Over a year has passed since the “constitutional” monarch decided to become an absolute one and assumed direct powers on February 1, last year, and the situation in Nepal has visibly deteriorated. And as the months go by with no apparent progress in the country’s security situation and towards restoring democracy, hope keeps on slipping further and further away. It is still not too late. Let us hope against hope.
Mahesh Thapa, Kanunisanchar and Bahas, in a letter to Open Source, 4/16/06
Lawyers and journalists were rounded up on the eve of the strike [Bikash Karki/United We Blog!]
Nepal’s recent history reads like an Oliver Stone script. A ten year long Maoist insurgency has left the country divided and 12,000 dead. In 2001 the Crown Prince brutally murdered the rest of the royal family before shooting himself. The King who then ascended the throne has since supressed the country’s nacent democracy, dismissing the government and declaring a state of emergency.
Apparently the Nepalese have had it. The general strike that began two weeks ago was supposed to last just four days, but people across Nepal continue to take to the streets in protest against the government, despite an all-day curfew and the deaths of 13 protesters killed by security forces firing into the crowd. We reached out to bloggers in Nepal and in the Nepalese diaspora to learn more about what is going on, and where they think the country is headed.
Increasingly the majority feel that the monarch is on its way down. We earned our democracy in 1990, which was snatched by the king, citing security concerns and the Maoist insurgency, in February 2005. The democracy we had may have been imperfect or incomplete, but the people want it back nonetheless.
Democracy is inevitable, it’s only a matter of when. The demand on the street is for a Democratic Republic (as opposed to a Constitutional Monarchy), and regardless of whether or not the current protests will lead to that, a Republic seems likely at one point or another, especially because the Crown Prince is possibly the least popular figure.
Sarahana, Samudaya, in a letter to Open Source, 4/17/06
Unless we reform the existing undemocratic structure from the grassroots level to the top, the realization of democratic environment seems impossible.
We believe that power should be controlled by the people of Nepal. The constituent assembly is the only solution to establish people’s supremacy, bringing an end to the King’s autocracy. Nepal is burning in political conflict, and the safe way to get out from this conflict is talk.
Mahesh Thapa, Kanunisanchar and Bahas, in a letter to Open Source, 4/16/06
Protestors in Chahabil [Todd Krainin/United We Blog!]
Police administer a beating at Gongabu, where protestors were also shot [Shruti Shrestha & Santosh Acharya/United We Blog!]
There is a strong civil society in Nepal, as well as strong support around the world among Nepali diaspora, who have been grappling for years now with the challenges that would be presented by running a democratic state in the Nepali context. There is also a strong groundswell of public sentiment now for that democracy to be … a “people’s democracy” rather than a “democracy of elites”, and this sentiment is also backed by “teeth” provided by the armed Maoist rebels who have committed to be part of a multi-party democracy but only if it proves to be a very progressive democracy that addresses the many dimensions of inequality in Nepali society.
Sage Radachowsky, International Nepal Solidarity Network, in a letter to Open Source, 4/16/06
Thanks to Global Voices for their extensive coverage of Nepal.
I’d like to hear more about the role of the Maoist rebels in Nepal. Are these rebels back by China? The last thing this planet needs is a further extension of China. Look what they did to Tibet.
Are the people of Nepal so disillusioned that they would embrace a Maoist government – I don’t believe that the Maoists would setttle for being just a part of a democracy.
Hey Allison, a bartender I work with is from Nepal and he has been keeping me updated. One of his closest friends was in the military and was shot down in his helicopter two weeks ago by Maoist rebels. He also has friends that are involved in the democracy protests.
What confuses me (happens easily) is that the Maoists are supporting the democracy protests. Or is that what the king wants us to believe so he can suppress the protesters?
On the “suggest a showâ€? thread last week I posted comments from the government saying they were going to start searching houses because they believe “terrorists” have infiltrated the democracy protesters. Oh man, here we go.
I have a feeling the dynamics of this situation are complex. I think I will ask my friend more questions and post back here. I put some links to a couple of blogs on that other thread.
I found this, which was interesting:
http://www.saag.org/papers3/paper277.html
The absolute rule of late King Birendra (a Harvard alum; lived in Quincy House for a year as a Visiting Student in 1969 or so) came to to an end in 1990. A constitution was negotiated beween the Palace and the then political forces through an interim government in 1991.
That constitution — invoked by the present king — has three remarkable clauses:
1. Smaller parties could be shut out of the political process if they fail to gain certain percentage of votes in a general election. This translated as: The present Maoist leaders, before they went underground in 1996, openly fielded their candidates who won a few seats in the parliament in the 1992 elections. By 1995, the (then future) Maoists had decided that under the constitutional provision, they had NO chance of ever winning a majority by playing only the election game every five years. They then went to the jungle to wage their “people’s war”. [The new constitution, whe it is drafted, has to address this issue so that in future smaller political parties do not feel compelled to take up arms to make their political voices heard.]
2. The role of the army is ambiguous; in practice, it reported to the king, and not to successive civilian governments. This led to the start of a wrangling between the palace and the political leaders, as the latter wanted to use the army against the Maoists in 1999 and 2000, but received no co-operation/authority from the palace. Armed policemen were battling the Maoists in the hinterland until late 2001. At present, the army is loyal to the king. [The new constitution has to address this issue too so that in future the army is accountable to the head of a civilian government, and not to anyone else.]
3. That the Kingdom is a Hindu one, even though Nepal’s version of Hinduism is a watered-down one, with Buddhist, animist and various tribal religious practices thrown in to co-exist with one another peacefully. Because Nepal was historically
a trading corridor between Tibet/China and the Indian plains, it is an ethnically diverse, culturally rich and lingustically complex (not to mention, stunningly beautiful Himalayan country) of various ‘nations’. But its official “Hindu Kingdom” label irks vast swathes of Nepali people who feel politically marginalized with little or control over access to public service provisions.
One intellectual argument in support of the present protests is that it is for a better and an inclusive constitution of Nepal, with or without the king.
more later
ashu
(a regular listener of Chris’s earlier shows on WBUR when I lived in Boston about 10 years ago).
From what I read in the NYTimes, I am with the strikers and the people.
Why is the US, Europe ( EU), ( and India- I can understand their anxiety about stability) urging them to settle for something less than the fuller democracy that they desire and should have?
This administration ESPECIALLY is being two faced, dishonest, about it’s ( supposed) support of democracy.
Oh, I support the demand for a full democracy. I simply wondered what role the Maoists would play in the long run. Are they really for democracy? I would think that their Maoist philosophy would not be – but I might be naive here. So, while most of the people are fighting for democracy, are the Maoists fighting for their own control? And are they backed by the Chinese?
In essence, is there a two-fold fight? One to achieve full democracy and another to keep the Maoists – possible Chinese – at bay?
As I wrote earlier, I’m skeptical about the role of China in this mess. It would be tragic to see a repeat of Tibet.
Allison- you made a good point and ask a good question. I did not mean to refute it.
Allison,
I understand your skepticism. On the face of it, and especially given Nepal’s physical proximity to its giant neighbor, it’s plausible to put China, Mao and the Maoist rebels in Nepal all together and think that somehow they are all directly linked to one another.
But the present-day China and its government have nothing to do with these home-grown Maoists in Nepal just as they had nothing to with the Maoists in Peru in South America about 10 to 15 years ago. In fact, last year, China asked Nepali rebels not to go around killing civilians in Nepal by invoking Mao’s name.
Communists have been in Nepal at least since 1950. And there’s their rich, if fractious, history in Nepal. Over the years, they have split up into various factions (Marxist, Stalinist, Marxist-Leninist, Maoist, Kim-Il-Siungism, etc), each of which have splintered into further factions espousing different and mind-boggling combinations of communist ideologies.
The lineage of Nepal’s present-day Maoists needs to be traced primarily from within
the history of Nepali communist movement as it formed due to interactions with the international communist movement in the 1960s and the 1970s, and not so much from present-day geopolitics. One large member of the present seven-party-alliance that’s opposing the king, for instance, is called the United Marxist Leninist (UML), who
now take pains to portray themselves as “social democrats� (in an European sense).
This UML was in power in 1995-96 in Nepal as head of a democratic government.
In simple terms, the present-day Nepali Maoists could be thought of as a rebellious breakaway cousin of the UML.
Ashu aka Ashutosh Tiwari
Columnist “Strictly Business�
The Nepali Times
http://www.nepalitimes.com
Ashu,
Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me. It is important. I wouldn’t want the Chinese version of Maoism to be applied anywhere else.
If you will indulge me, I’m wondering about your perspective of Monday night’s announcement that the King will restore the parliamentary government.
I’ve heard that most of the protest groups are happy with this and believe there will be new consitution drafted by this parliament. But the Maoists are not happy. Does the Maoist discontent mean they will possible remain violent?
Also, they are installing a man who was previously running the government, who is apparently ill and also was seen as corrupt. Is he the right man for now? I can imagine that in a pinch, when you’re simply desperate to put someone in who has enough experience to know how a government runs, he might seem like the best idea. But, I was wondering whether it was his government that escalated tensions between the factions.