Thursday, July 21, 2005

The Seven Party Army

Feeling that their time is slipping away, the seven-party alliance today announced that Maoists no longer need to lay down their arms before the parties will talk to them. http://kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=46368

None other than Mahdav Khumar Nepal broke the news today. This is ominous. by doing this, the parties are giving tacit approval to the Maoist's armed brutality.

The Mahdav's and the Girija's of the former government now make it clear what their view of democracy entails. If we don't get our way, then we'll form an army and take over. "No compromise," they are saying by this maneuver.

So what we now have here is, essentially, a politically-expanded Maoist army.

Can we now stop sniveling about how Nepal was robbed of its democracy? Look at the type of men who were formally charged with guarding Nepal's constitution. Not a whiff of reconcilliation or intelligent debate; these are men who are ready for an all-out push to further their rigid, uncompromising positions. Talk about Panchayat!

The good thing is, now we have everyone under one roof; no ambiguities. I doubt the parties have the brains to understand that they can now be considered as armed rebels and fair game for the RNA. Blogdai couldn't be happier.

-=blogdai

14 Comments:

At 2:52 AM, July 22, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, while the political parties are now showing their true colours, and demonstrating that they will form an alliance with Satan himself if it consolidates their opportunities for power...this is definitely not a good sign for Nepal.

I come from one of the supposed western democracies to which Nepal is supposed to aspire. From my perspective, I feel completely helpless - politicians from my country deny the reality that is facing them, and yet currently have full political power to fulfil their own agenda. And yet, I am infinitely more fortunate than the people of Nepal and indeed many many other countries around the world.

While my government is concentrating on industrial relations, and defending the performance of government departments in its own human rights abuses (particularly in relation to immigration detention), I am extremely fortunate in that my government's actions are for the most part (with notable exceptions) restricted to the violation of theoretical and ideological rights. (But please do not get me started on issues of domestic politics in Australia - this is a blog on Nepal after all.)

I am certainly not disagreeing with you blogdai, but I have far less confidence that justice, goodness and right will triumph in the end.

And I fear for the people of Nepal should the Maoists claim vindication of their agenda (And associated violent actions sickenly described here and in various media) through the capitulation of the political parties.

I feel sick at the thought that Nepal could become home to its own 'killing fields'.

Alison, South Australia

 
At 4:04 PM, July 22, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure looks like a desperate act to hang onto some shred of political relevance and power. I would think this move by the political parties actually strengthens the King's position. It is a pretty high-stakes gamble at best, wouldn't you say?

While I certainly support efforts at dialogue in most situations, I can't see what is to be gained by negotiating with terrorists, especially when the non-terrorist side is making all the proffers and concessions. Someone, please enlighten me.

It almost makes me wonder how much control the Maoist leadership has over their young cadres. Maybe the political parties are relenting on this requirement because they suspect they may be asking the impossible.

Ramta

PS. Just started reading Lords of Poverty. Very interesting... thanks for the recommendation.

 
At 8:10 PM, July 22, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

Alison,
In my western democracy, money and special interest groups determine the political fortunes of a nation.

We see some of these groups spinning the nepal situation for their own benefit: badly distorting Nepal's story in an effort to channel world opinion into a profitable direction. It happens all the time. It is one of the reasons we have this blog. We all can see the injustice, and even though we might be powerless to stop it, we can at least call it out here in the public forum. We should always shout when we see such manipulations.

See you in Kathmandu this fall?

Ramta,
How we have all missed your postings; where have you been?

You are right, there really is no negotiating with terrorists. Often times these people have so little substance in their lives that once a chance arises to join a passionate, violent ideological movement, they leap at it and permanently swear-off the constraints of rational behavior.

Those of us with democratic leanings tend to believe that all people want democracy--as if it were some organic concept that would flourish if left to its own machinations. The reality is that most people just want to be part of some secure group, no matter what the ideology.

Democracy is not a cure-all for every culture and we eventually must realize that some cultures are absolutely dead set against democratic reforms.

The type of negotiations you and I hope for only occur when opposing groups agree to play by the same rules. We can see now that this will never be the case with the Maoists. (Or Al-Quaeda or any contrarian ideological movement)

-=blogdai

8:07 PM, July 22, 2005

 
At 12:34 AM, July 24, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So do you all believe that Madhev Nepal is talking on behalf of ALL the political partiies?

'Who shouts loudest'
You should all know by now that this is not so. One of the key defining characteristics of the party alliance and indeed of the Deuba's government was its complete inability to talk without contradicting itself. Indeed most of the political parties seem to operate like this on a daily basis. I am not defending the petty, corrupt politicians who have raped the nation of its future but its not so black and white..

Lets have some balance please Blogdai. The political situation is no where near as simplistic as you are making out. Still, i appreciate your views and agree with you on most of the things.

 
At 2:00 PM, July 24, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

Was there ever a time when ANY politician spoke on behalf of all the parties?

A Maoist alliance gives a big tactical advantage to who ever lands their support. If this can be done via a unfied 7-party voice, then fine. But let's not lose sight of who we are dealing with here.

There is not one member of any party in this "alliance" who would not jump at the chance to break from the group and assert themselves through a unilateral alliance with the Maoists.

The analysis of Mahdav Kumar Nepal's statement turns out to be far from simplistic for two reasons: First, by speaking as the UML president, without including the NC and others, Mahdav tells the world that the 7-party alliance is far from unified. In fact, we can infer an active an perhaps cut-throat competition for political supremacy between the parties from Mahdav's statement. It has now been made clear that whoever gets the Maoists, gets the power; and any individual is willing to break the alliance in order to gain such an advantage.

Second, allowing Maoists to keep their guns is advantageous to the Maoists, obviously; and all the parties will now try to match or increase Mahdav's offer so as not to lose their political position in the negotiations. The race is on now and the remaining members of the 7-party alliance will be scrambling to find relevance before the UML can close the deal with the Maoists on its own.

Mahdav Kumar Nepal's statement speaks for the entire 7-party alliance because it unites them, not in one voice, but in a race for one-upmanship.

-=blogdai

 
At 11:26 PM, July 24, 2005, Anonymous haude said...

hmmm...interesting analysis and views blogdai (I am talking about the last comment from you). Given that Madhav Nepal is shooting his mouth like that, it does seem plausible that there is an internal power struggle going on. We'll find out soon enough, and it is becoming very clear that the 7 party alliance is tilting more towards Maoist camp, and given that they are not asking Prachanda to lay down his arms, they are very desperate.

Any thoughts on why KG chose the people like Jagat Gauchan in his cabinate? Surely he could have done better...

 
At 3:36 AM, July 25, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

well the tango is over...for now atleast...this popped up 2 hours ago http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/B423995.htm anyway as far as madhav nepal is concerned..well as far as the complete UML is concerned...they are nothing but the political wing of the Maoists..

 
At 3:53 PM, July 25, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

Jagat Gauchan is a thug.
He is apparently both a bank defaulter and a murder conspirator. My thought is that G. staffed his cabinet with ex-panchayat idiots because he didn't receive any better advice. He listened to Tulsi Giri on this one.

If you combine this with supressed rights and controls, it continues to look like G. is blowing his chance by soiling his own nest with these crooks.

Blogdai has always felt that the king was disengaged as to the significance of his actions and selections and this proves it. G. relies, perhaps too heavily, on the advice of his absolutist, pro-monarchy yes-men and it is starting to get him into trouble. He is starting to display a real knack for misreading world-opinion. He needs a media-saavy foreigner to tell him what to do.

-=blogdai

 
At 4:04 PM, July 25, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

The apparent rejection of talks by the parties as outlined in the above provided article signifies exactly the opposite of a rejection.

This is 7-party politics. A rejection of talks with the Maoists is a politician's way of defining parameters. It tells the world that the parties should not be seen as being in lock-step with Maoist ideals. It stakes out the party's ideological territory prior to negotiations and will prevent them from looking foolish should talks fail. (Which they ulitimately will)

It is, in fact, the first gesture of the actual negotiation process. If Maoists are serious about negotiation, a matching statement of Maoist inflexibility and ideology will follow; but blogdai believes that the Maoists may not be smart enough to interperet this party gesture.

-=blogdai

 
At 9:34 AM, July 26, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

blogdai,
you might be interested in reading this:

US ON NEPAL'S CASE

http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GG23Df04.html

 
At 6:09 PM, July 26, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

The above article refers to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the active interest they are taking in Nepal.

the NED is the real deal. Unlike the ICG, they are at least somewhate bi-partisan. They also issue grants to actual experts who do actual field work in the areas of their interest.

Bush likes them now because they can pound the "democracy at all costs" drum for him in Nepal and keep his right-wing ideologue supporters happy.

The NED means business so we should watch their moves carefully.

-=blogdai

 
At 7:36 PM, July 26, 2005, Anonymous PoliticalKanchha said...

Blogdai,

Madhav nepal must be in a dilemma when it comes to Maoists. He knows that he must appease them in hopes that he will be able to attract some of the Maoist leaders (when the peace treaty is finally signed) to fight for votes.

He will face two difficult prospects. If Maoist run for election on their own (i.e. not under the UML umbrella), he will lose a lot of votes.

If he opens the doors to Maoists, they may take the leadership from him.

As for now, all Madhavji can do is to be buddy-buddy with them. WEll, he has no other options anyways!

 
At 10:16 PM, July 26, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

I think that all the former politicians are in a dillema. They realize this when they hold their pathetic, mock sessions of parliament.

Any of these people will look for an edge wherever they can find one.

My ultimate feeling is that the parties are just fooling themselves. There has never been an indication of Maoists straying from their stated plan of strategic defensive, followed by strategic balance, and finally strategic offensive.

I truly believe that anything the Maoists offer should be looked upon as nothing more than a tactical bluff.

-=blogdai

 
At 1:56 AM, September 11, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Madhav always love to play foul. He always wants to go to the power, whatever result it maybe. The seven party-alliance also following the same footstep. They neither care about the future, all they want is to become more powerful than old constitution without responsbility and punishment. If they can talk to maoist then why they don't open the door to the king for dialogue?It is unhiding true that the parties had done the great mistakes to kill the democracy in compare to king and maoist. The mistakers should be punished first.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home