough to be heard? = Sometimes=20 it is also necessary to hear = inarticulateness=20 also. Unless we begin to understand the=20 perspectives of all types, no matter what = the=20 level of complexity in their thinking may = be, we=20 won=92t be able to actually bring true = democratic=20 space where people can feel they actually = own=20 piece of democracy. It should not be the = lion=92s=20 share for the elites to talk about. = This=20 is not only a matter of "authenticity" but = of=20 knowledge. We have probably both read = absurd=20 anthropological studies that are quite = brilliant=20 and expound at great length about life in = Nepal,=20 but are wrong, because the writer was a = person=20 without lived experience who took too vast = of a=20 critical distance. We gain knowledge not = only=20 through scholarship but through living and = listening. This must be respected as much = as the=20 ability to craft fine words. = Indeed, you=20 touched on precisely this point with one = of your=20 points in regards to NGO entrepreneurs. = One of=20 dangers of excluding or marginalizing the = rural=20 voices is that a small number of people = who claim=20 to speak for "the grassroots=94 emerge and = dominate=20 the discourse by virtue of such things as = personal=20 contacts, English and/or Western = education, and=20 particularly a lack of competition from = other=20 voices. A rural NGO entrepreneur who is = skimming=20 the development aid, or is connected with=20 political parties, and so on, is often = recognized=20 as such in villages. The sort of problem = you aptly=20 recognized becomes pervasive precisely = because not=20 enough people are empowered to speak or = question=20 or participate. Sadly this is not = only=20 issue of democracy but also economics. = Nepal is=20 limited financial pie. Well paying jobs = such as=20 civil society work are limited, and thus = end up in=20 the hands of people whose family and = friend wish=20 them to do well. Exclusion can happen = entirely=20 without intent. Consequently, = particularly=20 because Nepal is such a hierarchical and=20 stratified society through both = conservative=20 (often rural) tradition and contemporary = (often=20 urban elite) practice, all of us must do = as much=20 as possible to recognize any internal = biases or=20 modus operandi which work against = inclusiveness.=20 This is not to deny the obvious = and=20 genuine problems of rural life which we = both work=20 to change, nor to deny the positive = influence of=20 many Western values, which I am the first = to=20 defend. It is simply to sound a small note = of=20 warning about the dangers of generalizing = from a=20 perspective of distance. I am not saying = that a=20 viewpoint of critical distance is lacking = in=20 insight -- just the opposite -- all of us = who have=20 been to the West and viewed Nepal from a = distance=20 know what an important clarifier distance = is. But=20 the distant or macro perspective cannot be = mistaken for the only possible viewpoint. = I am=20 sure you are aware of this and simply = emphasized=20 the negative and backwards aspects of "the = grassroots" as a counterbalance to anyone = who=20 might portray or imagine "grassroots" as = the locus=20 of all that is =93authentic=94 and hence = more=20 desirable. As you aptly recognized, that = would be=20 a grave danger, quite uncritical, and from = my=20 lived experience as a rural person, also = quite=20 wrong. I heartily concur with you on that. = But a lot of times Western trained = academicians are so well trained to = generalize=20 from sample that nuance is lost. To imply = rural=20 areas as swamps of backwardness that breed = injustice, unless mediated by encounters = with=20 progressive urban values, is as imbalanced = as to=20 portray the urban elite or rural jamindar = class as=20 nothing but oppressors. Truth is not found = in=20 extremes.
Reply=20 to this
=

regarding=20 popular participation, Marx and the=20 USA Posted On: 2005-04-27=20 17:36:50.266 By: the burningman =
Writing from the USA, I = promise=20 you that the major leaders of the American = revolution were slave traders and rapers, = none=20 more infamous than George Washington and = Thomas=20 Jefferson. They believed that only men of = property=20 could vote, and for many years that was = the case.=20 It wasn't until about forty years ago that = African-Americans were granted the right = to vote,=20 and recent presidential elections show how = flawed=20 even that is. Marxism is based not = on the=20 idea that enlightened leaders control the = people,=20 but social, political and economic = revolution by=20 the oppressed themselves. This is deeply = discussed=20 in The Civil War in France, among many = other=20 writings. Marxism has everywhere in the = world been=20 the scientific approach of the most = oppressed=20 peoples. If we want to see where Marxism = has=20 brought the vast masses into political = life, we=20 need look no further than China. Land = reform,=20 marriage reform, volunteary = collectivization and=20 the Cultural Revolution were all amazing = instances=20 of people who had been little more than = slaves=20 fighting to become the masters of all.=20 Some fear that. Mostly those with=20 something to lose. But as Marx put it, the = proletariat has nothing to lose, but a = world to=20 win.
Reply=20 to this
=

Maybe I=20 missed something... Posted=20 On: 2005-04-27 = 17:30:57.4 By: the=20 burningman
But why is a communist = republic=20 bad? It sounds great. Much, much better = than a=20 capitlist/feudal monarchy. Why should = there be=20 landlords? Why should Nepal have such = backwards=20 customs when it comes to women? = The=20 Maoists look very good. They are = open-minded,=20 self-critical towards the history of the = communist=20 movement and base their political strategy = on what=20 is best for the most oppressed, not the=20 sensibilities of the college-educated who = summer=20 in jolly old England. Those who = fear=20 communism are those who think they deserve = to be=20 rich while others are poor. They think = servants=20 are their birthright and they are wrong. = We shall=20 see shortly just how wrong they are when = the=20 servants move into your homes and you get = to live=20 like the rest of the people. Or more = likely put=20 your money in foreign accounts and run = away from=20 the very people you've profited off of.=20 People's War? Good. Kings and = capitalists?=20 Your days are numbered.
Reply=20 to this
=

No, = maybe the=20 world is mising something Posted=20 On: 2005-04-27 = 21:17:01.593 By: anup=20 pahari
Burningman: = Marxism is a=20 political philosophy oriented not only to=20 understanding the world "but to change = it," as our=20 Nepali maoists never tire of saying. Fair = enough.=20 More power to the workers and proletariats = of the=20 world ! But maybe the rest of the = world is=20 missing something here. Because when they = look at=20 (marxist/maoist/jucheist) N. Korea all = they see is=20 a vast, melancholy abject mass subject to = the=20 whims of a megalomaniac film-buff. No = opportunity=20 for N. Koreans anymore to change their own = world,=20 much less "the world". When the = rest of=20 the world looks at the former USSR all = they see is=20 a continent of people struggling with = meagre=20 livelihoods, with broken social and = economic=20 infrastructure, and yearning for a quality = of life=20 that the rest of western europe has taken = for=20 granted for nearly half a century. = Russians=20 finally have the freedom to "change their = worlds"=20 after more than 70 years of being = prevented from=20 doing so under revolutionary=20 Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism -- theory of = "praxis"=20 !! When the rest of the world = looks at=20 China what they see is an industrious, = ingeneous,=20 and proud civilization engaged actively = (and=20 radically) in "changing the world" only = after a=20 generation of leadership jettisoned the = baggage of=20 "from each according to ability, to each = according=20 to need..." and other such abberations.=20 Among the real "masters", (no,=20 "overlords") of the 20th century have been = none=20 other than the top party bosses of = communist (and=20 former communist) states with a penchant = for=20 foreign films, gucchi shoes, armani suits, = Cadillacs, and pretty young cadre of "The = Party".=20 With little exception, their usurpation of = the=20 respective "Peoples' Houses" in their = lands will=20 go down in history as one of the more = pointless,=20 self-serving, and nihilistic episodes that = human=20 civilization has ever seen. I = could go on=20 an on... but will curtail my comments to = this last=20 point: There is great poverty, = suffering,=20 iequality, exploitation in the interiors = of Nepal.=20 But please suggest a better (and more = original)=20 way to rectify this than a method which, = in=20 addition to literally perishing millions, = has=20 failed to do anything other than = redistribute=20 poverty and subdue the human spirit = everywhere it=20 has been imposed. And lastly, when = you=20 critique my views, please try and use = arguments,=20 illustrations and logic that go a little = further=20 than simply pointing out the "class = character" of=20 my views. Thanks. Anup Pahari=20
Reply=20 to this
=

Marxism:=20 Science or Religion? Posted=20 On: 2005-04-27 = 23:22:23.28 By: homraj=20
I concur with you in = this=20 particular instance Anup-ji. I will add = just one=20 observation. Some people make great claims = of=20 Marxism being "scientific." In a country = like=20 Nepal, where just the word "science" can = mesmerize=20 people with its apparent western glamour, = this can=20 be a potent argument. Marx recognized that = science=20 is the faith of the modern world, and = capitalized=20 on it. However, science is always = open to=20 questioning and continuous revision based = on=20 observations and experiments. As you have = cited,=20 Prachanda has said time and again he hates = revisionism. So do Taliban. Once you make=20 something into a religion, you cannot = question it,=20 and so you automatically hate revisionism. = Communism is claimed to be = inevitable.=20 When you say things are inevitable you = are=20 basically saying you can't counter them or = question them. If you can't counter or = question=20 them, it has to be taken on faith. Marx's = great=20 genius is that he created a religion and = named it=20 a science.
Reply=20 to this
=

http://insn.org/?p=3D911#comments Posted=20 On: 2005-05-01=20 12:43:00.054 By: Neutral =
Dear Dr. Khadka, = I=20 cannot agree with you more ! You have = succintly=20 presented the crux of present crisis in = Nepal.=20 What surprises me is the = inability of=20 political leaders to undersatnd the = prevailing=20 political situation, let alone the = impending=20 situation. In a way, the king is clear = enough to=20 indicate that what he is calling democracy = is the=20 Multiparty Panchayat. Constituional = monarchy as=20 envisioned in 2047 constituion is not = anymore=20 compatible with the current power = structure. The=20 political eqilibrium will be gravitated = toward=20 either Multiparty panchayat or Republican=20 democracy. Unless political parties = explicitly=20 make the replican democracy as their prime = agenda,=20 their movement would altimately lead to = Multiparty=20 Panchayat. In the first place, = in 2046=20 NC was asking only for Multiparty = Panchayat and=20 Left Front was even not clear what they = were for=20 (except the vague phrase of maximum = democratic=20 achievement). It was general people who = bargained=20 hard to maximize the democratic output of = 2046=20 movement. People came to street = spontanously=85..=20 As a citizen, I do not mind to = be=20 ruled under either system (even under = maoism for=20 that matter! What else I can do if I am = not=20 prepared to take political risk! see I am = really=20 neutral ) But my sympathy is for thousands = of=20 political caders who have genuine passion = for true=20 democracy. Unfortunately I do not see a = good day=20 for them. The barrier for the full = democracy is=20 however not the King but the leaders. The = king=20 enjoy the safety buffer of the currupt and = inept=20 party leaders who will do everything to = resist the=20 legitimate aspiration of majority of = Nepali people=20 for republican democracy to prevail.=20 Neutral=20 = http://insn.org/?p=3D911#comments
Reply=20 to this
=

Jana-aandolan=20 II
Posted On: 2005-05-01=20 12:50:25.561
By: Deepak Khadka =

Neutral ji, =

Thank you for=20 your appreciation and inputs.

You = have=20 highlighted really important points. =

The=20 movement of 2046 was indeed led to its = climax by=20 the common people. The political parties,=20 especially the NC, had hard time catching = up with=20 them. The ULF, being graduated with an = ideology=20 that has no place for the King, had a = natural=20 ardor for =93maximum democratic = achievement=94. It was=20 the NC which had never dreamt of a = kingless=20 democracy and had essentially kissed = goodbye to=20 whatever revolutionary zeal it had for = democracy=20 since BP Koirala=92s submissive policy of = =93National=20 Reconciliation=94 with the King, that was = on the way=20 for the movement to catch a republican = aspiration.=20

Could the movement have taken a = republican=20 turn ?

I think yes.

The = crux of=20 2046 movement - that is - people=92s = spontaneous and=20 explicit opposition to King=92s power is = not about=20 the story of 52 days long agitation. Not = at all.=20 It=92s about 10 years of semi-underground = political=20 activities of students (often to the = extent of=20 educational anarchy in schools and = campuses),=20 school teachers (more effective in towns = and=20 villages) and =93progressive=94 civil = society to raise=20 the political awareness of the people. = This=20 conscious people did the movement and they = would=20 have gone to any length.

This is = not to=20 say that the compromise the political = leaders made=20 with the King was a betrayal. The = compromise was=20 striked with a genuine sense of victory = and people=20 genuinely celebrated a genuine victory = indeed.=20 They simply thought that now the political = parties=20 have enough power to complete the = remaining task=20 of cleaning the country off the old system = and=20 start a new one and so they looked forward = to a=20 happening future.

The rest is = history.=20

And what a history that was. Today = we are=20 back to the past. As bright as daylight.=20

When did this backward journey - = this=20 regression - started ?

Political = leaders=20 want us to believe that the night of Oct = 4, 2002=20 was the Big Bang; nothing happened before = that.=20 Political pundits, among themselves, = generally=20 agree that the regression started much = before.=20 However there is no consensus about the = exact=20 date. Everybody is choosing their own = date- to=20 suite to their own position, association = and=20 interests.

Some say it was that = midnight=20 when Deuba dissolved the parliament. = Others say,=20 it was when Girija had done the same. = Still others=20 say it was when the Supreme court gave a = verdict=20 against such an act. And there is a strong = quarter=20 that blames everything on the day Baburam=20 submitted the wish list of his party at = Singh=20 Durbar ! For many, it was the earlier year = when=20 old Pancha=92s party, RPP, came to the = government,=20 or rather 2-3 years later, when old = stalwarts -=20 Chand and Surya Bahadur- were made prime=20 ministers.

In my view, it started = way too=20 earlier than all of these- right at the = beginning-=20 when the democratic parties threw into the = trash=20 an ordinary but symbolically important = document=20 called =93the report of Mallik = Commission=94. All the=20 developments that followed were simply our = advancement to the direction we were = heading. On=20 Feb 1, we completed the circle by arriving = at the=20 starting point of our =93democratic=94 = journey.=20

However, it is not to say that the = abandonment to the Mallik Commission=92s = report was=20 the cause or a bad omen for the regression = of our=20 democracy. This simply made it clear the = power the=20 old regime retained which in fact is the = cause of=20 the gradual degradation of the new power.=20

Now, our leaders want people to = agitate=20 again. Unfortunately, they also want that = people=20 do not agitate too much. They want people = to=20 agitate just enough to make the King agree = for a=20 peaceful co-existence with the parties.=20

People are refusing to agitate. = And for a=20 good reason. This time around they do not = want to=20 leave the job unfinished. So they are = waiting for=20 a strategic time and dependable leaders. = And it is=20 a worth waiting.

While I am at it, = I would=20 also like to acknowledge an alternative=20 explanation, in fact, the most dominating = one in=20 the contemporary discourse on Nepali = democracy;=20 dominant at least among a subclass of = Nepal=92s=20 domestic and North American =93elites=94- = [a=20 characteristic of this subclass is it=92s = tacit=20 proposition that Nepal=92s monarchy is an=20 untouchable, forbidden territory ] on the = failure=20 of our democracy. The view is that it is = the=20 incompetence of handful of leaders and the = unfortunate and unexpected emergence of = the Maoist=20 insurgency that are the causes of the = failure of=20 democracy. So they prescribe trainings to = the=20 leaders and their advisors and = coercion/persuasion=20 to the Maoists as the formula for the = recovery of=20 democracy.

Obviously they won=92t = agree with=20 me when I say the incompetence of a = handful of=20 leaders and rebellion of the Maoists is = not the=20 CAUSE but a CONSEQUENCE of deficient = democracy of=20 Nepal

Deepak

Reply=20