King Gyanendra, India and the United States of America found themselves in awkward situation with the result of the Constituent Assembly polls in Nepal- the Himalayan nation sandwiched between China and India. The Communist Party of Nepal- Maoist’s unanticipated landslide victory in the CA polls conducted on April 10 rang bell not only in South Asia but also in Europe and America. Everybody was taken by surprise.

The king and the royalists met a hard blow at the hands of the ultra-secular Maoists who were the first to raise the demand of the ‘Republic Nepal’. If other parties, particularly Nepali Congress, had won, there could be chances of negotiation but the Maoists have already demanded the king to vacate the royal palace and it is one of the many factors for which the people chose them. Out of total 601 seats they bagged 120 seats in the first-past-the-post and 100  in proportional representative system and emerged as the biggest party of the country.

The king is revered as the incarnation of the Hindu God. The hard core Hindu nationalist party in India, Bharatiya Jana Dal, Hindu fundamentalist organizations like Shiv Sena and others in Nepal, India and even in the Diasporas overseas had favoured the king by refusing the poll results and the prospect of the republic Nepal. The recent reaction came from the president of World Hindu Federation, Bharat Keshar Singh, who in a press conference in Kathmandu last week demanded the newly elected Constituent Assembly to declare Nepal a Hindu state, use word ‘Hindu’ in the constitution and to conduct a fresh plebiscite to decide the fate of the monarchy. All this is a threat prevalent in Nepal.

This unprecedented victory of any Maoists party in world history so far sent cold shivers down the spine of the capitalist power houses and Nepal’s closest neighbour India. It practically caused lot many tensions for the latter which itself is struggling with Maoists insurgency in more than a dozen of states and which was termed as the ‘biggest threat to the internal security of India’ by the prime minister Man Mohan Singh.

India fears the victory of the Maoists across the border could stir up the Maoists Movement in India which is suffered by Maoists violence in 14 states and around 150 districts. The revolutionaries in India won’t be able to garner the votes, if they chose the ballot for gun, as the Maoists in Nepal did neither they have any hope for that. In this situation, the only way for them is the surge of insurgency. It is important to recall that other than the parliamentarian communist parties; all the revolutionaries criticized the CPN-M’s move to the parliament. While the politburo of Communist Party of India (Marxists), Sitaram Yechuri, was welcoming the poll results, they were, surprisingly, almost silent.

The third factor which gives base to the fear of India is the good and deep-rooted relations of CPN-M with the Maoists in India. However, the CPN-M supremo Prachanda denied any incentives to the Indian Maoists, India fears the state sponsored help by the Maoists government to the Indian insurgents for Prachanda himself had headed the organization of the South Asian Maoists in the past.

China, another neighbour of Nepal, always favoured Nepal against India. Some months back, a senior diplomat and Nepal policy specialist in Beijing, Prof. Wang Khongwe, said China would help Nepal to counter every Indian action whether that is military or otherwise. He had clearly underscored the importance of Nepal to China. Although it supported all the governments in Nepal, its relations with the Maoists has been improved and grown stronger ever since.

India wants to continue its Big Brother’s role for Nepal. Having India surrounding it from three sides and because of the great mountains and Himalayas in the northern border with China, Nepal has almost no choice except pleasing India and succumbing to its hegemonic policies, but Maoists are interested to ‘make better’ the relation with China which does have interest in helping leftist government anywhere on the globe. Secondly, China is interested in opening new borders with Nepal, developing the Tibetan railways up to the border with Nepal and increasing the bilateral business with it. If so happened, the afore mentioned role of India could be shattered. It could be disastrous to India as its role and impact would be at the brink of status quo.

For the US, too, it’s equally imperative not to let china to be a major player in this Himalayan nation. As the red curtain fell over Nepal with the election, it was the US, perhaps, which was in greater dilemma. When the peace agreement between the Seven Party Alliance and the Maoists was in progress, Washington kept on pressuring the SPA to not to make any pact with the terrorists. It criticized the peace deal and Maoist’s entry into the government. The US ambassador to Nepal then, James F. Moriarty, exhausted himself while trying to persuade the SPA leaders to break the deal with Maoists. He was so vocal at that time that the people burnt his effigies and SPA leaders had to warn him not to interfere in the country’s internal matter.

And now, when the Maoists had won the election and are sure to form government, they are still in the US terror list. While India, China and all other countries welcomed the polls results and expressed their solidarity with the Nepalese people as earlier as possible, the USA gave its reaction in the second week after the polls.

Last week, the Speaker of National Assembly, Subhash Nemwang asked the US ambassador to Nepal Nancy J. Powell when the latter went to meet the speaker and express the ‘official’ view of America on the election why the Maoists were still in the list of terrorists even after the clear verdict of the people to run the country.

To our great surprise, she had no answer to this. She replied she would discuss the matter in Washington for which she is to leave soon.

                                                     - Modnath Dhakal,     Lahore, Pakistan

Prime Minister Girija Prashad Koirala was doing OK. People forgot his past errors (corruptions) and even commended his ability to hold the interim government, the Seven Party Alliance, intact.

Until he wanted to play DHRITARASTRA!

Having reached quite near towards the brim of the life, he got blinded by the love for his baby girl and announced Sujata Koirala as “Minister without Portfolio”. He must have had constant prophetic nightmares of Koirala legacy’s “whitewash” since then.

Anyways,

Sushil Koirala - out!!!
Defeated by Sarbadev Prasad Ojha of Madhesi People’s Rights Forum in Banke - 3

Sujata Koirala - out!!
Defeated by Upendra Yadav of Madhesi People’s Rights Forum in Sunsari - 5

Shekhar Koirala - out!
Defeated by Bijaya Kumar Gachchhadar of Madhesi People’s Rights Forum in Morang -7

I really don’t have any idea if they are related to the Koirala dynasty, but still,
Ashok Koirala - out
Defeated by Gopi Bahadur Sarki of Communist Party of Nepal - Maoists in Morang - 8

And one left, Sasanka Koirala in Nawalparashi -1.

Sushil Koirala has already announced his resignation from the Vice - Presidency of the Nepali Congress. Good. Better would be, if Sujata Koirala announces resignation from her post “Minister without Portfolio” with whatever dignity she has left.

Nepali Congress will surely nominate the five times prime minister, Girija Prasad Koirala from the PR system; I hope they include Gagan Thapa as well. Their inclusion in the assembly to draft the new constitution is essential (even though GP Koirala has announced to retire after the CA elections and hand over Nepali Congress leadership to a younger generation.)

As for the rest of the Koirala-s, CIAO, BYE BYE, GO AWAY, BUUUU HUUUU, GET LOST.

Our nation will be better off without them.

If Gyanendra is no more the King and every party is 100% behind the republic setup, who is stopping us from asking the royal family to move out of the palace? Why is this drama? Is the Nepal Army against this? Is India interfering? We do not need to follow any law and norm to depose a dictator? Dictators are thrown by people’s will. Whole country is against the monarchy. Enough is enough. It is time convert Narayanhiti palace to a national museum.

Here is my take on his recent failure. First of all, CA election would not make any sense without Maoist’s involvement. Second, the Maoists knew CA election was not their cup of tea any more. They knew they would be defeated like the way Panchas were defeated in the first multi-party election. However, the Maoists had still the card to play because the election had no meaning without their participation and their participation had no meaning for themselves. They outsmarted Girija and forced him postpone the election indefinitely. Girija should have played little different game. He was playing the game of a coward and an opportunist.  He should have assured Prachanda that strong Maoist party was need of the time for Nepal. When the opponent is weakened and the opponent knows about it, ruling party is better off by creating situation that the opponent feels stronger and is assured of no behind the scene plot, particularly, when the opponent is irresponsible and crazy like the Maoists. Girija did opposite. He started ignoring Prachanda and the Maoists. He thought he defeated them and he could do anything. He forgot the rule of the political game that weakened opposition is much more dangerous than the stronger opposition. Democracy works when opposition is strong, not when they are weakened and they have no way out and they are treated like losers. Girija created the situation that Prachanda and his leaders felt humiliated and neglected. There was news in the media that Girija would invite the Maoists leader to the meeting at his residence and would make them wait for hours and sometime would not even see them citing his health problems. In other words, he treated the opposition just like the way he would treat his KISS A** party workers like Ram Sharan Mahat, Deuba, Khum Bahadur, Govind Raj and Arjun KC. Again, Girija did not know the 101 of democracy that opposition MUST be treated with respect and there should be no sign of them being ignored and being trapped. The Maoists were feeling trapped.

With his dumbness, Girija lost an opportunity to become a national icon and got yet another slap on his face. This guy could never learn the game of politics and always tried to extend his autocratic rule - which he imposes inside his party - beyond his party arena. This autocrat will do nothing unless something unthinkable happens between now and his death which seems to be coming closer.

            This is not the first effort at arbitration by Uncle Sam. The long arms of this diplomatic nation have, many a time and oft, touched countries, only with failure amongst it’s clients, to sing it’s praise. The blame ultimately might be placed on ideals of Manifest Destiny or the Monroe doctrine, but in this diplomatic nation pieces of paper are mere guidelines that have been filed and frayed as profit demands. America has always claimed to be a missionary of diplomacy and anti-colonialism, but what happened in the Philippines? in Cuba? in Mexico? in Hawaii? or in Afghanistan? Have we not attacked the bays of Cuba; have we not helped Carranza, a terrorist in Mexico; have we not aided the revolution in Panama; and for what did we do these things?  A canal, some land, dominance. So, is the U.S. still, according to Wilson, a peace loving, a caring, and a diplomatic nation? Is the U.S. still anti-Colonial or at all sympathetic? The answer, is no. To further deepen the cut; what has the U.S. paid for these lands and this dominance? How many stains are attached to the face of this nation? How many lives have been lost? How many legs broken, how many eyes gorged? Although the U.S. did not always mean harm, the neo-capitalistic views only usher failure.

            The events mentioned above, although tragic, are hard core facts, and lessons that one must take away form previous entanglements. Although the people of the U.S. may embrace the concept, some are just plainly inept. Although it is not totally fair to point all fingers at the Texican man, one is automatically disposed to do so. Additionally, in all the wars above a few elements are constant. Firstly the destruction of arbitration leading to instability, and secondly, an eventual war. This raises yet another interesting question. Who is the culprit in this case? The people who initiate it or the people who fuel to the war crimes? To try and speculate an answer to the question posed, one needs to examine warfare in its entirety.

            Since historical times wars have been waged for an assortment of reasons; anything from land disputes to racism. These wars were also neither regulated nor controlled, meaning that “anything was fair in love and war.” However, warfare today has become extremely complex and controlled by conventions and boards. One of these regulative documents includes the Geneva Conventions and its protocols, which have been modified and increased in numbers, over the years (Gasser). The second document regulating, not only warfare but also rights is the UN declaration of Human Rights. This declares many rights of man and woman as self evident under any circumstances. Some include: the right of life and free-will. Although universal this law has been set to be universal, violations are not unheard of.

            One can’t find a better example than that of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq. However, when the U.S. went in to intervene, the world just scoffed. Why? Because the U.S. itself had gone against many of these rights by holding prisoners at Guantanamo, or by even bombing Nagasaki. Looking at that comparison, does the U.S. have the right to go into Brazil and order them to stop cutting the Amazon, when the yanks themselves mercilessly hacked every tree in America? Can the U.S. go into India and call for a halt in pollution when the U.S. itself uses the most electricity and is one of the top polluters? One can easily argue that the U.S. was right in going into Iraq to topple Saddam’s regime but by saying so one must also agree that this kind of war requires a preventative, rather than provocative approach. Meaning, that the war has to fulfill three requirements; Firstly it has to be defenseless. Secondly, it has to be important enough to be worth the trouble. Thirdly, there has to be a way to portray that the ultimate evil is a threat to all humanity (and oil is not a humanity) (Chomsky). The war that we are fighting now however, doesn’t sound like any of those.

            According to the Bush Administration, Saddam Hussein was guilty of war crimes against humanity and a protest mission was launched to de-throne the dictator. With added publication of “Weapons of Mass Destruction [WMD]” this war was a moral crusade. What Washington failed to tell us was the multiple violations of the U.S’s very own constitution. The Writ of Habeus Corpus is a clause in the 8^th article of prized document that gives all men right for an appeal for any sentence. This law has been extradited at times of war but under normal conditions this has to be obeyed. The prison cells of Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, that holds many prisoners of war that begs to differ otherwise as none of them are allowed trials or even a glance at the evidence against them. Here the flag truly beats the constitution. This too can be counted as a crime against humanity. However, one may say that the crimes in Iraq were of a full scale dictatorship and a horrendous nature. This explains the topple of Saddam Hussein but comes quite short of explaining the war against the Iraqi people. America went to war with Saddam, not the people. Nevertheless, the war continues brewing a storm both at home and abroad.

            The indications of this storm came with the first notion that U.S. was prepared to wage total war in Iraq. Hundreds of protestors took to the streets of both Washington and other neighborhoods, to question the solitary decision. People of all color, races and ages took part–all united under the “No War With Iraq Banner”(Campbell 1). In a furious ultimatum to the UN security Council and Saddam Hussein, U.S. president spoke these very fine words:

Our invasion is legitimate, Bush declared, because “the  United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring it’s own national security,” threatened by Iraqi with or without Saddam. The UN is irrelevant because “it has not lived up to its responsibilities”- that is to follow Washington’s orders. The US will “enforce the just demands of the world” even if the world overwhelmingly objects (Chomsky 33).

The world did overwhelmingly object this move. Never before had the church so quickly, united under pope John Paul II to deem the war, “unjust.”  Never before had there been a petition signed by regular townsfolk to the Security council in an effort to barricade the U.S. The critics and Washington however branded the 75% of U.S. citizens ,”not enough to matter” (Campbell 2). Instead of considering the choice of long term peace, the U.S. tried to hammer out a dictated peace, like that of World War I. The reminiscence of a global past attempt at a dictated peace still haunt the World War II veterans today. Form the rise and fall of Hitler to the denial of the League of Nations, it is like as if one was looking into a mirror of the past but seeing a picture of today, yet, not understanding the picture. This mirror also reflects Operation Desert Storm in Afghanistan and the Vietnam war and all the previous Imperialistic propagandas.

            Despite a broad history of failures the U.S, as always, happened to muster up another mistake, one that never failed tension in the international arena. The United states took a gigantic leap towards claiming dominance and power over the world when it refused to follow a United Nations mandate for further investigations on a cooling trail of WMDs. An outraged bush however took the road along, to be later joined by Australia and Great Britain. Ignoring the UN meant ignoring the estimated guess of ½ a million casualties, it meant ignoring 146 countries and most importantly, it meant losing all respect form the world gained after the 9/11 attacks. It doesn’t come as a surprise that the whole worlds scoffs at the U.S, failing to understand it’s foreign diplomacy. Despite all these experiences however, according to Noam Chomsky, Washington has failed to learn a lesson:

Bush administration declared itself to be a “revisionist state” that intends to rule the world permanently, becoming, some felt, “a menace to itself and mankind” under the leadership of “radical nationalists” aiming for “unilateral world domination through absolute military superiority” (Chomsky 37).

Mr. Chomsky further quotes president Bush after the 9/11 attacks:

“Why do they hate us?” The question was wrongly put, and the right question was scarcely addressed. But within a year the administration succeeded in providing an answer: “Because of you and your associates, Mr. Bush, and what you have done. And if you continue, the fear and hatred you have inspired may extend to the country has shamed as well.” For O Sama bin Laden it is a victory beyond his wildest dreams (Chomsky 42).

On that evidence, another question clearly surfaces. What did we do? The answer lies within the war itself. One can not just glance at the present war on terrorism but also look upon past experiences in Iraq and conjure up the constituents of the war itself. Only then can one decide on a solution.

            Past attempts in Iraq include that under President Bush I. Although fiercer in his Desert storm expedition former pres. Bush was not keen at attacking Iraq’s populous and even advocated against this very move in his novel. This a path that Clinton too sought to follow and therefore asked for UN sanctions. President Bush II embraced this same idea only, he took it too far. It’s result, the war we see today (Virginia-pilot). However, the cacophony in the middle east shows yet another weakness of the United States, one more destructible than the WMD. The assumption of WMD, and for that matter assumptions as a whole.

            As we have already established, the justifications and reasons for the crusade into Iraq can be categorized into the broad spectrum of morality. Even, as the first inspectors landed in Iraq investigations had already started through the “grapevine” of the international community. The alleged WMD were supposedly hidden and manufactured by Iraq with aims to obliterate all of the American race. It was amazing though, how the secretary of state changed the operative words in his speeches from “has  nuclear weapons,” to “could have nuclear weapons” and finally substituting “weapons” for “a weapons program” (Landsberg 3). Secretary Rumsfeld also made a startling breakthrough when he finally pinpointed the location of Al Qaeda to “[we know where they are] they are in the area around Trikit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat” (Landsberg 4). In these very speeches however, Washington failed to tell us the sources for this information, notably the sources were Iraqi defectors themselves. The proof too was extremely vague. This invasion was essentially based upon a suspicious truck, an aluminum shell and forged papers proving a fictions purchase of Uranium. With these few “clues” U.S. added three one’s to get five. The pressure for the invasion however, wasn’t just the so called proof. It came from within and without. According to Los Angeles Times the cabinet of the former president Bush, had a hand in squishing the “Iraq” bug they let live a long time ago.

            As days went by and Iraq did not cooperate with the United sates it looked up towards the United Nations, a strategic move to try and test Washington’s control on the Security Council. It asked for a resolution to discipline the stubborn Iraq. The U.S. however did not hold back in letting the UN know that resolution or not the United States was ready to act. After few discussions the UN passed resolution 1441 to tell Iraq to co-operate in further searches. Despite the fact that all the targets under suspicion tested negative for WMD and the likelihood of finding any got smaller by the minute, US was not going to back down from a full scale attack. President Bush delivered a final “Ultimatum” to Iraq and told them to disarm. There was only one problem with that request, Iraq had nothing to disarm and therefore plainly refused. Upon the extremely conservative guess of 100-200 tons of weapons “The clock [against Iraq] was ticking” (Virginia-Plot).

            When it came time to fight, president Bush, according to Chomsky and the Virginia Plot, promised a preventative war at West point. This promise was hardly kept  when it came wartime, as a great amount of troops had already been deployed along the sidelines of Iraq and the numbers were quickly reinforced. The trigger came with the French and Russian security council veto for any UN warfare in Iraq. Mr. Bush started digging a huge hole with his army as a shovel and yet no planning permission form the international community. And their proof, a a faulty report and of course Al Quaeda.

The US believed that Al Qaeda was involved in Iraq because Zarkawi was present in Iraq and was under surveillance. The true fact of the matter is  that Zarkawi was in Baghdad for medications and Al Qaeda only entered Iraq to oppose the American intervention (Landsberg).

            The facts above are startling yet clearly show the path that should have been taken for justice in Iraq. Instead of hasty judgment the United Sates should have followed some key procedures in dealing with Iraq. First and foremost, the U.S. should have automatically, called upon the UN to resolve and investigate, by helping in funds and troops but only through the Security Council and the IAEA. A mandate should have been called for in the crimes against humanity. The new government in Iraq can not be one appointed by the US , Iraq has to be resolved from within whether that meant a split into smaller nations or not, only time could tell. Nevertheless, the international community should fully respect each individual state and respect any decisions in Iraq. This kind of thought out action may not have been successful overnight, as it takes time for a country to develop. It took the U.K. almost 700 years and it took the U.S. almost 200 hundred years to establish a democracy. These kind of margins need to be set for Iraq’ that’s if Iraq wants a democracy.

            During the painstaking process of discussions amongst the Bush cabinet, it is highly unlikely that president Bush and his administration ever glanced at the genuine Iraqi will. It can be said that that information was not available at that time but it is very well known that the middle east and the U.S. are like oil and water; they can’t mix. Despite much fighting and sectarian violence, one decision, amongst the Iraqi’s, is backed by consensus and that is the removal of the United States from their land. This is parallel to the demands of Bin Laden himself and this very reason is swelling sectarian violence and a partial co-operation in Iraq and neighboring nations. According to Judith S. Yaphe of the Defense Department, there is a fear of U.S. leaving puppets to later control the region. This fear is most probably derived from historical references form places like Guantanamo Bay. Another major factor in the lack  of co-operation is that of the Iraqis themselves. Amongst the Iraqis there lie many different cultures and casts, and although minute, the differences create a huge rift in the process of one Interim government. Therefore, the solution can not be to go in and establish a mix and match government but rather to sit around the table and work out differences. Arguably, one may say that sitting down all the leaders to a peace conference is a preposterous idea but at least the U.S. can better use it’s recourses at working up a treaty rather than hammering out a dictated peace or just killing random people.

            Amongst many Mrs. Yaphe, of the DOD, has identified three dramas surrounding the case in Iraq. Firstly we have the drama of Civil War. As we push in harder and deeper into Iraq we disturb a precarious balance between civil war and reform. The fact of the matter remains however, that we, the U.S. is the one initiating a cycle of warfare. The very presence of America is the reason for bombs and  violence. Secondly, we have the Transitional Governance. This too needs a freedom for the U.S. government and needs to be treated as partner not a client. We can not undermine the Iraqi government by calling them lousy after not letting them do their job. Thirdly, we face the issue of poor planning. The U.S. is pushing democracy through a minority. It has also been said that the expedition into Iraq had a very vague plan; including downsizing, depoliticizing and hidden agendas for wealth (Yaphe). Instead of this opaque view of the mission in Iraq, the U.S. should make all deals transparent and help bring all the choices to the surface.

            Iraq itself, due to it’s divisions seems to have three choices: (1) Clerical rule- like Iran. (2) Hezbollah rule, or (3) combined politics, therefore resulting in an inevitable spilt (DOD). Although one may understand these choices, putting them into action is easier said than done. With the pre-war friction and the presence of the Americans, a peace deal is virtually impossible and can only be managed by a pressure free meting of leaders in Iraq. This is only possible under three circumstances: (1) Removal of U.S. troops. (2) Handover to UN. (3) removal of all pressures for neighbors and the international community. This pressure is also a byproduct of past wars like the Gulf war, making the Middle East polarized and henceforth disturbing an alignment of power. However, the question still remains; What must we do?

            After a thorough review of the evidence a strategic forum within the DOD has conjured a plan to improve the affairs in Iraq. This plan is subdivided into eight simple steps. (1) Strengthen the leaders role in the govt. (2.) Treat Iraq as a partner not client (3.) Give Iraq decision making authority (4.) Gradual hand over to the UN (5.) Promote leaders conference (6.) Avoid extreme military campaigns (7.) Get out to stop making them fail. (8.) Forget the oil.

            The U.S. is presently digging a deeper hole than Vietnam and we need to stop. At the present time however, president Bush doesn’t seem to notice. After recently declining a deadline in Iraq, Mr. Bush has single handedly taken the reputation for his nation to a record low. In Iraq itself, all hopes are failing but Washington still boasts about the 30,000 businesses in the area. What it forgets to tell us it that those 30,000 businesses are primarily oil as that is the only rising stock in the war torn nation. The U.S. is once again turning into the ugly ducking. The world scoffs at us, and why shouldn’t they. We call ourselves peace loving, caring and anti-imperialistic, but we turn around and attack, Panama, Cuba, Haiti, Hawaii, Philippines, China, Russia, Afghanistan, Japan, Nicaragua, Mexico, and Spain, just to name a few. It has been clearly announced, by the UN Secretary General Kofi Anan, that the situation in Iraq now is much worse than it was under Saddam. The failure to handover the reigns to the Iraqis themselves is the culprit.

            The U.S. is still justifying it’s stay in Iraq by saying that they need to train and prepare the Iraqi troops. Next, they say that the Iraqi troops are on par with their American counterparts but always need assistance (USA Today). The same is the case with the government. The situation in Iraq, although gloomy, is finally showing a silver lining. There has been news of a U.S. free peace meeting at Cairo, between surrounding nations, to resolve an age old issue is finding much success. Nevertheless, the U.S. seems to have lost all faith in compromise.

            As the months turn to years the battle in Iraq has reached a climax and a standstill. According to the senior officials in Iraq Baghdad is the power house for the whole nation and the Bush administration will obtain Baghdad at any cost. Whether be it money or lives. This strategy creates more problems than it solves and as mentioned before, it further tips the see-saw towards civil war. A god sent message to the insurgents, according to a confiscated memo (Jackson). No matter how one looks at this issue, it is either fight into chaos or leave into chaos, hence, a lose-lose situation. Only a small window remains, the choice; lies in the hands of the U.S. A scary thought in itself.

            At this moment in time, one may not be able to decide on what might result as this war but one can use history to speculate at the possibilities. The first example in history is that of Rwanda, where in 100 days almost half the population was slaughtered by genocide. Much like in Iraq the genocide was fueled by a foreign Belgium who gave guns to “turn the oppressed into the oppressors.” The only difference is the time span. While Rwanda’s issue only lasted 100 days under the UN, the dilemma in Iraq has stretched over the span of 3 years, without any light at the end of the tunnel. The answer is as evident as the problem. The probability of success and failure depend on international support. No matter how strong the U.S. might be, it can never take on the whole world and win. This is a lesson humans should have learnt form historical times of the world wars.

            The boundaries of this war have stretched far from the middle east and affected many countries. For instance, in Nepal innocent men are being lured into a vision of a life abroad and with fake papers, promised successful jobs. In the mean time, subcontractors plan these very people’s routes into Iraq, there they work them at military bases. Despite, the unfair sweatshop conditions, the workers can hardly complain as their travel documents are taken from them and restrained until the contract is over. This morally defeats all the standards of humanity as  innocent lives are put at stake. Although most people are lucky to live, some like Bishnu Hari Thapa and his 12 friends, are held at gunpoint for nothing. A dream of a man, a son, a father and a life, quickly terminated with unimaginable brutality. The blame of this can’t only go to the terrorists but rather to the deceitful traffickers who feed poor people out to make a living, as a sacrifice to a morally corrupt cause. This shows the lack of humanity on both sides of the war. When basic rights of a man is taken away that is a crime, a crime worth punishment and the USA, along side it’s terrorist counterparts can and should be held guilty. There is only one way out of this and that is to break Mr. Bush’s relation with OIL, thus, breaking his relations with the middle east. We need to help create a better Iraq for the people. No matter how one looks at this dilemma, whether be it, historically, politically, economically or even morally, all the lenses show “MISTAKE” imprinted in big bloody letters. This is a mistake the U.S. has made for centuries and this time, it’s one time too many. This war has nothing to gain, only a loss. A loss of lives; a loss of image; a loss of humanity; a loss of family; a loss of civil societies; a loss of morality and a loss of America as we know and love.

Maoists have informed they will go nationwide protest from today and called mass meeting at Khulla Munch. Maoist chairman Prachanda was not there due to his health problems.

Now what will happen to Nepal? Do we again have to tolerate all those banda and julush?

Though I was afraid to take shots, I managed to capture some mass meeting glance as follows:

Packed with crowd

View at Ratnapark

Entrance to the Khulla Munch where Mass meeting was ongoing.

More Clear view from the Gate.

The center brain of the Mass Meeting.

 Attendees of the Mass Meeting

Though Prachanda was absent his photo was there…

Maoist Leaders

Refreshment during hot time.

Ranipokhari has already seen many changes and revolutions.

While returning took on shot of Narayan Hiti Palace.

Actually, joining people’s tide worked out fine. I became instant hero as I came out of the cell from which I had directed killing of thousands of innocent people. In the name of attacking royal army, I used children and women as human shield and those who died were declared martyrs while true party members hardly ever faced the army. I can’t sleep these days as souls of those innocent people are pulling me from everywhere. These days I question to myself what have I achieved. My party is minority in the government. Girija is playing me like a joker in the deck of playing cards. My comrades can’t reveal their identities in Terai and many other parts of the country. The constituent assembly election is coming and I know that the Maoists can’t win the election. I will be defeated and may even perform weaker than former Panchas’ party. Nepali Congress and UML will bring the King back to the seat after they have the majority in constituent assembly. Then where do I go? I may even be prosecuted at international court of justice for killing thousands of people because at many occasions they were used as human shield by the Maoists. I see no reason to participate in the constituent assembly election. I see two courses - likely: go back to the jungle or force the ouster of the King prior to the election. In the latter case, I can take credit for ousting the monarchy and sleep well. I need something. I can’t continue like this. I am restless.

Once out of reclusion, they find themselves at the epicenter of existence in conflict with the world at large. The slightest onslaught of this situation activates their defense mechanism rendering them volatile. They loose their objectivity and develop fear psychosis for everything uncomfortable. They suspect machinations planned against them and further resort into violence to strengthen their power. They don’t accept their mistakes, but rebuke opposition. They develop habits of defense by holding others reprehensible. For such personalities, ten years of voluntary reclusion - spurred by rebellion - do not culminate into fine afternoons spent gallantly conversing the weather over supplements of tea. The staccato of infantry fire, and effects of countless sights of gory deaths over their psyches, do not evaporate despite their assumed political roles. Nor do minors that were abducted from villages and coerced into the PLA - deprived of panoramic perspectives of the world — escape the pseudo-reality branding of their psyches.

The Maoists have entered the political scene, but haven’t adjusted to the social dimension of public life. This is obvious in their functioning. They won’t be able to adjust to this new environment until they undergo rehabilitation and ideological restraint. Instead, they unleashed the YCL to infiltrate the nook and crannies of Nepali social life and administration for overt reasons. With rehabilitation, they would have started appreciating the value of human life and society; democratic values and underpinnings, realizing their own potential and roles in society. Most importantly, they would have escaped the pseudo-reality branding and continued their ‘odd’ good service to society. But, the Maoists chose to retain its most insidious machine outside the cantonments. While the leadership expresses democratic intent, the machine still holds radical ideologies and exercises them high-handedly.

Three major problems are evident. First, the Maoists regard the peace process as their victory over Nepal - a misplaced sense of victory that would only have applied to complete takeover of the state through armed revolution. This misconstrue elevates their feelings of personal grandeur bolstering their arrogance, ideological imprisonment and high-handedness. They believe they can fool the world by putting minors in the cantonments. They claim that they have convinced major powers that violence was necessary in Nepal. They sideline the peace process and continue violent activities. They fail to provide financial statements for funds intended for the cantonments. They neglect their own subordinates at the camps leaving them to abandon the peace process to join other groups. They allow their cantonment high profiler to enjoy delicacies, while his subordinates get substandard meals. They advocate democratization of the Nepal Army and fail to do the same with their sister organizations. They disregard globally upheld principles of democracy, human rights and rule of law and justify their irregularities.

Second is their ideological imprisonment. This thwarts their capacity for objectivity and flexibility, reducing their tolerance for opinions and beliefs opposed to their ideology. They fail to appreciate the culture of democracy and popular opinion, asserting their dogma over others - advocating a republic before the CA election. They lack patience and respect for due process even in a transitional period, making contradictory statements and targeting peace. They blatantly vouch to maneuver the CA election in their favor at any cost. They substitute ideology for practicality. They admonish a new rebellion on the pretext of an eventless ‘transitional period’. They talk of ‘hypothetical’ janata and bypass the janata’s involvement in decisions, finding someway of troubling the same janata. They push for a proportional representation system at the eleventh hour fearing their eroding public image. They retain seized property and continue to capture more. They continue their parallel government enjoying authoritative rights over society, providing instant justices through intuitive hunches.

Third is their fear psychosis - a result of their isolation from society for ten years. Without rehabilitation, counseling and reintegration, the Maoists will continue to suffer this fear psychosis, perpetuating their volatility of behavior, words and actions. All of a sudden they are out in the open to be talked about, judged, interpreted and reprimanded. Naturally, they fear the exposure compared to the pristine foregrounds of the woods where a like-minded community played under its own rule. They fear the Madhes movement as lost ground in the Terai, resorting to more violence to assert their power supremacy. They abruptly decide to quit the government citing security arrangements. They blame the feudal history of the country for their sister organizations’ mischief, justifying them. They fear the incapacitated and declining Monarchy, and the Nepal Army that hasn’t competed in brandishing their power with the YCL, at least recently. They attack the free press and labor unions to exhibit their following to fight their dwindling popularity.

Most Nepalis believe in equal opportunities, even for those who wish to reinvent themselves. The Maoists deserve praise for participating in the peace process, abandoning armed revolution as a means to an end. We also praise their desire to support multiparty democracy, human rights, press freedom and free markets. But, Rome was not built in a day. Management of society and state is more of a scientific problem than a political one. The transitional period and CA election are processes to that end. Kindling rebellion is towering whim, gut instinct and emotion over rationality. Emotion doesn’t befit politics just as introverts don’t make politicians. The Maoists have to participate in the peace process wholeheartedly, eschewing parallel governments, unilateralist approach and YCL policing.

The Maoists should democratize their cadres, controlling radical elements within. They have to rehabilitate their cadres to assuage the trauma of insurgency, bringing them new hopes. They are responsible to the Nepali people to ensure that their cadres and warriors are not disbanded and deployed elsewhere in a militant capacity. The Maoist Party should function as a democratic political party, responding to pressures from the Nepali people, rather than from their rank and file. History has registered a tragic, indelible dent of 15,000 lost lives and 10 years of stagnation. It is up to the Maoist to write their legacy from here on in. They mustn’t forget that they are in the government because of Nepali people’s value system. It is high time they developed one for themselves too. For, only then will they have won something.

Prachada Ji and Dr. Bhattarai are capable leaders. They were harbingers of the peace process. They have put their social lives and careers in abeyance for a cause. It would be a pity for them to go down in history as a group that succumbed to their self-created cancer of ideological imprisonment. The days of playing ‘Rambo’ are certainly over. The need for responsible leadership is the order of the day. We hope that the leadership will steer the party on the right track for the sake of the country, and for their own sake.

Federalism also refers to as federal government, a national or international political system in which two levels of government control the same territory and citizens. The word federal comes from the Latin term …
(more…)