abc – an opinionated & politically incorect[sic] blog from nepal

Prachanda with Chinese President Hu Jintao in Beijing on Sunday

Author: Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

At last Nepal has a president and a premier, both elected. Twelve years after they waged an armed war to capture power, Nepal’s former Maoist guerrillas finally on 15 August fulfilled their desire lawfully with their chief Pushpa Kamal Dahal, better known by his nom de guerre Prachanda, winning the prime minister’s election with a sweeping majority to become the Nepal republic’s first premier.

Prachanda vanquished his sole rival former prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba by garnering 464 votes, a more than two-thirds majority, while he needed only a simple majority to win. Deuba, who was sacked twice by King Gyanendra in the past for failing to hold elections and was the arch enemy of the underground Maoists during their decade-old “People’s War”, received only 113 votes. While his wife Arjoo Deuba, also a lawmaker from his Nepali Congress (NC) party, voted for him, his mother-in-law Pratibha Rana, a lawmaker from the once royalist Rastriya Prajatantra Party, voted against him in an election fraught with tension and rivalry. For Prachanda it is a major political victory.

After a long period of struggle, now the Maoists are keen to rebuild Nepal. Newly elected Prime Minister Prachanda said the industries and business enterprises in Nepal which were closed due to the Maoist threats in the past will be reopened. Prachanda, who waged a decade-long armed struggle against monarchy, was on 15 August elected as Democratic Nepal’s first Prime Minister in a one-sided race in the Constituent Assembly.

Prachanda, during a meeting at his Baluwatar residence with a business delegation led by chairman of the Federation of Nepalese Chamber of Commerce and Industries Joshi, said the government will make efforts to reopen all those industries which were closed due to the threats issued by Maoist trade union workers or by other armed groups. The former guerrilla leader also promised to protect market economy and promote nationalist capitalists besides allowing the foreign investment and national labor market keeping in view the national interest.

The Prime Minister said the new government is committed to implement all past agreements reached with the business communities and will go hand in hand with the national industrialists and entrepreneurs. Thousands of passengers have been stranded and supplies of essential commodities have been halted in eastern Nepal due to the indefinite transport strike. He assured that he will also make efforts to reopen the highways in eastern Nepal which have remained closed for the past one week following killing of a truck driver by unidentified gunmen.

The monarchy has ended but the old mainstream parties are not ready for new economic and social reforms in the country. It was the first major decision by the assembly since lawmakers decided to abolish the 239-year-old monarchy and declare a republic, part of a peace process that ended a decade-long civil war with Maoist insurgents. Political wrangling has left Nepal without a government since it became a republic in late May following the abolition of the monarchy. Maoists had won 220 seats in the Constituent Assembly elections held on April 10 while the NC and the Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist Leninist followed with 110 and 103 seats, respectively. Since the abolition of the monarchy, the main political parties in Nepal had been, for a along time, unable to form a new government because of serious differences on issues like who should be the President and Prime Minister. The rebels were upset over the rejection by parliament of their choice for president – and announced they would refuse to lead the government.

The Maoists, who were eyeing both the posts of premier and president, had announced that they would not join the government if their candidate failed to get elected to the post of President. The Maoists said they did not want to lead a “shaky coalition”. They point out that Nepal has seen 16 governments in the past 18 years. Talks with other parties on the basis of Maoists program and policy proposals were under way and the party hoped to “reach a consensus soon”. The former rebels needed a minimum of two years in power to write a new constitution. Analysts say that the involvement of the former rebels within the government was crucial to the survival of the peace process which ended the country’s civil war.

After assuming power, Nepal’s first President Ram Baran Yadav, a doctor-turned-politician who had most of his education in India, has invited former rebel Maoists who won most seats but no majority in elections this spring to form the country’s new government. Yadav called on the party to forge a political consensus for the appointment of the prime minister and ministers. The Maoists did not immediately respond. They were angered after their presidential choice was rejected by other parties.

Ram Baran Yadav was fielded by the NC-UML-Forum coalition against the Maoists’ cadidate Ram Raja Prasad Singh for the president’s post. A run-off was necessitated as Yadav fell 15 short of the magic figure of 298 in the first round held. In the run-off polls, the veteran leader trounced Singh by 26 votes, securing the support of 308 lawmakers compared to 282 for the Maoist nominee who was the favorite earlier. President Yadav, a relatively unknown figure outside Nepal, was a last-minute choice of the major parties to oppose the Maoist candidate and veteran communist leader Singh, faces the tough task of overseeing the drafting of a new Constitution amid bitter political acrimony and fears of the country slipping back to insurgency with the Maoists being effectively sidelined. The new President replaced the deposed King Gyanendra as the Head of State, performing the ceremonial duties which were earlier the sole domain of the monarch.

Yadav hailing from the Indian-origin Madhesi community received his MBBS degree from Kolkata and MD from PGIMER, Chandigarh, spending about 11 years studying in India. After practicing medicine for eight years, Yadav joined Nepali Congress after the 1980 referendum held to choose between party-less Panchayat system and multiparty system. The 60-year-old has learnt the fine art of politics from Nepali Congress patriarch B P Koirala.Yadav, a three-time MP from Dhanusha, entered Parliament as an NC candidate for the first time in 1991. He was re-elected in 1999 and elected to the Constituent Assembly in the landmark polls on April 10 this year which saw the Maoists emerging as the single largest party.

A farmer’s son, who made a remarkable journey to occupy the highest post in the new-born republic that abolished the 240-year-old monarchy, Yadav said he wants to take the peace process to its logical end and maintain friendly ties with both China and India. Nepal has been at odds with neighboring Bhutan over the repatriation of thousands of refugees living in camps in Nepal. The refugees – Bhutanese of Nepalese descent – fled violence in their homeland in the early 1990s.

Until Nepal became a republic in May 2008, the country had been under the sway of a hereditary monarchy or ruling family for most of its known history, largely isolated from the rest of the world. A brief experiment with multi-party politics in 1959 ended with King Mahendra suspending parliament and taking sole charge. Democratic politics was introduced in 1991 after popular protests, but it was extremely factionalized with frequent changes of government. The last king of Nepal, Gyanendra, twice assumed executive powers – in 2002 and 2005. Meanwhile, Maoist rebels’ intent on setting up a communist republic waged a decade-long campaign against the constitutional monarchy. The rebellion left more than 12,000 people dead. The UN said 100,000 people were displaced. Its envoy said the use of torture by government forces and rebels was routine.

When King Gyanendra’s direct rule ended in April 2006 the rebels entered talks on how to end the civil war. A landmark peace deal was agreed in November and in early 2007 the Maoists joined an interim government. The Maoists withdrew from the government in September, demanding abolition of the monarchy. Parliament agreed to this condition in December, and the rebels rejoined the government. The Maoists emerged as the largest party in parliament following elections in April 2008, and the monarchy was abolished a month later.

The former monarch Gyanendra in his last appearance in palace spoke for 20 minutes. Gyanendra did not look like someone battered and bruised or a man many say was single-handedly responsible for the end of a centuries-old monarchy. A calm smile on his face, he gave the palms-together “namaste” (Hello) greeting he has always given as he fought his way to the front – bearing out the remarks of those who know him well, that he has not shown any worry in response to the political convulsions that have ousted the Crown. He felt able for the first time to confront the belief prevalent among Nepalis that he and his son plotted the palace killings of 2001 which saw 10 of the royals, including his brother King Birendra, killed in a shooting. He said he would not go abroad and had not wasted Nepal’s resources. He even said he accepted the advent of a republic – a process which was rushed through in a cursory fashion two weeks ago. But, as before, he insisted that his unpopular pursuit of absolute power, backed by the military, had not trampled on the people’s rights. Then he was gone – leaving the reporters free to pose for photos sitting in his chair. Less than three hours later he and former queen Komal were clearly seen leaving in a limousine, smiling, this time, broadly, heading for their more modest home in the forest nearby. One wonders whether if Gyanendra entered politics as a commoner he might be a charismatic crowd-puller able to match the Maoists’ magnetic leader Prachanda, in a country short of colorful politicians.

That problem, and the lack of reverence which the monarchy – or ex-monarchy – now commands, meant that there was anything but a hushed silence. Gyanendra’s words were barely audible to most. People may also miss the gossipy newspaper stories of palace intrigue which continued to leak out until the very last. In a remarkably short space of time, because of an unpopular king, Nepal has dismissed its monarchy, an institution which only eight years ago was still revered. No-one feels able to say it right now, if some of the color and pageantry of the royals will be missed in the years to come, now they are being consigned to a museum.

The euphoria surrounding the restoration of democracy two years ago; the successful elections this April; the historic end of the monarchy shortly afterwards – these have been milestones. The elevation of Nepal’s chief Maoist, the leader of the former rebels, Prachanda, to the prime ministership is something he could barely have dreamt of just three years ago. By the early 1980s, with political parties still banned, “The Fierce One” had abandoned his job as a teacher and was operating underground as an outlaw. The last two years have been full of historic symbolism as the old Hindu kingdom became a secular republic, to the delight of some and the dismay of others. Whether he retains his war name or reverts to being Pushpa Kamal Dahal, the new prime minister has a massive task ahead of him.

But state authority has crumbled so much that many Nepalis are in utter despair. A sense of anarchy prevails nationwide, so much so that mention of the phrase “the government” tends to elicit scornful sniggers. Crime and violence have spiraled. For example, eastern Nepal has been at a complete standstill for six days, called by transport workers in protest at the murder of a bus driver and a broad lack of security. The shortages of petrol, diesel, kerosene and gas are beyond measure because the authorities won’t balance the financial books. There is severe hunger in the hills. There are power cuts at the height of the rainy season. The police appear unable to do anything other than arrest demonstrating Tibetans. The politicians including the Maoists have largely ignored all this, squabbling about ministry allocation for weeks on end and scarcely acknowledging ordinary people’ problems. Luckily most Nepalis are adept at getting on with their lives despite their rulers.

Most of the Nepalese population depends on agriculture, and around 40% of Nepalis are estimated to live in poverty. Foreign aid is vital to the economy and Nepal is also dependent on trade with neighboring India, the fact India always exploited by selling weapons to them. With the world’s highest mountain, Everest, and spectacular scenery and wildlife, the country has great potential as a tourist destination. It also boasts a distinctive Hindu and Buddhist culture. But its environmental challenges include deforestation, encroachment on animal habitats and vehicle pollution in the capital, Kathmandu.

As prime minister, Prachanda will also have to draw together a country which for the past year-and-a-half has been displaying new and worrying fissures along ethnic and regional lines. As a man who comes from the hills, he is only too aware of the widening rift in the south between people of hill origin and the Madhesis -southerners ethnically close to neighboring Indians who have been campaigning against their marginalization since late 2006. Although the new president and his deputy are both Madhesis, the community’s sense of grievance persists. Violence in the south-east bubbles away, with shadowy rebel or criminal groups proliferating and people dying each week.

On a different matter, having a Maoist prime minister may help resolve the future of the 19,000 Maoist former combatants still in camps as part of the UN-assisted peace process. With a new prime minister and president at last in place, one more task can also get properly under way – the writing of a new constitution by the huge assembly elected in April. Hitherto its members have complained that the body is being marginalized by the usual coterie of establishment politicians. There has been enough talking.

India supported militant Hindu group are waging an “anti-Muslim campaign”. In an ethnically complex society, many more regional groups are emerging and clamoring, mostly peacefully, for inclusion. Having promised, extravagantly, to make Nepal into the “Switzerland of Asia”, they have encouraged high expectations. Nepalese traditionalists worry that the former rebels retain a totalitarian bent. This is a party which still sports Stalin as an icon and praises him – alongside Mao, of course. Yet now could also be the time when the Maoists are given a chance to prove themselves: to show they are serious about the social transformations in whose name they went to war. They have a very strong presence in the villages and also promise a more equitable system of land ownership. They have to deal with rivalries. There are still further challenges visible ahead, however. The work must now begin.

A clear-cut regime change has taken place in this Himalayan nation. The political forces thus far branded as the “underground terrorists” have assumed power in Nepal and these democratically elected “law-breakers” will make laws in Kathmandu for the welfare of Nepalese people.

Emerging political situation would help Nepal become strong economically, politically and security-wise and advance its legitimate national interest. With a better vision of itself as a republic, Nepal is now expected to strengthen its economy and security also by strengthening the regional bodies like SAARC. As an independent republic, Nepal should raise its voice against arms race, nuclearization of international affairs, and weaponization of space. These anti-human processes could indirectly hinder at the development programs of Nepal as well.

*Edited at ABC

BY Rakesh Tiwary

Nepal and India, two countries of South Asia, share one of the largest geohydrological regions called Ganga Brahmaputra Basin. Nepal covers a large part of the upper catchment of sub basin of Ganges River. Major rivers of the sub-basin like Mahakali, Karnali, Sapt Gandaki and Sapt Kosi originate from Trans-Himalaya region, cross Nepal and flow southwards to join Ganges in India, and so are international or trans-boundary in nature. Though Nepal occupies 13 percent of the total drainage of the Ganges basin, its contribution to the flow of Ganges river is much more significant, amounting to about 45 percent to its average annual flow. In the dry seasons, Nepal’s contribution to the total run-off is as much as 70 percent. These hydrological features bind India and Nepal in a relationship of geographical interdependence and economic complementarities on of water resource development.

Although the potential for joint endeavors is considerable, the cooperation between these two countries on the issues related to water resource development has not been easy and forthcoming. Their efforts have been heavily influenced by geopolitics; marked by emphasis on historical wrongs (real and perceived), big-small country syndrome, failure in understanding each other’s sensitivities, aggressive posture and negative approach. Major part of second half of last century was lost in the process, incurring huge opportunity cost of delay for both countries.

However, a new chapter in the Indo-Nepal relations was opened when the Mahakali Treaty was signed by the then Prime Minister of India Mr. P.V. Narsimha Rao, and the then Prime Minister of Nepal, Mr. Sher Bahadur Deuba, in February 1996 for joint utilization of trans-boundary water resources of the Mahakali River. The signing of Treaty was preceded not merely by intense negotiations between the two governments, the track II meetings, but also by extensive informal consultations covering all parties in Nepal, so as to facilitate the process of parliamentary ratification in Nepal.

. . .

Baggage of Past

Despite huge potentialities and commonalities of objectives, water resource development has faced many setbacks due to political and economic factors that acted against the interests of the two countries. Nepal’s complaint about getting unfair deal or being cheated in earlier treaties like, The Kosi Treaty (1954) and the Gandak Treaty (1959), cast its shadow over future collaborations. Nepal water resource experts complained about unilateral initiatives of India, nominal and delayed compensations, disregard for Nepal’s interest and unequal benefits. These projects created ill feeling and mistrust between two nations leading to a big gap in joint water resource development initiatives.

The efforts between the two countries have suffered due to twin factors. Firstly, policy makers of India for long failed to understand apprehensions of the smaller neighbor. Nepal, a small kingdom, sandwiched between two giant nations has its own world view. India took Nepal for granted on many occasions. Secondly, Nepal overemphasized sovereignty issues and nursed the grudge and mistrust for long. The history of negotiations regarding water projects on Indo Nepal transboundary waters got dominated by controversies primarily due to perceptional difference and the blame game instead of technical difficulties.

The Nepalese believe that India is draining Nepal’s watershed for its own benefit. Nepalese also blame that Indian water resource bureaucracy has shown business as usual approach combined with arrogance of power and a secretive attitude. The influence of geopolitics in Indo Nepal water resource development has been disproportionate and troublesome. Nepalese have long viewed India as a hegemonic power that arm-twists neighbours for unfair agreements. While Nepal showed disenchantment over joint water resource projects, irritant also arose in bilateral relation due to Nepal’s balancing act with China and turbulence in domestic politics of the kingdom.

India, in turn, blames Nepal as suffering from small country syndrome, imagining non-existent conspiracies and ignoring India’s contribution in different sector of economy of Nepal. Further, fragile and unstable political uncertainties in Nepal also played a role in fueling anti-Indian sentiments.

Decades have been lost due to prolonged discussions and Nepal’s cautious and deliberate low profile approach. Both the parties are aware of past misgivings, however the negotiations over Mahakali will require out of box thinking to avoid burden of history.

Media: Critical yet neglected actor

In transboundary water resources development, planning, geography, politics and technology play major role. However, due to the nature of the resource, asymmetry in size and power, post-colonial era international relations- public opinion has become an important factor. Public perception, information, communication and dissemination thus formed, has become important in the development process. But these rarely figure during project planning stages. Only when a debate and the resulting conflict reach a dead end, the need for information and communication is felt. In many ways disregard of media has impeded development of water resource for cooperative bilateral and regional development. Media coverage on water resources in Nepal is generally replete with sentimentality and concerns. Many times such sentiments are genuine, but the often are alarmist.

The reporting on Pancheswar in some of the newspapers, which are backed by opposition political parties, had little to do with water resources. Instead, they read like campaigns aimed at creating a climate for political vendetta. The slogans “what oil is to Middle East, water is for Nepal” or “water is Nepal’s strategic resource” have done more harm than good. It has made transboundary water resource an issue of domestic politics. The intense politicisation of the Pancheswar, reflexing to what the opposition in Nepal refers to as “sell-out” has masked the basic issues in water resource development. Unfortunately, the opponents of the project in Nepal are being glorified as nationalists by a section of reporters. This definitely affects moral and commitment of negotiators from our smaller neighbor as they have to interact with extreme cautiousness and apprehension. Even after striking best possible trade off, they may be labelled as negotiators who sold out national interest.

Information management has emerged as one of the pre-requisite in transboundary water resource development and management in the Ganga-Brahmaputra basin, for more objective information dissemination. The impact of information on issues, which have cross border implications, till now, has been poorly understood and incorporated. The setting up of national and regional water resources centers, even one at the international level could help build trust specially in sharing scientific information between experts and the media. Such an institution should encourage participation of professionals from the private and NGO sector in a more productive manner. Further breakthrough may be possible through increased interaction among the media representatives across the border. Journalists from Nepal should be encouraged to write and present their views in Indian papers and vice-versa.

Moving Ahead

. . .

Nepal wants equal sense of participation, both in words and action, in planning and implementation of water resource projects. Such projects are based on mutual interests and reciprocities, and thus they are not client-patron situations. When two sovereign entities with highly asymmetrical size and capacities are negotiating on joint projects, attitudes and sensitivities play critical role. Indian side particularly diplomats must take care while interacting/negotiating with Nepalese counterparts. Realization of water resource projects requires diplomacy, bargaining skill and an astute vision for spin-offs.

. . .

http://southasianmedia.net/Magazine/Journal/11_indo-nepal_water.htm

SILIGURI, May 22: A number of eminent intellectuals from Siliguri have demanded the abrogation of the 1950 Indo-Nepal Friendship Treaty as a means of restricting border movement from neighbouring Nepal into Darjeeling and Siliguri. “Passport-visa system should be introduced and the citizenship rights should be bestowed upon the genuine Indian Nepalis who had come into India prior to the signing of the treaty in 1950,” they demanded. They also expressed apprehension that if the movement along the border was not regularised through passport-visa system, the settlers might outnumber the original inhabitants posing a serious law and order threat in near future for the hills and the plains in Darjeeling district.

Mr Ashru Kumar Sikdar, an academician and writer, said today that it was queer that the border between two countries remained open for years. “It is being used by people from the neighbouring country to settle in several areas of Darjeeling district, particularly Siliguri,” he observed.

“The only way to control this problem is to abrogate the Indo-Nepal Friendship Treaty immediately. The Maoist leader has already demanded of revising the treaty in the changed political context. We cannot understand why the Government of India is not yet serious about the issue,” Mr Sikdar wondered. 

Incidentally, the external affairs minister Mr Pranab Mukherjee, who was in Kalimpong to inaugurate a water project recently, had said in response to Prachanda’s demand that India was open to talks with Nepal.

Another academician from Siliguri Mr Haren Ghosh today said that if the Centre was not serious about restraining trans-border movement, law and order problem in the Darjeeling hills as well as in Siliguri would get aggravated. “The genuine Indian Nepalis and the settlers after 1950 should be differentiated and passport-visa system should be introduced along the Nepal border to check the trans-border movement continuing unabated for years,” Mr Ghosh stated.

Mr Asoke Hore, the secretary of the newly formed apolitical platform, Jana Jagaran Mancha, said that Siliguri was fast becoming a den for the ‘Bhupalis,’ (Bhutanis of Nepal origin) who had been deported from Bhutan.

“There is evidence that a section of the ‘Bhupalis’ is involved in subversive activities recently unearthed in Siliguri. We are apprehensive that if the Indo-Nepal Treaty is not abrogated and human movement across the border is not subjected to a passport-visa system a much graver law and order problem may engulf the region,” Mr Hore warned.

SOURCE: http://www.darjeelingtimes.com/news/News/Siliguri-intellectuals-for-demand-abrogation-of-Indo-Nepal-treat.html

Prabhakaran(L) — Prachanda(R)

By Chitrangi, Sri-Lanaka

The following is a post from Chitrangi’s Weblog who’s a blogger from Sri-Lanka.

The future of the Maoist leader and the future of Nepal has solved in a peaceful manner. We all must congratulate this rebel leader and former teacher. Prachanda remembers the LTTE leadership. Both have vast difference and can’t compare them. But we have to learn from Nepalese. If we will not learn, the lives of the innocent civilians not Prabakaran not Mahinda (our president) in danger and facing unbearable difficulties for years. Every one knew in history any party to the war not won but achieved destruction.

The BBC has reported it is only two years since Prachanda emerged from more than two decades underground as a militant communist leader

I am very happy and very emotional,” he said as he left the constituent assembly after the vote, reported AFP news agency.

What the Maoists called their “people’s war” had left 13,000 people dead, tens of thousands displaced and much of the country’s infrastructure destroyed.

The BBC’s Charles Haviland in Kathmandu says that now the former guerrilla will be the most powerful politician in the Himalayan country, after 464 lawmakers gave him their vote and only 113 rejected him.

The Maoists’ deputy leader, Baburam Bhattarai, said: “Today is a day of pride and it will be written with golden letters in the history of the nation.” He predicted earlier that Prachanda would be a leader “for a new era”, comparable to Lenin or Napoleon.

Friday’s ballot ends months of political deadlock that had followed the sacking of the unpopular King Gyanendra and the abolition of the 240-year-old monarchy. Our correspondent says that Prachanda’s elevation had long seemed inevitable after his party scored its convincing win in April.

The Maoists’ Congress Party rivals accused them before the vote of plotting to set up a totalitarian communist regime, a suggestion they strongly denied.

A former agricultural science teacher-turned-revolutionary, Prachanda was originally named Pushpa Kamal Dahal, but he still uses his guerrilla nom de guerre.

Members of Nepal’s parliament have overwhelmingly elected the Maoist leader Prachanda as the country’s new prime minister. The 53-year-old won 80% of votes to defeat his only rival, the Congress Party candidate, Sher Bahadur Deuba. Maoists won a surprise victory in April elections, and two other key parties supported Prachanda in the vote.

We as Sri Lankans must congratulate Prachanda and learn from Nepalee people and put them into practice.

Greater Nepal: Land Lost to British India in the Sugauli Treaty of 1816

By Dr. Abdul Ruff

Already badly shaken by crucial Kashmir holocaust and Pakistan destabilization issues, all of its own making, India has got another issue to be settled quickly in its northern neighbourhood, Nepal. With the rise of nationalist sentiments and emotional outbursts in Nepal about Indian pressure-cum-sideline tactics, Nepalese are putting up a joint front to redeem the lands last long ago and now under Indian custody.

Already badly shaken by strong resolve by Kashmir both freedom groups and the pro-India outfits to regain their sovereignty lost to Indian in 1947 owing to dirty tricks played by their Hindu rulers who made secret dealings with India to let Indian forces occupy Jammu Kashmir and Sri Lankan firm dealing with Indian settlers there fighting for a separate nations, now the demand of Nepalese could cause further embarrassments in New Delhi and strategists would lose sleep for yet another reason. But India has to resolve all disputes one by one and become real secular democracy. The decades long attitude “you fellows make any kind of noise, but we will maintain a criminal since to make the demands cool down and evaporate in due course with historical Indian tactics and modern machinations.

In stead of considering the Nepalese claim as another serious threat to Indian hegemonic ambitions in the reigon, India should strivie for reliable resolution of all its problems with neigbors including Kashmir thereby making the region secure and stable.. And the notorious terrorism plank would not help India but even ruin it in the long run. Hopefully India will revise its policies abroad including Pakistan, Kashmir and Nepal by initially softening its petrified mindset skillfully hoisted in the region and settle the disputes amicably. Indian strategists might not need any reminder of the celebrated phrase: where there is a will, there is a way too”.