Tuesday, October 10, 2006

The Little Elf Makes His Play


Best buddies Prachanda and Madhav Kumar Nepal joking about how much the guy behind them looks like Kunda Dixit


blogdai knew it. Some of you criticize blogdai for always making predictions and prognostications. Why do I do it? Simple; the players in our little drama have never learned from nor altered their past behaviours so it becomes easy to predict their future movements.

When we last mentioned Madhav Kumar Nepal we predicted that he would directly align with Maoist philosophy and politics. Well, today, The Little Elf's UML party throws a wrench into parliamentary unity(?). Today, the Himalayan times comes out with this ditty:

Saying that it should “play a vital role” in arriving at a deal with Maoists, the UML has made it clear that it will stand alongside the Maoist leadership on crucial questions.“We will have to focus on political issues tomorrow. "

This really is Madhav's only play; his only chance at political relevance. His UML has always talked the pro Maoist line and Madhav knows he is nothing without their partnership. Plus, if The Little Elf becomes a Maoist, he gets GUNS and the whole spectrum of political credibility and autonomy that military capability in Nepal provides.

This could bring about a big power shift in parliament. See what you get, Girija, by not compromising and not seeking concensus?

Those of us with wandering minds could easily forsee a huge political chasm forming with Girija and his increasingly feeble coalition on one side and Madhav and the Maoists on the other side. The RPP can't stand Girija either so it is not impossible for them to jump ship as well.

"Maoist Kumar Nepal:" Kinda' has a ring to it, don't you think?

-=blogdai

117 Comments:

At 5:03 PM, October 10, 2006, Anonymous manan said...

Isn't an elf by definition little?

 
At 6:28 PM, October 10, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Having met him on several occasions, I can tell you that he is in fact, short of stature and always seems to be screaming for attention. Plus, he always blabs out the intentions of the political parties ahead of schedule, causing havoc and mischief in his wake: another elfin quality.

He is also, militaristic and opportunistic.

Perhaps we should call him "The Little Napoleon."

-=blogdai

 
At 1:26 AM, October 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From Little Elf to Little Napoleon?? Make up your mind Blogdai, you crack me up!

 
At 6:16 AM, October 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

These SPAMmers are fucktards to the core of infinity.

Little elf, Little Napolean, Little Terrorist in a gang of mass murderers.

Idiots, get back to your killing habbits now and stop getting yourself cracked. If only you would have a brain to TALK. The(extortion and corruption money) that bought you computer couldn't give you brains but did buy you computers and internet to watch porn and spill the misgivings of your impotent fathers over the internet.

 
At 8:25 AM, October 11, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Dear little anonymous, the Napoleon reference was a conversational counterpoint.

It is not an issue of "make up your mind," it is an issue of "on the other hand, this applies as well.."

While you're cracking yourself up, try cracking into the realm of basic comprehension and debate skills, would you?

-=blogdai

 
At 2:28 PM, October 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

SPAMmers do you know what kind of death you will get? Well, read the following news. We will hunt each and every one of you killer and beat you death! Bastards! US just indicts it's citizen for conspiring with terrorists but in Nepal we will give you a death that your mommas will be afraid of.

U.S. indicts American in al-Qaida video

By JEREMIAH MARQUEZ, Associated Press Writer 14 minutes ago

LOS ANGELES - A 28-year-old Californian who joined al-Qaida and appeared in propaganda videos for the terrorist organization was indicted Wednesday on federal charges of treason and aiding terrorists, a U.S. Justice Department official said.


A grand jury returned the indictment against Adam Yehiye Gadahn, 28, a suspected al-Qaida operative sought by the
FBI since 2004, said the official, who asked to remain anonymous because the indictment was to be announced later in the day.

Gadahn, who is believed to be in or near Pakistan, is believed to have attended the terrorist group's training camps in Pakistan and served as one of its translators. He has become known by his nom de guerre Azzam al-Amriki, or "Azzam the American."

Gadahn appeared last month in a 48-minute video along with al-Qaida's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, calling on his countrymen to convert to Islam and for U.S. soldiers to switch sides in the Iraq and Afghan wars.

It was the second time he appeared in the same video with al-Zawahri. In a July 7 video marking the one-year anniversary of the terror attack on London commuters, Gadahn appeared briefly, saying no Muslim should "shed tears" for Westerners killed by al-Qaida attacks.

Beyond that, authorities believe he is the masked figure who appeared in two previous videos not officially from al-Qaida, one given to ABC television in 2004 and another a few days before the fourth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Raised in Southern California on a Riverside goat farm, Gadahn converted to Islam and worshipped at the Islamic Society of Orange County in 1997 before being expelled for attacking one of its leaders.

His mother last spoke to him by phone in March 2001. At the time he was in Pakistan, working at a newspaper, and his wife was getting ready to have a child.

 
At 6:51 PM, October 11, 2006, Anonymous manan said...

Blogdai, I see that some of your fans are pretty scary types. I was at Wagle's site the other day and there was this douche expressing a desire to hunt down the Maoist supporters and "hack them to pieces" or some such thing. "Anonymous" here wants to beat SPAMMers to death.

What happened to civilized debate? And I'm not sure how these royalits keep talking about "Maoist barbarism" and crushing their opponents' heads or dismembering them in the same breath.

 
At 7:57 PM, October 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Manan,

Don't even worry about civilization (civlized) because you showed that during the MOB and GOON movement. Don't even worry about civilization because you showed that by allying with terrorists and indulging in acts of terrorism. Don't even worry about civilization because we have seen it for the last 16 years and in the last 1 year specially. Your fucktard SPAMming civilisation. Bullshitter!

Now that you (SPA) are getting the calls of your death your peepies are getting shrinked. LoL. Civilized my ass SPAMmer. Yours is a kind of civilization that takes birth in slums and dies at the bullet of gun or gets crushed by the fury of mob. What Maoists will face is the Law but what you SPA will face is the spit and death from the people.

Kick ass your civilization. Can you remember some of these words above were used by your hata SPAMer members. ASSHOLE Manan. Asshole, that's what you are!

 
At 8:00 PM, October 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I sometime laugh at these SPAMmers. For every logic that we put forward to them they start complaining. They have never come up with a single logical answer to prove why:

THEY SHOULD NOT BE BRANDED AS WORLD TERRORISTS

 
At 11:51 PM, October 11, 2006, Anonymous manan said...

Anonymous,

You make my point. Tell you what, stop posting anonymously. Get a name. It doesn't have to be your own, you know.

I can't keep taking on all the anonymous people in the world, you know. Get a name, then talk to me.

 
At 11:56 PM, October 11, 2006, Anonymous manan said...

What's this, friend? I make a mild-mannered comment and it gets erased.

Thought you were experimenting with 'freedom of expression' these days.

 
At 11:59 PM, October 11, 2006, Anonymous manan said...

Oh, now its there again. The heck....
I'll take back my last comment unless its erased again.

 
At 2:15 AM, October 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Believe it or not, I see change mind set cropping up in regards to folly called Andolan. People who rode a ride of euphoria (pleasure at doing something wrong) are coming around the bend. Yes, labeling Royalist is not bad as being labeled Maoist, is it?

And whoever said royalist meant being autocratic, not the least rather a law abiding, under the rule of law with equal opportunity for all with equality. That's the backbone.

Its does not mean running with the wind and not being a wind chaser like SPAM. We define ourselves as having feet firmly placed in this land that forefather bestowed to us in kind and with a promise to keep till posterity. And we aim to keep it.

There is no shame in being lost or losing sight of better good of the country in momentarily lapse of euphoric fever, just acknowledge it and mend the ways. All we want is a nation that is for all and by all- not foreigners or their henchmen in disguise of SPA or Maoist.

Lets be true Nepali, by Nepali, from Nepali and for Nepali. That is all.

Sansar

 
At 2:54 AM, October 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sansar,

very very good points there...post it everywhere on the net and specially go and post/spit it on the face of SPA(Mmers).

 
At 4:20 AM, October 12, 2006, Anonymous prism said...

Good points Sansar. That's the kind of sensible pro-monarchy arguments I find worth discussing.

It can be argued that nationalism is safest with monarchy in Nepal. But isn't it an exaggegarated fear that Nepal becoming a republic automatically means Nepal will become part of India? I know we have been singing "jaba samma Nepal hunchha, tyaha raja rani hunchha" since our primary school, but surely we can read between the lines.

Let's take Bangladesh and Sri Lanka for example, let alone Maldives, in our own neighborhood. They are all republics, yet they are in no danger of being annexed by India. Unless it happens on our own volition, Nepal is not going to be part of India, whether we are a monarchy or a republic. Hence, fear of nationalism is not much of an argument (as it used to be) for retaining monarchy. There has to be other further compelling to keeping white elephants.

And I do think there are reasons to keep a ceremonial monarchy. Tourism is one, believe it or not. The Kings are tied to Nepali culture intrinsically and can be a big crowd-puller. Just look at the tourism value of monarchy in Britain!

Let's keep the ideas running. Sorry no beatings or beheadings!!

 
At 4:41 AM, October 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

These prismafuckers have taken no history lessons...pure idiots...DELETE their comments

1) Sri Lanka was given independce by britishers

2) Maldives was given independence by Britishers

3)Pakistan (East and West) was given independence by Britishers.

India did not annex them

Infact the entire birth of India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan took birth when the Royalties were annexed.

Now, take this

1) Sikkim was a Royalty and India annexed it after putting a major insurgency there.

2) Bhutan is a Royalty and is the unsaid state of India

3) Nepal is a Royalty and India plays (read: the Indian national Congress specially) plays it's dirty politics here.

4) Hyderabad was a Royalty and annexed by India

5) India helped create Bangladesh (out of Pakistan) so that it could control - but this was the only place where it failed. In Lanka it managed to create a successfull bloody insurgency.

Idiot Prismaholes, Idiot SPAMmers...you know, every point you speak is IDIOTIC without reasoning...Without a Monarch Nepal will be annexed by INDIA or made a proxy territory (more worse than it is write now under the terrorist government of Nepal)


Learn your lessons from geography and history because we have more brains in us then fucked up SPAMmers.

 
At 7:38 AM, October 12, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Anonymous, I understand and agree with a lot of your anti-SPAM passion, but the threats and profanity make it hard to take your ideas seriously.

In essence, you sometimes sound no better than the SPa and Maoist minions who often force me do put on the comment moderation function.

So, make your points, but seek to include everyone rather than alienate through wild uncontrolled emotional displays.

I'll continue to leave the moderation function off. (No, Manan, I didn't touch your comment. Posting can be slow when there is an active discussion, I've found, so please be patient.)

-=blogdai

 
At 9:06 AM, October 12, 2006, Anonymous Bhudai Pundit said...

Well Anonymous you might know Geography but you obviously have no knowledge of geopolitics or current affairs. If you bothered to come out of that cozy cave you stepped into 60 years ago you would get a sense of how idiotic you are.

I fully agree with Prism! I am also for ceremonial monarchy and not because a monarchy deters India from annexing Nepal. Anonymous, you fool, what makes you even think that India even wants to annex Nepal? You think they want to risk creating a major unstable, chaotic situation in their backyards? In this day and age when India is trying to become an economic powerhouse do you think they care about annexing a small country with no major strategic importance, no major natural resource? Don't give me the water/hydro-power counterargument... I don’t even want to get into that.

Look this anti-India sentiment was a tactic the previous Rana/Shah regimes used to stir nationalist feeling and bolster their own support. Unfortunately, that sh*t doesn't cut it anymore!

To answer Prism's question: I see the importance of a monarchy from a unifying perspective. Bangladesh, Maldives are fairly homogenous societies. Nepal is not and I think the presence of a unifying institution is important. Plus I think the Monarchy, as you pointed out, is part of our cultural and historical heritage.

 
At 9:38 AM, October 12, 2006, Anonymous manan said...

I think Nepal can get along fine without its monarchy in the practical sense. We can retain it purely for sentimental reasons.

I can see why some people would want to keep a monarchy. Its like a museum, a link to the past. Things keep changing, but you want something to remain constant.

 
At 10:04 AM, October 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Monarchy - a unifying force? Makes me laugh. I would rather think Nepalese are unified against monarchy.

Monarchy is also a divisive force in Nepal. Relevancy of monarchy is one of the biggest national debate we have had in Nepal for this generation.

Monarchy has also divided people to divide and rule. The strong anti-India sentiment in Nepal is just one example of division monarchy created, which has alienated so many people in Terai.

 
At 1:06 AM, October 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We tend to glorify and rain tears only when thing is dead or gone. As matter of fact, talk about relevancy, enlighten me with the need for national borders or for that matter country? Is it relevant? No, if look at the heart of the matter we all are one just as John Lennon said it in a song "imagine." Being ideal is one thing and being practical is totally different.

Talk about Monarchy fomenting Anti-India or trying to save their skin is totally baseless. History as witness, Nepal has always been at the receiving end of India. Try flipping through past agreements, denial of free access to the sea (UN mandated for landlocked country), and many other instance to get the real picture. The issue of overbearing tendency by the India continues to this day- encroachment of land, dam building without bilateral agreements and most of all naked political interventions (yechuri and likes). So tell me, would you like your neighbor to meddle in your house hold spat, arrange your furniture or for that matter levy tax for using you own water. I think probably not. Now, its not the question hyping it or creating "anti India" platform. It is the question of national dignity. If you don't have it and see as cost of being a neighbor of big country then I have nothing much to say.

There is book by Henry Kissinger called "balance of power" which talks about relationship between small and big country, neighbors. Do go and read.

Before I rumble on- read why B.P came back on conciliatory stance- that should shed a light on people who are indifference to India's role in Nepal. But after all said and done- its us who have betrayed this nation. The habit of taking for granted is one of the reason.

Sansar

 
At 1:12 AM, October 13, 2006, Anonymous druk said...

you asshole blogger. you talk of not moderating? you deleted my posting last time, you crap.

and now i see all your cronies' obscene postings littered everywhere.

the more positive news about nepal's peaceful transition comes the more the darbariya buggers go mad. but it gives me sheer joy to watch these bastards going mad.

hehehehe...

 
At 2:19 AM, October 13, 2006, Anonymous Shiva Nepali said...

Anonymous, are you one of those losers living in the grand US of A who cannot come to terms with where they came from? One of those spineless creatures who hate their lives but can't get up and leave, because he is afraid of the 'dark'? And hence, every time he thinks of getting up to leave, the mental security provided by big brother crushes all desire. So what do you do? You sit in your disillusioned "reality" and rant and rave at everyone and everything out there.

Just listen to yourself:
"Yours is a kind of civilization that takes birth in slums and dies at the bullet of gun or gets crushed by the fury of mob."

You know man, death by a bullet is proof that I lived a worthy life. Unlike your life which will end by overdose, or a heart failure brought on by years of depression and self regret...cause you cared and raved and ranted, but were never in the middle of this shit.

At least I can say that I am proud to be a part of what is going down in this nation of ours. Be it for better or worse.

The debate on monarchy and republicanism, like all other fucking political debates, is in my personal opinion, born out of the greed of a few politicians, and it kills the masses. Does it fucking matter if our head of state is King Gyanendra or King Paras or President Girija or President Prachanda? Does it fucking matter if we are a Hindu Kingdom or a secular republic? Does it fucking matter if we select a cow or a goat as our national animal? For that matter does it fucking matter if the entire Nepalese people owned an AK-47 or of we reduced the number of the army to 20,000?

I don't think so. I don't think any of the above choices makes any difference at all. Here is what matters:
1. Development and
2. Equal access for all

And what we need to achieve these two things are:

1. Stability in the nation
2. Honest and hard working citizens
3. Government limited to regulatory functions
4. Competition in the market

If anyone can guarantee the above four conditions, this nation will prosper in less than 10 years.

Instead, sad to say, we just had 10 years of insurgency because a few "educated" fucks decided to test the theories of Marx over Adams.

Some more fucks, who "dedicated" their whole life for politics suddenly found solace in the comforts of material goods, and couldn't get enough of it.

A King who thought he could relive his fathers dream.

A crown prince who is imprisoned within himself.

And 23 million fucking Nepalese who want to land that contract and become billionaires overnight!!

Jai Shambho!!!!

 
At 4:38 AM, October 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's your point Shiv Nepali?

 
At 5:28 AM, October 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shiv Nepali was just taking out his frustration.

Everything that you said matters, Shiva Nepali.

It matters if we are being ruled by a King or Terrorists. I would much rather be ruled by the King. And I would much rather assist the King to rule you all and kill the terrorists.

What happened to the peace summit? When are the elections? What happened to arms management? What about bringing some sort of law to punishing the terrorists and the people with conspired with them - after all they were terrorists for 10 gawd damned years? Who will rule Nepal (if Monarchy is abolished - I know it won't be) after the constituent elections? Are we going to be divided into tiny states of ancient and medieval period - the lacchavis (say Madhesis), the Mallayas (say Pahadiyas), the Mauryas (say Newaris)? Who will stop extortions, killings and killings and double taxation happening day after day, everyday? Will the unrule that existed for 16 years be suddenly changed into golden rule after the elections? Will the peace that will come under the SPAM rule be better than the days of Panchayat and absolute Monarchy era? The questions are plenty. And you know the answer too!

For now some people are cumming in their hands thinking that Nepal is attaining peace. Peace, yes that's what your dick is attaining.

 
At 8:16 AM, October 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous, so is that what you were doing all 30 years of Panchayati kaal -- attaining "peace"??

 
At 12:03 PM, October 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Blogdai, i'm back took a break thru the monsoon from this blog as i knew it would only be drivel and the real action would start now. Madav Kumar Nepal is not going to become a Maoist. Its worse !! He is going to as I always supected give DEMOCRATIC sanction to the Maoist take over of Kathmandu. the US and India will not be able to react to the take over as the political wing of the maoists the UML would have played their last card.
Remember India cant take on Madhav Elfman as long as it has a Communist supported coalition goverment of its on.
cant wait for G's reaction. dont see him slipping into exile as long as he has his army card close to his chest.

 
At 1:31 PM, October 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So the SPAMmers are indeed giving peace to their penises reading the kind of news:

"The JTMM called the bandh demanding to declare an independent terai state"

From nepalnews:
Normal life affected due to ‘terai bandh’

Normal life in the eastern terai districts was crippled Friday due to the terai bandh (shut down) called by the Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha (JTMM), a breakaway faction of Maoists.

All the educational institutes, industries and business centres remained closed due to the bandh in all the districts of eastern terai.

Though long route vehicles could be seen plying on the Mahendra Highway, vehicular movement on the local roads was at a complete halt today.

The JTMM called the bandh demanding to declare an independent terai state in the present changed context of the nation and against the Maoist atrocities in the terai region.

However there are no reports of any unt

 
At 4:44 AM, October 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

PRACHANDA, BABURAM et Al,

I KNOW YOU AND YOUR CONNIES WILL READ THIS BECAUSE WE ARE POSTING IT AT ALL THE RIGHT PLACES:

DID YOU HEAR WHAT HAPPENED IN PERU? NOW THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO YOU - NOT LIFE IMPRISONMENT, BUT A HEINIOUS DEATH. TRY AND EXTEND YOUR LIFE AS MUCH AS YOU CAN.

YOUR LIFE IS GOING TO END SOON, sooner than later...TRY AS MUCH HARDER AS YOU CAN TO GET THE LIFELINE EXTENDED THROUGH YOUR SPA(mming) PARTNERS.

check this out you killers:

Peru Shining Path head gets life

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6048144.stm

 
At 10:31 AM, October 14, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Agreed that interesting parallels can be drawn between Peru's shining path and the maoists.

But let's look at the principle reasons why The shining path failed:

Rank infiltration. Operatives routinely gave away Abel Guzman's movements and plans from the inside. Impossible in Nepal where all maoist coercion is localized and members movements are scrutinized. I.e. no one can get to a level of knowledge in the Maoists without scrutiny.

next. GEOGRAPHY. Think of is this way. The shining path was a unified movement because they had an organized command structure and better terrain for access and control. This also made them easier to spot because their movements were larger and easier for opposing forces to counter react to their movements. In nepal, the geography is so forbidding that we really have 100 little autonomous movements rather than one unified force. they can't be pinned-down because they seldom assemble for or take orders from a unified command.

ATTN: WE ARE GETTING SPAMMED RIGHT NOW SO, SORRY, WE HAVE TO TEMPORARILY TURN ON THE MODERATION FUNCTION. (UNLESS YOU ALL CARE TO LINK TO ONLINE DATING SERVICES OR MOVIE SITES)

sorry for the inconvenience.


-=blogdai

-=blogdai

 
At 7:44 AM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous Bhudai Pundit said...

Blogdai:
As you know I am not a Royalists. But the retards at blog.com.np are getting out of control. You should consider visting and saying a few words.

 
At 8:52 PM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous shiva said...

Is this the beginning of a new chapter in Nepali history?

Party to take up arms in king’s support

Himalayan News Service
Mahendranagar, October 15:
http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullstory.asp?filename=aFanata0scqzpa4a2a9a4ua.axamal&folder=aHaoamW&Name=Home&dtSiteDate=20061016

The Nepal Janatantrik Party, which reportedly has its headquarters in Kailali’s Dhangadhi, has said it will launch an armed struggle in support of the king from the far west. A letter issued this morning by the party to journalists here stated that a ‘sabotage programme’ will be launched from mid-December to mid-February in support of the King.
Party members visited journalists in their offices and residences today to hand over CDs and copies of letters which said they would embark on an armed struggle. “An armed struggle has been declared from the far west to show disagreement with the current political activities, in the context that all others except the seven political parties and Maoists are being treated badly,” said the letter.
It also said that the Nepal Janatantrik Party was formed on May 24, 2006. The CDs distributed contained the party’s declaration. The letter read that Rana Bahadur Chand
‘Samrat’, Shailendra Dhami ‘Jeevan’, Tapendra Bhatta ‘Smriti’, Janak Bhandari ‘Basant’ are the central president, vice-president, general secretary and secretary of the party, respectively. The party’s seven-member committee includes Narendra ‘Bam’, Sudarshan Damai ‘Surya’ and Sanyog Bhat ‘Sansar’.

 
At 9:30 PM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous manan said...

So the SPM talks failed. No one was surprised, I suppose. Do Girija and his friends think that the public thinks he's a hero; that he can do absolutely nothing and still get respect? ( Oh, respect--sorry, I could find no other word...)

Time to start throwing chappals inside the PM's residence to show our approval.

 
At 12:30 AM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Summit of cross dresser is showing sign of being neither here or there and not even in the middle. When you start with no basis, you get no basis for results.

Looks like dogs days are well on their way, just get a stick

 
At 12:46 AM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous B said...

We have very turbulent days ahead. Specially with talks failing to materialize, we should brace ourselves to the bloodiest war this country has ever seen.

 
At 4:36 AM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous shiva nepali said...

How convenient that the "Consumer Forum" has woken up, finally!!!

Never before have the Nepalese consumers suffered from the bandhs until now.

On a positive note, if the FNCCI will hae to call back their bandh tomorrow, then no one else should be allowed to call a bandh ever again, because Tihar or not, consumers are always affected by bandhs, especially when they are 4-5 days, weeks long!!

Court orders FNCCI to cancel Tuesday’s general strike
The appellate court in Patan has issued interim order in the name of Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industries (FNCCI) not to organize the general strike on Tuesday.

Acting upon a petition filed by general secretary of Consumers’ Forum, Jyoti Baniya, the Court order the defendants not to organize such protests until further notice as such a strike ahead of the Tihar, an important festival of Hindus will adversely affect people.

A single bench of Judge Laxman Mani Risal issued the order.

The petitioner claimed that general strike was against the interest of consumers and demanded a prohibition order from the Court.

A meeting of National Agitation Committee formed by the Federation of Nepalese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (FNCCI) decided to organize a general strike in order to press to fulfill their five-point demand that include providing peace and security; ending extortion, resolving labor and trade union disputes and expanding the dates for restructuring loans.

 
At 7:24 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Muneer Yadav said...

Ah! What do I find here? Caucus of royalist, one gives a façade of profound intelligence—blogdai, and his fan based militia all on toes to clobber you to death for differing views.

Blogdai is nothing but William Joseph Simmons, and his testosterones choked little elves his Klansmen, all dazzled by his rants.

Like everybody knew who were under those hoods of KKK, we all know who you all are with all these anonymous pseudo names. If you want to legitimate your fight why don’t you at least divulge your last names here? We are not asking for your address? What are you so scared of and why pretend you are among the bourgeois?

 
At 7:25 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous manan said...

What ever happened to my daily dal bhat of truth? I liked that better, to tell you the truth. Nice and unpretentious.

Lets see, the kinds of people who post on this blog are probably IT specialists working in some remote Midwestern town ( in the US, not in Chitwan ). Revolutionaries, them? Ha. Its easy to kill thousands over a computer.

 
At 7:35 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous manan said...

Blogdai can say what he wants without divulging his name. Anyway Mr. Yadav, get used to the internet giving people anonymity. For long I thought blogdai might be Dipta Shah, now I couldn't care if he's Gyanendra himself. ( Or, as has been more widely rumored, Henry Kissinger) Try to refute the arguments.

The personalities can change but the arguments remain. You can't hope to bring about change by cutting off the branches. Strike at the root.

 
At 8:09 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Muneer Yadav said...

I don't care about his identity, and I do understand his prerogative to remain anonymous, but if you rant so much that you are fighting for the greater goods and for the Nepali masses, why not?

We have seen his alter ego—blogdai, lets see who is behind that mask, may be Peter Parker, Bruce Wayne, Clark Kent?

 
At 9:28 PM, October 16, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Muneer dai, piss off.

Are you on little-boy-revolution auto pilot or do you not read our little blog here? Wow, just one column ago we had over 100 threads on how the King "blew it." Any cursory reading would show you that blogdai is a realist, not a royalist. But I don't suppose that matters to you. Go ahead and spout obscure references and label, categorize and simplify positions to fit your universe. As manan says, this is the internet and no one is stopping you from displaying your lack of perception for all to see.

And piss off again on this ridiculous identity issue. We have said on numerous occasions here (for those who actually read) that identity is not nearly as important as the overall strength of your ideas. In fact, if all goes well here, your ideas ARE your identity on a blog such as ours.

But no, go ahead and waste my time with this. I've had to refute your exact same comment (minus your self-absorbed verbosity) hundreds of times from other drive-by posters who don't take the time to read and realize what blogdai is all about.

The larger picture is one that blogdai just doesn't get: even in the face of government ineptitude and well-established incompetance from SPA, people still jump on those who are perceived as "royalists." For god sakes, who cares now? Nepal is crumbling and you want to settle some infantile 200 year old grudge?

Move forward, you child. You are not ready for democracy until you do.

-=blogdai

 
At 9:32 PM, October 16, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Kissinger is close, however.

Same ballpark, shall we say?

-=blogdai

 
At 10:30 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Muneer Yadav said...

Yep! I couldn’t have said it better than you did:

“For god sakes, who cares now? Nepal is crumbling and you want to settle some infantile 200 year old grudge?”

Indeed, move on blogdai, let go ‘sri panch’ and ‘sri pech’, why hold to that 200 years old relic.

Just because of your platitudes in your write up ‘you blew it’, you think, you come clean, not so fast, my friend, you are doused with royal goo, and it’s still dripping off of you. Where is your gumption? Own up, why delude yourself with ‘realist’ or ‘royalist’. Everyday people are dying for their conviction—in jungle or barracks, what are you scared of? stand for what you believe.

i am not wasting your time; in fact you are wasting your own time—playing superhero, every time you have to save a nepali soul from damnation of eternal kingless hell fire, you have to find a telephone booth to get into your thermal underwear and cape.

call me what you want, child, infantile, but you are superhero without balls. i will piss off, and leave you with your boy toy justice league.

adios,
do come to southern watching sky
i will watch you fly
my superhero blogdai,

there’s a rhyme for you.

 
At 12:15 AM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Days of warloards are here. I guess people like Muneer still believe in word "democracy" and "Maoism." The rant he does is similar to question in burger ad "where is the beef?"

Slap yourself sore before you rumble on about "Shree panch and Sri pech," the shutter that you have on is off the keel and infantile as Blogdai said it. You preference to look at the sniipets and not the real picture gives off as your quest to prove yourself as "mother of all democrat" coupled with zeal to show that you-know-better than he rest.

The fight is on to save this nation from likes of you and I guess doctorine of might has been learnt by all- no more intellectaulizing, debate or rational discourse- the need of the day is quiet different. And so be it.

 
At 12:52 AM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maoist Guzman A Threat To Peace
By Kamala Sarup

Guzman is a Maoist and a threat to peace, says Dr Tom Marks, who covered Shining Path extensively for a number of publications, "What made Sendero so ruthless was its dogmatism, its absolute conviction that it had found THE answer to the challenges faced by Peru. The irony, of course, is that Sendero declared its people's war just as Peruvian democracy was again functioning, with the left controlling approximately one-third of Congress."

I would like to mention about President Chavez. He is also a threat to peace. Ultimately, given that he's a dictator, he will cross the US and get his country invaded. He works actively with Iran to give it nuclear weapons; he sings the praises of North Korea; he goes anywhere that a government is "rogue" and determined to foment conflict. He visited Iraq and sang Saddam's praises before the most recent war.

"Shining Path founder Abimael Guzman, whose messianic communist vision inspired a 12-year rebellion that cost nearly 70,000 lives, was found guilty of aggravated terrorism by a civilian court and sentenced to life in prison. According to the news throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, Guzman was known to his followers as "Presidente Gonzalo," inspiring a cultlike obedience among a Maoist guerrilla insurgency that grew to 10,000 armed fighters. Guzman did not flinch as the court clerk declared him guilty of "aggravated terrorism" against the Peruvian state, following a more than six-hour recitation of the trial evidence.

The Shining Path bombed electrical towers, bridges and factories, assassinated mayors and massacred villagers, including 69 peasants in Lucanamarca, where nearly two dozen children were among those shot and hacked to death in retaliation for the killings of several rebels. (Source:Taipai News.)

It is also true, regrettably, this is the same philosophy espoused by the Maoists in Nepal and even economically booming India.

The Shining Path Maoist organization was formed in the early 1960s. It spent nearly two decades organizing for violence, then staggered Peru in the 1980s and early 1990s with horrifying violence in the form of terrorist attacks across Peru.

However this organisation crumbled after Maoist leader Guzman's capture in September 1992, even as another significant operations captured the master computer disks of the movement.

Another scholar Dr Naritoma cannot remember how many dozens of people have died at the hands of Maoist violence, but the 60,000-plus figure is the result of an extensive effort to actually count the victims. Significantly, it doubled earlier tabulations.

Now, all the leaders of that terrorist organization are in prison, with Guzman's life sentence just reaffirmed in a retrial ordered by the muddled thinking of the previous government. If ever there was irony, it is that Guzman's sentence has been reaffirmed when Peru's president is again Alan Garcia, the president during the years when Shining Path inflicted the bulk of its damage.

The Maoists' barbarism must be stopped immediately [around the] world," she said.

Hard as it is to imagine, Maoist groups such as those in Nepal and India claim that Guzman is a hero! Their documents have even copied sections from his terrible thinking.

In Peru, after a series of bloody attacks in rural areas, Shining Path brought its terrorism directly to the the capital Lima. By the early 1990s the situation was very serious. Yet former Peruvian President Fujimori, whatever the flaws of his administration, waged an aggressive and highly successful campaign against the Shining Path and its rival Marxist terrorist group, MRTA. By the time the internal problems of his own administration led to his ouster, he had crushed the insurgent groups, and terrorism had declined sharply. Terrorism has not been a problem since then in Peru, despite occasional attacks by radical remnants.

Jaime Antesana, who works with victims of violence, recently said, "The Shining Path left a culture of violence. One sees that in the increasing street crime throughout Peru,"

Fatima stresses: "The Maoists carried out a campaign of sabotage, bombings, and murders that damaged $22 billion worth of property in Peru."

By 1994, Shining Path had lost much of their strength, and more than 80,000 of the displaced refugees were able to return home. Between 1995 and 2000, Shining Path violence was minimal in most areas, with the exception of Peru's Amazon region, where remaining Shining Path guerrillas continued to harass the indigenous population and displace some civilians.

Nepali Journalist and Story Writer Kamala Sarup is specialising in in-depth reporting and writing on Peace, Anti War, Women, Terrorism, Democracy, and Development. Some of her publications are: Women's Empowerment (Booklet). Prevention of trafficking in women through media,(Book) Efforts to Prevent Trafficking in for Media Activism (Media research). Two Stories collections. Her interests include international conflict resolution, cross-cultural communication, philosophy, feminism, political, socio-economic and literature. Her current plans are to move on to humanitarian work in conflict areas in the near future. She also is experienced in organizational and

 
At 1:30 AM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To
Dear Muneer Yadav,

Cent percent Anonymous Royalist here. Come and get me because people like me are blowing away the dreams of you SPA(Mmers). You loved playing a bloody guerilla warfare for so many years and now you are getting scared of the plain old harmless anonymousn comments here?

By the way YADAV, go cross the Southern border, mix up with your LALOO, sow the seeds of corruption, extortion, hooliganism, killings, rapes, gangsterism, where Naxalism reigns supreme.
Népal has just no place for you or your terroristic revolutionary dreams. Got it? Get it.

 
At 1:34 AM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I had already broken the news here of Shining Path leader getting jail. Thanks for the analysis provided by Kamala Swarup.

Here is more news of what you get for aiding the terrorists. The so-called (un)civil society and of course the SPA(Mmers) would do well to read the following and find out more on what is going to happen to them. Muneer Yadav (if that's your real name) this is just for the people like you:

U.S. lawyer gets 28 months jail for aiding terrorism

y Matthew Verrinder Mon Oct 16, 6:58 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A New York attorney convicted of aiding terrorism by helping an imprisoned Egyptian client smuggle messages to militant followers was sentenced on Monday to 28 months in prison.

Lynne Stewart, 67, was convicted in February 2005 of helping her client, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, to contact the Islamic Group, which the U.S. government lists as a terrorist organization.

Prosecutors said messages Stewart passed on for Abdel-Rahman could have incited violence in Egypt. The sheikh was convicted in 1995 of conspiring to attack U.S. targets in a plot prosecutors said included the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Stewart, long a defender of the poor and unpopular, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge John Koeltl in Manhattan federal court. She could have been sentenced to more than 15 years in prison on charges of supporting terrorism and prosecutors had sought up to 30 years.

Koeltl, who cited Stewart's long service as a defense attorney as grounds for the relatively short prison sentence, allowed her to remain free pending appeal of her conviction.

"We will claim victory here. We are happy and humbled to be going home today," Stewart told a crowd of 150 supporters and media outside the courthouse.

The civil rights lawyer has defended her actions, saying she was only zealously representing her client.

"I hope the government realizes their error ... I hope the appeal will vindicate me and make me back into the lawyer I was."

Tagged as both heroine and radical leftist, Stewart is the only U.S. lawyer to be indicted on terrorism charges. Civil rights groups say the case stemmed from Bush administration efforts to discourage the defense of accused terrorists.

U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia said in a statement that the government was disappointed with Stewart's sentence and would consider an appeal.

OTHER CONVICTIONS

Stewart was arrested six months after the September 11 attacks and was prosecuted along with Arabic translator Mohamed Yousry and New York postal worker Ahmed Sattar.

Sattar, 47, who faced a life sentence for being convicted of conspiring to kill people outside the United States, was sentenced on Monday to 24 years in prison.

Yousry, convicted of aiding in the smuggling of Abdel-Rahman's messages from prison, was sentenced to 20 months.

Evidence in the case against Stewart included a call the lawyer made to a Reuters correspondent in Egypt in which she read a statement issue by the cleric saying he had withdrawn his support for the Islamic Group's cease-fire in Egypt. That correspondent was subpoenaed in the case.

Since her 2002 indictment, Stewart has spoken at rallies, undergone treatment for breast cancer and become the subject of a documentary called "Who's Afraid of Lynne Stewart?"

Outside the court Stewart joked to reporters that she had prepared for "the worst," meaning incarceration, and had brought two mystery novels, cancer medication and a pair of sweatpants for "going inside."

 
At 1:40 AM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Our future National Leaders in action. All Maoists and all Muslims. What a co-incidence? I will send it to the people at OhNepal for discussion.

50-yr-old tortured

ITAHARI, Oct 16 - A group of Maoists severely beat up 50-year-old Kalimuddin Miya of Madheli-8 in Sunsari, in connection with land and property partition issue with his son, Sunday. According to locals, the Maoists--Ramjaan, Akar, Wakil, Ramul, along with others--thrashed him with bamboo and rubber sticks during a meeting that was called to settle the issue. "They forced me to obey my son's stance and beat me badly when I said I wouldn't," said an injured Miya. Meanwhile, National Human Rights Commission's regional office in Biratnagar began its probe on the incident, acting upon a complaint filed by Miya.

 
At 1:41 AM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The source of the US Lawyer news posted above is:

U.S. lawyer gets 28 months jail for aiding terrorism

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061016/ts_nm/security_trial_dc

 
At 2:38 AM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous prism said...

People here probably know about my penchant for a democratic republic but not a dogmatic one at that. If Blogdai is a realist on the royalist side of the fence, I am a realist on the democratic side.

But even I am quite suspicious of the Maoist's version of a "democratic" republic. The fact that the Maoists would consider the monarchy as the main stumbling block and tie it up with the arms management issue is unsettling. After all, even countries like India and Peru are republics, and the Maoists there are no saner.

Let's have a referendum on the monarchy issue without prejudice. Let people speak for themselves, rather than try to force all parties to sign up on the republican agenda. Isn't that fair enough?

 
At 5:18 AM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's beat me to no ends. What kind of democracy these SPA fuctards want with and in collaboration with the terrorists? I mean day after day, every day, every moment you see some or the other murder happening at some or the other place. These fucktards have no shame. Geez, HM G should just take back the power...immediately and order shoot at sight on the terrorists and people who are aiding them. There will be some hue and cry for a few days and after that everything silent. After all, there is a reason enough to kill the terrorists rather than just be mute spectators and see the ordinary people die.

 
At 7:23 AM, October 17, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

I'd love to have that referendum, Prism; but you bring up perhaps the biggest issue facing the average nepali who wants to get involved: How does one let the people speak when they are never given a chance through elections?

And, how can we be sure that people are free to voice their legitimate opinions when active maoist coercion and intimidation prohibit such freedom?

So, really, let these idiots call whomever "royalist" or what not. It all has no meaning now. Until we control Maoist arms, the people will never get to hold a referendum on anything.

-=blogdai

 
At 1:39 AM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A must read:
Nepal: From Maoism to Fascism in the Himalayas?
By Dr. Thomas A. Marks



It is an October replete with irony. The most definitive treatment to date on Mao Tse-tung's final crime against humanity, his "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution," is out to solid reviews. Peru, in confirming the life sentence of Marxism's self-proclaimed "Fourth Sword," Comrade Guzman, has ensured that the country will not have on its streets a "democratic politician" whose only tangible achievement was to unleash the Maoist nightmare that left 60,000 of his countrymen dead. In Thailand, amidst the buffeting of democracy, the 14 October anniversary passed with hardly a thought. It was on that date, in 1973, that the authoritarian state crumbled, beginning the process whereby democracy defeated Maoism. And in Nepal, the Maoists, sensing power just ahead, again issued a slew of statements denying that their Maoism and the catastrophe it has brought to the country has anything to do with the bloody 20th Century crimes of Marxist-Leninism.

It is striking how much similarity there is structurally between the Thai and Nepali cases, with the profound exception that the monarchy proved a bastion of strength in Thailand, a source of weakness in Nepal. If one includes in a comparison other Maoist people's wars, such as those in the Philippines, Sri Lanka (the JVP twice tried to carry out armed struggle), and Peru, we see the same structural patterns play themselves out but with the Maoists on the losing side. What is fundamentally different in the Nepali scenario has been the crucial role played by the clueless united front allies of the Maoists, especially groups that bill themselves as "civil society" or even as "nonaligned." They have lent critical strength to what otherwise would be a political movement in much the position of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) prior to its participation in the peace process, when its front Sinn Fein at peak garnered less than a fifth of the electorate.

What remains ill understood is that the Maoists are not using even the same vocabulary, much less the same game plan, as the present political system. They continue to see themselves as a people's war on the offensive. They simply are proceeding along an avenue of approach complementary to armed actions. Violence and non-violence are but two facets of a unified struggle, very much as, in boxing, feints and movement of the body are as necessary as punches thrown.

A Strategy of Armed Politics
People's war is a strategy for armed politics. The mistake is to think it is merely "war," by which we normally mean action between armed forces. To the contrary, people's war is like any parliamentary campaign - except violence is used to make sure the vote comes out in your favor. Significantly, sub-state rebels such as the Maoists claim they are merely doing what the state itself has been doing all along. In Nepal, they claim there never has been "non-violent politics." Rather, they assert, echoing Lenin, that democratic politics practiced by the "old-order" - ancien regime - is but a facade for oppression, oppression that is carried out using the violence of the state through its armed component, the security forces, as well as the "structural violence" of poverty and injustice.

Thus the Maoists see themselves as engaged in a struggle for liberation, of self-defense even. Such a struggle will proceed along different but orchestrated lines of operation. There will be many campaigns carried out in myriad ways. Use of violence, now "in support," was but one line of operation. Within that line of operation, there were many forms of violence, from assassinations - such as that of APF head Mohan Shrestha in 2003 - to main force attacks - the large actions that seek to overrun district capitals. These forms of violence, in turn, were "bundled" into campaigns. We can speak, for instance, of the campaign of terror that the Maoists used to eliminate all who opposed them in local areas, whether individuals or police. The family of Muktinath Adjikari, for instance, the teacher hanging in the best known image after he was assassinated in early 2002, has recently surfaced to demand justice.

Yet such terror occurred for a reason: to clear the space for political action, to eliminate competitors. This is why UML activists were such particular targets. They advanced a competing program which had won a majority of seats in Nepal's 3,913 VDCs, or Village Development Committees. They had to be driven out so that the Maoist cadres would have uncontested access to the electorate. Only in this way could the Maoists mobilize a mass base using their own electoral platform, if we may call it that - they call it their "mass line."

Of course, such methods are anathema, even as certain portions of their (Maoist) party platform are attractive. It is for this reason that the Maoists have sponsored a multitude of front organizations, the wide variety, for instance, of ethnic and community rights organizations. On the surface, they are not Maoist, but in reality they are controlled by the Maoists. The student and labor organizations are especially prominent in this respect. The important thing about fronts is that they can present themselves as independent, even as they are being used to enhance Maoist strength. Lenin called those who unwittingly join such fronts, thinking they are acting on their own, "useful idiots."

Even as this goes on inside the country, the Maoists work outside. States tend to focus upon the tangible links, such as the Maoist presence in India. Much more important is their information campaign, designed to present their movement as almost benign. As states make mistakes, such as seen in instances of indiscipline when military units are deployed, these are exploited to claim the state itself is the problem, terror as but a natural component of the solution. As seen in the Nepal case, the sheer level of terror inflicted by the Maoists has been quite forgotten in the rush to attack the army, the APF (Armed Police Force), and the hapless police (who, recall, at one point in the conflict, had actually suffered a majority of all dead when considered as a proportion of the total victims).

Power as the Goal
For a Maoist movement, the goal is always power. This has been stated quite openly by all major Maoist figures. They must have power, because their "end-state" is to refashion society. They are not seeking reintegration. That would be to accept the structure that exists and to play by that structure's rules. Quite vocally, they reject the legitimacy of that structure and its rules. That is why they are adamant that there must be a constitutional convention. They see themselves as in the driver's seat. They are like any political machine in a rough neighborhood - they can "deliver" the vote. It is what occurs in many areas of India during parliamentary elections but carries the jostling to an extreme. It is "boss politics" played by "big boy rules" - the film, "The Gangs of New York," provides useful visualization.

In seeking "peace" and holding that they are "not for violence," what the Maoists mean is that they would much rather the state delivered to them (the Maoists) power rather than making them (the Maoists) fight for it. They are not fools. They are not interested in dying. They are interested in building a new world. Yet they hold that violence has been the indispensable tool for creating a new correlation of forces, a new electoral map, if you will. That is why they will not give up their weapons (alternatively, they say all forces must lock up their weapons, but this does not include their local forces, their "militia"). They have run the opposing parties out of the neighborhood, and now they are demanding a vote. They do not see this as hypocrisy - they see it as doing precisely what the state has been doing in years past. But they hold that their motives are superior, because they aim to revolutionize society, to make Nepal a "true" or "authentic" democracy, because they are carrying out the will of history, "of the people."

Have they worked out the details of what this new democracy will look like? No, aside from vague notions of "sectoral" representation. They have stated, as Prachanda recently did, that they oppose "parliamentary republicanism," by which they mean democracy as Nepal had but with the parliament sovereign. But they have not laid out what their "real democracy" alternative will be. That is the beauty of being the political challenger. Today's realities are opposed with tomorrow's promises. This is what politicians always do, even those who run "on my record." The danger of left-wing ideologues, such as the Maoists, is that their worldview dramatically constrains their view of possibilities.

They tend to think of fantasies, such as "self-reliance" and "independence," as ends that can be achieved if only "will" is harnessed. It was just such fantasies, implemented through violence, that gave us the astonishing crimes of the past century - crimes, it must be noted, the Maoists deny occurred. Yet there is no doubt what went on under Lenin, Stalin, and Mao (photos of all these individuals are used as veritable deities by the Maoists), any more than there is any question as to what occurred under Hitler or Pol Pot. What they shared was a worldview startlingly similar to that held by the Maoists.

The Maoists' way of dealing with this is, first, to deny reality (just as the leader of Iran seeks to deny the Holocaust); second, to claim that Nepal will be different (which is easily claimed, since there is a startling lack of knowledge in Nepal of what has gone on globally in similar previous situations to that of Nepal now); and, finally, when all else fails, to claim that the critic has no right to speak. This is a favored tactic of my activist internet correspondents, who purport to find all Americans responsible for everything from US foreign policy to the decimation of the American Indian tribes. None of these three ways, it bears reiterating, addresses the issue: the Maoists really have no answers to the challenges facing Nepal. They simply claim that they will do better than the bumbling (and bloody, they claim) incompetents who have preceded them.

The Maoists have used the monarchy as their foil, as a surrogate for what they claim is its role in the old-order. If the "feudal monarchy" is swept away, they endlessly repeat, all will be right with Nepal. In this, they certainly have been assisted by the tragic circumstances which placed the incumbent, Gyanendra, on the throne. Similarly, they have been assisted by his mistakes in maneuvering through the maze of Nepali politics. However, having forced the monarch to a position most claim he should occupy, that of a ceremonial monarch in a parliamentary democracy, the Maoists are still left with the fundamental issue: what to do about Nepal? They see structural issues that can be addressed by "will." Most of us see a population that has exceeded the carrying capacity of the land.

Though marginal in an objective sense, Nepal and its troubles have implications for the region and beyond. The decimation of a democracy, the turning over of a people to the same tired solutions that have led to tragedy after tragedy, is of concern enough. Just as serious are the regional implications of allowing an armed, radical movement to force its way to power through terror.

Role of India
India is the ultimate arbiter in Nepali affairs for reasons of geostrategic interest and Nepal's geo-fiscal realities. From Nepal's standpoint, this has not always worked out well. From India's standpoint, it has worked out reasonably enough. Nepal has steered clear of engaging in behavior that threatens India's interests, and Nepalis have proved a valuable component of the Indian labor pool (especially militarily, where Nepalis apparently comprise one-eighth of the manpower of India's infantry battalions). India's interest in the current situation is in having a stable neighbor, especially one that does not contribute to India's own growing Maoist problem. To achieve this goal, New Delhi desires in Nepal a functioning democracy committed to addressing the needs of its people. How to balance the elements of this general prescription just related has long been the challenge of Indian regional foreign policy and, apart from Nepal, has led to some real flies-in-the-ointment at times. Sri Lanka leaps to mind.

Irony again surfaces, because it is India (not the Maoists) that has seen its policy of the past decade go awry. Hence it finds itself in bed with Maoist insurgents and in search of a "soft landing." New Delhi's strategy is to get one by facilitating in Nepal creation of a "West Bengal" or a "Kerala" - states where the tamed Indian left challenges and even rules, where it continues with its nasty verbiage and bizarre worldview, but where it must respond to the realities of power and hence stays within the lanes on the national political highway. What New Delhi has overlooked is that such realities occur in India only because of the capacity of the national state to force compliance. Subtract the Indian military, paramilitary, and police forces from the equation, and India would be anarchy. Not surprisingly, that is the very term being used by many to describe the situation in Nepal.

As has been discussed previously by any number of sources, it is difficult to tell precisely where "our Indian friends," as Prachanda has taken to calling them, fit in. A number of elements figured into New Delhi's calculations. First, as the hegemonic power in an unstable subcontinent, India wants restoration of order. This is necessary for precisely the reasons stability is desired in Sri Lanka. Disorder produces refugees, unleashes intra-Indian passions, transfers elements of the conflict to Indian soil, and sucks New Delhi into foreign policy nastiness. Second, having opted for order, India has played a hand well known to its smaller neighbors: intervention. The only question has been how to intervene.

Here, there are several schools of thought. My past work in Sri Lanka has led to my being less than charitable as to Indian official motives. In the Sri Lankan case, New Delhi was into everything from supporting terrorism to running covert ops in a friendly, neighboring democracy. Only when the Frankenstein it helped to create, LTTE, turned on its former benefactor did logic and morality reassert themselves in New Delhi's policy. In this case, in Nepal, it is perhaps too early to speak in such terms. What we know at the moment is that is that the weak position of the coalition government in New Delhi, combined with its normal "Great Game" psychology and the eagerness of certain Indian personalities, especially on the left, to expand their own role and spheres of involvement, led to a policy shift that supported SPAM (the Seven Party Alliance and the Maoists). It seems equally clear that India, as it did previously in Sri Lanka, went into the present endeavor quite misinformed by its alleged experts, not to mention its intelligence organs, and that it is quite ignorant as to the actual nature of the Maoists - no matter the efforts of those same personalities just mentioned to claim how wise, thoughtful, and caring Prachanda and other members of the Maoist leadership are.

In once again misreading the situation in a neighboring state, India was virtually pushed by the nationalism of the king. Whatever else he is, the monarch is a Nepali who does not think it is for India to dictate Nepali realities. Ironically, this is a position also held by the Maoists. They have simply realized, of late, that it is a position best relegated to the shadows. Better to rail against the old bugaboos of Indian politics, especially in unison with those who think the Cold War is still going on, "America and world imperialism."

As the US Ambassador has made quite clear - and the cases of Hamas and Hezbollah illustrate well - there are consequences connected with actions that seek to talk peaceful politics but engage in behavior labeled terrorist by virtually the entire world. It is noteworthy that in their quest to carve out an identity as "independent" actors, the Maoists claim to see exemplars in very unsavory types - Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, North Korea. One can understand why these odious regimes are "picked" - on the surface, they stand for a divorce from the present world-order, which Maoist dogma holds responsible, in league with the Nepali local representatives of world-capitalism (that is, anyone who owns anything and makes a decent living), for the lack of development that is present-day Nepali reality. In reality, Cuba and North Korea have long been economic basket-cases noted for their political repression, while Venezuela and Iran are political basket-cases determined to remain such by exploiting a single resource, oil, something Nepal certainly does not have. Cases such as Brazil, Argentina, and Bolivia also offer a certain fascination for the Maoists, since these states claim to be "socialist." Each, though, has particulars not relevant to Nepal. Indeed, the most apt comparison for Nepal would seem to be to the Albania of the Cold War, when its lack of resources and close affinity with Maoist ideology reduced it to a complete backwater.

What now looms for India in Nepal is what Israel has faced with Hamas and Hezbollah. Whether events play themselves out as we are witnessing in the Middle East depends quite upon what the Maoists are actually up to. Hamas and Hezbollah, for example, thought they could be both respectable and disrespectable, that they could be both in government and carry our terrorist actions. Their fellow citizens have paid a terrible price for such folly. Hamas is particularly tragic, because the Palestinians thought they could elect a group that both wanted to defy world norms and be supported by its money. The similarity to the Nepali case is compelling. Hamas and Hezbollah, one could argue, have behaved as the Nepali Maoists seem determined to behave, to participate in "the system" only to use it for their own ends. Those "ends," obviously, have now made life even worse for the Palestinian and Lebanese populations.

PIRA in Northern Ireland, to the contrary, has reintegrated, worked to move beyond what it was and to build a better Ulster. Ulster today is an improvement upon the Ulster that existed when the civil rights movement erupted in the late 1960s over ill-treatment of the Catholic minority. In the Nepal case, it was disappointing and tragic that the SPA and the Palace could not have a meeting of minds. Parliamentary democracy should have been the ultimate bulwark against the Maoist challenge, but the very nature of Nepali parliamentary democracy, with its corruption and ineptitude, led to its marginalization. The increasingly bitter split between SPA and the king became all but inevitable in such circumstances, but personalities also played a central role, as they do in all that occurs in Nepal. It was the nastiness between Congress personalities, for instance, that incapacitated government at the moment when focus and response were most needed to insurgent challenge. India has sought to alter this reality long after the fact, by coming down squarely on the side of "democracy." Yet, as happened in Sri Lanka, New Delhi's political class seems to have seriously miscalculated.

Though certain Indian commentators hold there are no connections between the Indian and Nepali Maoists, this has never been the case. Indeed, the two sides previously discussed openly their linkages, and individuals from the two movements were apprehended or killed in operations "on the wrong side of the border." Only with a move to exploit the nonviolent line of operation did the Nepali Maoists stop claiming to be integrally linked not only with South Asian Maoism, through CCOMPOSA, but also with global Maoist forces through RIM. Of course, these were never "command" relationships, only liaison and, in the case of the Indian groups, some presence. It is naﶥ to claim the radical wing of a radical Maoist movement will simply salute and call it a day, even if the leadership decides reigning in the combatants is the best tactical course of action. Further, it is inevitable that any Maoist government would encourage the usual flocking of left-wing groupies that we see - and have seen - in every other case of a radical government. Indeed, there already are here in Nepal the usual international activists engaging in "revolutionary activities" and supplying information to the Nepali left-wing press and even to the Maoists themselves.

The Future
On the one hand, there is hope for the Nepalese future. What is happening now politically should have been the response to the Maoists, with the security forces providing the shield. Though a plan was in fact drawn up in the pre-April 2006 period, it was mechanical, devoid of substance, precisely because the mobilization that occurred in April was not used by Nepali democracy as its weapon. That is the irony of Nepali parliamentary democracy - it proved incapable of using mobilization of democratic capacity to defend itself. It did not do what the Thai, the Filipinos, the Peruvians, and the Sri Lankans did to defeat their Maoists. They brought reform to imperfect systems and made them better. They are still imperfect, but so are all systems. And they are not man-eating systems as desired by the left-wing, of which the Maoists are the premier representatives.

It should be obvious that the claim that there is "no military solution" to insurgency is simply a canard. One heard it endlessly in Nepal, most often from "the foreigners who would be gods," as one acquaintance was apt to put it. Armed capacity enables the campaign of reform, because armed capacity is what enables the challenge to the old-order. In circumstances such as Nepal, no army can be committed simply to defend the status quo. It must be committed to defend transformation. That transformation, though, must look rather more like what can be seen in India and a lot less like that witnessed in Mao's China.

If Nepal wishes to move forward, it has all the pieces right before it on the table. This has been said before. What separates the sides is the Maoist notion that revolutionary transformation will now be delivered by surrender when force of arms could not take it. "The people have spoken," goes their claim. In reality, the people have spoken, but they have not at all supported what the Maoists have in mind, precisely because the Maoists have worked so hard not to let their vision and plans get out into the open. What Nepal needs now, more than ever, is equitable representation and good governance. What the Maoists keep demanding is retribution and marginalization of all who do not see a solution in their terms. There seems to be the idea that one can simply one day announce a decision has been reached, which will include a declaration that, in effect, a significant slice of the Nepalese old-order should present itself at the chopping block. To say that will not "just happen" is not to be a pessimist or even a realist, only to reiterate a point I have made previously: hope in not a method.

For reconciliation, all elements of society need to be engaged. At the moment, the Maoists and some misguided elements of SPA are proceeding in much the same fashion as did the government of Sri Lanka when it marginalized its Tamil population. Half of all Nepalis, in recent polls, said they would be content with a ceremonial monarchy. The security forces number more than 160,000 individuals in intact units. Yet there has been little effort to involve the forces represented by those statistics. For Nepal to move forward, to use a constitutional assembly as a basis for more equitable new arrangements, is a laudable goal. To think a socialist reshuffling of Nepal's demographic and physical pieces will produce a panacea is a pipe dream. To the contrary, in advancing their "triumph of the will" solution, the Maoists seem quite unawares that they have fixed upon, as course of action, the very title of Hitler's most powerful fascist propaganda film.

 
At 7:20 AM, October 18, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Thanks for the article, another masterwork from Dr. Marks.

Critique:

Blogdai has always tended to feel that India supported a Maoists presence in Nepal and the resultant instability; blogdai believes india's relative silence on the Maoists issue over the last 10 years bears this out. An unstable Nepal, India feels, would reinforce Nepal's dependence on India and keep Nepal as a de-facto indian satellite.

Marks agrees with blogdai on the assumption that its all about the GUNS, baby. There is no oppositional competitive voice to counter-balance Prachanda. Perhaps the Janatantrik movement in the West is something we all should watch?

-=blogdai

 
At 8:01 AM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Bhudai Pundit said...

Couldn't disagree with you more Blogdai. Nepal is dependant on India even without the Maoist insurgency! I don't think it's fair to say the Indian government is supporting the Moaists. Mainstream Indian politicans and policy makers have nothing to gain, really, by creating in unstable Nepal.
That being said there are certain factions in India who are very sympathetic to the Moaists. In states like West Bengal, UP, Bihar there is a strong Maoist following and this is where Nepali Moaists get much of their support from.

An unstable Nepal has many problems for India. Firstly, things could spillover into India itself - Indian Moaists could get encouraged and step up their activities. The more lawless Nepal is, the easier it is for ISI agents and other anti-India organizations to work through Nepal since we have an open border. etc. etc.

 
At 10:05 AM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Simple analysis which is correct:

Maoists of Nepal = Unstability in Nepal

King of Nepal = Stability in Nepal

Indian National Congress (INC) is anti King of Nepal

SPA of Nepal is power hungry jokers

SPA of Nepal+Maoists = King of Nepal out

King of Nepal out makes INC happy.

King of Nepal = Good relations with India = Good relations with China

Nepal's Good relations with China = unhappy India

India (INC) thinks it will be able to control the terrorists of Nepal but first talk is to get the Monarchy out.

Okay..;everything is complicated here...but the picture is clear...India can jeopardise it's security (which it thinks is not a big threat) in order to have puppets in Nepal and to keep the King out.

 
At 10:54 AM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Bhudai Pundit said...

actually anonymous:
india keeps insisting that monarchy is an important pillar in Nepal. Remember after the Feb 1st move India got alot of critisism because it looked like the implicitly supported the king?

Anyway, times are different now. Nepal having good relations with China is insignificant to India. Today even India and China are moving towards better relations since they each have alot to gain by coperating - the rule of the day is economics!And both India and China have too much to loose if they don't get along.

I think we have created our mess. It's not India's fault that our leaders suck!
India doesn't care who rules Nepal so long as its stable and doesn't pose a threat to them. Because even the King is India's puppet at the end of the day - it's not only the political parties.

 
At 11:56 AM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The arguments that 1) India is trying to control Nepal with Maoist insurgency and 2) Nepal-China relationship will upset India are two ridiculous arguments.

India and China are expected to have a trade of $20 billion by 2008. How much $$ can India gain by controlling Nepal? How much are Nepali Hydro worth? Not much if you have to account for all the investment. If Nepali hydro was so lucrative, there would have be hoardes of Indian and Chinese investing in Nepal by now.

It's all about economis these days and so calm down.

 
At 12:00 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nepali monarchy especially Mahendra used this India phobia to control Nepali people really well. It is prettly well entrenched in Nepalese educated and supported by Panchayat system.

Blogdai, I thought you were a rational person. Your last posting sounds like you are nuts. Please support your argument why India would want an unstable Nepal? What has India to gain from unstable Nepal?

 
At 12:25 PM, October 18, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Nepal and India are culturally and economically tied. Bound, if you will.

A politically stable Nepal is an independent-thinking Nepal and that gives rise to the anti-India sentiment. Plus, an independent and economically strong Nepal plays hardball with hydropower and manpower. India can't have that.

India loves the fact that Koirala is in their hip-pocket. They are absolutely giddy about the fact that no one can make a decision in Nepal without running to Delhi first. (This includes Ian Martin!)

India absolutely went ballistic and disapproved of initial third-party arbitration with the Maoists a few years ago. They disapproved of another sovereign nation seeking independent help? And support the Monarchy? Does giving a safe meeting place in Delhi for both Maoists and SPA minions to plan their next move signal royal support to you? Does an outright statement of support for the "democratic forces" involved in April's protests sound like royal support to you. No, if you heard india claim support for G., is was their typical "throw you off the scent" comment designed to mask their intentions. G. is uppity and independent. This goes against Indian interests, period.

India has worked, through its complacency on the Maoists issue, to establish Nepal as a de-facto satellite state and buffer against China. Ten years of relative silence on a burgeoning and ever-threatening Maoist movement implies a tacit allowance of such activity. In essence, India was hoping for a Nepal that came begging, resources in hand, for assistance in dealing with the Maoists. It didn't happen.

Don't fool yourselves into thinking everything is peachy between China and India either. There is constant jockying for an edge in Nepal by both of the big boys. Plus, you will never have normal relations between India and China as long as India keeps rubbing the Tibetan issue in China's face by giving the Dalai Lama a base of operation in Dharmsala. Don't underestimate this. India plays cards only when it can play all hands at the same time.

-=blogdai

 
At 2:23 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Blogdai,

From your reasonings, I think you are still living in the Coldwar era. Things have changed since then.

I did not see any valid agruments on why India would want to see an unstable Nepal.

1) A politically stable Nepal is an independent-thinking Nepal and that gives rise to the anti-India sentiment.

Please explain why independent thinking Nepal will give rise to anti India sentiment? This argument does not make any sense. We have an unstable Nepal, and do you think there is a lack of anti-India sentiments in Nepal?

2 An independent and economically strong Nepal plays hardball with hydropower and manpower.

Hardball with Hydropower? Again prove your arguments with facts. Has unstable Nepal has given any leverage in hydropower? Ten year of instability and India has not developed any hydro power in Nepal. Nepalese politicians are so scared of being called pro-Indians that they are not willing to take any risks of jointly developing any hydro projects with India. As an example, Nepal has not jointly developed any hydro power with India in 20 years. Rather stable Nepal will atleast give Nepalese politicians to work with India in hydropower.

3They are absolutely giddy about the fact that no one can make a decision in Nepal without running to Delhi first.

This will make a few politicans happy by making them feel important. Again, how does India benefit though?

Rest of your comment did not contain any arguments why India would want unstable Nepal, and so are not worth commenting. Please, try again.

 
At 3:51 PM, October 18, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

India benefits directly by having absolute direct control over policy decisions in Nepal. True, this current situation results in anti-indian sentiment in and of itself; but there will always be that sentiment. On the other hand, a strong and unified Nepal could back its anti-india sentiments with a unified political resolve; India couldn't tolerate that. It's more to India's liking that a weak Nepal hates them rather than a strong Nepal. India also knows that there is a strong undercurrent in Nepali society that seeks to break away completely from India's influence. This only means one thing: hello China! Your pro-monarchy Indian government really piled on the support for SPAM after G. started making his big overtones to Beijing.

Is it not clear to you that any major decision is first filtered through India? I do suppose we make Nepal's politicians happy by implying that the actually ATTEMPT to make decisions, but can you honestly argue the fact that anything of importance does not involve India's hand.?

When U.S. ambassador Moriarty chose to criticize the 17 point agreement as useless, he was actually correct. Funny though, just on the heels of George Bush's trip to Delhi to usher them into the nuke club, Moriarty abruptly changed course and supported the agreement. Meaning? In order to play nice, the Yanks follow India's advice and counsel on all matters Nepal. The U.S. knows that India calls the shots on Nepal.

Perhaps the word choice "unstable" is what's throwing you. Try "dependent" instead. And what better way to keep Nepal dependent than to keep them off balance and unstable with a Maoist insurgency and irresponsible politicians.

India "benefits" from this by maintaining its control and grip over Nepal and thus, keeping a satellite and buffer out of China's hands.

A big question: As a concerned and good neighbor, why didn't India so much as acknowledge a Maoist threat to Nepal in the mid-1990's? Why again was there no active attempts, (to this day) at active mediation between all parties? Why did India not act as a big brother should and mediate all issues Royal, SPA and Mao? Because it would lead to a solution, that's why. And a solution would lead to stability.

I don't know about your hydro arguement. Look at the development interests and border infringements by India in the Terai and ask you question again. Also, our writer Shiva could probably quote you chapter and verse on how many Indian concerns are actively involved with Kali Gandaki, Melamchi, and other projects.

The point is, Nepal has been kept off balance by inept politicians and violent insurgents. In fact, it can be argued that there currently is no unified Nepal; no national character. So, what did the country with the single biggest cultural and economic impact on Nepal do over the past 10 years to help remedy this situation? Nothing. Why? Because a fractionated Nepal is a weak Nepal. A weak Nepal cannot stand up to any overtures, financial or political, from a strong India. It is only India's own ineptitude that keeps it from running roughshod over Nepal at this point.

-=blogdai

(pre-emptive note. There are a lot of points here for you to take issue with and make good counterpoints. Try not to repeat yourself or pick words out of context and form an arguement. I am war-weary of arguing with people who can't grasp the concept; I trust you are not one of these. -=BD)

 
At 5:20 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Bhudai Pundit said...

Blogdai:
Nepal is in such a geographic position that we are always going to be economically dependant on India, even if we have stability. Trade with China is difficult because transportation costs(through that terrian) would be substabtially more and plus Nepalis need Indian products since there is so much similarity between our cultures.

What unified political resolve are you talking about? What can Nepal do to defy India? Did you forget in 1990 when India imposed the blockades what a mess Nepal was in?

Look, China is not going to risk its relationship with India to exert influence on Nepal. Sure there is some competition between these two countries but its not to the level you are implying.

"Nepali society that seeks to break away completely from India's influence."

I am yet to find anyone who would agree to that. Nepal and Nepali culture today is so infused and overrun by Indian culture I find that hard to believe. Just who are you refering to when you say a certain section of Nepali society?

"A big question: As a concerned and good neighbor, why didn't India so much as acknowledge a Maoist threat to Nepal in the mid-1990's? Why again was there no active attempts, (to this day) at active mediation between all parties?"

Didn't India get the political parties and the Maoists togeather for those talks in New Delhi?
India has been having its own Moaists problems for a long time now. Plus like I mentioned in states like UP, Bihar and West Bengal there is a huge Moaist following. Even today the communist party is a strong member of the coalition government. It's not a conspiracy its just that the Maoists (communist) are very popular and powerful in India.

Look, I don't want to sound pro-Indian. I agree with you points about border encrochments and other unfair treaties Nepal has had to bear. And I agree India interfers in Nepal's internal affairs too often. But I don't think they are actively seeking to destablize Nepal... if you consider how much they have to loose with an unstable Nepal your argument wouldn't hold. Think about potential refugee spill over, Nepal turning into Afgahnistan where other anti-India terrorist goups could work from, imagine other insurgent goups getting encouraged etc.

 
At 5:34 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous prism said...

I have to agree, at least partially, with Blogdai on the Indian position.

Unlike the US that has articulated its position clearly through Moriarty several times, India has kept mum on the front, but busy like a bee on the inside. India has reportedly dangled carrots to the King, to the parties, as well as the Maoists to see who will bite the most. No wonder most Nepalis are deeply suspicious of India's _real_ position on Nepal.

Having said that, we can't simply blame India for all our ills. The fact that we have failed to demonstrate to India that stability in Nepal is in India's interests by dangling our own carrots to them is our weakness. From natural resources, tourism and security, Nepal can and should impress on India that she has only to gain by seeing a stable and strong Nepal, rather than one beaten and dependent.

 
At 6:10 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear blogdai,

I am not even going to try to reason it out with you in the merits of logic here, you just don’t deserve it. Whenever there is a strong rebuttal from someone, you come up with all garbage theory and finally you get offensive. For instance:

‘pre-emptive note. There are a lot of points here for you to take issue with and make good counterpoints. Try not to repeat yourself or pick words out of context and form an arguement. I am war-weary of arguing with people who can't grasp the concept; I trust you are not one of these. -=BD)’

Really pathetic way of discourse, your inability to articulate and back up your claims now becomes our (readers) lack of intelligence to grasp the concept.

Why not put a disclaimer at your blog, ‘just listen don’t talk’, we will refrain from putting any arguments here. Until then why don’t you do us a favor, shut up.

You remind me of—‘lata ko desh ma ghada tanteri’, get some iodine.

 
At 6:23 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

i will decipher blogdai's message for the mere mortals, since we can't grasp his concept.

I HAVE JUST REPLACED 'INDIA' WITH 'PALACE' IN HIS PREVIOUS REBUTTAL. NOW READ IT, MAKES PERFECT SENSE.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Palace benefits directly by having absolute direct control over policy decisions in Nepal. True, this current situation results in anti-Palace sentiment in and of itself; but there will always be that sentiment. On the other hand, a strong and unified Nepal could back its anti-Palace sentiments with a unified political resolve; Palace couldn't tolerate that. It's more to Palace's liking that a weak Nepal hates them rather than a strong Nepal. Palace also knows that there is a strong undercurrent in Nepali society that seeks to break away completely from Palace's influence. This only means one thing: hello China! Your pro-monarchy Palace government really piled on the support for SPAM after G. started making his big overtones to Beijing.

Is it not clear to you that any major decision is first filtered through Palace? I do suppose we make Nepal's politicians happy by implying that the actually ATTEMPT to make decisions, but can you honestly argue the fact that anything of importance does not involve Palace's hand.?

When U.S. ambassador Moriarty chose to criticize the 17 point agreement as useless, he was actually correct. Funny though, just on the heels of George Bush's trip to Delhi to usher them into the nuke club, Moriarty abruptly changed course and supported the agreement. Meaning? In order to play nice, the Yanks follow Palace's advice and counsel on all matters Nepal. The U.S. knows that Palace calls the shots on Nepal.

Perhaps the word choice "unstable" is what's throwing you. Try "dependent" instead. And what better way to keep Nepal dependent than to keep them off balance and unstable with a Maoist insurgency and irresponsible politicians.

Palace "benefits" from this by maintaining its control and grip over Nepal and thus, keeping a satellite and buffer out of China's hands.

A big question: As a concerned and good neighbor, why didn't Palace so much as acknowledge a Maoist threat to Nepal in the mid-1990's? Why again was there no active attempts, (to this day) at active mediation between all parties? Why did Palace not act as a big brother should and mediate all issues Royal, SPA and Mao? Because it would lead to a solution, that's why. And a solution would lead to stability.

I don't know about your hydro arguement. Look at the development interests and border infringements by Palace in the Terai and ask you question again. Also, our writer Shiva could probably quote you chapter and verse on how many Palace concerns are actively involved with Kali Gandaki, Melamchi, and other projects.

The point is, Nepal has been kept off balance by inept politicians and violent insurgents. In fact, it can be argued that there currently is no unified Nepal; no national character. So, what did the country with the single biggest cultural and economic impact on Nepal do over the past 10 years to help remedy this situation? Nothing. Why? Because a fractionated Nepal is a weak Nepal. A weak Nepal cannot stand up to any overtures, financial or political, from a strong Palace. It is only Palace's own ineptitude that keeps it from running roughshod over Nepal at this point.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
At 8:56 PM, October 18, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

You could have saved a lot of space by just saying substitute "palace".... You know, it doesn't make you look smarter to simply re-quote my entire response, ok? But isn't that the whole thrust of your argument: don't think, just blame "the palace?" Listen, you child, the palace is inept and ineffective. The mess Nepal is in right now, today, is all because of Maoist atrocities and inept politicians, period. As far as the world is concerned, you're little revolution backed-down the king and marginalized his voice. On the world stage, you won, ok? So what, in god's name, is the good of continuing to harp on the Palace? What is left to prove? Read Dr. Marks above and he'll tell you that you are just trying to continue to shift your inability to govern and the ills of Nepalis society back to a horse you've already beaten to death. Is all you have to offer your country an accusing finger? Forget it and move forward. No one is governing now and it looks like the people you've put in power are not about to start governing any time soon, so what are you going to do about it? Blame the "Palace?" Well, SPAM is in charge now, the "will of the people" has spoken. Do you not have enough confidence in your revolution to take responsibility for its lack of action?

Ok now, a lot of you are segmenting arguments.

True, on issues of domestic policy and things that were locally handled, parliament took advisement from the throne. But neither g. nor birendra was or wanted to be actively involved in the day to day running of government. Whenever Koirala wanted to act on his own or against the Maoists or any national disruption, where did he go? India. So, either King or India...some democracy, eh? Koirala became the laughing stock of Nepalis for fleeing to India for advice (and medical treatment) on the slightest provocation. Let me ask any of you, was it so impossible to derive a Nepal-based solution?

Easy Bhudai, you're making my argument, not disputing it. Were india a true peace broker, all parties would have been invited to delhi: royals included. doesn't it seem a bit partisan and agenda-driven to invite the 7-parties and the maoists to india, only to have them turn around and form an alliance? Hmmm.

Oh, and dear god, I've forgotten the penchant some of you have for just remembering the last thing you read and capitalizing upon it. It is why I wrote the pre-emptive note in the first place. I argue for continuously with people who see one phrase, one group of words, one twist of a clause and something in their brain overloads and they go off on a tangent.

How ironic and sad for you to prove this point with the exact phrases I used to caution you against proving this point, ha!

And listen, anon, my rebuttal is solid. It is theoretical, sure, but solid. Perhaps it is the rebuttal itself that you find "offensive?" Hmm, perhaps I find it offensive when you say my opinions are "not worth commenting" on. It's ok for you to use strong language but not ok for me to rebut with equal strength? Well, welcome to blogdai and get used to it.

-=blogdai

 
At 12:15 AM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Geezus christ! These people are absolute nuts. I didn't even read the entire arguments here.

Why would India want to control Bhutan?

Why would India want to control Sri Lanka?

Why did India capture Sikkim?

Why did India go bizzerk when the then HM Birendra tried to buy arms? Why did India go bizzerk when the then HM Birendra was trying to convert Nepal into another Singapore? Why did India force a so called democracy movement in Nepal in 1989-1990? Why did India stop the sea-access for Nepal, which under the UN agreements can almost never be done!

A puppet government, a gawd damned puppet government in Nepal, that's what India wants. Why didn't India capture the terrorists of Nepal when they were in New Delhi this February?

These people don't understand the simple fact: INDIA = INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS. A party of gawd damned idiots. There purpose is to swallow up their neighbours. Every time INC is in power they do that.

It's usless to argue with you small brained, idiotic, blinded, assholic idiots.

DO YOU PEOPLE EVEN KNOW THAT THERE IS A STRONG MOVEMENT IN INDIA GOING ON AMONG A GROUP OF PEOPLE IN SUPPORT OF THE KING OF NEPAL AND AGAINST THE TERRORISTS?????? And don't even think that this movement is just the ones created by the priests in Gorakhpur, etc. I am talking of a real movement among a real educated, elite and powerful class.
Wake up and smell the beans you fucktard terrorists and SPAMmers.

 
At 12:20 AM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

AND YOU FUCTARDS, this is what Indians think of Nepal - a Rawanda, a Sudan - the Indians are ready to see a long long battle in Nepal:

http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2006/oct/oct19/news04.php

"Mehta also added that peace process anywhere is a time-consuming affair. He gave examples of Northern Ireland or Sudan or Rwanda where it took years for the peace process to complete. "It has just been six months in Nepal. There should not be any haste," he added."


I am so fucking shitty tired of seeing the Nepalis die! THE ABOVE IS A FUCKING SHITTY COMMENT FROM A RETIRED ARMY GENERAL (yes ARMY!) so just think of the dirt that dirty politicians of INC at the South Block (of Indian parliament) will be having! FUCKTARDS.

ANd doesn't it prove enough that India meddles in Nepal's affairs. I mean you people are looking at the Sun set in the West and are just denying in blatalantly.

 
At 2:21 AM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous sarki ko choro said...

My past experience says that Ashok Mehta who made the comments comparing Nepal's negotiations** with peace processes in Rawana and Sudan is at best a doomsayer Indian nationalist, at worst, a RAW agent.

Anyway, vast majority of Indians want to see Nepal subservient to them and will do anything to bring us to the knees (which we already are!) You should not read much into his statements. I won't!

(** there is nothing to negotiate with Maoist murderers, actually!)

 
At 8:53 AM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Bhudai Pundit said...

Blogdai please tell this anonymous to stop using his foul mouth and concentrate on forming arguments!
It would be nice if he/she said something without taking the help of the word 'fucktard'

Look, Nepal is dependant on India no matter what! Whoever, has ruled Nepal, India has always had a huge influence on Nepal. Don't for one moment think the the Panchayat kings were not India's puppet!

Why didn't India invite the King for talks? Blgdai, how could India invite a dictator who just took over power in a coup? Besides the congress party (as it was pointed out by someone here) has never supported the Monarchy. Look again, I don't think India is a great friend by any means to Nepal. But I don't buy that they are intentionally destbalizing it to gain influence - that's an absurd comment!

Oh by the way whoever said why did India stop Birendra from making Nepal into Singapore... I just laughed at that really hard. Actually it was Krishna Prasad Battarai who made that claim but it was funny to hear it again.

 
At 9:05 AM, October 19, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

When you only invite one side of an issue to India for talks, you polarize the issue. When you exclude any party based on a pre-conceived notion that they are a "dictator" or whatever, you already show a bias.

When a strong nation like India bases their actions on bias and a one-sided meeting of the minds, they are attempting to influence policy in that direction.

It's a bit comical that you would refuse to invite a "dictator" yet Maoists are ok?

You cannot have democracy, freedom, or even a decent discussion unless you take in the viewpoints of all relevant parties. How can one say they've acheived any kind of solution when an entire perspective isn't even allowed to participate in the discussion?

-=blogdai

 
At 9:28 AM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Bhudai Pundit said...

blogdai:
Firstly, the Moaists were invited because Indian policy makers have realized that they need to be bought into the political mainstream. Besides, like I mentioned before the Moaists have alot of support within India. Do you know that the communist party is a powerful coalition member in the current Indian government? It's no suprise that they were invited.

From India's perspective (although I think they secretly supported the king) what King G did was totally wrong. It goes against everything the congress party stands for! Call it bias but the entire international community was against G's move! India could not be seen as condoning this action by inviting him and trying to reach an agreement. They had to condem G outright. It's a publicity stunt but that's what they have to do.
But don't forget that India also sent that fellow who had relations to the palace (i forget his name) to try and reach a settlement with the parties. Did you forget that.
You can't base everything on the fact that India didn't invite G for that one talk.
Again I don't want to come across as being pro-Indian. I just refuting the argument that they are actively destabalizing Nepal.

 
At 1:41 PM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Bhudai Pundit said...

Anonymous:
No one here is saying the SPA are great. They are incompetant, currput and worthless in all respect. So what's your point?

But just because the SPA is bad it doesn't make the King any good either. Look the King messed up big time with his Feb 1st move and now the only viable future for His Majesty is to take on a ceremonial role and embrace that role graciously. Belive me most people even question the point of a cereminial monarch but I think Nepal still needs one.
In this day and age everyone has access to information and there is no need to look at Nepal through anyone's eyes. What G did was wrong period. Taking over power in a coup and jailing political leaders is not correct no matter how worthless they are.

Look I am not saying India is blameless but what I don't agree is with the notion that they wish to see instability and chaos in their backyards to gain some influence in Nepal - yeah they are really need that! Why would India risk it and capture Maoist leaders. They would incite Moaists in Nepal to turn against India and work with Indian Maoists etc. Plus man don't be so naive... do you know how much support the Moaists have from all these communist factions within India?

By the way let's debate the issue and leave the name calling aside. Because two can play that game and it could get ugly.

 
At 1:54 PM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And ah! It hardly matters, if you want him as constituional or absolute or you want to just get rid of him. You can waste enough of your time on SPAMming the web with your words. That's what some of you love to do, that's what some of you are paid to do. But guess what, the love for G, the love for the nation among the actual, nationalitic Nepalis like us comes from the heart. We prevail, you lose. A sorry state of affair will be to see you all die but that would be good for the rest of the humanity...so be it, let you die.

 
At 2:45 PM, October 19, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

One does not need to "actively" destabilize a country if one simply allows a current level of destabilization to exist or increase. Again, and again, it is India's shelving of the Maoist problem in Nepal that was the effective mechanism for destabilization.

We are seeing now that maoists cannot be "brought to the table." that is a myth. How many more rounds of rejected peace-talks does one need before this realization sets in?

And anonymous, we share the same passions but blogdai had to delete some of your postings. Passionate profanity doesn't cut it here. Try again and try to keep everyone engaged without going off the deep-end. Your thoughts are good but we can't get past all the profane clutter.

-=blogdai

 
At 2:49 PM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why didn't INDIA capture the Maoists against whom RED corner Interpol notice is issued and who carry a TERRORIST Tag even in India?

Why Why Why?

And HM G a dictator? Well, that is what the SPA(mmers) think...the rest of the world just looks at Nepal from India's eyes...and those blinded eyes have been put to rest now and the Americans are the first to have woken up a bit. SPA go run and share those eyes.


1:25 PM, October 19, 2006

 
At 3:33 PM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

blogdai,

why not reprimand your mongrels over the phone, since you already know who they are, why pretend.

you have your marching orders from naranyanhiti, and you deliver it here. you come out slick and sophisticated while performing your duties, others don't have that 'dhanga'.

we don't mind their snarling with rabbies ridden saliva, let them have they say, it makes your blog more interesting, since it is devoid of any substance.

 
At 7:36 PM, October 19, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Yes, yes, I'm such a foot soldier of the King, that's it.

Long live Paras, and the King didn't blow it after all, right?

You tunnel-visioned idiot. Read this blog. Is it entertaining for you to keep regurgitating the same old "blogdai is a royalist" tripe over and over again in the face of countless postings to the contrary?

Is this how you want Nepal run? Single-minded, inflexible dogma? by god, you've got a perspective and heaven forbid that little things like facts and logic shake you from your beliefs. Blogdai weeps at the though of you running anything as intricate and argumentative as a full-blown democracy. Would you just crumble into some tribal huddle at the first manifestation of an opinion contrary to yours?

If you are Nepal, then Nepal is not ready.

-=blogdai

 
At 11:08 PM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do read:
In Perspective - The Weekly Nepali Source, October 19 2006

On the historical peace talks…

The past week was full of hopes from the SPA & Maoist dialogues. It took place four times on 8th, 10th, 12th and 15th October, 2006.

Each time participants came out and said that they were making progress and the next session would be successful until on October 15, 2006 the last meeting ended with Maoist Supremo concluding the meeting in few minutes with Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, Madhav Kumar Nepal and Sher Bahadur Deuba.

The rest of the leaders were seen clamoring to figure out what happened and the next date hasn't even been announced. The seven-party alliance looked more like a 5 person get-together because despite the grandeur of the supposed representation, there were only 5 voices that emerged from the talks; no, actually, only 3 because the other 2 were from the Maoists.

Some believe this latest round of shenanigans has again taken the Nepalese people for a ride. Despite all the rhetoric, the bottom-line seems to be that the SPA and Maoist can't agree on the mechanism and timing of Maoist arms management.

This begs the question, what was actually accomplished during the talks? Can someone please tell the people what progress was made?

On the delicate nature of talks…

With the Maoists holding on to their weapons neither the Nepalese people nor the SPA will get a fair deal. Without it the Maoists might not get a fair deal from the people who have been terrorized and traumatized for the last decade. Nor can there be a let up on the international insistence that the Maoists disarm before they join the mainstream.

But at present neither side wants to be blamed for breaking the dialogue at least as yet. The Monarchy seems to be just a red herring anyway.

After Tihar it remains to be seen whether the Maoists will press their advantage by urban guerrilla warfare before the government forces get reestablished and properly reequipped or whether the Maoists will walk straight into Singha Durbar with or without the SPA.

Basically, the talks seem to have been so “delicate” and the mood so “cautiously optimistic” that no one said what they meant and no one meant what they said.

The only person rumored to have said anything of substance was Girja who reminded the Maoists that they had agreed to a ceremonial monarchy in Delhi (the Indian bottom line) and claimed the talks were over (for now) because he needed oxygen. Apparently, he said what me meant and meant what he said – he was short of breath so the talks were postponed.

On Nepal’s bid for the non-permanent member of the UNSC….

So much for the euphoria suggesting that the whole world appreciated and lauded the political developments in Nepal. Even if the lip service was there, the actions of the international community demonstrate neither appreciation nor confidence in Nepal’s political process.

A manifestation of this lack of confidence was Nepal’s loss to Indonesia for the UN Security Council seat by 130 votes (158 for Indonesia and 28 for Nepal). While there is truth to the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister’s claim that the Maoists should be held responsible for the international community’s perception, the fact of the matter lies in the truth that Nepal is inching toward a period of great instability which is expected to affect her performance and contribution in any role of international significance.

To add insult to injury, a former Military General leads the government of Indonesia.

On reviving the death penalty….

Members of the House of Representatives demanded the revival of death penalty. One hundred twenty-nine nations of the world have abolished death penalty. Nepal also abolished this punishment through the 1990 Constitution.

After all, compared to the past, human rights organizations have become much stronger as has the trend that flows dollars in the pockets of genuine human rights groups and genuine anarchists who pose as human rights champions.

One wonders what the HR cartel and civic society has to say on the topic of re-instating the death penalty? Is it good for business or is it bad for business? Is it profitable to oppose it now or is it more profitable to take up the cause once the problem has become more serious?

Basically, the reason behind the call for bringing the death penalty back into the legal system is the rampant break down of law and order in the country which is a product of political developments. But everyone knows that the death penalty has been in practice since the Maoists launched their armed rebellion and that if the House is to follow the Maoists foot steps, it will sill be the weak and poor people who are hanged, not criminal with connections.

On the last three days…..

A businessman was shot in Birgunj; a motorcyclist was looted in broad daylight. A man was tortured till he confessed that he murdered his wife. Meanwhile, his wife is alive and well.

On the highways, the Maoists openly set up barriers and raised funds from passengers. This continued even though the official Maoist line was that such taxation activities were ordered to be stopped.

Moreover, now the Maoists even check the IDs, playing the part of the state’s legitimate security forces that are locked up in their barracks. If all these incidents were reported in a newspaper 10 years ago, people would assume that it was a Gaijatra (macabre/humerous) publication.

Slowly but surely, more reports of crimes are making the headlines but less reports from the police are making it to the courts. The biggest danger is that people are literally keeping quiet about these excesses because of the fear of being killed.

On the illusion of Maoists curbing crime….

Reports have come in that local street gangs in the capital have been corralled by the Maoists and “punished” for their crimes against the people.

The irony is that the most notorious of these typical Nepali “dadas” are as follows: Mr. Milan Gurung, also known as “Chakre Milan,” also known as the UML’s most valued asset in capturing poll booths during elections.

Then, there is the idiot by the name of Deepak Manage, also known to have sold hot dogs on the streets of New York, later provided cocaine to Kathmandu’s richest and also known to have been evacuated from Nepal (when charged for a double homicide) by none other than the man who was most vocal about Krishna Sitoula’s resignation – Pashupati Rana.

Naturally, Manange and Gurung were know arch rivals because Gurung was commissioned to steal votes for the UML and Manange, to steal votes for others. And this list goes on and on.

Although presented as a ploy to curb crime in Kathmandu, everyone knows that after these criminals were “reprimanded” by the Maoists, they were then commissioned to aid the Maoists conduct their “October revolution.” People think the Maoists have done them justice when in fact, the Maoists are continue to do what they’ve always done best – to mobilize in the most effective ways possible.

 
At 12:18 AM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That above article was hillariously, ironically funny.

Please post the link. Please please.

And I love it that the SPAMmers are getting so pissed off at being thrashed. Ohhh and they think the people here are passing phone numbers to each other and doing organised meetings against their terrorist activities. But hey, weren't these SPAMmers the same people who were posting phone numbers over the internet, making websites and forums at the speed of thought before/during/after the Mob and goon movement. Werent they doing organised crimes along and in full support of the Maoists against the state orders? Werent't they crying foul when their 2 websites openly supporting the terrorists got banned in Nepal? Now, that we have democracy (read: SPAMocrac or Mobocracy or Terroristorcracy) these people don't want to hear any opposition voices.

So much for this feudalistic democracy of yours. I will stick to my ROYALIST DEMOCRACY agenda. And I will give STICK to you fucktards.

 
At 1:03 AM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just had to enlighten few here with the snippets of news report:

Himalayan Times:

under the heading of "Maoists' Donation drive to Continue" Mahara or Moro, call him which ever you prefer says "Maoists' donation collection was not forcible. Terming the donation collection as"TAX IMPOSED BY THE STATE" and are...collecting tax as they are not MERE a party but a force parallel to government." And goes on to state "... if Maoist army was deprived of its weapons right now. " THIS COULD ENDANGER THE DEMOCRACY."

whip of things to come - clueless SPAM sympathizers.

And also do read another report "Experts flay bid to quiz King."

 
At 9:45 AM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Bhudai Pundit said...

Anonymous (the hardcore, neo-cercervative pesedo nationalist one)

I take serious offence at you claiming that you are more patriotic then I am. How dare you? Just because you come here and use foul and heated language you think you are more patriotic?

Tell me what is your solution? All I have heard from you is whining and bitching and bad language. What do you want? You keep reapting the same crap that we all know - the SPA are incompetant and the Maosits are terrorist! Oh tell us something new!! What is your solution? Do you want G to take over again???

Blogdai, I have much respect for you. But this fool has not made one concrete argument in all his posts. All he writes are zealous, foolhardy senseless comments that lead to nowhere.
The one thing I like about this website is that you say anyone can have any view so long as there are subtantive arguments. This anonymous has not made any and you have not reprimanded him or made any mention of this. You asked him to tone his language and that's it.

Look anyone can come here and swear and rant. And belive me, we could do alot better then 'SPAMER' and 'fuckard'. So if that's what you want then turn off the moderation.

 
At 2:46 PM, October 20, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Moderation is not on, nor has it been for the last few days or so.

What we see in mr. anon is a problem that requires a sea-change in order to fix. There are a lot of emotions out there and, as you know, I often let them run for a while so we can all get a taste of how far Nepal has to go before it reaches any kind of functioning, respectful democracy.

Believe me, the wars we've had here with pro-SPA and Maoist minions make this anonymous guy look like mother theresa. I currently keep tabs on about half-a-dozen commenters bent on nothing but pushing their agenda and not listening to any argument.

that's where anon is different. Sure I'll only let the profanity go on for so long, but it's not as though he stares logic in the face and ignores it, now, is it? the last comment on India was salient and to the point. that's the only reason I left it posted---profanity and all.

Profanity is annoying and childish, but it's not near as annoying, to blogdai, as a person who restates refuted arguments over and over, or who side-steps logic by going off on some tangent.

These are serious times that require serious individuals doing some REAL thinking. We've got no time for babbling tribalism and an uneducated and uniformed drum-beat.

If anon's, comments drift more towards that direction, you can rest assured they will be edited.

Perhaps I can take out the "fucktards" and leave the rest. Better?

-=blogdai

 
At 1:03 AM, October 21, 2006, Anonymous टंके said...

दरबारिया दलालहरु,
तिमेरुको मालिकले इण्डियाको कति चाकरी गरेको थियो सपलाई था छ । कोशी, गण्डकी देखि कालापानी भारतलाइ बेचेर अकुत सम्पति कुम्ल्याएको कसलाइ था छैन ।

जे भए पनि, दरबारिया दलालहरु तिमीहरूको मालिकको दिन सकिइसक्यो । तेसैले तिमी भाटहरूलाइ औडाहा भएको छ, होसोहवास गुमेको छ । केही उपाए छैन, सिवाए जाँड धोक्नु र सत्तोसराप गाली गर्नु ।

ग्यानेलाई तत्काल पदच्युत गरी नक्खु जेलमा राखी ‘ग’ श्रेणीको सीदा दिई मुद्दा शुरु गर्नु पर्छ ।

तर यो हुतिहारा सरकारले के गर्न सक्ला र !

 
At 7:15 AM, October 22, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Hey, guess what?

You're deleted anon!

If you can't respect the wishes of the posters on this forum and tone down the profanity, how can we take you seriously.

Playing nice and respecting your opposition is the first sign that you know how to run a democracy.

Does this mean you can't challenge bhudai and give him a good, well-researched drubbing? Certainly not. But when a poster (and blogdai) is offended by your insistence on using certain language that we've stated on more than a few occasions is offensive, it shows you have no respect for the opinions and sentiments of others.

Oops! that's not in the spirit of democratic debate, so sayonara.

-=blogdai

 
At 3:35 AM, October 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We may not agree with what is happening in Sudan but we must Give it to the Sudanese government for having the balls. They don't agree to what UN and International bodies and they ask them to be out (kick them out):

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-sudan23oct23,0,5426020.story?coll=la-home-headlines

These should have been done to the likes of Moriarity, Mukherjee, Bloomfield, Ian Martien when they were opening their mouths too much and supporting the terrorists of Nepal openly. What a shame that the then government didn't do it and now we are being ruled by terrorists.
I know there might have been a drawback in kicking them out of Nepal...but in long term things get settled.

 
At 3:37 AM, October 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

geez the link doesn't appear nicely.

I will divide it in four lines and you people join the lines and remove the space in between to visit the link

http://www.latimes.com/news/
nationworld/world/
la-fg-sudan23oct23,0,5426020.story?
coll=la-home-headlines

 
At 7:34 AM, October 23, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Well, at least Bloomfield is gone.

But blogdai agrees. The UN is giving Nepal nothing more than a free pass by not demanding they do anything of any substance. Perfect methodology for our SPA friends who can't tie their own shoes without a postponement.

Fence-stradling and inaction are hallmarks of the UN's operation. And what kind of message of confidence and independence does the UN send to the people of Nepal by having that goon Ian Martin go to Delhi for consultations? Guess what Nepal, says the world, we think everything should be handled with India's ok, ok? Might as well come out and tell the Nepalis they are a satellite state, right Ian?

Nepal, especially G., has made the mistake of bowing to world pressure. Look where we are now: Maoists are arresting people like they don't care what happens with the peacetalks, factions are forming in the West, and the UML is threatening a split. Same old story. No, G. needs to regroup, throw the bums out again, and turn his RNA loose on the Maoists once and for all.

And YES, there is a military solution of sorts to this crisis. In fact, a Military solution is the ONLY thing that will get a Maoist to respond.

So all of you, "let's bring the maoists to the table" children are just displaying your ignorance at the course of world events and history. As Dr. marks said, it is unfathomable that Nepalis cannot learn from the prior lessons of history.

-=blogdai

 
At 11:11 AM, October 23, 2006, Anonymous Bhudai Pundit said...

"Any society that would give up liberty to gain security will deserve neither and lose both."
-Benjamin Franklin

Blogdai, I am suprised by your last post especially in light of the previous thread titled "King:You Blew it." I thought we were on the same page but I guess I will have to continue with my argument.

Blogdai, allowing G to take over and unleasing the army will not solve this problem. I am also begining to see that a military solution may become the need of the hour. However, the military campaign this time will need to be substantially different if we are to achieve success. We argue about this Blogdai, but I still maintain that the RNA had a rather unsuccessful run against the Maoists. Even during the days the RNA was unleased the aurocities were continuing in the rural areas just like it is today. Rolpa and much of Western Nepal was still under Maoist control just like it is today.
The only way to win this kind of war is through smart intelligence gathering! I think the RNA needs to make some reforms. Two refroms I think some crucial reforms are:

1.They must train lower level men on human rights issues
2.How to deal with the villagers properly.
3.Develop a system whereby the soilders cannot abuse their powers which in the past has led to gorss abuses of innocent villagers.

They need to get the villagers on their side. They need to get the villagers to risk their lives to provide valuable information to the NA - they sure as hell aren't going to do that to a brutish army men who treat them no differently then the Maoists.

I also think the army needs function under a legitimate government (democratic) - not G! For two reasons:
1.If G takes over we are not going to get military hardware and other military aid that we badly need.
2. The entire focus will change on G and not on the Maoists.

I think a time is approaching where the Maoists are getting frustrated with the SPA and there is mounting pressure on the SPA as well. This could lead to a military confrontation.

 
At 5:51 PM, October 23, 2006, Anonymous Muneer Yadav said...

ah! blogdai the Yoda never ceases to amaze me with his infinite wisdom, and sometime the same amazement turns into pity on seeing his patience wear thin while pretending to be fair and balanced, but quite acrobatic to see his balancing act. but, does a laudable job convincing ‘lata sojha’ who come around fire to listen to his fables.

his latest preaching from the pedestal:
‘No, G. needs to regroup, throw the bums out again, and turn his RNA loose on the Maoists once and for all.

how convenient to pass such remarks from the sanctuary of ‘darbar’, while there is no prospect of you getting killed, you might as well let die ‘janta ko choro’, maoist /{R}na foot soldiers, just so that you can have your status quo.

you frolic around as the champion of ‘democracy’, what are your chances of you getting killed in cross fire in the military campaign you advocate ? node, nada. without the slightest compunction, you advocate for military action for reinstating your kind of political system, while aware of the loss of lives in doing so.

What’s difference between you and the one you are fighting against (Parchande/Baboon Ram)?

a serious suggestion from one nepali to another nepali, and your mongrels and Mr. fucktard—cross past ‘thankot’ check post, hike through villages, sleep under thatched roof, eat their ‘bhuteko bhutmas’, ‘maikai ko dhendo’, help them in ‘ropai’ in month of ‘asad/srawan’, ride a buffalo, take a dip in the lake, get sun burn and sun stroke. in short get out of protected life.

then i will surely come to listen to your stories around the fire, you telling about what it means to lose a son, a husband, a father in the battle.

until then, stop chirping perched on the twigs of ‘narayanhiti’, there is a danger of getting shot.

 
At 8:38 PM, October 23, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Bitching and ovrheating are my secrets for enlivening a threat that I perceive to be going stale.

Hey great, we've all lost friends and loved ones during this time, but unless you're living in a box you might notice that you're wonderful anti-king sentiments and finger-pointing accomplish little more than act as a fading distraction against your SPA heroes who continue to do nothing.

Remember how quick all of you were to cry at the top of your lungs: "It's been 6 months and the King's takover has accomplished nothing:" forgetting the 10 years of Koirala and Deuba-induced nothing that proceded it. Well now here you are after six months of your glorious people's revolution and what have you accomplished? Other than passing quick and efficiently cruel and mean-spirited punitive measures against the King, your little jana revolt has been a studied exercise in deja-vu: how to systematically plunge the country back into chaos by refusing to take intelligent council or let the people speak through elections.

Fool.

The game is up. the charade is over. It's been given much too much time to prove itself, and the patience of the Nepali people has been much too generous--even in the face of a history of the same type of incompetance from the exact same individuals.

Who cares about the King and what he or any other corrupt royal did in the past now? Is whining in a pile of your own excrement about a big bad old King going to save you from those bigger and badder Maoists?

Is it fun and pretty to see your over-verbose comments in print? Do you find it revelatory to speak metaphorically when you call me a royalist? Expatriot English practice will not be rewarded here. The bottom line is, you come late to this party by calling me a royalist; that makes you a bore. You flatter yourself by using ridiculous aphorisms and a false sense of erudition; that makes you tedious.

When it's all done, you've said nothing. Considering the state of Nepal these days, does any of us have time for this?

-=blogdai

 
At 9:40 PM, October 23, 2006, Anonymous Muneer Yadav said...

'Who cares about the King and what he or any other corrupt royal did in the past now? Is whining in a pile of your own excrement about a big bad old King going to save you from those bigger and badder Maoists?'

ah! perfect example of pavlovian conditioning, just because it's cold out there, we should keep ourselves warm wrapped up in royal excrement, that's what loyal subject do.

and, when there is prospect of you switching a place (pile of same excrement), you go ape shit.

 
At 9:53 PM, October 23, 2006, Anonymous Muneer Yadav said...

an euridite fool again,

'Remember how quick all of you were to cry at the top of your lungs: "It's been 6 months and the King's takover has accomplished nothing:" forgetting the 10 years of Koirala and Deuba-induced nothing that proceded it.'

this time a perfect example of selective memory, what about last two centuries under monarchy?

 
At 10:13 PM, October 23, 2006, Anonymous सार्कीको छोरो said...

It is bit disingenuous to compare 200 years of regime ( much of it during the time when country's existence were at stake due to ever-expanding colonial powers) with modern times of Nepal when most of our immediate neighbour positioned themselves for potential prosperity (China and to some extent India) but we seem to miss out due to successive failures and internal bickering of elected government. Remember GPK brought down his own Party's majority government some years ago.

 
At 10:22 PM, October 23, 2006, Anonymous सार्कीको छोरो said...

I am not saying Royal regime is blameless ..in fact before 2046 they either deliberately or due to their incompetence could not see beyond birthdays, pompous ceremonies Gorkhadakshinbahus etc. Can you imagine in a modern era a country having national holidays just because the King is going out to or returning from a foreign trip?

Now we are all paying the price ..

 
At 2:09 AM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous prism said...

Okay, let's talk substance then.

Should the SPA and the Maoists reach a breakthrough in peace-talks -- that is reaching a consensus on declaring Nepal a "democratic republic" and simultaneously locking up Maoists arms, how exactly do you Blogdai propose to react?

I guess you cannot blame the SPA for inaction then. I know all the die-hard monarchists out there are dying to see the royal party from Baitadi pick up arms and become the new terrorists in town. I suppose their fate will be no different than that of the short-lived Gorkha Dal.

 
At 3:53 AM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Terrorists and SPAMmers can't see anyone who opposes them. Long live the Government of Terrorrism of Nepal!

If you speak against it, you get the stick. But speak, the people will and fight the people will and liberate the people will.

 
At 7:09 AM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Bhudai Pundit said...

I utterly disagree with Blogdai's comment that the King should take over again. In fact I am appalled by that comment.
However, Prism, things on the negotiation front are not looking very good. The Maoists are continuing their autrocities unabated since there is no law in rural Nepal anymore. They are in effect running a parallel government in most regions and they are continuing their tax collections etc.
I think the Nepali people have given the Maoists benefit of the doubt. In fact even today if the Maoists drop their arms and agree to peaceful co-existance people would be willing to forgive (not forget) the past as one commentator pointed out. I agree with that. However, nothing seems to be enough for the Moaists and I doubt they are capable of being a legitimate democratic party.

 
At 7:23 AM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

At the moment, except the King and the parties supporting the King (and against the terrorists) are the only legitmates in Nepal. How can anyone supporting the terrorists and governing Nepal with them (in the form of Government of Terrorism) can be a legitimate force?

 
At 7:24 AM, October 24, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

You idiot, you don't see that you are in fact "keeping yourself warm" in the excremental rut of blindly blaming the monarchy for everything?

God, for the last time, nobody is denying the Monarchs of the past or present were and are inept and selfish. But get over it!

The mess Nepal is in right now is the fault of those you all put into power for no other reason than to "stick it" to the King.

You keep riding this dead horse and et will take you over the cliff of anarchy. That doesn't seem to matter to some of you, does it? As long as Nepal goes down in a Maoist fireball and everyone knows that the Monarchs of Nepal were big bad meanies 200 years ago.

I must confess, I am aware that this is obviously the drumbeat of Maoist supporters without a whiff of rational thought beyond their own ideologies; but it lets blogdai rant and have a good time. I love a good smack-down.

Gee, how will I "react" if a concensus is reached. Well, I just love your eternal child-like optimism, but the only concensus that will be reached, IF any, will be so fractionated that Girija will get to keep his do-nothing posture, Maoists will keep their guns, the UML will split, the UN will claim "good progress" and the people of Nepal will LOSE because Maoism will still be strong, vibrant and well-armed. Yes, put on those rose-colored glasses and tell me what kind of compromise Prachanda will seek when his cadres are already conducting their own arrests and police actions in the Kathmandu valley. Someone who is an infinite optimist would say they are just practicing for a new coalition government, I would imagine. I love Dr. Mark's article: "HOPE IS NOT METHOD." How true. You keep hoping, my friend while the rest of us watch the Maoists and their uncompromised, unbowed and unrelenting methods propel them into power. Wake up!

-=blogdai

 
At 12:57 AM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am sorry for my last comment as there was an error of "except". The following is the correct one:

At the moment, the King and the parties supporting the King (and against the terrorists) are the only legitimates in Nepal. How can anyone supporting the terrorists and governing Nepal with them (in the form of Government of Terrorism) can be a legitimate force?

 
At 1:06 AM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You get up on any bus from any city to Kathmandu...from any village to another...and you will see gangs of Maoists climb up every now and then extort money from poor helpless people...the worst part is when they see anyone Okay-to-do on the bus as that helpless person has to shell out hundreds/thousands to save his life...these Maoists have guns in their hands most of the times...what a life of shitty fear are people living in Nepal...and those from the bloody comforts of outside can only whine and argue that Maoists are taking up peace...yes they are taking up peace and continuing all their terrorist activities of before but albeit all openly now and with and in full support of Government of Terrorism of Nepal...I am trying to get someone to make a few videos of all these activities and will post it all over the internet and bitch asses will get the hoodoo out of it. So if anyone is free enough and cunning enough to make the videos, get in touch.

P.S.: the above is just one incident of the mass terrorism that the Government of Terrorism is spreading in Nepal.

 
At 1:08 AM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just found something on the Government of Terrorism of Nepal and it's support from India

http://www.gopetition.com/online/6602.html

 
At 2:29 AM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What kind of outdated and misplaced petition that is!

Get a life and wake up from you slumber.

 
At 2:47 AM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just two clarifications:

1) Outdated: No, it is so very much relevant. It was even more relevant when the terrorists and the politicians of Nepal supporting them were in New Delhi conspiring against the sovereignty of Nepal.

2) Misplaced: Yes, it is misplaced and hidden in the big world wide web. I found it and since it is so relevant, I posted it here so that you all can make sure that the India Sponsored Government of Terrorism of Nepal is kicked out.

Adios.

 
At 4:00 AM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A comment read on blog.com.np, written by someone called Sunder:
________

Maoists were going from house to house in many parts of Kathmandu under the guise of playing Desui and extorting money. And if the money offered by the frightened residents was lower their demand, they issued threats, like “we are going to attack Kathmandu and when we do we will remember that you insulted us and we will make you pay for it.” Or “If you do not give us what we demand, we cannot say what will happen to you or your family.”

These Maoist are nothing more than thugs and people will tolerate them for only so long.

Maoist beware, you are going too far!!!
_____________

Well, well, the Government of Terrorism of Nepal is in full swing...now it has two faces and two Police force in KTM fighting with each other. The terrorist police force is doing CHAKKA JAM. And the two halves of Government are smiling all the way to the bank.

Awesome state of affairs in Nepal! Brilliant!

 
At 12:43 PM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous manan said...

Gyanendra take over again? He will not. He's had it. Lets keep him out of it now, and fix problems.

Let Gyanendra do what he wants to do. Drink, gamble, whatever, as long as its his own money he's spending I have no problem with what he's doing.

Look, politicians need to take a stand. If they want to kick Gyanendra out of the country, fine, make Nepal a republic. But for God's sake don't just go around blaming the King for everything. Kick Gyanendra out and stop bitching about him. Get to work!

 
At 5:32 PM, October 25, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

Well said.

It represents an almost willful attempt to distract away from Maoists atrocities and SPA ineptitude, this constant blaming of an inert, non-player. G. is neither relevant to nor responsible for the current political malaise in Nepal. If my little boo-babies want to continue to cry about the past then they might as well move to India now because Nepal is once again spiraling down the same path to destruction that triggered G's takover in 2005.

But who can fix the mess? The UN must have been trained at the Koirala School for Government, because they are just as inept and toothless as ever. Plus, the Yanks, Chinese and yes, India don't want to commit to a major renovation. What then?

All we have as a credible balancing, if not opposing, force is the RNA. And they are still fiercely loyal to: Guess Who?

Now, if only G. had some spine and a rudimentary knowledge of tactics. Hmm.

-=blogdai

 
At 8:11 PM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

blogdai,

looking for G's spine, you have lost yours. stupid sniveling hack!!

 
At 8:15 PM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Bhudai Pundit said...

Well he doesn't! Blogdai, I never got a response on my post eariler on this issue.

Anyway, one could argue that the SPA became closer with the Maoist after the Feb 1st move. The move polorized Nepal and it made it the King vs everyone else - which it shouldn't be! The SPA were getting humulitated and the Maoists gave them the support. In return the SPA legitimized the Maoists!
Before the Feb 1st move, there was also not that much republican sentiment and the Nepali people were not willing to compromise with the Moaists on the Monarchy issue. Unfortunetly, now things are alot different.

 
At 8:34 PM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous MD said...

Bhudai Pundit said...
“I utterly disagree with Blogdai's comment that the King should take over again. In fact I am appalled by that comment.”

Did he ever truly give up control? What has actually changed? As we all know the SPA has passed a lot of “ proclamations “ that say everything has changed. Just look at a list of some of changes they claim to have made:

1-The King must pay tax or else!

But the king has not paid any tax. How does he get away with this? Why have they not forced him to obey the proclamation to pay tax?

2-The Army is no longer a “ Royal ” Army.

The Generals still go around talking about the “ Royal Nepal Army ”. Why can’t the Prime minister force them to stop saying “Royal” Army? The sign on top of the Army headquarters still says “ Royal Nepal Army ”. Why has the government not forced the Chief of the Army Staff to take the sign down? The government ordered the Army not to celebrate the King’s birthday in public or go to the palace to celebrate it. But the General’s ordered that gun salutes be fired and went to the Palace anyway. Why are they not punished for disobeying the orders of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers?

3-The Royal Palace Service is abolished, its members fired and all of its powers are taken by the Council of Ministers.

But all the people working for the Royal Palace Service are still going to work in the palace and doing there jobs like before. They are still getting paid out of government funds. Why can’t the Council of Ministers stop the palace workers from being paid? Why can't the government force them to leave there offices after it fired them?

4-The soldiers stationed inside the palace must leave the palace and go to different bases.

But the 3000 troops are still in the palace. Why can’t the government make the soldiers obey the order to leave?

5-The King must answer questions about his role during the “ Peoples Movement” because he is not above the law anymore.

But the king refuses to answer the questions. Why can’t the Prime Minister and the government force him to obey the law and answer the questions?


How much real power does the SPA government have?

 
At 1:21 AM, October 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lets cut the crap and do what is necessary. Endless and aimless talk about this and that is going nowhere when the barbarians are at the gate. Some think they know better, some just pretend to carry on with high intellectual discourse at the expense of a nation, and some just comment for commenting sake. Get over it, this ain't the time unless you are already painted red and see nothing except red. People like Muneer yadav better get a grip soon or else face the reeducation to doctrine you in the benefit of Mao's vision- not your vindictive verbose that is flimsy at best.

I need not go on to all the details such as an agreement between Nepal police and Maoist to control the criminal activities in the Kathmandu city to illustrate the situation bordering in total collapse and prevailing anarchy.

Lets not pretend otherwise. Time calls for action and we all know throwing lectures and roses is not the answer, so better take up arms and protect this turf we call our homeland.

 
At 1:37 AM, October 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

People like Manan come from very high respected family. I know him personally. His family believes in no unethical thing. Infact, the males in his family are so ethical that his father had to tell his neighbour to do it with his mother (Manan's mother) so that Manan can be born. Guess why? Because people in Manan's family believe that sex is an unethical thing.
Manan comes from such high school of thoughts and has found a great political party of SPAM where they try to blame the King and his alcoholism, gambling and other unethical habits for their failure. Why? Well because SPAMmers never kill, never rape, never extort, never murder, never loot, never kidnap, never protest, never throw stones, never vandalize, never ... well they just do it for Democracy and Republicanism purposes.

And oh, we must get back to HM G and his acts of gambling and drinking and etc. This is how Manan likes to describe his father and the People's Monarch...well Monarch is still the most revered thing in Nepal! And even if the Monarch may or may not be doing those things, what he does inside the boundaries of his home, is none, absolutely none of your business. We muse think more of things: Just like Girija dying of smoking and spending billions of State Money to keep himself alive. Just like all the terrorists and their supporters taking world trip with State Money.

Shows what a cultured family you come from. Best of all it shows your pathetic argumentative skills. What it does show truly is that SPAM and it's supporters lack substance. They would blame each act of their barbarianism by blaming someone and the King seems to be the scapegoat for the moment.

 
At 1:39 AM, October 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And regarding Blogdai's comments,

Yes! HM G should take over but this time he should have some real tactical brains to work for him. Every step, measured and calculated to achieve success. A relentless pursuit of diplomacy and perfectionism.

We gotta support him in this.

 
At 7:29 AM, October 26, 2006, Anonymous Bhudai Pundit said...

Anon
Are you the same anon who was obsessed with the work 'fuckard'. Well if you are I am glad to see that you have changed your argumentative style.

Anyway, the King is still important for Nepal but he cannot take over like Blogdai has suggested. In fact, I think after the Feb 1st move the Moaists gained legitimacy and prominance. Before the SPA and the King were at least on the same side. The Nepali people were all behind the King and they would have never allowed the Maoists to turn Nepal into a republic. Like I mentioned above public opinion has changed.
Yes, I know that the SPA is worthless. You don't need to remind of that everytime. However, the SPA is the only solution we have. And if I were you I would be glad that the SPA (particularly NC) keeps insisting that the Monarchy must continue to be a part of Nepal.

Look,thoughts like the King should take over and kill the Maoists are very childish and unrealistic. Even if there is a military confrontation with the Maoists, it has to come from a legitimate government so that we can continue getting international support and military aid. Plus I have mentioned this countless times but this war - if it is to be military - needs to be won with smart intelligence and smart tactics not just seer brute military strength - because we have seen that did not work!
I think the King should now embrace his role as a ceremonial monarch and get some public opinion on his side.

 
At 9:16 AM, October 28, 2006, Blogger blogdai said...

You're both deleted. Go over to WAgle's if you want to argue this out.

-=blogdai

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home