Wednesday, February 08, 2006

The REAL Revolution

22 year old mayoral candidate Anil Adhikari's election web-site.

Update: February 9. Anil Adhikari has graciously agreed to share his thoughts with us here at blogdai. Our interview below:

BD: Anil, why did you decide to run for Mayor?

AA: actullay..i wanted to show the neplese all over the world > people never leave their country...coplaining about >opportunity..they themselves create the opportunity...if young people can >fight...and die for the country..they can rule..and governance too we >all know young people r dying..and old r talking here in nepal......

Do you feel frightened of Maoist/Party retalliation?

>no ..but ..i dont want to die soon..a dogs death..and u know one saying >"kera ko khamba...7 vhai jamma" thses partys r just united for few > in tihar..after tihar they will start to fight for the >distribution of power..>

What does "democracy" mean to you?

>democracy mean you r as giood as me is just an experiment...where >num,bers of votes r given more importnace..than its weight...sometime >democracy means all the fools r in same side.....>

BD: Do you feel the King is on the right track with these elections, despite the low turn-out?

>the king...ahhahahhah......i just dont understand..why party and people r >despising him..he is the most weakest man in nepal ..if people become >strong in the leadership od some charismatic o;over crombell >like churchil...he can do nothing....i will try to be like >those leaders...we need strong leaders..and strong followers to make ou >rnepal a strong ..nation..


Blogdai wonders about all those people who claimed Nepal's first attempt at municipal elections in 7 years were a waste of time. It seems, and estimates vary, that there was a paltry 8-20% turnout for these polls.

A poor turnout in a Western country, with widespread campaigning contributing to voter knowledge; a free society that insures fairness (relative) at the polls and open and contentious debate from all sides; is usually measured in the 40 percentile range. We call this a "pathetic" turnout and use terms like "voter apathy" and say that people were not doing their "democratic duty." Blogdai wonders what the election turnout would be in a Western country that was under the same pressures as Nepal where:

-Polling places were attacked and destroyed the day before elections, as in Dhankuta

-Voters were threatened with violence if they voted, as the were in Bhaktapur.

- Mayoral candidates' homes were bombed by Maoists and candidates were shot, as they were
multiple places throughout Nepal.

-Candidates withdrew their names from consideration due to intimidation from the deposed
political parties and the Maoists.

-Nepal itself hadn't conducted a free, fully participatory election in over 7 years and had no
logistical expertise in conducting such a widespread poll.

All things considering, an 8% turnout is a courageous victory for those who are seeking a new beginning and legitimate popular representation. The fact that anyone turned out for these elections at all is a victory. People who went to the polls were, literally, casting their votes under fire. Is a chance for a real democracy worth this risk? Would we have done the same?

For the EU or any outside nation to call these elections a "backward step," is an uneducated and woefully uninformed slap in the face to those 8% of Nepali's who were tired of the status quo--royal or political--and just wanted to exercise some free and individual choice for a change. No, this is a "first step." The fact that it was or was not a success is immaterial. Nepalis are on the proper road now; the road to an actual representative democracy with the full participation of its citizens.

So the next time you talk about revolutions, consider those in Nepal who either ran or participated in the elections. People who are desperate for change and were willing to sacrifice their personal comfort and jeopardize their lives for what they perceived as the common good: a foreign concept in Nepali politics up to this point

Therein lies the revolution.


(Visit Anil Adhikari if you are able at his website: It's hard to get on because he is innundated with traffic and frequently exceeds his bandwidth-BD)


At 7:54 PM, February 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Please do all of us a favor and correct your first sentence. Nepal's first local election was in 1993. I think the turnout was in 60-70%.

What do you say about all those candidates who did not want to run but were forced to? What do you say about all the civil servants being forced to vote?

I see 80% Nepalis not voting means that the Government does not have a mandate.

At 9:15 PM, February 08, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Will do, will correct it to "7 years or so" although I did allude to it further along in the posting.

I see 20% of Nepalis braving great hardship in order TO vote. It's hard to claim any "mandate" under such dangerous conditions. If people felt safe and were eager to vote and not intimidated and yet STILL did not show up, then you could say there was no mandate.

Being nominated for a seat is not the same as being forced to run. I do believe, however, that there wer many candidates that were forced into running by government forces. As we've said earlier, flaws are everywhere and it will take a systemic change to over haul corruption and coercion from both sides. In essence, the government was not forcing these people to think a certain way or to espouse a certain pro-government view where they? Only to run. If no one ran, the Maoists could claim that they had won and that the King had no mandate (which they are doing anyway) instead of the fact that they intimidated everyone and used the threat of physical violence to keep candidates away.

it is not a perfect system but the government forcing people to run (if it is true) is a crude way of offsetting any Maoist claim of a mandate against the elections. The maoist definition being: threaten and kill all willing candidates and claim that a low turnout was due to "the People" not supporting the polls. \

You have to make sure at least some people show up for the polls or the maoists will claim the victory while conveniently ignoring the fact that they scared everyone away from voting.


At 11:59 PM, February 08, 2006, Anonymous shiva said...

Several reasons why the turnout might have been low:

1. Rumors that voters would be shot and bombs were being planted at the polling stations ran high the week preceding Feb 8 unto the morning of the 8th (so much that UNICEF appealed to move the polling stations from schools). That's why most of the stations were empty in the morning. In the afternoon the rumor was that people with the little blue ink stain on their thumbnail(placed at the polling station to mark that you have already voted) were being sought by Maoists and their thumbs were being cut off.

2. There was virtually no campaigning, I did not know who the hell was up for the post of Ward Chairman in my ward up to the last minute. This is because of the Maoist threats and the shooting of 3 candidates just before the elections. Candidates were terrified to come out to campaign. It is also because most of the independent candidates did not have the luxury of spending millions of rupees of campaign money that a major political party enjoys (anywhere in the world).

3. The voter lists were distributed across several locations within the wards to make it easier for voters but unfortunately the election commission and the ward offices did a lousy job informing voters in which station their names were. This created a lot of confusion in Kathmandu.

4. No one was being paid to place votes on anyone as has been the practice in all the past elections.

5. No one was being intimidated or coerced or promised anything to place a vote on anyone, which has also been a practice in the past.

6. And finally, no one in the polling stations filled up the voting cards of absentee voters, which has been a major source of votes in past elections (and a major reason of the fights amongst political parties to get their people in the polling stations which we all used to see on tv on election nights)

The conclusion:

1. These electins were the fairest elections ever held in this nation to date.

2. Whoever came to vote came because they wanted to exercise their right to vote. I mean these people are the ones who really support the electoral process and for that matter, real democracy. Those who in the name of democracy forsaked their votes did so to please their masters, thereby making them opportunists with a vested interest.

3. 20% of such hardcore believers who turned up to vote under such difficult circumstances is a lot! And it's testimony that the Nepalese people believe in democracy and the king and are saying enough is enough to violence.

4. Without spending massive amounts of campaign money and spreading mass propoganda, people don't give a shit who plays politics. This is a sad irony of the democratic system of governance, and a reason for the widespread corruption in third world nations, and the monopoly and power of multilateral corporations in developed ones.

5. The world has become so dependent on statistical figures that we have become blind to the beauty of life.

At 4:31 AM, February 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...


To add to the reasons why people did not vote, you chose to omit one important factor.

Many people decided not to vote to disapprove with the current Government. My family did not vote for this reason and I believe the majority of people did not as well for this reason.

The king was hell bent on conducting this poll not for the people but due to his ego. To tell the world that he held an election when the political parties. The low turnout shows that people do not have confidence in him. Mind you, that the election was conducted only in the cities, which constitutes 10-20% of Nepal's population (not in the rural areas).

If people decided not to vote due to safety reason, then it shows that people do not feel safe even in the urban areas. The King's claim that security has improved since his takeover is false.

Whether people decided not to vote because of the disapproval of the Government or because of the security reason, the Government basically failed to get the confidence of the people.

At 5:00 AM, February 09, 2006, Anonymous m.r. said...

quote anon 4:31 am:
Many people decided not to vote to disapprove with the current Government. My family did not vote for this reason and I believe the majority of people did not as well for this reason.

Considering the options in Nepal I think that is a pretty shortsighted decision then, that some people made.
The more people will obstruct the king's efforts to implement true democracy in the end, the longer it will take before real improvements can become reality. Something that imo people inside as much as outside Nepal should consider. This way many only seem to prolong the suffering of millions. What gives them the right to behave that way, I wonder.

At 5:32 AM, February 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

All things considering, an 8% turnout is a courageous victory for those who are seeking a new beginning and legitimate popular representation.

I'm getting dizzy in all the spin blognotdai has been posting recently.

How much turnout in the Iraq first election? 70%? And that country is worse than Nepal.

Please try again blogbaby.

At 5:53 AM, February 09, 2006, Anonymous m.r. said...

Why bring up Iraq? What's the use? I'd say food, shelter and safety are far more important than percentages.
Btw, is there any certainty that all children born in Nepal in the past decades have become registered as citizens there indeed? And is the number and identity of all those who've left the country in recent years - such as people working abroad, and the refugees but also the girls and women trafficked into India and elsewhere - accounted for?
So say that again, please: turnout and percentage.

At 6:01 AM, February 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous 5:32 (who chooses to call names, but won't give his own name...):

Let's see how this could have happened, that the Iraqi elections had a higher turnout. Could it be that the US Army was guaranteeing voters' safety,whereas in Nepal, the RNA was responsible for poll protection? I am not a big fan of the US Army (well, its Fool in Chief to be specific), and I'm guessing the RNA did what it could, but let's face it, confidence might be a little higher in the US Army's guarantee. Might be a factor in voter turnout, n'est-ce pas?

I am disappointed that we have not seen details on the international wires about WHO was the big winner (RPP, I believe) and a little analysis about why. So far we have only found this on Nepali language news. Could it be that people have voted for representation of ethnic groups over Brahmin rule?

What a joke... the Maoists and the parties scare people away from the polls and then point to low voter turnout as an indication of the King losing ground.

Rant over.


At 7:20 AM, February 09, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Shiva, clear and to the point as usual--bravo. Kudos to Ramta as well.

The government may very well have failed to get the confidence of the people, but how can this be proved since the people were not fairly allowed to speak through elections?

If the people do not feel safe enough to vote then you must ask yourself why they need safety in the first place. What you are implying in absurd. Are we to believe that the elections failed because the King failed to adequately stop those trying to make the elections fail?

If vandals come and ransack your house, is it your fault for building the house?


At 7:26 AM, February 09, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Anil Adhikari has just written blogdai. Will post it on the original story page.

Shiva, drop me an e-mail at if you would be so kind.


At 7:28 AM, February 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am disappointed that we have not seen details on the international wires about WHO was the big winner (RPP, I believe) and a little analysis about why. So far we have only found this on Nepali language news.

Nepal News
Election Commission website

At 8:11 AM, February 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for the links, anon 7:28... I guess I should have put the "WHO" in small letters and the "why" in big letters. I am hoping to see a more detailed analysis at some point (something other than so-called "mainstream" party rhetoric).



At 7:38 PM, February 09, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Maybe it comes down, not to coercion, but freedom of thought.

What was forced?

I see nowhere were candidates or voters were forced into supporting the royal viewpoint. I only see where people were forced into participating. A true despot would have made unconditional loyalty to the Palace a pre-requisite for running. This was most certainly not the case here.

Royalists won a majority of the elections because, well, the RPP was one of the only organized political parties participating and willing to take the risks. In this respect it is a shame that the parties did not participate because they most surely would have won some seats.

Good, bad, corrupt, tainted, failed or whatever, I honestly believe G. wanted people to get their feet wet in the election process.

A lot was risked here. Saying that G. would gamble for a "consolidation of power" on an unproven election process shows the infantile level of comprehension currently on display by Western powers and pundits.

Would a power-hungry despot risk his throne on such a risky venture?

No, G. may just be able to comprehend that failure here translates into long-term success for nepal. That is a risk worthy of a King.


At 7:43 PM, February 09, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

I love how the Yanks are calling this election a "hollow attempt" at G. trying to consolidate his power. It misses the point in a typically american fashion that would do Moriarty proud.

The fact remains that an ATTEMPT was made at holding elections. G. trying to consolidate power? How short is everyone's memory? It was not long ago that G. was asking--no, pleading -- Deuba to hold elections within a specified time period. Deuba not only refused, but he never even made the attempt. Why? because real elections meant Deuba, Girija and the others had a real chance of losing power and none of them could stand for that. They had already consolidated their power and didn't want to risk it all by opening their misdeeds up to public electoral scrutiny.

This led to G's famous remark that Deuba was incompetent. Can we at least remember that?

So, Yanks, what kind of power was G. trying to consolidate back then by asking for elections to be held before his takeover?

G. like everyone, was tired of the cronyism of the parties and wanted to at least give some others--yes, perhaps even royalists--a shot at injecting some new life into a political scene that was paralyzed by bickering and idiocy.

Isn't a constitutional democracy supposed to hold elections? Why were there none then, under girija or Deuba since, what, 1993?


At 11:32 PM, February 09, 2006, Anonymous Vladimir said...

As a remedy to the present stalemate, and in deference to the wishes of the International Community, the Alliance of Seven Parties, and sundry others, I would like to propose the following as a way out of the present stalemate:

Get rid, once and for all, of this undemocratic practice called voting. Instead, form a government that will have as its head a triumvirate consisting of Messrs. Koirala, Nepal, and Deuba. Upon the demise of any of them, or in the unlikely scenario of any one of them resigning, a successor will be named from a pool of candidates whose democratic credentials will have been approved by Messrs. Bush, Blair, Martin, etc., and more importantly, by the candidates themselves.

As a counterbalance to remedy any unlikely ills in the system a chosen few, consisting of overpaid human rights activists, journalists, and self-anointed leaders of civil society, shall overlook the functioning of the government.

Find me a better system, and I show you Utopia.


At 1:20 AM, February 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...


You missed Pashupati SJB Rana and perhaps we should also add Shambu Thapa, Krishna Pahadi, and Subodh Pyakuryal?

At 1:51 AM, February 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see nowhere were candidates or voters were forced into supporting the royal viewpoint. I only see where people were forced into participating.

You clearly missed the reports prior to the elections of candidates who were forced by members of the RPP to withdraw their candidature.

At 2:52 AM, February 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Royalists decry poll irregularities

"Home Minister Kamal Thapa has massively misused the government mechanism and hired vigilantes to cast proxy votes," said Mayoral candidate Shahi. "It was all done to show high turnout."

Shahi, a royalist by inclination, challenged Thapa saying, "If there are more than 3,200 genuine votes cast in any wards except ward no 2, 3 and 4, I will commit suicide."

At 8:17 AM, February 10, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Sounds like Thapa is in it for Thapa. He may just be another dirty politico in the Koirala sense of the word.

This is just bad election practice and fraud. Again, part of the process. If nepal is planning on further elections then these issues must be addressed.

If the Royalists themselves are complaining, looks like Mr. Thapa may not be long for the cabinet, eh?


At 8:27 AM, February 10, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Looks like Mr. Thapa is in it for Mr. Thapa. If these reports are true, he is shaping up to be a real Koirala politician.

But what we have here is plain old-fashioned election dirty-tricks. they are the growing pains involved in this process and shows us all just how new and unfamiliar elections are to nepalis. If nepal is planning on more elections in the future, these bullying tactics must be addressed. the same things occur in every country where elections take place, so there is no reason to believe that Nepal would be immuned to such activity.

It strikes a curious sense of balance to have the Royalists complaining about the RPP. It almost validates the fact that G. did not hand-pick all the victors.

If G.'s favorites are angry, I would assume Mr. Thapa is not long for his cabinet post.


At 11:41 AM, February 10, 2006, Anonymous NBD said...

This election would not have been successful to this extent if not for Kamal Thapa. He may have misutilised his authorities but there are hardly any who hasn't. Okay... he can be called an oppertunist by his past records and he hired guys to take off a motocycle rally in different parts of the country but I think that's the way it works for the current situation. When oppositions (seven-party+maoist alliance) are acting so ruthlessly the minister cant just follow the ethical way and expect everything to go smoothly!
Still I don't think that this election is the way out... Until and unless there are masses on the street, its far from over.
Oh.. and I hated the victory rally organized by Thapa's RPP. caused a huge traffic jam...

At 11:56 AM, February 10, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

RIght, NBD.

Thapas contribution to the corrupt angle of this election shows that people were actually paying attention and taking this thing seriously.

If it were a blank exercise then no one would have cared.

We have traffic jams every other week because of protests. I take the rickshaw.

Cheers and welcome,


At 2:05 PM, February 10, 2006, Anonymous bloghajurbah said...

Anonymous 5:32 said it before but it is worth stating again: all this spin is making me dizzy!

NBD is using the excuse that because others are corrupt that is OK for Thapa and Blogdai is supporting him.

It is not OK to be corrupt. The Royal Commission for Corruption Control or some other anti-graft organisation should be taking action to show the people it(corrupt activities) is not acceptable. How else do you think the people will begin to trust the politicos that are supposed to represent them?

Otherwise we will be back to square one. Corrupt politicians who serve the king not the people and when the king grows tired of his lackeys he will take control again like Feb. 1st 2005 and this will happen again.

At 3:02 PM, February 10, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

You are right, it is not OK to be corrupt. But it is more important to get the ball rolling on elections.

Can you ever say that corruption will be controlled completely in elections? If we waited until such a thing could be insured then we would never have elections in the first place.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water here. Thapa's corruption is bad and inexcusable taken by itself. What is good is that, one: elections were held in spite of all the obstacles; and two: Thapa's corrupt practices are getting widespread attention and condemnation--signifying that people are taking the credibility of these elections seriously and that they are not just a one-time event.

Thapa, in essence, has become the national barometer for an increasing public intolerance for corruption.

In that vein, he has done his country a great service.


At 8:32 PM, February 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Public intolerence? What?? How??? Do we need all this in a Ramarajya that we have now?

I am pretty sure that Thapa will be promoted. Do you think all this is going on without the knowledge and support of KG? Do you think that KG did not know K. Thapa's history when he appointed him a minister?

At 6:32 AM, February 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think firstly the King wants people around him who are loyal to him per se and who he can trust to a certain degree.

Of course he's aware of the corrupt reputations of all these guys but there's that old saying along the lines that if you were to suddenly get rid of corruption overnight then the country would grind to a halt.

So there needs to be some kind of transitionary period to a system which is more stable and acceptable.

That's when you start enforcing the checks and balances and all that. It's also important to have a government that has a cabinet style decision making capability.

Politicians will be politicians after all...

Nepal also needs a system which is meritocratic across society. We need to start using our talented people instead of overlooking them.

Unfortunately, we live in a fast food society these days and people expect their appetites to be satisified near instantaneously. Too much MTV and all that crap.


At 8:06 AM, February 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read a few months ago one of the royalists claiming that the appointment of J. Gauchan as a minister was necessary to block the parties's strikes. S/he was saying that J. Gauchan will bring Karate people into the streets to foil the parties' strikes. The same logic is being put forth to defend K. Thapa. Did you read Gn's in(famous) speech in which he categorically mentioned that he would appoint in the governement people with Swachchha Chhavi (clean images)?

There is no point bringing in weird logics to defend Gn. The fact is corruption or peace or whatever is not among Gn's agendas. He wants to be a ruthless ruler. Isn't Prachanda and Co. or Girija equally good at that? Why do you need Gn., the new joker, who is as good as Saddam's information minister (remember the bloodshed in Palpa when he was claiming peace in the country)?

At 8:43 AM, February 11, 2006, Anonymous Santosh said...

I like Vladimir's idea of getting out of this present stalemate. I think we need to put forward this idea to the SPAM's and their student bodies

At 8:59 AM, February 11, 2006, Anonymous bloghajurbah said...

Kamal Thapa should be made an example of, just like Sher Bahadur Deuba. Otherwise you are back at square one.

At 9:45 AM, February 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I'm not really into mind reading but so far the King has resolutely stuck to his timeline. There's something admirable in that by itself. It shows strength and he is most definitely not a toady to anyone. Yes, I agree that he needs to do more to show he empathises with the people. Again this is where the PR aspect should come in. After all spin is an established fact of western democracies.

We all know that democratic elections tend to have a cycle of around 4 years. No where near long enough to implement reforms that address the deep rooted structural problems in Nepal.

What's the point if a new government comes in and cancels the policies of the previous government? More so in the case of a developing country like Nepal. The parties need to do something constructive like reach a consenus on the reforms required and how to deliver as a service instead of just organising demonstrations. Do they have any ideas on how to go forward?

They really need a change in mindset. That's when I'll start having a bit more faith in them. So far they have shown me nothing of value as evidence of their usefulness. It seems that the only thing that will bring them together is the brinkmanship of the King. There's something really quite sad and pathetic about that. Do these guys have no shame?

For a start they can be more *democratic* and meritocratic within their own parties. We need new people with new ideas not the same old stubborness and inflated egos. That's when they'll become a much more attractive proposition.

And please put forward the names of those whiter than white politicians. Those who can be trusted to serve the public or is there not such a thing?

By the way, I'm not condoning corruption here. I'm being realistic about the present situation and not idealistic about some far-fetched, romantic notion of democracy that will deliver us from all evils.


At 9:47 AM, February 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh and did Anil Adhikari win?


At 10:04 AM, February 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, naagboy. You made a real point this time. How could you expect the past 12 years of democracy to solve all ills of the society?

Your conclusion looks pretty impressive now: The King does not have a magic wand to solve the problem. Having see two hundread years of the Shah rule in the counry, I do not believe that Nepal's Kings have anything to offer to the people. Only thing they can offer is self-aggrandizement and lies. Remember King Birendra's "Asian standard of living" propoganda.

If you believe that Gyan. is achieving his goals, good-luck for you too. For me during past three years or so of his rule, the Maoists only grew in number and strenght. This is time to test Prachanda's sincerty.

At 10:19 AM, February 11, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

I don't thing he won. I haven't seen his name on any roster of victors yet. I had a nice interview with him but haven't talked with him since. You can e-mail him at

Insight and analysis is only labeled as "weird logic" by those who fail to think past their own emotional outbursts of the moment. "Ruthless ruler" G. is one such outburst. Pol Pot was ruthless, Edi Amin was ruthless, but funny, i can't put my finger on one ruthless gesture coming from G. (unless you count the birth of Paras)

Kamal Thapa was brought on board for his ability to negotiate with Maoists. G failed in not checking his political credentials.

I agree that this man must be set as an example. Remove him, recount his district's elections or some variation thereof.

Knowing G's bad instincts for PR though, he will probably sweep this thing under the carpet. If he does, it will be a bit more telling about g's commitment to transparacy and, ultimately, democracy. A Thapa "example" would speak volumes about G's sincerity and shut up the EU, Yanks, UN and other western numbskulls in the process


At 10:44 AM, February 11, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

"Test the sincerity" of a sociopath? You're kidding aren't you? Name one time Prachanda has made a sincere gesture towards peace, ONE. Forget that little ceasefire fiasco too.

Were you dead or in a cave during the 90's? G's three year rule was nothing compared to girija's and Deubas 10 when it came to allowing maoists to get stronger.

this selective memory is starting to make blogdai seriously question the intellectual capacity of some of our posters. No one remembers maoists UNILATERALLY walking out on peace talks? No one remembers Girija begging g. to invoke article 127 to get Deuba out of office and then begging G. again to restore Deuba to office? No one remembers Nepal's constitution? Specifically the part that explicitly provided for g's takeover? Did we also skip the part where girija, Nepal, Poudel, PRACHANDA and others publicly and officially stated that they would refuse to talk to G. under any circumstances? Did you conveniently not read where G. has offered to talk with maoists provided they lay down their guns? How about before that where M.K. Nepal says he would rather talk with maoists and that they don't have to lay down their guns? How about G's terrible cruelty in giving the parties second and third chances at govening before his takeover. How about his despotic requirement that Girija or whomever show him a simple plan for governing nepal and they could have their old jobs back?

For the one-hundredth time, many of you may have some good points to make; but if you just blindly blurt out statements that don't bear the test of historical scrutiny then how can we take you seriously?

This cynical, simplistic, agenda-driven idiocy will no longer be tolerated here.
I'm going to delete you from now on, can you remember that?


At 11:58 AM, February 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The choice is between two "sociopaths" - Prachanda and Gyane. But wait...who is the REAL sociopath? You need to wait for some time, maybe not more than a decade. Here is the clue: Does not a victor write the history?

One way to predict royalists' questionable mind is their assumption. Whenever one questions Gyane, royalists immediately assume that the person in question supports Girija or Deuba or Madhave. Note if you suffer from the same desease.

You occasionally post sensful comments; thanks for them at least. Yes, "selective memory" leads me to question the mental health of some people. Let's turn on our memory machine a bit more.

Do you think you can measure people's "sincerity" in a thermometer? How can you forget that the second ceasefire broke after Gyane killed about 20 Maoists in Doramba in Ramacham in cold blood. Do you remember how the Gyane's army thretened the media at that time? Contrast this how T. Giri and the army are threating the media this time also.

I was alive during the 1990s. But I conveniently assume that you were born after 1990. Yes, Girija, Deuba and all dullards allowed to fester the Maoist problem. At the risk of labelling a Maoist supporter, I would say that the Maoists fought against all the odds. Can not that be a possible explanation?

I also ask you to think about the complexity among the palace, the army and the parties in the 1990s. Moreover, you should know that the Maoists were there in Nepal long before 1990. Remember they were underground from the 1960s. The point is that they were "determined" to launch their "revolution" decades before they actually did it. Don't undervalue this or their "courage," if you will.

I agree that "democratic" dullards petitioned to invoke article 127. Note that Deuba did not ask KG to sack him, or did he? But if Gyane's election is any indication, their petition was not wrong. If Gyane has controlled the Maoists to the point of "criminal activities" now, how was the condition three years ago?

At 2:15 PM, February 11, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

There now, was that so hard?

NOW we can have a nice little chat.

let's see, didn't the maoists come up from underground and start their murderous campaign because they were snubbed early on in their more peaceful attempt to fit in with the power-greedy Koirala government?

I like your comment about the assumptions we make. It is wrong, as you say, to assume anti-King sentiment is pro-girija sentiment.

I would measure Prachanda's sincerity by his actions and by the patterns he's already established. Nuff said?

Maoists had the right idea initially. End land feudalism and establish some sort of constituency. It was only the repeated ignoring of their movement by those in parliament during the 90's that facilitated their turn towards brutality. spoiled, violent children will increase the size and magnitude of their tantrums until someone notices. Had they been integrated into the political process at the beginning(which a real democratic government would have done) we could have saved all the bloodshed.


At 7:34 PM, February 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me begin with a small surprise. I was expecting that you would delete my post as you had threatened. Perhaps this is for the first time that you have responded sanely to anybody who disagrees with you. This sounded like Bill O'Reilly promising to his viewers on the new year eve this year that he would not obstruct his commentators/interviewees as the man was notorously used to!

Well, let's come to the point. Forget girija and deuba for a while. You need to read a bit more on this. In the early 1990s (should be 1992), the Maoists decided to go to war. As early as 1991, Maoist training centers were discovered in Arghakhachi and Pyuthan districts. Their formal dicision to go to war came in 1995. Again, the issue was also related to the EC's decision, which deprived BR Bhattarai's party of its election symbol. I don't believe that the Maoists really wanted to "fit in with the power-greedy Koirala government." Where Girija and co. failed was in their counter moves or specifically their killing sprees.

It's good to measure Prachanda's sincerity by his actions. And his professed "action," buttressed by a well reasoned (you might call it a fanatic) political ideology. I only can ask you to take a more pragmatic evaluation of Maoism. First, violence has been the weapon of the powerful and powerless throught human history across the globe. Second, you should relativize a political ideoloy to understand its worth and its impact on people. Plainly, it is a trade-off what I am saying here: Buy Prachand's silence.

"Maoists had the right idea initially." Maybe they still have, who knows? I am not among one of you who believes that the Maoist growth can be explained by their terror tactics. There is no doubt about it that democratic dullards repeatedly ignored and worse, demonized the Maoists.

But things were not easier either. You need to reread Nepal's land reform programs. MC Regmi's Land ownership book could be a good beggining. You should know how different class interests have clashed in Nepal's land reform politics.

Girija's land reform minister Jaganath acharya wanted to go a step ahead. He was forced to resign. Note that the anti-land reform force was made up by a section of the NC, a bunch of palace supporters and the millitary. These three groups make up Nepal's landlord elites. The idea of "land bank" was folated later. The primary aim was to benifit the urban landlords allied to the NC, the palace and the army. This program was abandoned probably because the ADB/WB did not show interest in creating the fund.

I don't now how a "real democratic government" looks like. But I completely agree that the democratic leaders worsen the political crisis. And Gyane is taking it to a new height.

At 10:23 AM, February 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am interested in the People's Party of Nepal and i would like to provide my backing to this movement but i need to be convinced about the sincerity of this cause.

Blogdai, please email me at and we will have to dicuss the possibilities.

At 7:58 AM, February 14, 2006, Anonymous El Diablo said...

Dr. Thomas A. Marks is a political risk consultant based in Honolulu, Hawaii and a frequent visitor to Nepal. He has authored a number of benchmark works on Maoist insurgency.

Nepalese People's War Follows Classic Formula
By Dr. Thomas A. Marks

Nearly simultaneous release of the latest thoughts from Osama bin Laden and the Maoist leadership in Nepal is revealing in the way coincidences often are.
Bin Laden put out but a single statement, while the CPN(M) leadership of Prachanda and Bhattarai engaged in a veritable psywar blitz, granting interviews to all comers and publishing position pieces for good measure. What the statements of the Islamofascist bin Laden share with the Maoist duo is logic internally consistent but persuasive only if one accepts their flawed external analyses of the world.
Both claim that American imperialism is the true enemy of mankind. And both claim that criticisms of their intentions are incorrect, since ¡°imperialists¡± (such as myself) can not see the ¡°real picture.¡± Most tragically, they deny the heinous crimes committed in the name of their respective ideologies and seek to blame the victims for what they, the insurgents, have actually done.

The Maoist interviews and statements were truly extraordinary in the sense that they provided a little bit of something for everyone. They were very close to the statements issued historically by earlier Maoist groups, from Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso) in Peru to the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP -- the Philippine Maoists).
What is ostensibly presented is an offer by the CPN(M) to give up being Maoists in practice but continue to be Maoists in faith, in goals. This is what the legal Maoists in India purport to do. Yet a visit to the website of the latter reveals the same odious ¡°death to imperialism and America (and everyone else except killers)¡± as spouted by the illegal Maoists. The only difference is that the legal Maoists claim they are destroying the system from within -- even while governing!
In the Nepali case, if the conversion were sincere, how and why such a transformation has taken place would need to be answered. Prachanda and Bhattarai claim it is due to analysis of past mistakes.
Of course, everything hinges upon whether such conversion is real. There never has been such a switch in the history of Maoism -- ever. That doesn't mean it's impossible, but it certainly makes one suspicious. More likely is that words, for the Maoists, do not mean the same as they do for the rest of us.
Textbook Maoist Approach
Let's look at things theoretically for a moment. In people¡¯s war terms, what has occurred is textbook. In waging insurgency, all Maoist movements have before them a "play book" of five major campaigns:
¡ñ mass line -- functioning as a political party.
¡ñ united front -- getting others to share tactical and operational actions even while perhaps disagreeing strategically (which normally means ideologically).
¡ñ military -- using violence to facilitate political action.
¡ñ political warfare -- using nonviolent means (such as talks) to facilitate violence.
¡ñ international action ¨C using international sub-state and state actors to apply pressure in such manner as to advance the internal struggle.
Any Maoist movement weights these elements, moving back and forth among them. The Nepali Maoists certainly do.
In claiming they have examined their mistakes, what the Maoists mean is that they recognize militarism has brought them to an impasse. The essence of the earlier Prachanda-Bhattarai debate was over just this issue: whether military action (violence) must lead, or if the path can be forged by any of the other (four) campaign elements above.
The present correlation of forces strategically would tell a good Maoist to shift gears, to use violence not in the lead but to support the mass line, the united front, political warfare, and international action as the leading elements. In order, then:
¡ñ Mass line ¨C The Maoists have consolidated a political base in the west. It has been achieved by armed political action. Terror, always important, can now give way to menace. The base areas were consolidated relatively quickly and at acceptable cost. Though the numbers are awful enough, what has been lost in the entire conflict in Nepal is probably just shy of what Sri Lanka lost in the six months of the 1971 Maoist JVP episode. Yet the Maoists have found it increasingly tough going to do anything decisive strategically from those base areas.
¡ñ United front ¨C February 2005 has provided the chance for a strategically decisive shift by delivering the political parties into the Maoist hands. That the political parties are making a "mistake" is quite irrelevant to the fact that the mistake is being made. A combination of "ceaseless waves" protest inside with armed action outside, all held together by dramatically enhanced use of terror against the state and security forces (especially through IEDs and unconventional actions) is seen as an unbeatable combination (it always is -- and will be unless countered).
The most significant element in Prachanda¡¯s various statements was his advancing the next step in the united front process: he proposes that the political parties jointly form an army with the Maoists, sharing all positions and authority. He further proposes that democratic elements within the RNA join with the Maoists and the parties. He raises the question as to who controls whom, monarch or RNA. The bottom line is the same: the Maoists recognize that the RNA is the lynchpin. If it can be neutralized, the game is over.
¡ñ Political warfare -- Here again, the present circumstances have delivered up to the Maoists a "blue chip" item, "peace." The longing for peace is so great, that the Maoists can use it as a term over and over to undermine the will of all concerned to continue the struggle. It matters not one whit that "peace" means nothing tangible. It matters not that the Maoists have created the present situation, that the political parties were the very ones who enabled their progress. The longing for "peace" can be used at all levels of war (strategic, operational, and tactical) to neutralize the ability of the government to continue.
¡ñ International -- What the Maoists see is a global situation where the trends are in their favor. Even those opposed to their dated, left wing Fascist views (aka Maoism) are unwilling to grapple with the situation due to their preoccupation with Islamofascism (which the Nepalese Maoists claim to support). As the CPN(M) sees it, everything is flowing its way. At least in part, the Party declared its ceasefire as a tactical gambit to see if it could neutralize government armed action. This did not happen, but strategically the government took a black eye as the entity that wouldn't "give peace a chance." That the Maoists used the interim to prepare for operations is winked at, most particularly by certain foreign embassies.
India, as the prime offender, has decided that playing its usual version of "the great game" is preferable to supporting the Kathmandu government. Delhi is not totally committed negatively, but it seems to think it can contain the Nepali situation by fostering a "West Bengal solution" (i.e., legal Maoists participating in democratic governance). This is not viable, but that also is irrelevant to the fact that such an approach apparently has been adopted.
Government Situation
Where does all this leave the government?
The situation is now at an interesting spot. From the insurgent standpoint, united fronts are always a preferable way of waging people's war, because they are less dangerous for the insurgents. No one in the Maoist movement wants to die (that's for Salafist fanatics seeking Paradise!). As to how matters will play themselves out on the ground, chaos already bears witness to how effective united fronts can be -- the system dies the death of the thousand cuts.
As always, the task at hand is to discern insurgent intentions. Bhattarai, in particular, has taken me to task (in Nepali) for misstating Maoist intentions. I think the point is rather, as above, that I have very accurately rendered just what the Maoists say to themselves and to the public. We only differ in that they claim what they say represents the legitimate forces of history.
The Maoists are portraying themselves as having had a change of heart. That is not true at all: they have simply chosen to lead with a different combination, to fall back upon a boxing metaphor.
What are they actually doing? During the ¡°ceasefire,¡± they did not stop preparing for war by training and stockpiling. This is entirely logical, because they see violence and nonviolence as complementary, just as did the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) in its famous maxim that it would fight with a ballot in one hand, an Armalite in the other.
It may be recalled that when the PIRA moved to emphasize the ballot, the question was whether the shift was "real." The intelligence was very mixed. On the one hand, significant steps were taken that indicated a PIRA willingness to participate peacefully in politics. On the other hand, there were serious actions that demonstrated the armed option was not being foreclosed (such as working with FARC in Colombia).
In the event, the strength of the state and the willingness of the insurgents to reintegrate produced a tenuous peace. Neither of those factors is present in the Nepali case. To the contrary, in the Irish case, "reintegration" was the end-state. In Nepal, the Maoists are offering the terms of surrender ¨C and stating baldly that they intend to try the monarch when he submits his neck to the block.
Though they claim they are willing to accept the outcome of a vote on the future shape of the system, they refuse to allow political action that would create a level playing field. Instead, as the Sandinistas did in Nicaragua, they state, having altered the playing field and gained armed control of the areas which will produce the vote, they will allow ¡°peaceful measures¡± to hold sway.
Though the Maoists state they will participate in the system if they lose a referendum on its future shape, there are two critical sticking points that make it unlikely such will happen.
First, it does not appear even the Maoist leadership could simply order the local elements of the movement to "go back inside the system."
Second, all Maoist internal discourse is predicated upon a belief that the present, united front course will deliver victory at less cost than the alternative, ¡°violence leads,¡± course. It is most unlikely a campaign setback (defeat in the united front effort) would lead to renunciation of the strategic approach (people's war), because the other campaign elements offer ways to continue the struggle.
Indeed, this is what the members of the insurgency itself are being told. The cadres are stating that victory is at hand, that the united front alliance (common action with the political parties) will lead to a victory march in Kathmandu. They are being told that the present course is the best way "to get what we want."
The movement, in other words, is on Maoist auto-pilot: its strategy has not changed, only emphasized a different campaign element (or "weapons system," if you like). Violence and nonviolence are still just two sides of the same coin.

At 8:53 AM, February 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

200 years of the Shah rule? I take it this is inclusive of the 100+ years of de facto Rana rule? Now those guys really were bad.

And I get bored of people going back centuries. I can see we need a historical context but can we not dwell on the past on move on with the present please?

Birendra. Well he was beloved but weak and a ditherer wasn't he?

As for testing Prachanda's sincerity. Perish the thought. In any case how do you go about doing that? What's the back up plan so you don't get caught with your pants down? I agree with some that the UN may be an option but their track record in conflict resolution is abysmal.

Back to slating Prachanda...

The man is a psychopath, prone to fits of rage and paranoia. Probably got OCD and a number of other complexes as well. I suppose this comes in handy when quoting the most obscure tenets of the little red book and M-L balderdash.

Mao Tse-Tung on Guerilla Warfare teaches you all about dirty tricks and *deception* No doubt one of his favourite reads, which he subscribes to in full.

And he's not being silent at the moment. He's going on about executing the King after trial in a "people's court". And then there's the paranoia about the Americans. The commander of the US forces in the region pays a visit and he sees it as some kind of conspiracy. I can't wait until the Chinese Deputy PM pays a visit.

There is no way I would trust this man with my life. And that is the bottom line. He's a pedant and one of those types who sees compromise of any type as weakness. The guy is a monster.

And I just can't see how he will willingly reconcile his 10 year class war with democracy.

Given that your choice is between 2 "sociopaths" - the King or Pranchanda. I'll take the former any day. But again this is my opinion. I would just urge the weary Nepalis out there to exercise caution.

I wish those guys could speak in simple layman's terms as well. That old pseudo-academic lefty talk is baffling. I don't get how their adherents understand any of it. But then I guess it's good for confusion and double speak.

The irony in all this is that Nepalis have fought a counter insurgency war against Communist Terrorists before and won - Under the British forces in Malaya. But of course this knowledge was never taken advantage of because of the ineptitude of those in power at the time.


At 10:06 AM, February 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

which is a point...why cant retired and current Gurkha troops be used in a more active role in the country instead of crying for UN supervision. I am sure both sides of the conflict respect them.

At 10:16 AM, February 14, 2006, Anonymous bloghajurbah said...

Sher Bahadur Deuba is free.RCCC is unconstitutional. Good news?

At 10:51 AM, February 14, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

i prever ersatz-academic over "pseudo" when describing maoist-speak.


At 10:55 AM, February 14, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Good stuff here, everyone, thank you all.

Marks is a favorite of mine. He's one of the few think-tank-type pundits that has actually spent time in the field (Rolpa). He teaches ad NDU in D.C. and he espouses the dangerous holy grail of arming village militias to fight the maoists: a risky idea that, still, cannot be discounted.

Deuba is free, and like all the others, has immediately hit the trail against any kind of talks or negotiation with the King. One wonders what goes through the minds of all those non-thinkers who feel G. is "consolidating his rule" when he cannot even seem to keep protesters or mal-contents like Deuba behind bars for their slated 90 day sentences? Blogdai can't remember one instance in history where a despotic dictator let his enemies live, much less get out of jail early. Some consolidation.

I liked the RCCC, but if the Supreme court found their practices unconstitutional, then so be it. It is a good example of the democratic process finally working. Koirala thumbed his nose at this court last year for daring to investigate him. He refused to show up for hearings and was later found in contempt. I doubt Koirala will find this latest court as "illegitimate" as he found it when they were after him last year.

El brings up a side observation: Maoists not only will not change course, but they will never give up their guns. Doing so would put them at their 1990 square one. They've brutally earned their political voice and girija is eyeing their military power. This is g's dillema. You can no longer call a nation sovereign if you allow a separate, opposing armed force to operate within your borders.


At 1:53 PM, February 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with you but for a very different reason. Gyan. definitely is not "consolidating his rule." What is he doing then? He is dying and weakening to put it a bit mildly. You can only imagine what would happen in the run-upto his exit.

Again, I have reasons to doubt your explanation. The SC verdict and other "democratic" measures are there not because of Gyan, but in spite of Gyan. Don't you think that Gyan is reeling under insurmoutbale challange both internally and externally? To be a dictator is more difficult than you thought!

At 4:43 PM, February 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Should they take it that you are insincere in your political motives?

The people i represent are confused at your lack of respone and they are unwilling to contribute to this blog. It is not their intention to do so. Please reply to the first post. You have until 19/02/06 after which they shall assume that they must look elsewhere to fulfill their objectives.

Please first reply to

At 7:19 AM, February 15, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Before I delete these last few postings, what kind of idiot leaves an ultimatum on a blog? Is this the unbending face of your style of democracy?

If you "represent" a group of people who are looking for a particular blog response to rally around, then none of you have much substance to begin with, do you?

No, the only insurmountable challenge to G. is in getting half-wits to think beyond their one-dimensional ideologies. Sound familiar? Along those lines, can you not even remotely conceive the idea that the dissolution of the RCCC was an anti-G. move?

I'll give you 5 minutes to respond or it will prove you are insincere and the people I represent will call in a nuclear strike on your present location.


At 9:23 AM, February 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What hope for Nepal when the 'great' Blogdai can not offer tolerance, respect or compromise in his postings?

If anything he and this blog has become more dogmatic and polarised in its views as the political situation has got worse. It is exactly this same stubborness and uncomprimising logic that is causing Nepal so many problems albeit on a different level entirely. I would urge my american friend to show more tolerance towards fellow posters -no matter how stupid and ridiculous their posts. The alternative is to just to delete the undesirable posts like he would delete spam but to reply in kind is to do disservice to your intellect and ability and to encourage further posts. If you fan the flames you will inevitably get your reward.

If you are like this on a blog, what would you be like as a member of a political movement?

I hope the irony of the answer is not lost upon you.


At 9:50 AM, February 15, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

A little more background reading and insight would tell you that blogdai not only encourages, but assists with and expands opposing viewpoints that are well presented. I once called one of our posters "my hero" for offering good, credible reasons for G's failure.

But day after day, month after month, drive-by anonymous posters insists on a forum for their unsupported views. Ridiculing these people is a tough-love approach to seeing if they can do better. If you were to vehemently insist on this blog that, say, the earth was made of cottage cheese; how long would you suggest that I continue to love and nurture you sentiments?

Take the postings above, the reader clearly misses the point of the courts decision to dismantle the RCCC; says G. in tetering on thin ice without offering any background as to why he thinks this is the case; and then (if this is the same person) tries to strong-arm me into giving a response by creating some bogus timeline. Just what level of tolerance and understanding would you feel is appropriate here?

BLT, unless you've just landed on the planet, we've gone through this HUNDREDS OF TIMES here on this blog. All points, good or bad, without a reasonable backing arguement are junk. Without an increased level of criticism and scrutiny of these unsupported comments, blogdai would deteriorate into a he-said-she-said accusation fest.

We strive to maintain something better here.


At 10:03 AM, February 15, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...


We have all enjoyed the comments of Shiva Nepali here on this blog. Shiva, most certainly , does not always agree with blogdai; but his comments are well-crafted, unique and demonstrate a good grasp of both the current issues and their historical context.

It is to that end that we have invited Shiva to be a primary contributor to blogdai. We all look forward to his comments.

Still a few spots open. We've removed Roger and are looking for some new blood, anyone? Naag?


At 10:10 AM, February 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

“The King should have postponed the polls and tried to include the main political parties in it.” -James F. Moriarty, American ambassador to Nepal

Undoubtedly, Mr Moriarty is correct in his desire to see reconciliation between the political parties but the King is hardly going to state on NTV; "Er, yeah -I was wrong to hold elections and throw out the political parties. Do you cronies fancy coming back?"

At the moment the political actors of Nepal are growing apart -not together and sadly the longer this goes on, it will be the people of Nepal who suffer.

The key question is not "who to blame?", not "how do i defeat my enemy?", not "how do i protect my pride?" -it is "how do i work with someone that i do not agree with?"

At 10:45 AM, February 15, 2006, Blogger Dev Prasad said...

". . . it seems to me certain that more people are killed out of righteous stupidity than out of wickedness." -Karl Popper

And how many senseless deaths in Nepal can be attributed to this quality?

"People are divided into two groups - the righteous and the unrighteous - and the righteous do the dividing." -Lord Cohen

We make war so that we can make peace but here in Nepal people are suffering from the protracted agony of those who refuse to come down from their parapets.

It is nice to be back but things have changed in my district.

At 11:02 AM, February 15, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Dev, welcome back. Changed? How so? Let us know. Here's a welcome-back quote for you as well:

"You can't reason a man out of a position that he has not been reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift.

MORIARTY is a dangerous man. I am making a posting on this guy today. Stay tuned....


At 11:11 AM, February 15, 2006, Anonymous Vladimir said...

One reason, and perhaps it's the only one, why I trust the big G is this:

He's put his throne on the line. Name me one among the entire parisitic bunch of democratic leaders with as much b___s, and I'll follow him willingly.

As for G being a repressive autocrat, I have only this to say: He seems to be described so mainly by the mainstream media - Kantipur, in particular. Now, name me one repressive autocrat in history that would have let somebody get away with that. Irony, eh?

At 12:52 PM, February 15, 2006, Anonymous bloghajurbah said...

Irony? Here's an irony.People like you and blogdai claim Gyane is not an autocrat or despot because the SC ordered him to release She Bahadur Deuba while you parrot about how there is no one type of democracy for all nations to follow. Have any of you considered there is no one type of autocrat?Gyane is the worst kind of autocrat because he is trying (and failing) to conceal his motives.

At 2:34 PM, February 15, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Interesting, but does it occur to you that an autocrat does not need to conceal anything?

An autocrat is not worried about people questioning his "motives."

An autocrat most certainly would not allow a Commission that he created to be dissolved by a third party, either.

Maybe your "autocrat" is trying to give us a lesson in respecting the democratic process.


At 5:18 AM, February 16, 2006, Anonymous bloghajurbah said...

Maybe your "autocrat" is trying to give us a lesson in respecting the democratic process.

Yes he is.But my autocrat is not Gyane, nor one of his goons.

At 8:04 AM, February 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting, but does it occur to you that an autocrat does not need to conceal anything?

If he could do without concealing anything he would. The reason he cannot is because he is an autocrat of Nepal, a poor landlocked country dependent on everything from the outside world.

Without foreign aid, his Government cannot function. Without oil passing through India, he will be immobile. Without remmittance from people working abroad, the economy will collapse. Without bullets from India, China, UK, US, or Israel, his army cannot fight. Without importing food grains, people will starve.

So there is a need for this autocrat to show the world that he is democratic to continue his autocratic business.

At 8:23 AM, February 20, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

If he must play the world arms and food game, then we can't really call him an autocrat, can we?

This is somantics and a bit of a waste of time, but consider the archetype autocrats in the world: Charles Taylor, Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein, whatever that guy's name is who runs Myanmar.

Ask yourself if you think G. is in that category, especially after he bowed to international pressure yesterday and (again) invited all parties together to talk peace.


At 9:08 AM, February 23, 2006, Blogger bloghajurbah said...

Anil Adhikari received 16% of the votes.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home