Saturday, February 25, 2006

Gotta' Love Her

(Thanks to MR for the link) Blogdai has always been a fan of Preeti Koirala. This article is one of her best yet. Many of you long-time blogdai readers will find note-for-note similarities in the claims made in this article and in many of blogdai's comments over the past year. Could Ms. Koirala be a fan of blogdai as well? -=BD

US ambassador's speech and the baffled political leaders
- By Preeti Koirala

The US ambassador James F. Moriarty makes headlines whenever he makes statements. His speech delivered at the Ganesh Man Singh Foundation early this month was symbolic in a sense that late Singh was a selfless leader who didn’t crave for power for the sake of democracy and freedom. Our contemporary leaders both of the NC and the UML never followed the path of Ganesh Man. Girija Prasad Koirala even went ahead to minimize Singh during his own life time by actively conspiring to defeat Mangala Devi Singh (Singh's wife) and Prakash Man Singh (Singh's eldest son) in the general elections of 1991. Therefore, by choosing to speak at the forum of a Foundation named after late Singh, the U.S. envoy sarcastically called for inner party democracy and selflessness to nurture democracy by recalling what Ganesh Man had done but apparently what all leaders of today have forgotten.

His contempt and dislike towards the 12-point agreement between the parties and the Maoists supposedly reached at the behest of Delhi has come up as a surprise to everyone. This agreement was reached months ago and neither the U.S. government nor Moriarty had spoken anything grossly negative when the agreement was actually reached. But it seems now that the Bush administration has realized how awful and dangerous the 12 point understanding actually is. The parties are where they were in front of the people but the Maoists have got huge gains out of the agreement. It has become very easy for the present government also to tell to the people that "See we were always telling you, these seven parties have been tacitly aiding the Maoists".

The fact remains that the Maoist movement started when there was full-fledged multi-party democracy and that the insurgency actually spiraled out of control when the Nepali Congress and the UML were in power. This theory of party leaders like Bam Dev Gautam and Khum Bahadur Khadga tacitly aiding the insurgency during their respective tenures as Home Minister proved right when the same bunch of leaders signed the agreement with the Maoists. Therefore, this agreement was defective, shady and flawed from the day it was inked as has been realized by the envoy of the world’s only superpower.

Now, if the present government bans the political parties and declares those that tie nuptial knots with the Maoists as “terrorists” themselves, it seems that there won’t be such a degree of international criticism as one would like to imagine. The publication of a caricature of prophet Mohammad by a Danish newspaper has already started global debate on whether the press should be allowed to publish anything in the name of press freedom. The Malaysian government immediately banned a 60-year-old newspaper for re-printing the same cartoon. In our case, those newspapers that openly favor the Maoist propaganda have been allowed to operate and yet the government continues to get the blame for harassing the media.

The second element of Moriarty's statement is overtly directed towards India. Every sane mind knows that top Maoist leaders live and give out their directives to their cadres from within the Indian territory. Lately, several interviews have been taken of the Maoist leaders from the Indian capital. It is anybody's guess that India very well knows where Prachanda and Baburam are hiding but does not want to arrest them for some future usage that they have vis-a-vis the give and take that may take place between the monarchy and the Government of India. The 12-point agreement definitely had the tacit Indian consent. Some reports even suggested that the Government of India itself had engineered the understanding in order to pressurize the King.

But ambassador Moriarty's compos mentis speech suggesting that the agreement was “ill-intentional” clearly indicates that the world's only superpower is against India's unnecessary meddling inside Nepal's internal affairs. The publicity that the U.S. and India were in tandem in their respective Nepal policies has fallen flat after Moriarty's speech. It has obviously embarrassed Delhi to a great deal. Everything that was "achieved" in the post February First period has been lost by a single statement. India has thus wasted one full year in Nepal which could have been well used in nurturing the present government and in achieving concrete things in security, political and economic areas. Besides, it now seems that the US has started looking Nepal from the Chinese window as they have been doing as regards to other countries in the region.

After all, Moriarty is a known China expert in the State Department and speaks fluent Mandarin, he has years of experience in Beijing and Taipei. This will be dangerous to India's long-standing unique bond with SAARC countries like Bangladesh, Bhutan and Sri Lanka. With Pakistan, the American policy is exactly the same as that of the Chinese policy. What is even more astounding is that the Chinese ambassador in New Delhi openly said that his government is ready for assisting in the peace talks with the Naxalites of the entire sub-continent who use the name of Mao-zee-Dong. Therefore, from every rational standpoint, Delhi should not delay in keeping the Narayanhiti royal palace in good humor before it is too late and before the U.S-China axis from within Nepal begins to take shape of the Pakistani variety.

His Majesty the King, on his democracy day message, called for reconciliation but the 7 parties, obdurate and inflexible as they are, have rejected his call for a dialogue. It must be well understood that the product of reconciliation is a change of the government not the other way around. Former M. Ps. who were last elected 7 years ago do not represent the will of the sovereign people and if they claim that they still do, they must cave in their over-sized egos for their own common benefit or else have the fortitude to contest the general elections.

Moriarty has thus told clearly to every power centre in Nepal that terrorists everywhere whether it is Osama Bin laden and al Qaeda, LTTE, Hamas or the Maoists of Nepal are basically the same. Their tactics of terror and intimidation are the same. They kill civilians and give the pretext of "empowering the people" in the name of violence. They are all terrorists and one should not negotiate with them until they give up arms. America has been utilizing a military solution to the al Qaeda problem and Nepal should also do the same by requesting for necessary arms and ammunition to defeat terrorism within Nepal. If peace can only be achieved by “talking” with the Maoists, then a good example must be set by those that preach this noble idea. There should be no double standard.

If Nepal should negotiate with the Maoists by agreeing on a 12 point understanding, the EU also should first formally invite Osama Bin Laden to Brussels to hear his genuine concerns and problems. If Nepal Television should not try to interview Prabhakaran and his gang of murderers or the leaders of ULFA and BODO; then The Times of India, The Hindu, BBC and other media should also not publicize Prachanda and his idiotic verse of nonsense that everybody finds insane.

Will the Government of India allow Nepalese journalists to interview and thereby mystify the terrorists who planted bombs in the parliament of India? What will be the Indian reaction if Nepalese media start writing editorials that it is high time that Delhi begins realizing that without an independent Kashmir, the problem of the people of Kashmir will not be resolved?
Therefore, it is now Delhi’s turn to follow-up on Moriarty’s genuine and truthful statement and not embrace the Nepali Maoist leaders as if they were different to its own Naxalites running wild from Bihar to Chattisgarh and all the way to Andhra Pradesh. Since its ambassador at the India House has already said that “political parties in Nepal can use the Indian card”, Delhi must clearly tell the political parties that if they are to co-exist and survive, they must reciprocate the call of the monarch for a reconciliation.

Nepal established diplomatic relations with the United States of America before it did with India and China. Sometimes, we are forced to appreciate the Ranas for some of the far-sighted decisions that they took during their 104-year rule.


At 6:47 PM, February 25, 2006, Anonymous g said...

crazy. god bless her. but how is Ms. preeti related to Girija Pd?

i dont know if they are of the same blood or not, but they sure have different thoughts.

hope she is right about U.S. turning its face from India. God knows we need it.

If only more intellectual, loud voiced, and loud surnamed people (like Ms Koirala) voiced their opinions aloud, maybe these idiots of a politician would try to work something out with the king. even if it was just to save their own freaking face and not for the goodness of thought of Nepal.

At 12:09 PM, February 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Firstly, I would love to contribute BD but I'd rather do so when I can devote the time fully to such pursuits.

I'm playing catch up here but I loved g's analogy about the perfect pizza. I think we can probably make a suitable one about Nepalese drivers and traffic...

I also agree completely with Vladimir. King G is the only one with the cojones big enough to be Prachanda's nemesis.

Ms Koirala's articles are a good read and on the whole agree with her. She seems to have her fair share of detractors and critics but I find their arguments pretty weak.

As for Moriarty, I've actually got a certain amount of respect for him. At least he's expending time and energy doing what he thinks is appropriate. He has flip flopped around but I think he's beginning to see the bigger picture especially about the 7 parties alliance with the Maoists.

He gives us some granularity too. For example the point regarding the Maoists' laying down of arms to presumably unarmed individuals. Something that our intrepid investigative journalists in the media seemed to have missed. You can read it all here: We Want To Prevent Nepal From Becoming A Crazy Totalitarian State.

He's also been trying to engage the so called political leaders into compromising with the King. Perhaps in time he'll figure out that this is like banging your head against a brick wall and report back to his superiors to that effect. And I do believe he has a certain insight into the King's thinking.

With regard to Prachanda - Moriarty is absolutely right. Appeasement does not work especially with people who think they are winning. Prachanda owns 80% of the country. He thinks he is winning. Why would he want to compromise? It is only the King who has made him realise that he cannot take Kathmandu by deploying the RNA. The APF were no match. That is why Prachanda has been making these overtures recently and having tantrums about the King. The King has effectively become a thorn in his side and he realises he now has a worthy opponent. But beware he's as shifty as they come.

I have to say what I love the most about him is that he has put India's nose out of joint. "Twin pillars of monarchy and democracy". That's Indian political speak for Indian hegemonic yoke. We are now beginning to see a divergence in the foreign policy of the established foreign powers. Perhaps the English lap dogs will also part ways with the Indian viewpoint?

So Deuba has been released. And already he's out of the blocks trying to make some political headway and media exposure. Generally getting his mug in the publications and dribbling nonsense.

This fawning Kantipur article Deuba poses tough question to Maoists is the usual junk we get from them. Tough questions? Why not ask him why he didn't hold elections within 6 months when told to by the King? Or why he insisted on trying to shoe horn his man into the Chairmanship of the Nepal Rastra Bank against the advice of an independent committee set up specifically to find the best candidate?

As for the disbandment of the RCCC. I always thought that was a misguided PR exercise. The CIAA were doing a fine enough job and the King would have been better off increasing their resources or setting up something like the National Audit Office in the UK but with punitive powers.

Some interesting links: Nepal is Corrupted
Nepal Law


At 2:40 PM, February 26, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Agreed Naag, still would love to have you as a regular contributor. At will, or course, to meet your schedule. E-mail me if you come around. You need a wider, uncensored forum for your views, but I won't beg, just offer.

I can see your point about respecting Moriarty for at least stirring the pot; but what really chaps me is that he is just NOW getting around to realizing that the Maoists won't negotiate. Naag, you above anyone know that we've been saying this stuff here for the past year. You and I are no more than informed, interested private parties. Can U.S. intelligence on Nepal really be as far behind as Moriarty has demonstrated? Moriarty has caused a lot of anxiety and aggravation during his learning curve on this. Like most Western diplomats, he's either poorly briefed or apathetically engaged; maybe both.

"Hegemonic Yoke" takes the blogdai prize of the month for most on-target buzz-word. Looks like Moriarty has started to come-to-Jesus on India's true intentions as well.

Why the hell didn't this guy just read blogdai in the first place? ha!


At 6:31 PM, February 26, 2006, Anonymous m.r. said...

Actually it's rather late here meanwhile, but what I still wanted to say is this: In the previous thread I posted the three separate links to three separate (news)stories in the aftermath of the Moriarty-speech. I read all three of them right before I took 'm here. And somehow the combination of all that information ánd opinions, gave me the idea that I knew what will happen in the next couple of months. The "axis" seems to be changing indeed, with India being more or less "isolated" from future events in Nepal. And though I'm absolutely no expert re. politics on the Indian Subcontinent, it seems very much deserved if the US and its ambassador take a kind of "lead" now. It's totally unacceptable that the chiefs of a bunch of outright murderers and terrorists that "the Maoists" are, can more or less freely move around in India's capital.
However, don't forget the USofA itself is hosting the RW's offices, and Maoist-ambassadors could recently tour the EU to spread their propaganda.

Really: try to let go of all your prejudice and then with an open mind and as a human being read the several interviews with Moriarty, as well as the criticism they got from a few other people: and you'll see that the USofA are turning a tide...

Politics? Sure. They've known all along about the beheadings and the cruelties, the murders and intimidation and terror on the countryside. But the world does not stand still. And in spite of their rhetoric the Maoist leadership recently indeed completely failed to have its movement live up to their promises and cheap attempts to seduce those who have never shown much brightness where Nepali politics and strategies are concerned.

Meanwhile here (UWB) seems to be a transcript of a new encounter with the US ambassador. And I'll finish this contribution with a quote of myself, dated late January '06:
Future revolutionaries who say they fight for the benefit of and on behalf of the poor masses, should please make a capital their main aim first. Not the poor and innocent in the remote parts of a country, where a cruel and armed conflict can go on for years before enough people start to care.

At 6:59 PM, February 26, 2006, Anonymous m.r. said...

This is India, and it's just one example of a great, great many and of all sorts:

Four securitymen hurt in Kathmandu landmine blast

Five landmines planted by Maoists exploded simultaneously in Dolakha district, 65 kilometres east of Kathmandu

The Hindustan Times on February 24 '06.
No wonder Prachanda cum suis feel at home there, and among such journalists and editors!

At 5:42 AM, February 27, 2006, Blogger bloghajurbah said...

US Policy Promotes Elitism in Nepal: Expert

Even as those representing the seven-party alliance concede that any controversial remark from US ambassador about Nepal and its political problems should be free from any paranoia, claims are in place that the US policy towards Nepal has every element of elitism and thus likely to promote the interest of the elites in Nepal.
"Foreign policy is determined by a number of factors. We must take note of the fact that (James F) Moriarty is a career diplomat who has problem with those on the Left. Also consider the underlying elitist inclination which is in play," said C K Lal, a veteran journalist and columnist speaking at the Reporters’ Club today.
He said this by way of analysing the US policy towards Nepal based on the speech delivered by US envoy Moriarty on February 15 at a function organised by Ganesh Man Singh Academy and co-sponsored by none other than the USIS. Moriarty had, among other things, cautioned the alliance about the consequences of not cooperating with the monarch.
Lal also claimed that the US attitude towards seven-party alliance in general and Maoists in particular can be analysed in the backdrop of the professed need reinforced by Moriarty to the effect that the 12-point understanding be sabotaged.
Saying that (NC-D leader) Sher Bahadur Deuba appears to gain from the unfolding policy, he reinforced the view that alliance should not go with the monarch but should further consolidate rapport with rebels keeping the fight peaceful. He conceded that the India visit of George Bush could affect Nepal in either way depending on the outcome of interaction between US and India.
Meanwhile, CPN-UML leader K P Oli insisted that "we must not misconstrue the random remarks of the envoy and that the relationship with the Maoists was based on assumption that they are genuinely interested in fighting for a pluralist society." He reinforced the claim that the Maoists have in the 12-point understanding expressed commitment to competitive politics.
Earlier Rastriya Janashakti Party (RJP) Co-Chairman Dr Prakash Chandra Lohani insisted that the 12-point understanding cannot be expected to go far and that the alliance needs to be wary of the remarks coming from Dr Baburam Bhattarai that "Maoist cannot take consolation from bourgeoise democracy."

At 5:43 AM, February 27, 2006, Blogger bloghajurbah said...

India to assist Nepal in uplifting living standard

Monday, February 27, 2006

NEW DELHI: Indian Ambassador to Nepal Shiv Shanker Mukherjee has said that India will assist Nepal in uplifting the living standard of the people living below poverty line.

Click Here

Mukherjee said the Indian Embassy would launch various programs with special focus on the development of Nepal's villages. The intimate friendship between Nepal and India would be more harmonious in the days to come, he said.

On the occasion, Vice Chancellor of the Tribhuvan University Govinda Prashad Sharma lauded the Indian aid to Nepal saying New Delhi's assistance in health, communication, education and technology sectors has provided much relief to the Nepalese people.

At 7:57 AM, February 27, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

bloghaj, great stuff on Moriarty. It shows how he is going against his ambassadorial duty and becoming a divider not a uniter.

India made the speech for effect. Nothing will happen. India got the PR out of these statements that it wanted and that will be it.


At 10:01 AM, February 27, 2006, Blogger Dev Prasad said...

I think the quality of this blog has improved a lot recently (maybe with my absence! j/k) with some great postings from G, Naag, m.r, blogdai, bloghajurbah and of course Blogdai. Really good stuff here and i am trying to keep up but i can't (let alone consider contributing) -just haven't got the time.

Oh and Preethi is an excellent journalist. I just hope the right people are listening!

At 12:33 PM, February 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What are you talking? Are you a paid pulicist for the King?

Compare Nepal with Pakistan- Since both have Dictators ruling, not with Europe or USA!

You always seem to fill evryones mind with hatred, more hatred and more hatred towards everyone!

Senseless posts from a paid crony. I know you delete posts that are sane, so I am going to start a Blog pretty soon, for the people, by the people and FROM THE PEOPLE. Not just a paid crony!

At 12:42 PM, February 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BLOGDAI. This post is for only like minded people, who cherish reading what they THINK and ASSUME is right.

Nepal was a freindly society. Not anymore. WIth Peole like you preaching hatred towards every one telling what USA/EUROPE/INDIA/CHINA MUST lost crdibility even before you began. No one even cares what you have to utter here anyways. Just realise that only soft requests will help NEPAL. Not mindless preachings.

AND, ofcourse you delete anything that makes any sense and doesnt support you!

At 12:43 PM, February 27, 2006, Anonymous Brit said...

Anon 12.33 were you looking in the mirror?!

At 12:52 PM, February 27, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Our posters are neither paid cronies nor retards. We are, on ocassion, quite drunk when we post. Vladimir does this the best.

Hate posts are in the eye of the beholder, I guess. Your last post doesn't exactly fart flowers, if you know what I mean.

Those of us who try to think about things are cursed with anxiety and uncertainty about Nepal issues. I envy you and your childlike absolutisms. Ignorance is bliss after all, eh?


At 1:03 PM, February 27, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Anoymous 12:42 is our old friend CK.

I'm aftraid CK has gone over to the dark side.

It is painful to watch posters like this stumble in such a way.

Blogdai is neither a hate monger nor in any position to tell any nation what to do. We are a forum for opinions. If the opinions here do not suit you, go elsewhere rather than jump to conclusions that are in no way supported by the contents of this blog. Soft enough for you?

Nepal will one day be in the direct, hard gaze of the international media glare (if not already). How "soft" would you presume a rabid western media that is stuffed with self-absorbed pundits will be to your delicate sensibilities?

I'm pathetically lost in a sea of over-used jingoisms today, so I must apologize in advance for telling my sensitive-eared anon: "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the Kitchen."


At 4:08 PM, February 27, 2006, Anonymous m.r. said...

Quote – blogdai 7:57 am bloghaj, great stuff on Moriarty. It shows how he is going against his ambassadorial duty and becoming a divider not a uniter.

About the ambassador going against his duty or violating the terms of his job description, to include your reaction in the thread here below. Just one question: So what?
I think you're showing a weird kind of logic here and not at all "Blog-daily" by emphasising a rather "bureaucratic" opinion. How can you sell or defend an opinion that the US ambassador is becoming a divider, not a uniter, when he is clearly trying to force king, government and "parties" to unite against terrorists gaining ever more ground?

Please clarify. You say you gotta love Ms. Koirala for the piece she wrote that you copied here in full. She had good reasons for writing it. Yet you seem to prefer more weak politicians struggling on endlessly in Nepal, instead of this foreign ambassador speaking out against terror. I don't get that, unless you were "a little Vladimir"...
Who cares about job descriptions, delicate diplomacy and what's considered "done" or "not done" for diplomats if the whole thing is about SAVING LIVES, and many of them!!! Yóu, of all people? Nah...

And to anonymous of 12:42 pm who claims that "Nepal was a freindly society".
Excuse me, but where have you been the past 50 or 100 years or so? Societies with feudal practices, serfdom, caste systems, untouchables, a majority of the population being denied access to education and literacy and kept without things that even remotely refer to "equal rights", have never been particularly friendly to their members.

Sorry, but that salestrick of yours won't work around here.

At 4:38 PM, February 27, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Point taken MR, but only from an absolute free speech perspective.

Diplomatic speech is another thing.

Let's try this; suppose the malaysian or Afghani ambassador to the Netherlands or Denmark started becoming very public in say, all the amsterdam newspapers about his concerns that Holland was not Islamic enough? See where we're going with this?

Ambassadors are not supposed to speak like activists. (the are supposed to Spy, sorry.) No, imagine if every ambassador was outspoken a -la moriarty. Chaos!

That's why they call it "diplomacy."


At 10:07 PM, February 27, 2006, Anonymous m.r. said...

You can do better than that. Much better.
No way can you compare the situation of daily life in Nepal, for its people, to the situation in The Netherlands, or in Denmark. (Thank you, but I won't go into the cartoons-uproar here). And no way can you compare the importance of a US ambassador in a foreign country, to one from Afghanistan or Malaysia.

Please try again, for this one was just too simple and too obvious.
I remember very well how Bloomfield used to operate, and got criticised for his public comments and attempts to interfere with interior politics. But there is one, big difference. In my own words: "he showed much more understanding for the Maoists and their aims". That is the first, major difference with what Moriarty has been doing lately.

Btw Bush is about to land in Delhi (The Hindu).
With him paying an official visit to India now, I fail to understand even more your criticism on Moriarty for crossing the political borders of what a US ambassador is generally allowed to do.

At 5:44 AM, February 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is it just me or does anyone else find blognotmydai's strawman arguments a little pathetic?


At 7:14 AM, February 28, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Oh dear, MR, it should have been obvious to you that I was using an analogy. The fact that is was in the Netherlands or Denmark has no bearing on the point: ambassadors are not in foreign countries to stir up trouble.

Who cares if it's the Netherlands, a U.S. ambassador or whatever. Any ambassador to any country who openly criticized a host government in a way that is designed to inflame public sentiments is over stepping the boundaries of diplomacy.

Diplomats are designed to lend a calming voice to a situation. Activists, politician, journalists and others can lend the vitriol if they so desire. It is a democratic device that reinforces every country's desire for a peaceful resolution of disputes.

Now the U.S., through Moriarty, has created an adversarial relationship with the current government of Nepal. How many more adversaries would the U.S. cultivate if they had Moriarty-type ambassadors stationed all over the world?


At 7:30 AM, February 28, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

I don't quite get the comparison with Bush's visit and Moriarty's statements but i'll try.

Moriarty is stepping away from India's position on the Maoists.
This creates an issue "bookmark" for Bush's visit.

This will put another bargaining chip on the table when bush starts working the room on nuclear weapons and trade.

Unlike Moriarty blogdai HAS said all along that there is a feeling or undercurrent that the U.S. is supporting any force that will wipe out the Maoists. Moriarty tipped us all off on this right after the takeover by saying it would be cheaper for the U.S. to keep supplying arms to the king. Also, that visit by the American fleet commander and his recommendation that Nepal start up a "ranger" force may be more revealing than we know. And where does the money come from to support g's plan to ratchet up the size of the RNA by 100,000 men?

The Yanks do not want another China satellite so Bush may lean on India to do more than just promise to increase humanitarian aid to Nepal's border regions.

Let's watch India's stance on supplying weapons to Nepal after Bush leaves Delhi.


At 11:01 AM, February 28, 2006, Anonymous Vladimir said...

Disclaimer: Vladimir NOT Drunk

Vladimir in the mood for some S&M; thinks he'll whip some anonymous hinds.

On a more serious note, though, Anonymous (12.33 am/pm/for-the-people-by-the-people-blah, blah, blah): You know, a man has a right to his illusions; go on, cling on to yours in all your blindness, and to your daily issue of Kantipur too, for that matter. Nobody begrudges, or will begrudge you that. And, for what its worth, leave us to ours...

Better a paid crony than a blind, unpaid factotum, methinks; at least the former makes some money.

At 12:45 PM, February 28, 2006, Anonymous m.r. said...

Agreed, blogdai; I just felt it was a bit of a weak analogy under the circumstances. But you won't hear me complain about ambassadors saying what's on their mind and speaking out against terrorism, if they are assigned to a country só struggling with tragedies as is the case in Nepal. And besides, it's not the first time the US would "stand on the toes of a foreign government", is it? For me it just depends on what's at stake. I don't care about political or military strategical reasons: it's the suffering of the people that needs to come to an end.

Plus in the meantime, today,
Maoist rebels or 'Naxalites' in India
killed at least 25 but probably more in the area of over 50 people in an attack in Chhattisgarh.
That's an area where lately (since a few months) the local population stood up against their Maoists, and the inherent terror. Extremely courageous, and the slaughter of today was not the first fatal punishment they got:
The victims were tribal people returning from a meeting called to protest against the Maoists' activities in the state.

It's disgusting, it's outrageous. And I can only hope that it WILL influence some of the talks that Bush will now have in India.

At 1:04 PM, February 28, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Well blogdai feels that Bush may not be bright enough to speek on the Naxalite issue. Yes it not only is tragic, but the Naxalite movement fuels, educates and supplies our very own maoists.

Ol' W is in India to invite Mr. Singh into the responsible nuke ownership club. That's really all, i'm afraid.


At 3:20 PM, February 28, 2006, Anonymous m.r. said...

No, that's not all. And he's bright enough to condemn terrorism! He's not coming on his own but bringing a whole party to do more talking and negotiating, apart from what he himself will do and what people he'll meet. Of course the preparations have been made in advance by many diplomats, like there'll also be a whole lot of work left for them to do in the aftermath of this visit. But it's virtually impossible that the Maoist/Naxalite "problems", to use an understatement, would not be addressed. Though I agree that Bush may not do that himself; time will tell.

At 3:57 PM, March 07, 2006, Anonymous CK said...

I was an avid fan of yours in the past. I dont know if you remember me. You even helped me on a personal level. Back then, I didnt know much about Nepal, and was just starting to know what Nepal is all about. the more people from Nepal I meet, the more varied and logical are the conclusions and they all have one thing in common. EVERYONE is tired of fighting, hatred, negative publicity of Nepal. The more I interact with people from nepal here in the US, the more I am dissatisfied with your blog. As a friend who helped me, I have high regard for you at a personal level, but With this blog, I started disagreeing with you on many things.
I agree Politicians are crooks. So are Maoists.
But at this time, this is precisely when Nepal needs friends,free of suscpicion,some meaningful thoughts, some meaningful actions, some meaningful gestures to help people understand the plight of Nepalis and the country as a whole. I am told by friends that you delete all negative comments. that you are a royalist, that you are a part of the kings propaganda circle...and what not. I am sure none of them have a clue on who you are. But from what I know of you, you are a great friend.A great humanbeing at a very personal level for me.
I would do anything for you, all you need to do is just email me. But PLEASE people like you with influence, personal connections, good network are the ones who should build bridges. I am more and more dissatisfied with growing hatred towards all people, everyone in general. And ofcourse, almost everyone from nepal, especially the older generation, the bitter truth that I learned, hate India. I havent done anything aginst Nepal. I infact helped many of my Nepalese friends. But, I faced the hatred first hand at a very personal level. I Hope you understand what I mean.

I am by you as a loyal friend, but I shall express when I differ with you.

At 5:58 AM, March 08, 2006, Anonymous Brit said...

CK - you write: "I am told by friends that you delete all negative comments. that you are a royalist, that you are a part of the kings propaganda circle...and what not."

You should read the blog for yourself. (1) there are plenty of negative comments on the site. However there have been a number of abusive comments which have appeared and been subsequently deleted. Blogdai also deletes long rambling incoherent rants - the reasons for this are given regularly, one of which is that they are very time wasting - I personally get very annoyed spending time trying to understand a point of view which turns out to make no coherent sense. I (as is also stated on the blog) welcome any opposing comment which actually makes sense. This blog is for individual, thoughtful relevant comment, not chunks of rehashed political propaganda. There are other blogs which cater for this sort of contribution. (2) Re the royalist bit - again - read the blog! Judge for yourself!


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home