Nepal's 'tyrant' king isolated by Maoist deal

Telegraph.co.uk ^ | 11/23/2005 | Thomas Bell

[WorkingClassFilth]

"The whole idea about having a democracy is that people choose for themselves what they want.'

I think you've oversimplified the concept to the point of meaninglessness. You distillation of the ideal would match that of mob rule as well. No, my friend, there is a great deal more to democracy that a flock of people yanking the arm of a political one-arm-bandit and hoping for a free and open society. Please remember that ALL of the communist murder states are 'democracies' and they're having elections all the time to no avail. The unfortunate truth is that Nepal fits the template for developing low-intensity conflicts that advance larger agendas - namely communism (or just plain generic tyranny).

"Only a democracy allows you to dump your government anytime you want."

I think this is another oversimplification. If true, every communist regime in the world would have thrown off the tyrants long ago and yet they are all 'democracies.' Truth be told, the first bulwark of a sound democracy is a sound constitution that codifies the best values like the dignity of the individual; freedom from government excess; etc. Secondly, only a true democracy is guaranteed by an armed citizenry. On both counts, Nepal is not prepared. All other counterfeits will rapidly degrade into the tools of whatever the ruling party wants them to be.

"The calls for democracy isnt just some nice sounding bunch of clichés and there is no such as a "suitable time and place" for democracy."

Friend, that is exactly what most calls for 'democracy' are. It is the carrot by which to donkey is led. In fact, even in the West, democracy devolves into bread and circuses when the people lose sight of the foundational truths that gave humanity the very ideal - the Judeo-Christian concepts of man.

"In neighbouring India, democracy continues to grow in spite of corruption and billions of other problems."

I'll accept India as a democracy in the same way that I'd accept a meal of McDonalds fare - it meets a need, but its not what I'd like. I'll also agree that democracy in India is a good thing since it may offer a glimmer of hope for the caste system to be tossed into the dust bin of history. Beyond that, I'd guess not much has changed for the many because it sure isn't giving the millions what they want.

And so it goes.

[sagar]

A group of Maoist rebels pose in Triveni, western Nepal in this March 18, 2005 file picture. Nepal's government said on Wednesday it was still studying an accord between Maoist rebels and the country's main political parties, as analysts said the deal put new pressure on King Gyanendra to restore democracy. In a deal formally announced on Tuesday, Nepal's seven main political parties and the rebels agreed to work together to put an end to the absolute powers of the king, who sacked the government and took control of the country on Feb. 1. REUTERS/Gopal Chitrakar.

Nepalese people from different walks of life take part in a protest rally holding anti-monarch placards at Basantapur in Kathmandu, August 2005. Nepal's royal government blasted as 'unholy' an alliance between political parties and Maoist rebels aimed at restoring democracy, the state-run RSS news agency said.(AFP/File/Bijen Singh)

Nepal's veteran former prime minister G.P. Koirala said he has appealed to Maoist rebels to ally with mainstream parties to restore democracy in the insurgency-racked nation.(AFP/File/Devendra M. Singh)

Maoist guerrilla fighter : A Nepalese Maoist guerrilla woman holds a rifle while watching an armed exercise in Bhojpur, eastern Nepal. (AFP)

'

Kathmandu's Durbar Square.

King of Nepal, Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah

Pro-democracy activists demonstrate in Katmandu, Nepal, Sunday, Nov. 13, 2005. Hundreds of activists marched on the streets of Katmandu Sunday to demand restoration of democracy and protest new media laws imposed by government. (AP Photo/Binod Joshi)

[Tailgunner Joe]

The Real Party that Called all the Shots - Indian policies concerning Nepali Maoists are at best, schizophrenic. More precisely, Indian attitudes have been consistently and openly bi-polar.

On the one hand, India was the first nation state (even before Nepal itself) to declare the Maoist organization as terrorists. On the other, India has largely ignored Nepali Maoists operating on its soil and according to some, has openly abetted and harbored the Maoists. Reasons behind why an external and ultra-nationalistic outfit has been tolerated on Indian territory for so long, defeats rationalization.

There are ample reports of Nepali security personnel training in Indian camps that previously hosted Nepali Maoists. So when senior security personnel state that no resolution of the Maoist insurgency exists (in the absence of Indian acquiescence), they’re not “pointing fingers” or “shifting blame.” Such sentiments are completely legitimate – more so today, than they were a week ago.

On occasion, India has successfully modulated anti-Indian Maoist rhetoric by imprisoning the most radical of the bunch (C. P. Gajurel, Mohan Vaidya). Such actions have also served to assuage the perception of India’s duality (for the international audience) and sent a stern signal within the Maoist ranks that India favors a certain faction, but not the entire Maoist outfit. This was key a driver of the much publicized split within the Maoists, earlier this year.

As part of the patch-up process (within the Maoist party), meetings were held between the Maoists second man (Baburam Bhattarai) and a prominent leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Prakash Karat. Why a man with an Interpol-issued Red Corner Notice was chauffeured around New Delhi to meet with high-ranking Indian politicians is a discussion for another time. To put the issue mildly, nation states have gone to war for less.

This is not to suggest that Nepal should go to war with India, but a reaffirmation of the helplessness and frustration that Nepalis feel.

India’s treatment of Nepal’s Maoist insurgency has several interpretations. A belief is held within some circles that the regional power’s conduct is a function of it’s pluralist nature – that there is true tolerance for a range of political ideologies within the world’s most populous democracy.

By this rationale, India’s policy on Nepali Maoists is a manifestation of it’s tolerance for diversity. Apparently, even those deemed terrorists at a national level are tolerated (if the terrorized populous is non-Indian). Could India’s definition of terrorists differ for those who use terror as a tactic but uphold political change (through violence) as a strategy?? Perhaps this interpretation is why Pakistan’s refuses to recognize Kashmiri militants as terrorists.

Another interpretation is that India’s incapacity to control radical left-wing insurgencies within its own borders accounts for its inability to control Nepali Maoists also. By this logic, India is a regional power for its neighbors to reckon with and simultaneously a union of dysfunctional states that its own federal government struggles to control. India’s inability to tame its own insurgencies aside, how is it that Indian authorities could arrest some Nepali Maoists at will but not others?? And, how does one interpret the alleged presence of these “imprisoned” Maoist leaders during the talks between the 7-party alliance and the Nepali Maoists??

[Tailgunner Joe]

Guard against Maoist victory in Nepal - The love of democracy is truly becoming infectious. In a speech on February 14 that has been described as a new South Asia doctrine, Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran said: “India would like the whole of South Asia to emerge as a community of flourishing democracies.” Speaking out against “short-term expediency”, he argued that only democracy could guarantee “peace and cooperation” in the subcontinent...

Policy wonks in Delhi say that this too-clever-by-half King has to be taught a lesson he won’t forget in a hurry. Meanwhile, Indian intelligence has boasted preliminary contacts with the Maoist insurgents who are said to control three-fourths of Nepal. South Block groupies are busy going around arguing that the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) isn’t really a revolutionary outfit; it just wants land reforms. In the land of Gandhi and Nehru, it pays to feign loftiness. We even outdo the Americans in this department. Our track record is nobleslavish endorsement of the Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, generous support for every corrupt African dictator, nurturing the LTTE in Sri Lanka and cutting deals with the generals in Myanmar and Pakistan, and the communist apparatchiks in China. Yet, as Saran said in his speech, “Our sympathy will always be with democratic and secular forces.”

It’s great to have a slogan. In statecraft, however, it pays to pursue realism. The immediate conflict in Nepal is only peripherally between democracy and monarchy. If only it had been so simple. The war is between the Nepali state and Maoists. There may be lots hideously wrong with the present dispensation in Kathmandu.

The palace still runs along medieval lines, the Royal Nepalese Army lacks inspired leadership and the political parties are short-sighted, fractious and even corrupt. But let us not forget for a single moment that the Maoists began their insurgency in 1996 when in Nepal there was a civilian, elected government at the helm. The Maoists sing different tunes according to convenience.

First they railed against the politicians and the feudal order and demanded elections to a Constituent Assembly. Then, last December, they said that it was useless negotiating with a puppet government. They wanted the King to sit across the table with them. Now, they are calling for the overthrow of the monarchy.

It is prudent to recognise that democracy is incompatible with the agenda of the Maoists. They are communist variants of the Al Qaeda. A Maoist victory in Nepal would be akin to a Talibanised Afghanistan on our doorstep. The implications for national security would be catastrophic.

Their literature is quite categorical about the fact that their revolution will not stop at Nepal’s borders. To survive, a Maoist Nepal will need complementing “liberated” zones in India....

We can clobber the Nepal monarchy any day but does that help our national security? In any case, foreign policy has to be guided by national interests and not ideological compatibility. Judged by the Saran doctrine, India should be announcing its political and diplomatic support for the jailed Aung San Su Ki in Myanamar.