Alliance for Democracy & Human rights in Nepal, USA (ADHRN), Nepalese Democratic Youth Council, USA (NDYC), and American-Nepal Friendship Society (ANFS) jointly organized a talk program with Kunda Dixit on Saturday (July 23). The venue was Delhi Palace Restaurant in Jackson Heights, Queens, New York. The following is the summary of the event, including editor Kunda Dixit�s presentation, made available to UWB by Somnath Ghimire.
Some of the key issues that Dixit raised about the current crisis in Nepal were:
1. Despite the fact that India has been playing increasingly key role in determining Nepal�s fate, which is evident in the fact that international players, including the United States and Great Britain, make stop over in New Delhi for consultations before coming to Nepal for talks with Nepali officials, the current government�s attitude towards India has been increasingly hostile and confrontational. Rightly or wrongly, it is clear that any international attempts to resolve Nepali crisis will be coordinated with India.
2. Current Nepali government�s justification that the extreme measures that it has introduced in Nepal are to curb the Maoist violence is dubious at best. It is very clear that repressive measures that the government of King Gyanendra has introduced have mostly targeted the democratic institutions in the country (political parties, civil society, media, etc.) instead of the Maoists.
3. King�s official takeover on February 1st, 2005 was the ultimate result of careful planning to undermine the democratic process in the country. It started on October 2002 when the democratically elected parliament was first dissolved.
4. Nepali media was proudly one of the most free and vibrant in the world prior to February first, which was suddenly left in the dark immediately after King�s takeover. Even though some restrictions on the media has been lifted recently, and more and more writers on a national level are able now to write critically of the government, harassment, imprisonment, and torture (of the journalists) by the security forces on district levels are still continuing. It seems that the government�s decision to relax it�s tightening on the media on some prominent national news outlets is only to allay international pressure to free the media.
5. Despite the ban on news broadcast by FM stations in the country, we need to be proud of the fact that 10 years (or so) of democracy has instilled some creative values/ideas in the Nepali media people. They skillfully have been trying to circumvent the ban on news broadcast by performing live broadcast of the news in market places, or by having conversation-style outlet of news items, or even broadcasting news in songs formats!
6. Both the state and the Maoists (two armed groups in the conflict) are threats to national stability and progress. They both have engaged in arbitrary arrests, harassments, torture and �disappearances�.
7. Government�s claim that it has clamped down hard on the Maoists is questionable. The security forces have killed �Maoists� mostly in defensive actions only, and their success in defense has been limited to district headquarters only. Both the security forces and the Maoists seem to avoid contact with each other, rather than taking action to defeat the other. This has resulted in a MILTARY STALEMATE in the field, and a POLITICAL PARALYSIS in the center.
8. King Gyanendra�s government seem to say all the right things (e.g., �we need democracy�, �constitutional monarchy is the real solution�, �there is no alternative to multi-party democracy�, etc.) but has been acting exactly opposite to those goals. What little hopes people had (out of desperation) in the King is rapidly losing grounds. Two formations of the cabinet full of individuals with notorious records of being corrupt and staunchly against democracy during the Panchayat times reflect upon King�s desire to quash democracy in the country for a long term. There has also been left no rooms for much-needed reforms within the institution of monarchy.
9. It is appalling how the current government of Nepal has been indulging in the practice of making a mockery out of international concern for Nepal. Some of obviously major backward steps have been taken immediately after key international player�s visit to Nepal. For instance, the new cabinet was formed just four hours after Dr. Brahimi, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan�s emissary, completed his visit to Nepal. Similarly, new stricter ordinances were issued soon after Christina Rocca, US Under Secretary of State for South Asia and her assistant Donald Camp�s respective visits. This has led Nepal into further isolation from the international community.
10. Current Nepali government seems to be using the Burmese model of governance. They (Nepali government) seem to be trying to copy the Burmese model of not only militarizing the country, but their 40 years of successful apathy to international pressure.
11. This increased polarization based on militarization of the country has painfully squeezed the people of the �middle ground� (different from �neutral�) whose key strength comes from their belief in non-violence. Political parties are part of this �middle ground�.
12. Government�s wide spread tendency to label anyone disagreeing with them as �anti-national� is also dangerously unwarranted. This practice on the part of the government seems to be directed towards making it easy to take action against dissidents.
13. There seems to be a deep split even among the Indian government agencies regarding their policy to Nepal. On the one hand, the intelligence community, the army, and some political establishment in India favor supporting the King for fear of Maoist victory; while, on the other hand, the CPI (the coalition government), ministry of external affairs and other political establishments favor continuing military blockade of Nepal. The latter believes in �twin pillar� � constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy � will provide long term stability in Nepal. It is also believed that the leak of information relating to Nepali Maoist leaders� visit s to India came from the Indian intelligence themselves. The King has adroitly exploited and manipulated this rift among Indian establishments to his own advantage.
14. There are three perceived ways of resolving this unthinkable three-way crisis: – Political parties and the Maoists team up against the King – King and the political parties reconcile to confront the Maoists – Have a three-way mediation/negotiations
It is not clear if the idea of political parties and the Maoists coming together to confront the King as a single force is merely intended as a threat strategy (to the King), or it becomes a reality. In either case, the government seems to have taken a keen notice of this possible development and has issued warnings that anyone colluding with the Maoists would be considered �anti-national�.
Most intellectuals and scholars seem to like the idea of the King and the political parties (two constitutional forces) reconciling to confront the Maoists (the unconstitutional force). By using the power of the constitutionality on their sides, it would be easier for the former to pressure the latter to come to the political mainstream.
The last option of mediations/negotiation (by international, possibly UN or EU intervention) was initially thought of as impossible because of Indian opposition � they feared that allowing international intervention in Nepal would herald similar attempts by the international community in Kashmir or Nagaland. However, since India is desperately seeking a permanent membership in the UN Security Council, they seem to have softened a bit on their initial hard line stance. Also, the moderates among the Maoists seem to be looking for a safe landing too, which can be provided by the international mediation team.
15. Dixit concluded his presentation by claiming that he is still optimistic that the crisis would take a positive turn soon. Thing shave gotten so bad that he believed it�s hard to imagine it getting worse. All three warring parties should realize the real danger of further lengthening this conflict, which would inevitably wipe out the entire three if prolonged much longer.
========
The program was moderated by Dr. Tara Niraula, current president of ANFS. Dr. Niraula delivered a brief welcome note, urging Nepali pro-democracy and peace-loving organizations, and people, in the United States to work collaboratively to achieve their common goal, which is to restore lasting peace and security, and to promote democratic values in, Nepal. He then introduced the featured speaker of the event, Kunda Dixit.
…………..
Kunda Dixit is a founding editor of Nepali Times, a prominent weekly news magazine in Nepal, and is also co-publisher of Himal South Asia magazine. He also serves as directors for Asia-Pacific for Interpress Service and PANOJ INS., South Asia. He previously worked as a reporter for the BBC at the United Nations and is a graduate of Columbia University�s prestigious School of Journalism.
12 Responses to “Over His Hat: Kunda Dixit In New York”
1. Gandhi Says:
July 28th, 2005 at 12:45 pmGreat job, Kunda The world must know the true face of the dictator. I salute your efforts.
2. nepdoc Says:
July 28th, 2005 at 2:45 pmDixit has finally started to show his true colours – another aspiring politician. He, more than anybody else should know that he should not be disturbing traffic and causing inconvenience to the general public in the name of protest. He should stick to his cartoon columns.
3. Acharya Says:
July 28th, 2005 at 3:35 pmI have been impressed by the integrity and maturity of journalists in Nepal and by their commitment to press freedom. It is unthinkable to the rest of the world that anyone would try to curb press freedom but such is the case in Nepal where journalists are constantly harassed and terrorised for doing their duty to the society and the general people for whom they are accountable. As long as there are journalists like Kunda Dixit and human rights activists like Madhav Pahadi, I am confident that multi-party democracy will be restored in Nepal.
4. Rajesh Says:
July 28th, 2005 at 3:49 pmKunda Dixit dose not have to earn a living. His grandfather swindlen the Ranas and unlike mont of Nepali they do not have to work and live life of luxury. If he had to do a hard day work like rest of nepali he would have been happy with the current Nepali situation which lets you earn your living. Only the corrupt politician and their stooge are uphappy as they can no longer loot the country
5. Sudesna Says:
July 28th, 2005 at 3:52 pmI don’t agree with Mr. Dixit’s silly logic that the press is gagged. Just see the Nepali Times, it is writing anything at will. Just see the security situation in Nepal: Post Feb. 1st. No Nepal-Bandhs, no-bomb blasts in Kathmandu, since there are no bandhs, students can go to schools and patients to remote health posts.
If you have an in-built habit of looking at everything of a negative angle, then of course everything is bad. But it’s not in the case of Nepal. Things are imropoving. Of course, let’s not worry what these foreigners have to say. They were very happy when there were daily bandhs and blasts.
6. mina Says:
July 28th, 2005 at 4:38 pmAcharya,
Who is that human right activist Madhav Pahadi ?
7. Acharya Says:
July 28th, 2005 at 5:29 pmmina, sorry I meant to write Krishna Pahadi.
sudesna, for your kind information, Nepal is not just Kathmandu. I’m sure you’ve never travelled outside of Kathmandu, otherwise you wouldnt say that the security situation has improved. Compare the number of civilians that have died since Feb 1 to the numbers before the Feb 1 move and you’ll see what find out how the security situation has increased. And what are you trying to prove by saying that Kunda Dixit has a lot of money. He could have easily led a life of luxury and continued his job at the UN and earned in dollars, instead he chose to come to Nepal and serve his country. Why do you think all the lawyers, journalists, human rights groups, workers and students are demanding democracy. Because we live in the 21st century and in this civilized world, democracy is the only acceptable way of life.
8. Ghanendra Says:
July 28th, 2005 at 5:31 pmExcerpts from Dhrubahari Adhikary�s article reproduced with the courtesy http://www.atimes.com
Monarchy and Maoism are ideologically poles apart, but in present-day Nepal there is one agenda where protagonists of both sides share a common stand: they hate political parties. That is why some analysts suspect they have been working in tandem, and this perception is not without a basis. Senior Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai, for instance, once publicly claimed that his party had forged a “working unity” with King Birendra a few months before he was slain in a mysterious palace carnage, in June 2001.
The present kingâ��s incumbent foreign minister, Ramesh Nath Pandey, provided another ground for speculation also during the reign of the late king. Pandey, who then was only a king’s nominee in the upper house of parliament, admitted in a newspaper interview that he had had secret meetings with top Maoist leaders – billed terrorists by the government of the day. Adding an element of curiosity. He also did not mention who authorized those clandestine meetings. Political developments of the recent past portend more complexities.
In recent occasion, Kirtinidhi Bista, one of the two vice chairmen in the king’s cabinet, flatly brushed aside the idea of accepting external assistance or mediation in resolving the conflict in Nepal. Bista’s reaction that the royal government was capable of resolving “the Maoist problem ourselves” came right after his meeting with visiting UN envoy Brahimi.
If resolution of the Maoist problem is indeed as easy a task as Bista seems to suggest, then wouldn’t it let skeptics repeat their old argument that the Maoist movement was nothing but a creation of palace hardliners who were looking for a pretext to destabilize democracy and prove it unsuitable for a country like Nepal?
9. shash Says:
July 29th, 2005 at 2:20 amThe political arena of Nepal is now a minefield. A minefield that is comprised of old die hards hanging on to the last straws and hangers on that are propping up newer and newer political factions. And they are all also trying to solve the Maoist problem, a problem they have created in not having done their job properly thus widening the divide between towns, villages and people both in economy and infra structure. This problem will leave a blister in Nepal’s history and will not solve anything. It will only have highlighted all the complications of our society in terms of caste, culture, hierarchy, language, religion and stark differences between the city dwellers and poverty stricken villages that have existed over centuries, which all rulers and polical leaders have not addressed. I quite agree with Kunda that ‘All three warring parties should realize the real danger of further lengthening this conflict, which would inevitably wipe out the entire three if prolonged much longer.’ A minefield waiting to explode! But where does that leave Nepal ?
10. Avaya Says:
July 29th, 2005 at 3:37 amWho is this Sudesna? Acharya, you are correct that this Sudesna seems lack idea about geography of Nepal. There is Nepal beyond Kathmandu also where there are lot of problem even after Feb 1. Everyday strike, bomb blast, fighting where ordinary Nepali are caught in cross fire. Sudesha, you need expand your brain….thats all!
11. Shree Shrestha Says:
July 30th, 2005 at 7:18 amI read Nepali Times regularly and I see all the aspects of the political situation in Nepal is well discussed. If there is a gag in press freedom in Nepal Kunda and Co. will not be able to write what they are writing now. I think he is talking about freedom to exploit people, freedom to get rich by whatever means and freedom to shout slogans get arrested and make name. Bunch of idiots. We want peace and food in the table before we start calling our parents DAD and MOM instead of BA and Ma.
12. Reasonable Says:
August 29th, 2005 at 2:47 amI can not believe that there are people who do not agree with the idea of supremacy of people in a nation.
If there are arguments that in certain conditions (made up or real), the supremacy of people does not apply – then I do not want to spend my time. Otherwise, a nation needs to have a stable political system where every body has a role assigned (not manipulated).
Pople should lead people. People sould choose who should lead them.
If a king wants to be a leader – should face election or be patient and ceremonial.
Kings have not solved problems in their families in Nepal, I think, they can not in the country.
United We Blog 