Monday, February 27, 2006

"The Verge of Collapse"

Well, who's going to say it? No one? OK then, blogdai will do the honorable thing and say what should be obvious to everyone in Kathmandu:

Nepal is most definitely NOT on the verge of collapse.

Amazing that blogdai feels so compelled to butt heads with ambassador Moriarty on this, but has Moriarty even stopped to consider the obvious reason why there will be no "collapse?" The biggie is that Nepal's national military, the Royal Nepal Army, is still of one mind and still answers to one commander: the King. As long as the army is not fractionated, Nepal will not collapse, period. The Maoists can't beat 'em and won't even face 'em in numbers large enough to trigger a "collapse." Plus, the Maoists can't take Kathmandu and--thank god--the political parties can't pry loose control of the RNA from the King for their personal use. There are also no "splittist" factions in the army that might cause one concern over their loyalty.

So why all the fanfare, ambassador? Do you just want to see people living at a high level of anxiety? When asked about this in his latest interview, Moriarty seemed impishly proud of himself for causing chaos: " ….I wanted to create a debate about Maoists’ intentions. I want the people to say each other what’s Moriarty saying, why is he saying that, what is he saying about other peoples’ intentions and as long as I get people talking about that I think I accomplish my purpose. " No, your "purpose" is to represent your country and not be a catalyst for internal strife in Nepal. The ambassador's comments are intentionally inflammatory and ill-conceived. He should be removed from office.

But what a remarkable interview it was! Vijay Kumar of Frontline seemed to get to the heart of this man Moriarty. What we got was a portrait of a rambling, semi-focused ambassador who feels Nepal is so insignificant in world affairs that he can routinely ignore diplomatic protocol and "rile things up a bit" for his amusement. Blogdai's favorite highlights below:

"I can’t endorse the parties working with violent Maoists who are for violent overthrow of the state." (and) "Oh…there is absolutely nothing wrong with the parties and the Maoists trying to come up with the solution and get back to the bourgeois parliamentary democracy."

"Politics are very confusing and we have been constantly strained in understanding them.."
"Strange it may seem but my Nepali language is probably better than my understanding of Nepali politics."
"..... my understanding of Nepali politics is flawed.."
" One of the biggest gaps that I have been hitting up is of course Maoists’ intentions."

One wonders what kind of extraordinary talent ambassador Moriarty must possess to be able to predict the imminent collapse of a nation without having so much as a rudimentary knowledge of its political machinations.

It seems Moriarty's lack of political curiosity on all things Nepal allows him to consider no event prior to the phony Maoist ceasefire as being significant. He is just NOW coming to the realization that the Maoists don't negotiate. He is just NOW realizing that the 12-point agreement is a bunch of political tripe. Readers of blogdai need only to hit their scroll button to find that we posted this information months ago. A prudent observer would wonder why the most powerful nation in the world can't send to Nepal an ambassador who is better prepared.

One of the biggest things bothering blogdai, and an out-and-out lie by Moriarty is this perception that he has been against the King's takeover all along.
"... the day after the takeover by the king last year we were telling Washington look this is very counterproductive ..." Well James, WRONG! Immediately after the takeover you were very public in saying the following:
``If we cut off our security assistance it will embolden the Maoists,'' and towards the King: ``If he delivers on his commitments, he will turn this all around.'' And on Feb. 18 of 2005 Moriarity admonishes the Nepali people to "hang in there."

At the very least we should ask ourselves if this is behavior appropriate to an ambassador. Can we cite instances around the world where an overly-outspoken ambassador such as Moriarty has achieved a positive outcome through such controversial statements? We should ask if Moriarty's remarks have helped or hurt the situation in Nepal. And, we should seriously ask: Is James F. Moriarty sufficiently qualified to represent the United States of America as its ambassador to Nepal?



At 9:25 PM, February 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with your description of Mr. ambassador. I might add that Indians are no better. But I suggest to you to do a bit research before you make grand claims, this time about the RNA's loyalty. Note how Saddam's "loyal" "National Guards" distintigrated within hours! You might say that they were overwhelmed by the almighty Americans. But consider the Iranian case in 1979. You will find a faultless similarity between the (elite) composition of the Shahs-loyal Iranian army and Shahs-loyal RNA. As crisis mounts in real sense, things become more complicated than you would imagine. The morale: the current loyalty of the RNA to Gyane. is not a robust indicator of the future loyalty. It depends.

At 11:38 PM, February 27, 2006, Anonymous m.r. said...

While I don't agree with the criticism on the actions lately of the US ambassador (for reasons I've explained in the previous thread), I must agree with the comments of the first poster here in regard to the RNA, and the risk of an army desintegrating. Of course that doesn't go for each and every army, and "overnight". But out of factors that contributed to such developments in other countries in the past, some of such factors seem present in Nepal as well. And probably like "anon 9:25 pm" these remarks are not meant to scare anyone. I merely intend to say that things may not necessarily be as solid as they look, for indeed: "it depends".

As for the US and its ambassador to Nepal, you may take an interest in M.R. Josse's long "Open letter to George Bush on the eve of his South Asia visit".
Link to the letter, on


From the perspective of Kathmandu, however, what is inexplicable is why you seem to have one set of policies for terrorism-wracked Pakistan and quite another for Nepal which now has a history of more than 10-years of violence, perpetrated by a ruthless foreign-inspired and funded Maoist insurgency?

Quite apart from the fact that Musharraf assumed power in a coup d'etat against an elected government, why should American policy towards King Gyanendra who stepped into the political arena only after a whole string of elected governments would not, or could not, do a thing to resolve the Maoist insurgency, be so blatantly different? Just as you have the supreme duty to protect your people and country, so too does the King in our own case.

. . .

Both Musharraf and King Gyanendra, on the other hand, have courageously stepped out to take the bull of terrorism by its horns. If the former is hailed and lauded to the skies by Washington, why is it that a similar effort by the King is not only not appreciated but actually penalised by suspension of arms assistance to the Royal Nepalese Army that is at the forefront of the counter-insurgency campaign?

I do not have to elaborate upon the mindless misinformation campaign that the American media is indulging in currently, demonizing the Monarchy and the RNA. These institutions have not only been the principal contributors of Nepal's unification but also constitute the dyke that is holding back the Maoist tide from sweeping over our land with inevitable overflow effects on India and China.

. . .


Mention of India brings me, really, to the central focus of this communication. Specifically, I wish to ask you Mr. President to explain, if you will, how you can square India's activities vis-à-vis Nepalese politics and the Maoists with the grand ideals of your "war on terror" or, indeed, with your noble mission to remake the world in America's image, beginning in what you call the Greater Middle East?

. . .

Encouraged by your charming personal trait of frankness, allow me too to be candid. Why is India, which herself is a victim of scores of insurgencies, including a raging Maoist one, now openly linked to Prachanda's forces? This was brilliantly underlined by New Delhi's role last November in cobbling the 12-point pact between the seven party alliance and the Maoists which aims at regime change in Nepal.

While being somewhat encouraged by your envoy Ambassador James F. Moriarty's recent public criticism of that egregious document, he has not mentioned India by name. Neither, for that matter, has he pointed out the outrageous contradiction in continuing to lambaste Pakistan for allegedly supporting militants on her soil for conducting terrorist activities in India-held Kashmir while she has hosted Maoists cadres and even feted top Maoist leaders in New Delhi, not to mention mollycoddling her stable of political pawns and Quislings for advancing her transparent interests in Nepal.

Official (state) visits such as this one sometimes manage to result in a change in policies. Whether or not that will be the case with India now, we will learn from the future.

At 12:32 AM, February 28, 2006, Anonymous m.r. said...

Sorry Blogdai: meet "Comrade" Tsutomu Hiraoka.

From The Himalayan Times-article on Febr. 28:
Expressing deep concern over Nepal's “unfolding” situation, Japanese Ambassador, Tsutomu Hiraoka, urged all the concerned to work towards achieving peace through a consolidated approach. He urged the government and political parties to reconcile.
“What Nepal now needs is for the government, political parties and citizens to pursue peace through unity, and Japan hopes that the government and political parties will reach out to one another with the spirit of reconciliation,” said Hiraoko. He urged the Maoists to halt their “acts of violence” and opt for peace through dialogue. He was speaking at the seminar on Nepal-Japan relations held to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Promise I'll warn you by the time they need to start taking numbers, the foreign ambassadors in Kathmandu!

At 5:48 AM, February 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

MR Josse is a sycophant's sycophant.


At 6:04 AM, February 28, 2006, Anonymous Brit said...

A note on definitions:

Diplomat: 1)an official whose job is to represent one country in another, and who usually works in an embassy:
2)a person who is skilled at dealing with difficult situations in a way which does not offend people


The former is supposed to be the latter.

At 6:50 AM, February 28, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Good thread here. Let's try this again...

MR I'm sorry to say that you reinforce my point rather than dispute it with your Hiraoka example. Compare the Japanese ambassador's delicacy with moriarty's "verge of collapse" language and you will see what I mean about diplomacy. Hiraoka seeks not to stir up or offend, as Brit pointed out, but still makes his point well known. Now, do you think Mr. Hiroaka will stir up a press frenzy like Moriarty? He's said virtually the same thing, hasn't he? What Mr. Hiraoka has done, quite effectively, is present the official stance of the Japanese government. Nepal now knows the position Japan takes on such issues. Do you think that Moriarty's tone and position changes bodes well for American credibility in Nepal?

At 6:59 AM, February 28, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Yes, as we play around with these issues, over time, wheat separates from chaff. both Josse and Scoop are in the chaff column.

9:25 also nails the point down--unfortunately, unwittingly.

If the Americans swept through nepal with the same fury they showed in Iraq, no doubt the RNA would crumble. But until that very specific event occurs, the RNA is the only unifying symbol in Nepal. It is quite obvious that saddam and his army would still be in power now had a major force not shown up to disrupt things.

Cultural problems exist when you compare Iran with Nepal. For a 1979 Iran scenario to occur in Nepal one would need a wave of religious zealotry to mobilize tens of thousands of Nepalis.

Ain't gonna happen. Nepal's Geography prohibits any mass movement of anyone; and Hinduism, most definitely, is not radical Islam.


At 7:10 AM, February 28, 2006, Anonymous blogdada said...

Sounds like Blogbahini is a true lackey's lackey. She calls MRJ a sychophant because she can't refute what he has to say in the letter.So, she hurls a colorful epithet at him!

If you can't discredit the message, try discrediting the messenger. Karl Rove has taught you well, blogbahini.

At 8:08 AM, February 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can't refute? I think you mean I can't be bothered to wade through the crap Josse writes. It's like looking into the mind of Son of Sam or some other fruitcake - I quite like having nightmare-free sleep, so why go there?


At 9:47 AM, February 28, 2006, Anonymous blogdada said...

You sure know how to twist stuff. Bravo! You probably are one of Charles Manson's hippie chicks who went on those brutal killing rampages with him!

At 10:11 AM, February 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Blogdai, you are again making very uninformed arguments.

I talked about the almighty American forces in Iraq just to drive my point home. Just remember the rhetoric used by Saddam and notorously by his information minister hours before the Americans pulled down Saddam's statue. Again, remeber the American fears played out on the CNN and the Fox then: What to do with the so-called "National Guard?" What happens when the US forces meet the "national guard?"

The end result: The world never knew how the "National Guard" looked like.

You will never know when a "very specific event" occurs. We can talk about all this retrospectevely.

Your statement that the "the RNA is the only unifying symbol in Nepal" is again very uninformed. There has been historical animosity between the "security forces" (army plus the police) and the people in Nepal. Visit one of the areas where the army has been stationed for a couple of years. You will know how much wrath people really harbor against the army. What about the police? You know it better.

One of the groups untouched by the army (in fact, befriended by them through a host of elite networks) was the urban "intellectuals." This group has already taken a U-turn regarding its view toward the army. In fact, you can not find a "national army" in the modern world, which is debated and discussed as much as the RNA has undergone. Far from a "unifying" symbol, the RNA is facing a serious legitimacy crisis. Add to it the infamous Palace Massacre.

Did Iran had a "cultural problem?" That's why I ask you to do a little bit research on your grand claims. Note that it was a coalition of forces (clergy, secular intellectuals and small businesspersons) who overthrew the Iranian Shah! Did you forget the former "liberal" Iranian president? How was he elected against the will of the clergy? It was not a "radical Islam" that overthrew the Shahs in Iran. Don't trust the American media; they are as good as Mr. ambassador! At any rate, don't you think that we have a "radical" group or groups by other names? Don't simplify the matter to a rediculous level.

"Nepal is not an Iran in 1979" is a pretty attractive consolation. But you have the luxurary to say that only in 2006! It depends.

I think I will talk about Hinduism (that's my favorite topic) when you raise the issue. We will talk about it later.

At 11:55 AM, February 28, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Well, yes, Saddams "national guard" didn't do much guarding did they? If you put "guard" in you name it only stands to reason that you should be able to at least guard something. I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. The Yanks heard stories about the national guard (it was actually called the republican guard) and their supposed fierceness. Americans took these stories seriously, planned accordingly and never met them because they were non-factors. How this relates to Nepal, I can't imagine. Perhaps you mean to say that the RNA is a paper tiger by implying that the U.S. could whip it easily. Great, but what group in Nepal can be compared to the U.S. military? Not the Maoists. Prachanda gave up on his vaunted attack on kathmandu before it began. Now there's your bragging Saddam figure: "We will stand on the shoulders and strike the head," he told us of his plans for Kathmandu.

I also don't see your point about animosity generated towards the RNA. So what? We don't have to love them, but they are trying to hold the country together. Nepalis hate politicians and Maoists more so who would you rather have doing the job? Legitimacy? What would be a more "legitimate" military force in your opinion?

The cultural problem exists in comparing Nepal's approach to Iran's. Using the term "overthrow" the way you do speaks volumes. Do we have any group in Nepal capable of overthrowing anything at this point? No. Why? Because of the influence, if not direct presence of the RNA. Take the army out of Nepal's mix and you have anarchy and yes, national collapse.

Your arguments are off the mark and yet blogdai is criticized as being "uniformed" and taking an argument to a "ridiculous level." The fact is, all I've done here in this response is mop up your mess. We've not advanced the debate and I'm weary of this remedial due-dilligence work. If you cannot fully comprehend what is being said here, please try not to post until you do.


At 12:21 PM, February 28, 2006, Anonymous m.r. said...

blogdada while I ágree with your view that blogbahini shóuld attempt to "discredit" the long open letter written by M.R. Josse or indeed "the message" of anyone else she disagrees with I meanwhile have read more of M.R. Josse's "messages" agree with blogbahini and blogdai só let me post it here again:

"MR Josse is a sycophant's sycophant."

Search for more árticles by him, yóu'll be surprised how much others have "discredited" his "messages" already.

At 12:57 PM, February 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, the RNA is the only thing that stands between Prachanda and a Maoist republic. I think Sam Cowan's article: Nepal's two wars is succinct enough. No one will win this war as it stands.

Of course there are other factors, primarily morale to take into consideration but with the status quo as it is, I don't think the dynamics will change.

What would heighten the morale of the RNA though would be more helicopters and this would have a negative effect on the Maoists.

Essentially, quick troop deployment using helicopters and a "hearts and minds" campaign is what defeated the Communist insurgency in Malaya. The latter also aided in intelligence gathering. The Yanks tried to implement the lessons the Brits had learned in Vietnam but made the oversight of forgetting about the "hearts and minds" bit.

Apparently, Prachanda wants to bring a chopper down because of the success helicopters have had, knowing full well what kind of impact it will have on the morale of both armies.

Back to Moriarty. I notice that m.r. is getting quite passionate about the Ambassador. I kind of sympathise because what I feel Moriarty is doing at the moment albeit against all diplomatic norms and protocol is adding to the debate in Nepal. I think this can only be for the good. However, I must admit I'm baffled as to what his stance is exactly...flip flop. Let's hope he sorts himself out before Dubya has his lunch date in India.

Before, everyone was going on about democracy having conveniently forgotten that we're in a civil war. Now people are talking about Moriarty and trying to figure out what he actually means especially with his emphasis being on the Maoists. I tend to agree with him. I don't think there is such a thing as a sincere Maoist. It's just not in their doctrine.

I feel it's also broken down the unified international pressure against the King. My feeling was that there was some kind of unspoken compact in the West that they would accede to India with regard to Foreign Policy in her own back yard but the Yanks have at last broken their silence.

I just find it absurd that people want democracy reinstated in this time of civil war. Democracy is about self-interest. It's not about what you can do for your country. It's about what's in it for me. How can this bring peace to the country?

I would argue that to make it fair we need to enfranchise the sizable proportion of the country who are disenfranchised. This will help to mitigate potential problems like seperatists in the future.

We need to address the neglect in the rural areas first.


At 1:34 PM, February 28, 2006, Anonymous m.r. said...

Here we go again...

Blogdai pls. check on my IP if you can;
I notice 2 new posts here posted by "m.r.", but that wasn't me... Définitely not! Please delete them both.

What I want to say in reply to "blogbahini" and her cheap remarks about M.R. Josse, is this:

The man has balls! What famous name, and not the youngest anymore, with his photo on almost every corner of the streets and in a country in unbelievable trouble and tragedy, gives the mighty US President a piece of his mind like Josse did with this letter? And completely in public, while that same Prez is having tea at the neighbours'?
Yes, he is on the side of the King. You call that "sycophant". I call you blind... (which is really no big achievement, knowing you never bothered at all to read that whole "Open Letter").

You're a coward, Bahini. Don't expect others to be like you.

At 1:35 PM, February 28, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

dammit naag, you can't say you've got no time to be a regular contributor when you regularly turn out quality, multi-paragraph opinions like this.

email me at and let's put you on as a contributor like shiva--enough of this shit.

You have no requirements at all with regard to length or frequency of posting. Just put your stuff out there whenever. If you want, I'll handle the comments.

To your posting: yep, if Moriarty flip-flops loud enough, all sorts of things are revealed and all sorts of compacts broken. The more he talks, the more confused everyone becomes.


At 2:31 PM, February 28, 2006, Anonymous m.r. said...

Blogdai re. the Japanese ambassador and his manners: the man comes from an entirely different country and much more 'delicate' culture. Just like you, I am aware of that.
Then on to your comment about Josse and Scoop being "chaff" compared to wheat: while I don't know that much about Josse, I do know Scoop. I also know a couple of Nepali writers and journalists who are regularly being published on - and they're not really the worst in their profession! So I suggest you take a look around on that website more often.
Finally, I hope that anonymous of 10:11 am will have patience enough to come back and explain his views one more time, because they are important. And if he makes you feel "weary of this remedial due-dilligence work", you seem to be missing a couple of points about what can suddenly go wrong in real life.
Especially the reference he made to Hinduism and discussing it in this context, is not something that should be swept aside. Did anyone think, a few months back, that lots of people would get killed in riots and western countries would lose a few of their embassies over nothing but a couple of stupid cartoons? Or did anyone expect the Samarra mosque to be destroyed, to fuel the problems in Iraq a whole lot more? I'm talking about people, conspiracies, reactions, damage, escalations, and structures falling apart. Not in the first place about the religions in Nepal.

Quote naagboy 12:57 pm
Back to Moriarty. I notice that m.r. is getting quite passionate about the Ambassador.

So sorry, but please allow me to correct you.
I am not getting passionate about the ambassador. But I'm glad you say you kind of sympathise. Because if you have a liking for that word, I suppose I have been passionate for quite some time already about the children, and about all the innocent Nepalis in your country who are being intimidated, and much worse.

And once more, about diplomatic norms and protocol: such quasi-elite "etiquette" can do just as much harm as it can do good. We're sitting at our computers, most probably in a warm house and with a warm bed waiting for us when we start to feel sleepy.
But people are starving out there, dying, children are being orphaned, people are being mutilated, they live in fear and many of them are fleeing the country: some not even ten years old, and completely on their own.

At 4:14 PM, February 28, 2006, Anonymous g said...

Moriarity’s recent comments create confusion? I think it just does the opposite. It clears a lot of confusion amongst the totally confused Nepalis.

This road of confusion began in 1990’s. its 21st century, and it just keeps getting worse. After “democracy” came to Nepal, the same politicians who convinced US(people not United States of America) that democracy was what WE{people} wanted, what was best for US[people], what would bring prosperity to the OUR country and US (not united states)citizens,---they completely turned their back around. Result, we were CONFUSED. There was no sight of what we had been promised. We were made fools of, USED.

Then come Maoist, promising to give us what Democracy couldn’t or didn’t. we started trusting them and they in time removed their mask. They added terror and blood to our already heavy burden of corruption and poverty. Great. More confusion. Our trust had been broken twice. We were made fools twice. We were used twice.

Not my favorite, King G. There was some data somewhere saying we had 80% people living in the rural area. Well, majority of them think King G was behind the massacre. (I don’t think so but I ain’t trying to convince anyone on that matter). They are scared they will be made fools for the third time. They are hesitant to trust him too.

Army they have their own share of scars that scare the shit out of Nepalese. No body wants to mess with them. Even the police. Police itself is so corrupted: some of these policemen will sell their own mother (just a way of saying it).

Well. Pashupatinath is great, but how many more Nepalis remain that Nepalis can trust?
Very few. That’s why we listen to foreigners so much. We think of foreigners very highly. We see peace and richness in their country and compare it to our own civil war and poverty. That brings respect out to these wise and intelligent foreigners. For them too have so much peace and development, they must be wise, intelligent and educated too. (Also all of them can speak very good englis).

Coming back to the point. I think Nepal needs Morarity and U.S. support now that they are turning around. Nepalis need to hear someone else say what they need before they themselves can believe that. Has always been that way. If the international pressure, including india’s, had been on the politicians at the very beginning of the coup ( I myself call it royal takeover), they would have come to the king, crawling in their knees. Nepalis would still have been too shocked to go out in the streets protesting. Maoists would have crumbled in time. Nepal would have come to much needed peace and order. At least that’s what I think. There is no way to prove it though.

Coming back to the point again. Some of us thought that what he had been saying hurts Nepal. It will bring more chaos and instability, encourages Maoists and protests. Well, now that he finally is saying things against what he has been saying, may be it will work the other way. Let him speak. I think it will discourage protests and politician and Maoist to some extent. Beside, he wont do more harm than he already has. He might even be the much needed miracle in Nepal.

At 7:08 PM, February 28, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Yes, I see your point and perhaps you are right to an extent.

But, given what you have said, wouldn't have been better if Moriarty had come to these conclusions earlier? We've known these issues for a long time. We've also established good theories on the motivations of the parties. Why didn't the U.s. have, or care to have this perspective before they turned Moriarty loose on the Nepali media?

Moriarty has had to shift positions on numerous occasions to get to where he is today. This shows a complete lack of preparation on his part. We've all had to suffer through his learning curve waiting for this day. Sure, Nepalis will listen to the voice of the U.S., but how much more credible would that voice have been had Moriarty gotten it right the first time?

Dammit, G, I disagree with most of your views but am drawn to the thoughtful way you present them. I respect that. Let this be a lesson to the babbling ideologues who feel they can shout their way to credibility on this blog.

Bravo, G.


At 4:22 AM, March 01, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do know Scoop. I also know a couple of Nepali writers and journalists who are regularly being published on

I believe D. Michael Vandeveer is someone who, on occassion, has been published in Scoop. And we know what some of you think of him.

At 7:33 AM, March 01, 2006, Anonymous El Diablo said...

There are some good write-ups and writers in Scoop and some bad ones just like here. Some are republished after being originally published elsewhere.

"Chaff" comment from Blogdai was uncalled for. BD seems to have grown too big for his britches. Here's some fodder for you to chew on, BD!

At 2:45 PM, March 01, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Rastriya Janashakti Party (RJP) supremo and former prime minister Surya Bahadur Thapa on Wednesday backed the US envoy to Nepal James F Moriarty's stance on the current political situation labelling the statement as "purely based on the genuine realities" of the country.
Thapa said, "What he (Moriarty) said is the based on reality. His comment is unbiased. He spoke the right thing."

Moriarty is Correct on His Analysis: RJP Leader
Himalayan Times

At 4:00 AM, March 02, 2006, Blogger bloghajurbah said...

Nepal's king should restore democracy: Bush
The king of Nepal should restore democracy to the kingdom where he took absolute power in a royal coup just over a year ago, US President George W. Bush said.

Speaking at a joint press conference with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Bush declared on Thursday: "On Nepal we agreed that the Maoists should abandon violence and that the king shuld reach out to the political parties to restore deomcratic institutions."

From Yahoo News

At 4:07 AM, March 02, 2006, Anonymous Shiva said...

After reading the recent comments I cannot but think that we all should revisit El Diablo's post in "Comarade James" where he posted Dr. Thomas Marks's article on "Explaining Prachanda."


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)....

I belive that this was the driving force behind all the western governments, particularly the Americans. They thought that they could pressure the SPA (seven party alliance)to sign a deal with the Maoists (12-point agreement) and bring them to mainstream politics, thereby undermining the revolt, at least the violence. How Wrong They All Were!

Chairman Prachanda's BBC interview exposed to the world that they had not changed their stance. That they had not abandoned their beliefs and ARE NOT willing to compromise with the principles of democracy. This whole game of "aligning" with the mainstream politicians and calling for a constituent assembly is simply a strategy (through a United Front) as Marks has so clearly explained, to get the upper hand and RULE THIS LAND--Totalitarian Communist Regime Like Never Before.

The call for constituent assembly is nothing more than getting rid of the King, after which they will gain a clear advantage. Whosoever believes that the constituent assembly is for making this nation more fair, for inclusive development, blah blah are dead wrong.

I think the BBC interview has WOKEN UP the Americans now. Prachanda has, as the Nepalese saying goes, "Afno khutta ma afai le bancharo hanyo" (cut his own leg with his axe).

What now? More to come.

At 6:53 PM, March 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As long as the army is not fractionated, Nepal will not collapse, period.

I would have agreed with you if you had said, "As long as the army is not fractionated, Royalty will not collpase, period."

At 9:13 PM, March 02, 2006, Anonymous g said...

here i go again.

fools are the politician who thought they could get away with the cream of democracy and yet they could last to gain confidence of the people.

crazy are maoists if they think they can make MY country any better. think again guys.
you are good at making things worse, not better.

idiots are nepalese if they cant realize there is something above democracy and politics and their beliefs. RIGHT to LIVE this freaking life. its already worse without them helping make it worser that the worse. whatever that is suppose to mean.

the pride that gurkhas earned us was long overdrafted. we are just stupid folks living in a stupid country lead by directionless people in a directionless goal.

if i ever had a chance i would give up on this freaking country and would pledge loyalty to any other country that gave me the FREEDOM TO LIVE my freaking life.

i have evaluated my life to have an worth of a MIL-LOIN dolars. i would leave all that freaking money if i were to be convinced htat my life in nepal would be worth it.

yeah. we can all discuss stuff. no problem there. but where the heell, thats a big hell, does that take us to. why the heck doesnt these freaking people, and all of us, understandm, that life is about living.

life is short guys. believe it or not its true. and i am feeling it. you will too . soon.

vote for life.
shit i am too drunk to write. but if nepalese would , they could live for life.

i know it sounds crazy. i am crazy. more so when i am drunk. guys, whether you agree with me or not. whether you believe in the god or the devil. may they let you live your life, with love, affection, and all those stuff thats good. may you all change your brain and the way you think, for the goodness of your life and the rest of others.

pashupatinath and me, we are about to have a discussion. peace be with the world. and me too.

At 10:15 PM, March 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

i dunno hoe to get that thing to workin this blog, but here it goes make the best of it.

some of what i have been saying.

By M.R. Josse

Clearly, the political ground beneath the SPA's feet has begun to tremble. The tremor, as you might have guessed, began with US Ambassador James F. Moriarty's belated assault on 15 February 2006 on the 12-point SPAM pact - that is, the unsavoury deal negotiated between the SPA and the Maoists.

To recall, that spurious document was crafted in New Delhi and announced to the world on 22 November last year. It aims squarely at the overthrow of the institution of the Monarchy that unified and consolidated this nation and safeguarded its sovereignty and independence through the vicissitudes of history, including during the period of British imperialism that kept South Asia in its thrall.

read the rest. i am going to sleep.

At 10:17 PM, March 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

At 12:19 PM, March 03, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Don't leave us g! You speak with more honesty drunk than half of these anons who are sober (or heavily medicated)

Gotta love the SPAM mnemonic. All filler with no real meat, can slice it in any shape to meet your needs, dissolves into a shapeless paste under pressure: love it!


At 9:33 AM, March 07, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe not on the verge of a military collapse, but definitely on the verge of an economic one:

(might need to create username and log in to view full article)

At 9:49 AM, March 07, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Nepal's economy cannot "collapse" without an independent convertible currency. The Nepalese Rupee is tied to the Indian rupee and the indian exchanges. If India's economy collapses, then you can see NEpal's follow.

Pay little heed to these articles calling for the imminent collaps of the NEpali economy. This is fearmongering. Nepal's economy never could support the country. If all donor funds were withdrawn, then that would be another story. Don't look for that to occur either as Nepal is a fundraising cash cow for big NGO's with no accountability.


At 3:56 PM, March 07, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:33 here. I admit that by saying something about an "economic collapse," I was just trying to use a smooth transition from the topic of your blog post into mentioning the Nepali Times link.

So maybe Nepal won't just yet collapse technically, but it still doesn't justify the random use of state funds by the palace as mentioned in the article, and is one more illustration of how having no accountable parliament or parliament-like body is hurting the country even in the short run. blogdai will probably tell me not to believe everything I read, but the source article in Himal Khabarpatrika at contains a well-documented detailed report. (Needs Unicode Devanagari installation and ability to read Nepali.)

At 10:24 AM, March 08, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

9:33 you are right.

Mis-use of state funds is a systemic disease. It makes no difference if you work for the King or for Girija, there is just this toxic culture of corruption that pervades all political dealings in Nepal.


At 8:35 PM, March 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

yea right blogdai,

but what are we to do about it?

Answers, you got any?



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home