Thursday, December 08, 2005

Planning Between the Lines

"The King will make a major reshuffle of his cabinet...." Blogdai: "Word on the Street," October 22.

Left: Narayan Singh Pun walking with Maoist leader Babu Ram "ridiculous hat" Battari during peace talks. At Right: Kamal Thapa walking with Maoist leader Babu Ram "yet another ridiculous hat" Bhattari during peace talks.

Well its not so much that he's gone and actually done it. It's who he's put in that is significant.

All of you who feel that G. is an autocratic non-compromiser who refuses to either talk or negotiate, witness the events of the last two days.

Yesterday, buried deep in the bowels of The Himalayan, an English daily here, the King announces a willingness to talk with Maoists provided they lay down their arms.

Now today comes the big cabinet shuffle. Lots of new faces. Yes, they are more Royalist in character, but two names stand out as a signal of things to come: Narayan Singh Pun and Kamal Thapa. Pun came the closest of any negotiator to actually achieving peacetalk success with the maoists and Thapa has been in on the negotiating process from the start.

Sounds like G. is getting his chess pieces in order for some kind of official contact with the Maoists, and perhaps their new leash-holders as well.



At 3:26 AM, December 08, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As you very well now this is not news. This is just a diversion that the King is trying to create. Gyane still has about three tricks left on his sleeves, after that he is gone for good, baby.
1. He will use all thr means necessary to stop the jan andolans by the seveb parties.
2. He will try to destroy the seven party and maoists allence.
3. At last but not least he will offer cabinaet positions to 7 political parties. It probably will be a little too late.


At 7:09 AM, December 08, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The strategy with the slogan of democracy

By Dr. Raman Raj Misra

Lenin had worked with other political parties and collectively they had also made a Constitution through a Constitutional Assembly.

What Lenin and his party, the Bolsheviks, did with that first post-monarchic Constitution of Russia is historyl. History has lessons for those who understand them. The Maoists and other communists of Nepal admire and follow Lenin, together with Marx and Mao. They are knowledgeable about the process of communist revolutions and know the tactics employed in such revolutions are to be emulated as divine revelations.

Hence after following Mao’s tactics for ten years, Lenin’s tactics of getting other parties to enhance one’s cause and to make an urban entry, using other parties as a shield or cover is a plausible thing to do. In consonance with the ethos of the current uni-polar world, a cover is also needed. The slogan of democracy is appropriate. Communists advocating democracy seems to be a very effective and convincing cover and not at all contradictory.

Here, in Nepal, we have the Indian geopolitical factor in operation also. What India did, to instigate, train, arm, and unleash the Tamil Tigers, took them to the brink of success. It had created a condition to intervene militarily to “save” the Sri Lankan government. Such actions had enabled India to obtain geopolitical concessions, particularly on conditions and terms of the use of seaports of Sri Lanka. Such tactics maybe points for analysis or to draw parallels. Use and utility of the slogan of democracy that had been propagated through Lhendup Dorjees (Quislings) has been well documented in the case of the demise of Sikkim as a country in the early seventies. Sikkimese people had been made to believe that they would have their own republican country. They ended up being residents of a province of a republic. It was a successful tactic. Successful tactics are fit to be replicated.

Given such parallels of the communist revolutions, and the geopolitics of India and the current political developments in Nepal, speculation maybe worth making as to the geopolitical strategy and tactics through the use of the slogans of democracy. And what the Communists may do, as well as, to what extent they maybe allowed to continue doing whatever they think they are doing may also deserve speculations. The compliant political parties, including the communists, maybe instrumental in keeping Nepal simmering, but they may not be allowed to make Nepal boil over. In fact geopolitically, facilitating the compliant parties to push Nepal up to the boiling point could produce the opportune moment for direct and overt intervention to “save Nepal and democracy.” The following speculative points could well be the twelve-point geopolitical tactics being directed against Nepal currently.

1. Withhold arms to the Nepali Security Forces that never had an offensive capacity and requisite intelligence network.

2. Convince the other countries to do so, of course, for the “love of democracy”. While at the same time, exonerate the lack of democracy in Bhutan and the Maldives and ignore such lack of democracy in other neighbouring countries. Western countries do also have selective and location specific “love for democracy”, so can India. So it is not a problem to get the West to concur with such geopolitical tactics, if used with the slogan of democracy.

3. Put pressure on the Maoists to halt aggressive attacks and work with other compliant political parties. After all, the Maoists too are geopolitically dependent on an India-locked country, and have become visibly compliant. So Indo-compliant and Indo-dependent parties working together can produce the desired geopolitical synergy not obtained when they were instructed to function separately.

4. So instruct the other Indo-dependent political parties to go along the Maoist lines. This is necessary, as democratic parties do not have the capacity and the required popular base to stand on their own without going along with the communists.

5. Spread propaganda that reciprocation of ceasefire by the security forces without offensive capacity lacking total outreach in the country is needed for “Peace”. Divert public and international attention from the fact that declaring a unilateral ceasefire has not been the same as implementing the ceasefire.

6. Exacerbate the chaos also in the secure urban areas by instigation, encouragement and financing of agitations with the slogan of democracy. The morale of the defenders against insurgency and instigated agitations has to be shaken.

7. With even the defensive capacity of the security forces reduced (due to arms embargo) and rising tempo of chaos in urban areas, intervene at an appropriate time (as in Sri Lanka) to “rescue” Nepal from violence and to purportedly “deliver peace and democracy.”

8. Obtain the agreement and support of Western countries like Britain and others, who have already outsourced their Nepal foreign policy to Delhi. The required propaganda to sway world opinion can easily be produced by lucrative financing of journalists.

9. Squash the Maoists after their utility is over, if they are not compliant as in the present.

10. Install a puppet regime, without the mandate of the people of Nepal. And make the Nepali intellectuals believe that Nepal has no national interests to preserve and protect, so as to ensure that no nationalist institution or groups will ever assert themselves again - ever.

11. Obtain due geopolitical spoils from the “Quisling” government.

12. Enhance and consolidate one’s regional hegemony. The slogan of “Peace and democracy” can be immensely helpful in such an enterprise. Project oneself as the protector of democracy and one does get the right not only to intervene and subjugate, but also, if need be, to make pre-emptive strikes on mere suspicion or false information.

Hopefully, speculations such as these are totally wrong.

Hopefully, India will be magnanimous as she has never been with all her neighbours in the past fifty-five years. Hopefully, there will not be such a thing called geopolitics and attempts at hegemony, subjugation or annexation. Hopefully, the slogans of democracy will translate into our political reality.

Hopefully, Communism, as an ideology, has been miraculously transformed into the ideology of democracy as hoped for by the European Union and Britain. Hopefully, the speeches of our communists talking about democracy as a stage or a means to eventually obtain a totalitarian, communist State are just idle talks.

Hopefully, the same old inept, myopic and corrupt “democratic” political leaders will be able to deliver and operate a true and complete democracy. Hopefully, we will not have to suffer in the special democratic period (with no specified time limit), which the Western countries call “a transitional phase.”

Hopefully, even if we do have to suffer in such a democratic, “transitional phase”, as envisaged by the westerners, we will patiently endure such sufferings and will be overjoyed to “take up the cross and follow them.” After all, who does not wish or hope to have a heaven on earth?

At 7:52 AM, December 08, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

There may be something here but I can't read it through all the static.

anonymous, rewrite this thing with less than half of the words and then we can all talk. I'm just not in the mood to wade through all of this verbage. Misra is a typical bloated intellectual who loves to read his own writing, so would you do me the favor of summarizing?

By the way, the egregious use of the word "geopolitical" is banned on blogdai.


At 10:38 PM, December 08, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

King G is not interested in peace and he is just trying to kill the understanding between parties and maoists.

Do you guys know why and how the first two peace negotiations were killed?

The first peace process was going pretty well. And RNA comes and kills 16 unarmed maoists in Doramba and the negotiation falters.

The second peace process, Pun played a great role in bringing Maoists to table. However, when Pun was so close to a negotiation, King dismantles both Chand's Government and the negotiation team. But WHY?

I cannot believe Nepali press did not press deep enough to see if there were any conspiracies. In Doramba case, they made an army major scapegoat and supposedly jailed him for 2 years.

What could King G's motivation be in killing these peace process? Not willing to give up power and privileges he has,lack of confidence, wrong advice from army generals who are benefitting from the bloated budget?

At 3:24 AM, December 09, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

No, I won't allow this.

Blogdai was there in 2003. Pun had the maoists ready to negotiate, pinned into a corner on the constituent assembly question and then guess what happened? The political parties staged a massive protest, the Maoists got a clearing and broke off the talks.

It was clear that the parties, miffed at not being included in the talks, deliberately sabotaged the best chance we all had for peace.

That is what happened. Where did you get your ideas? If you've got a bias, fine, but for the sake of accuracy, don't pass off your opinions as facts.

Blogdai has neither the desire nor the time for the constant repetition of obvious, even media accounted, occurrences.

Go back, look it up, and then write something without such a ridiculous spin.


At 11:00 PM, December 09, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Blogdai has neither the desire nor the time for the constant repetition of obvious, even media accounted, occurrences."

Is it because you are scared of the facts and you do not want your visitors to find out the truth? Nepali people have suffered a lot and deserve better.

FYI,during the negotiation, Government was adamantly against constituent assembly instead of Maoist. Read Kantipur Online archives from August, 2003.

For your information, I have kindly compiled the time line of breakdown of the second peace process from various sources. People can determine who has bias.

January 29, 2003: The government and Maoist declare a cease-fire

April 27, 2003: The first round of formal government-Maoist peace dialogue held

April 28, 2003: Maoist shelve the most publicized of their demands, republic state

June 4, 2003: King Gyanendra appoints Surya Bahadur Thapa as the new Prime Minister

August 17, 2003: The third round of dialogue between the government and the Maoists start.
RNA summarily executes at least nineteen individuals suspected of being Maoists in the eastern village of Doramba, Ramechhap district

August 19, 2003: The third round of government-Maoist peace negotiation end inconclusively after the Maoists insist that the government should accept their demand for constituent assembly

August 27, 2003: Maoists unilaterally pull out of talks citing Doramba massacre as one of the main reason

At 12:19 AM, December 10, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you one of those idiots from who throws a lot of disjointed facts together in hopes people will think you are smart.

You say the king "killed the peace process" but then you throw in all these statements showing Maoist inflexibility and their unilateral withdrawl from the peace process. So which is it?

Did you happen to read today where Narayan Singh Pun said that it is absolutely essential that the main parties participate in the elections in order to make them valid? Where is the King's sabotage in that statement?

To Mr. Blogdai: would you be so kind as to edit these types of comments from anonymoust. I love this blog because it presents clear, concise thought. This anonymous idiot just wants to see his words printed.


At 12:33 AM, December 10, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

Easy there Karsten dai, people like anonymous provide a valuable function. They show the length that someone will go to to further an ideological viewpoint.

You'll notice that anonymous's "timeline" does not dispute anything blogdai says, and yet it is meant to be some kind of validation of anonymous's position.

What does it tell us about the Maoists mind set during that time when they use one of many conflicts that occurred during the peacetalks as an excuse to back away from the table? A lot of violations were in process during the talks--from both side.

The Maoists were pinned into a corner, the knew it and were looking for a way out. Girija's little protest created the distraction, opened the door, and the Maoists got off the hook.

Blogdai knows Narayan Singh Pun. Over tea one day with a group from Karnali Air, Pun mentioned that it was the disruptive intransigence of the excluded parties that started the talks down the road to failure. Pun is a Magar, tough as nails, and hates bullshit.

Shall I ask him again for you, Mr. Anonymous?


At 1:38 AM, December 10, 2005, Anonymous Brit said...

Yes - the 'timeline' reads like a contradiction of its introduction. - Leave it there - it is an important demonstration of the validity (or otherwise) of the argument!

At 6:54 AM, December 13, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am coming to Nepal in July. I am looking forward it!!!!!!!!!

I have just 4 weeks to start a revolution against the political parties and Maoists.

Wish me luck.

At 7:57 AM, December 13, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

Well, no one will be much in the mood for change during the monsoon, but I like your spirit.


At 11:06 PM, December 14, 2005, Anonymous Friend said...


Is there a way to reach you directly? I just wanted to ask you if you had any information on Ram Bomjon, as a lot of people in the US are showing an interest in the matter. Thanks.

At 10:24 PM, December 16, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Press freedom is restored now how we stop the violence?

At 11:17 PM, December 16, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

violence is due to the artificially severe factionalism.

Parties want everythin for themselves.

what does it tell you when these guys bboycott upcoming elections, the very pinacle of democracy, even after the king decides to ow to UN monitoring?


At 5:22 AM, December 22, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1) The timeline shows that the Government was inflexible and was adamantly against constituent assembly because King G did not want to risk any of his power.

2) Timeline also shows Maoist were flexible enough to accept monarchy and constituent assembly.

3) The timeline refutes Blogdai's previous claims (propaganda) about Maoist being cornered on constituent assembly and they were inflexible. Looks like King G was more inflexible.

4) The army wanted out of the negotiation and provoked Maoist to run out of peace process by staging the Doromba massacre. Remember killings in Doromba were not during combat. Unarmed surrendered maoists were killed thus sabotaging the peace process.

5) There were many violations during peace process. But Doramaba was the most flagrant violation since it was non combat, number of deaths of unarmed people involved and the fact that talks were taking place when this incident occurred.

6) Girija's protests were nuisance at most. Political parties were not in the peace talk and your argument that protests let Maoists out does not make any sense at all.

7) I am not a supporter of maoists but I am trying to be objective. I do not deny the fact that Maoists have contradicted themselves many times. However, I see King G doing the same thing.

8) If we love Nepal and if we want violence to end, the starting point is being fair and objective and acknowledging mistakes and weakness of both sides.

At 6:07 AM, December 22, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

Your point number 8 says it all.

Let's stop burning the bridges and work together.


At 7:22 PM, February 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is an example of the revolutionary elections:

Also note that not only the "tabloid" newspaper like the Kantipur, but also "responsible" newspapers like "Samacharpatra" ( have reprorted it.

It is a revolutionary election, indeed.

At 8:51 PM, February 09, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

revolutionary does not mean "perfect" you simpleton.

the fact that even the royalists protested the outcome shows the inherent flaws in the system. It is part of the necessary process of achieving legitimacy in the polls. Would we have discovered these problems under the Deuba administration? Of course not, because Deuba refused to hold elections.

What exactly are you getting at? A few complaints and griping about the polls are necessary and positive to refining the electoral process. Was it not convenient and easy enough for your dull-witted comprehension?

Am I supposed to believe that polls are no longer "revolutionary" because of this? What weak-kneed and cowardly logic you possess.

Anything worth achieving takes perseverance and, to some extent, trials and difficulties in order to result in eventual success.

close your eyes and hide and let others do the dirty work; you don't have the right to comment here.



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home