Do we need an Interim Constitution? Why do we need it? Can’t we move to Constituent Assembly without Interim Constitution? Is there any justification for the Interim Constitution?
By Surendra Bhandari
Lawyer, in Japan
In one or other ways, all of us should be thinking on these issues. I happened to think on these issues when one of the participants on UWB observed to my opinion that government is empowered by the people’s movement II and therefore capable to take any decision on political grounds and such political decisions are immune from any judicial test in the language of some of the political leaders and lawyers in the country. In my opinion these are completely wrong ideas and unhelpful for democratic transition in the country.
In fact, what my critiques are aspiring and what I am aspiring is the same thing – democracy – a liberal democracy in Nepal. But we are sharply differing on the point of process. It is because I am trying to look at things from the point of view of rational justification and my friends are looking at things on broader political terms.
More than this dissonance, the most important thing is that how we can successfully institutionalize democracy in the country. Against this background, I am arguing for Interim Constitution as the means for smoothen the process of democratic transition in the country.
Always, in a transitional stage every country faces different problems and we are also facing problems associated with transition.
First, the insufficient existing laws and regulatory instruments are creating a big problem to the new government taking needed important political decisions. In this situation, either political decisions should be taken ignoring fundamental ruling doctrine – constitutionalism or immediately start working for legitimizing the needed authority. There is a profoundly established jurisprudence and political theory since 1610’s Proclamation case that– Be You Ever So High You Are Not Above the Law. It applies both to an autocratic and a democratic government. But the difference is that autocracy ignores it and that is why due to the very reason the regime falls into autocracy.
A democratic government follows and abides by it and that is why it is called a democratic government. This is a fundamental distinguishing hallmark between autocracy and democracy. Talking on our present political context, the 1990 Constitution does not allow the present government to take necessary political decisions that were / are aspired by the people’s movement. For example, Madhav Kumar Nepal strongly spoke to remove “Royal” from the Royal Nepal Army. It is a popular voice, of course. However, the 1990 constitution provides the word “royal” to the RNA and until the 1990 constitution remains the RNA also remains “Royal”.
Parliament has formed a probe commission to penalize the persons who suppressed the people’s movement. It was demanded by the people as well. I am sure the Rayamajhi Commission comes off with specific recommendations to punish those persons who suppressed people’s movement. But the question is that how can the government punish them without a clear law and legal mandate? Only ousting them from office might be done on political basis but if serious action is to be taken against those imposing criminal liability there should be a clear law.
The government can remove those who are in the post but how can it punish e. g. to Kamal Thapa without a proper law, because he is no more in the post? And, importantly, just ousting from the position is no more a punishment. Why Mallik Commission’s Report was not implemented? Among many reasons, one of the reasons was that there was no law to punish them on the charge that they had suppressed people’s movement. Another issue I am continuously talking since few weeks is that declaration of the CA.
There are other important issues as well. I am not arguing that the government should not carry out important political decisions. But my humble submission is that these actions should be based on due process of law. Due process should be respected. Question arises that how to secure due process in this situation? The only answer is that in the first step the Parliament as a repository of people’s movement can immediately start enacting a law that authorizes the government (if needed also retrospectively) to take all political decisions needed for smooth democratic transition subject to be followed by validation of such decisions by the Parliament.
In the second step but urgently, the Parliament can draft an interim constitution retaining all necessary authority and state power in its hand including declaring CA and other matters so that the Parliament truly becomes repository sovereign people. The interim constitution is a tool for this and it also should withdraw the 1990 constitution in its entirety fully empowering the Parliament and the government for taking necessary political decisions. This is what I mean due process of law for democratic transition. It only gives legitimacy and validity to the political decisions otherwise the political decisions will be indistinguishable from the basic characteristics of autocracy.
Second, during interim period the government needs to take many decisions. It needs to revoke some (most) of the earlier decisions and embark on new decisions. These are taken on political hallmark but the political hallmark needs to be legitimized for its validity and legitimacy. For this reason too the Parliament needs to prepare an Interim Constitution so that the government would be authorized with needed authority and power.
Third, no system of a democratic government functions even a fraction of second without having a fundamental governing law. If a government starts governing country without having a fundamental governing law anarchy just breeds from there. In the present situation of the country, as the 1990 Constitution cannot be a fundamental governing document because it is full of anachronisms and many impediments to democratic transition. It has already been felt. On the other hand, the government is serious and desirous to take many important decisions but the 1990 constitution is in the way as an inroad.
Until there will be an Interim Constitution the present state organs (executive body, legislature and judiciary) keep willingly or unwillingly functioning under the 1990 constitution, which is not acceptable to the Nepalese people. Therefore, to keep up the feelings of the people’s movement the Parliament urgently needs to embark on drafting an Interim Constitution. It is nonetheless a time consuming job but important one.
If the interim constitution is not prepared and the government and the Parliament are not provided with needed authority and power there is a high chance that the democratic transition will be hijacked and suffer again.
Dr. Surendra Bhandari is a lawyer, currently working as a think-tank in the United Nations University, Institute of Advanced Studies, Japan. Here is his previous blog on UWB.
United We Blog 
Comments
57 responses to “Does Nepal Need An Interim Constitution?”
A few question to Dr. Bhandari,
Is there any difference between formulating an Interim Constitution as advocated by you above and making drastic changes in the current constitution so that all issues raised by could be included in the sansodhan?
Also, what about today’s editorial in Kantipur that says the parliament should first declare itself samprabhu and go ahead with bigger issues so that it couldn’t be challenged into any court?
Lastely, about legalizing the process. You are right on your points but I don’t think we need to be wrangeled into the legal hassle when we are in the urgent need to do some political decisions to give nikas to the problems Nepal is facing today? Under what provision of the constitution king restored the parliament? Under which article of the constitution hundreds of thousands of people hit the streed demanding the abolition of monarchy in Nepal?
do we need constitutional assembly is the first question we need to ask… mr. bhandari
Just wanted to share with you guys what Masal Party has to say on recent developments. I got this press release issued by Mohan Bikram Singh.
मोहन विक्रम सिंह
महामन्त्री,
नेकपा (एकताकेन्द्र-मसाल)
प्रेस वक्तव्य
नेकपा (एकताकेन्द्र-मसाल) ले सरकारले माओवादीहरु माथि लगाएका आतंककारीको आरोप हटाउने, रेर्डकर्नर नोटिस फिर्ता गर्ने, आस्थाका बन्दी रिहा गर्ने, उनीहरुसित वार्ता प्रारम्भ गर्ने तथा युद्ध बिरामको घोषणा गर्ने जुन निर्णयहरु गरेको छ, तिनीहरुलाई स्वागत गर्दै तिनीहरुको शीघ्र कार्यान्वयन गर्नु पर्ने आवश्यकतामा जोड दिन्छ ।
सेना माथिको राजाको नियन्त्रण समाप्त गर्ने तथा राजाका सबै विशेषाधिकारहरु खारेज गर्न पनि तत्काल कदमहरु उठाउनु पर्ने आवश्यकता छ । जनतामाथि दमन र ज्यादति गर्ने सेना, प्रहरी वा प्रशासनका व्यक्तिहरु बारे छानविनका लागि जुन आयोग गठन गर्ने निर्णयभएको छ, त्यसको पनि हाम्रो पार्टीी स्वागत गर्दछ । हामीले आशा गर्दछौं, त्यसबारे मल्लिक आयोगको प्रतिवेदनमा झै वेवास्था गरिने छैन । परराष्ट्रमन्त्रीले प्रतिगामी सत्ताद्वारा नियुक्त गरिएका राजदुतहरुलाई खारेज गर्न तत्काल कदम उठाउनुको सट्टा उनीहरुका विचार बदल्ने प्रयत्न गर्ने प्रकारको जुन अभिव्यक्ति दिइएकोछ, त्यसले प्रतिगामी सत्तासित सम्झौताको मानसिकता प्रकट गर्दछ । त्यस प्रकारको विचार प्रति हामीले गम्भिर आपत्ति प्रकट गर्दछौं ।
माओवादीहरुका तर्फाट वर्तमान संविधान, संसद र सरकारको खारेजी वा विघटनको जुन मागहरु प्रस्तुत गरिएकोछ, हाम्रो पार्टी तिनीहरुलाई गलत सम्झन्छ र आलोचना गर्दछ । संविधानविहीनता वा संसदविहीनताको अवस्थामा सरकार कुनै संविधानमा वा“धिने छैन र संसदप्रति जिम्मेवार हुने छैन । त्यो अवस्थामा एकातिर सरकारले फासिष्ट दिशा समात्ने सम्भावना हुनेछ भने अर्कातिर त्यो अवस्थाबाट राजाले फाइदा उठाएर प्रतिगामी दिशा समात्ने खतरा हुनेछ । संविधान सभाको चुनावका लागि आवश्यक कानूनी प्रक्रिया निश्चित गर्ने वा चुनावको मिति निश्चित गर्ने जिम्मेवारी वर्तमान संसदको नै हुनु पर्दछ । त्यो कार्य पुरा नहु“दासम्म वर्तमान संसद कायम रहनु पर्दछ । उक्त कार्यहरु पूरा भएपछि मात्र संसदको विघटन गरि अन्तिरम सरकारको गठन हुनु पर्दछ र संसदले निर्धारित गरेको कानूनी प्रक्रिया र तोकिएको मिति भित्र संविधान सभाको चुनाव सम्पन्न गर्नु त्यसको जिम्मेवारी हुनेछ ।
माओवादीहरुसित हुने वार्ताको एजेण्डामा गतकालमा माओवादीहरुले जनता, निशस्त्र व्यक्ति वा प्रतिगमन विरोधी राजनीतिक दलका नेता वा कार्यकर्ताहरु माथि जुन ज्यादतिहरु गरेका छन् वा मानव अधिकारहरुको उल्लघन गरेका छन् तिनीहरुको छानविन र दोषिहरु माथि कारवाही सम्बन्धी एजेण्डा पनि समावेश गरिनु पर्दछ । त्यसप्रकारका कारवाहीहरु बारे छानविन र दोषि माथि कारवाही गर्ने व्यवस्था नभैकन माओवादीहरुलाई सरकारमा सामेल गर्ने निर्णय गरियो भने सरकारको प्रकृति सामाजिक फा“सिवादी वा सैन्यवादी प्रकारको बन्ने र जनआन्दोलनद्वारा प्राप्त प्रजातान्त्रिक अधिकार पुनः समाप्त हुने खतरा हुनेछ । अहिले पनि देशमा सेना र माओवादीहरुका ज्यादतिहरु कायम छन् । तिनीहरु माथि रोकथामका लागि आवश्यक कदम उठाउन हामीले सरकारको ध्यान आकषिर्त गर्न चाहान्छौं ।
संविधान सभाको चुनाव भन्दा पहिले सेनालाई पुरै नै व्यारेकमा फर्काउनु पर्ने र त्यस माथिको राजाको नियन्त्रणलाई समाप्त गर्नुका साथै माओवादीहरुको हतियारको पनि व्यवस्थापन हुनु पर्दछ । अन्यथा संविधान सभाको चुनाव निष्पक्ष र स्वतन्त्ररुपले हुन सक्ने छैन । त्यस प्रकारको व्यवस्थापन कुनै अन्तर्रर्ााट्रय शक्ति वा संस्थाका सुपरिवेक्षणमा नभई माओवादी र सातदल वा सरकारका बीचको समझदारीका आधारमा नै हुनु पर्दछ र त्यसरी विना विदेशी सुपरिवेक्षण हतियारको व्यवस्थपन गर्नु सम्भव पनि छ ।
स्थानीय निकायको तत्काल चुनाव हुन नसक्ने भएकाले तिनिहरुको पर्ुनर्वहाली हुनु पर्दछ र काम गर्ने म्याद थप्नु पर्दछ ।
नेपालमा विदेशी शक्तिहरुको मुख्यतः भारतीय विस्तारवाद नेपालको र्सार्वभौमिकता, राष्ट्रियता र जलसम्पदा माथि भएको गम्भीर प्रकारको खतरा प्रति पनि हाम्रो ध्यान आकषिर्त भएको छ । भारतको पहिले देखिको विस्तारवादी नीति, माओवादीहरुमा बढेर गएको भारतपरस्त दृष्टिकोण र सातदलले पनि त्यसबारे अपनाएको उपेक्षाको नीतिका कारणले देशको राष्ट्रियताका अगाडि त्यसप्रकारको खतरा झन् गम्भिर भएको वास्तविकता माथि ध्यान दिंदै त्यसप्रति उच्चप्रकारको र्सतर्कता अपनाउन तथा आवश्यकता अनुसार संर्घषमा उत्रन हाम्रो पार्टी सम्पूर्णा देशभक्त जनता, राजनीतिक दल, बुद्धिजीवि र पत्रकार सबैसित अपील गर्दछ ।
मोहन विक्रम सिंह
मिति २०६३ बैशाख २३ गते
don know what we need and what not
RATHER
LET US ALL SEND MONEY HOME
COLLECT MONEY FOR SCHOOLS IN THE FARWEST.
AGREE OR DISAGREE WE LIVING IN KATHMANDU HAVE EXPLOITED THE SYTEM FOR OUR BENEFIT ONLY.
NOW ITS OUR TURN TO PAY BACK.
I URGE ANY SOCIAL ORGANIZATION TO MOVE IN THIS DIRECTION.
IF PEOPLE CAN DONATE MONEY FOR THE VICTIMS OF AANDOLAN THEY CAN ALSO DONATE FOR DEVELOPMENT.
Ok Surendra you make a strong case for an interim constitution with your emphasis on ‘due process of law’, ‘governing law’ and setting a precedent whereby all actions of the government are backed by the consitution and not extra-constitutional like the king’s moves.
However I think you are indulging in a bit too much legalese. The present parliament (depsite their mandate having lapsed) under the special cirmcumstances of it’s reconvening still does have the authority to amend the constitution by the requiste majority to ensure the legality of their forthcoming actions. Much shorter than formulating an interim constitution and less troublesome but with the still the same legal authority.
lee, a CA for new constitution is an absolute necessity. The 1990 constitution does not address the true aspirations of all the Nepalis. Besides it has been so abused that I don’t think anyone, executive, legislature, judiciary, the Maoists/RNA/Palace or the ordinary people have any respect for it anymore.
Samita,
I guess Dr.Bhandari is advocating for interim constitution over the constitutional council formed within a parliament due to the fact that it needs the final approval of king. Our current constitution is very shaky when it has to deal with these kind of situations. Ofcourse we have artciles 116 and 117 to deal with, but I am not very sure what are the complications there.
The problem with Dr. Bhandari is he is taking everything in a legal way. No offense meant, but at the current situation when people are talking about ‘sadak samsad’, when they are demanding things to be done quickly with or without constitutional values, I really don’t think political parties are willing to take a risk by going against the public demands.
For example, we all know about this RNA issue. Everyone knows that it is not the thing which can be done through a normal parliament session. But still UML is formally going for it. Either they are very clever, they are trying to feel the level of the constitution or they are just going along with the people’s wishes. Nevertheless it is going to give us a lot of clear idea how these kind of things are going to be deicded. Lets wait and see.
I support your idea of interim constitution though I understand by implying it we are going to lose the parliament. It also means a longer period of waiting period for the new constitution as you have already mentioned. That is the drawback which I think will make everyone to raise their eyebrows. They want everything to be done quickly. They want parliament to declare the election to constituent assembly within 6 months. How can they wait for another year or two just to decide over the interim constitution. Good legal solution, butnot practical one in the current political scenario.
IS IT JUST ME….. OR IT SEEMS THAT THIS GOVERNMENT SEEMS TO BE MORE INTRESTED IN HIRING AND FIRING PEOPLE THAN SORTING OUT THE OLD BUNCH…… THERE ARE FEW CRIMINALS STILL LOOSE… INCLUDING
Hey Guys,
I am wondering what image should gorkhapatra represent?
If it’s a mouth peace of the government, then why is there the news of the king visiting Dakchinkali as teh main news?
Further, Why is there a quote of the king when people in Nepal are destroying his “mahabadi” as being fake and full of conspiracies?
What message does Gorkhapatra give to the people, when it is supposed to represent the present government who is passing bills for establishing REPUBLIC Nepal??……..
Hey is there something going wrong with what is said and what’s being done??…….. Are the people’s demand being overshadowed?…….
http://www.gorkhapatra.org.np/pageloader.php?file=2006/05/07/index
Let’s speak out ……….
Hey Guys,
I am wondering what image should gorkhapatra represent?
If it’s a mouth peace of the government, then why is there the news of the king visiting Dakchinkali as teh main news?
Further, Why is there a quote of the king when people in Nepal are destroying his “mahabadi” as being fake and full of conspiracies?
What message does Gorkhapatra give to the people, when it is supposed to represent the present government who is passing bills for establishing REPUBLIC Nepal??……..
Hey is there something going wrong with what is said and what’s being done??…….. Are the people’s demand being overshadowed?…….
Check the website of Gorkhapatra…
Let’s speak out ……….
it is the need of the hour. without it how can we send king to prison?
To the author,
If there is a problem of Constitution’s Articles in resolving the present crisis and moving forward, the Constituiton can be amended by this parliament or newly drafted interim Constitution should be promulgated immediately by the parliament. This is the only way.
But the opinion that in which Article of the Constitution there is aprovision of Jana Andolan? This a very interesting question. The answer to this question is, according to my Professor of law and politics, when the presenr Constitution can not serve the aspirations of the people there is a revolution against it. This is what we witnessed recently. The King has already “killed” the Constitution of 1990, although he was said to be working under Article 127. The irony was that King was also ephasizing on the consolidation of Constituional Monarchy, democracy and protection of Human Rights in each and every declaration or speech he made. The Constituion was in way has become a state of “vegetable”, that means in a point of no return. In such a situation, the Parliament is the only option to declare an Interim Constitution.
Dear Dr Bhandari,
With regards to the consitutional setup, most democratic nations seem to diffrentiate between “basic rights” (a subset of the constitution) and the general consitution.
I draw this example from India where the Supreme Court is the self appointed guardian of the “basic rights”, an inviolable set of points that cannot be changed under any pretext (includes the secular and democratic nature of the political system).
I bring this question as we entering a phase whereby great changes to the constitution can be expected. What safeguards can we expect for such “basic rights” (also brings up who can define these basic rights). This seems specially perplexing as prior events have shown that the insitution of the judiciary does not seem independent and/or mature enough in Nepal to act as a guardian of the basic rights.
Would appreciate any comments from anyone to this effect.
Thanks!
People want to see the criminals of jana andolan II behind the bars. Whatever facilitates it should be done – be it drafting an interim constitution, or the CA elections.
Put Gorkhapatra Corporation, Radio Nepal, Nepal TV in Public Auction.
Why waste time writing an interim constitution which will be replaced anyways in a year or two?
Rather, the stress should be to realize the failures of 1990 constitution and to incorporate it in a new constitution. (corruption control, separation of power, RNA control, sovereignty of people, guarantee of equality etc) Our judiciary needs a complete overhaul. Lets talk about capacity building of the third part of the state – the judiciary. And may be we should start building pressure for impeachment of Royal Stogee in the Supreme Court.
हैन्, कमले, भरत केशरे, सचित्ते, शिरिशे, निश्छे, टन्के, हाब्रे (शरद चन्द्रे), निरन्जन चोर, राधा कृष्ण कुहिएको कमनिष्ट, तुलशि गिरि डाँका, किर्ति निधि किर्त्ते, शिनेटे मन्डले हरु लाई कहिले सम्म मजाले घरमा बस्न दिने। इनिहरुलाई हत्कडि लगाएर हनुमान ढोका को त्यै गुहिए खोर् मा जाक्न् अबेला भएन भन्या!?
Don’t waste time and money in formulation Constituent Assembly. Let’s have election for all of the 205 members for House of Representative. Then ammend the Constitution.
People should read this too. What the director of Boarder Security Force Mr Singh says about Maoists’cease fire. It’s all a tactical ploy and I agree with him.
Source: Times of India
___________________________
‘India cannot afford to ignore Nepal’
[ Sunday, May 07, 2006 10:15:15 pmPTI ]
NEW DELHI: An inimical Nepal and the Maoist problem there may have an adverse effect on India and New Delhi cannot afford to ignore developments in the Himalayan Kingdom, Nepal watchers say.
“We can only ignore Nepal at our own peril,” former Secretary, National Security Council, Satish Chandra said at a seminar on ‘Developments in Nepal and Indian Concerns’ here.
“Fortunately, the seven-party alliance in Nepal seems to be in sync with the Maoists,” Chandra said. “The Maoists have indicated that they will work for a democratic setup. This could have a positive spinout effect on India’s naxalites.”
Pointing out that an inimical Nepal could cause problems on various fronts, he said India should ensure that “the political alliance in Nepal holds and their cooperation with the Maoists continues”.
Disagreeing with Chandra, former BSF Director
General Prakash Singh said the current Maoist ceasefire was nothing but a “tactical ploy” to gain full advantage of the current scenario in Nepal.
“India should be prepared for a volteface from the Maoists after the ceasefire ends,” Singh said.
Dear All
Thanks for interesting and thought provoking questions and inputs. I would like to respond them and invite all of you for your opinion.
On the issues raised by Ms. Samita Poudel and Layman
Yes democratic transition can be expedited either amending the 1990 constitution or promulgating an interim constitution. But there are a number of differences between the amendment and promulgation of an interim constitution on the contents and in their effects, as follows:
• 1990 Constitution can be amended but the basic structure cannot be changed. Constitutional Monarchy is one of the basic structures of the 1990 Constitution.
• Amendment cannot remove the position of the King as Head of the State, King in Parliament and Head of the Executive Body. All major political decisions need to be approved by the King and Parliament cannot enact law without approval of the King. Therefore, the amendment cannot help for smooth transition.
• What we are looking for is not King in Parliament but Parliament. The difference is that King in Parliament requires approval of the King for any enactment. Parliament does not need approval of the King when it is a Parliament as such. King has to do nothing on political and legislative matters. If we are looking for the second option the only alternative to realize it is interim constitution.
• Present executive body under 1990 constitution cannot take major political decisions without approval of the King, which is not acceptable to the people. The executive body should be composed of without the King. This is possible not by amendment but by quashing the 1990 constitution thorough promulgating an interim constitution.
• A major issue crops up – who should declare the interim constitution. On the basis of people’s movement as the people are sovereign and the parliament can act as a repository of the sovereign people and declare interim constitution and also can withdraw the 1990 constitution.
• I have not read Kantipur, but reading you I have an impression that the concern of Kantipur validates my reasoning. However, only a decision of the Parliament cannot make it sovereign. It is not only a theoretical concept but a working concept as well. Parliament needs to retain all the state powers and authorities in its portal, which is possible by clear and specific provisions of a fundamental (basic) governing document. The basic document is nothing else but a constitution that the Parliament itself can make. Parliament has this authority but without making such a document Parliament cannot exercise needed state authority and powers just in the pretext of people’s movement. People’s movement is a source for scrapping the 1990 constitution and promulgation of an Interim Constitution.
• As I mentioned earlier, there are many such provisions that are hindering the parliament and the government but among them most striking are the provisions relating to King in Parliament and King as Head of the Executive Body.
• People are sovereign and they always have a right to revolt if the state, state instrumentalities including the constitution start not serving the people. The people’s movement is a testimony to that. It is a political foundation based on that the present government and the Parliament need to legitimize their actions to realize the aspiration of the people’s movement. In this course, the 1990 constitution is not adequate and a new constitution by CA will be prepared after elections and intense negotiations in the Parliament that takes considerable time. Immediately, we need the Parliament and the government empowered, therefore we need an Interim Constitution.
On the question of Mr. Lee
In my opinion and in the opinion of the Nepalese people as well we need constituent assembly. But under the framework of the 1990 Constitution, the Parliament cannot declare CA. It should be declared by the King. When King is supposed to declare it, imagine it again undergoes through a process of power sharing not power transferring. 1990 Constitution was based on the principle of power sharing (trading-off) which could not institutionalize democracy in the country. We need power to be transferred (state authority, power, privileges and immunities) from the King to the people. Pls. be referred to one of my book on Future of Nepalese Constitution available on http://www.lawassociatesnepal.com .
On Weired’s Issue
I have also the same impression. The government is involved in red herring. The major issue today is to empower the parliament and the government. They are not working to this direction. They are busy on petty but populist things, which are not going to strengthen the government and parliament. We need to hold fast to the real issue and need.
On Guess’ Issue
I agree government should have a good home work and start working on major issues. Gorkapatra’s issue is one of the important issues and the government must take immediate step to bring Gorkhapatra and all other state instrumentalities within the remit of the government. Government should not be a passive onlooker.
On Rohit’s Issue
You are right Rohit, the fundamental thing in any democracy is that you cannot throw out or deny the judicial authority of judicial review. It is the only mechanism of counter hegemony and curbing totalitarianism. In our present context, the new decisions and steps taken or to be taken by the Parliament and the government need to be adequately authorized by a basic law of the country so that they would not fall short in the eyes of judiciary and become subject matter of judicial review. In many cases the Indian Supreme Court has firmly established this doctrine of judicial review and even has reviewed the political decision of President. It is a wonderful democratic court that has brought all political decisions within the bracket of law. If you remember one of the judgments of Justice Khanna, he has clearly said that – No One is Above the Law and no decision of a state and government can be above the law. But the fundamental premise is that the government and Parliament can prepare necessary laws before their acts are quashed by the judiciary. Therefore, I am arguing for an Interim Constitution.
On Kishore’s Issue
Very interesting. We all agree with you. But the problem is that there is no law that could punish people on the charge that they had suppressed people’s movement. I doubt whether this government can do this. If the government is serious for that first it should start drafting a law that should provide clear provision, jurisdiction and penalty and declare activities suppressing janaandolan as a criminal act. But it should prudently define what acts are criminal and what are not. There are also issues of ex post facto effect of criminal law. Moreover, politicians often do not engage in this because that may become a boomerang to them as well in future. That is why Mallik Commission’s Report was not implemented.
On Santosh’s Point
Santosh writing interim constitution does involve wasting any time. It legitimizes and authorizes the parliament and the government, which we need now. No democratic government resorts to any decision in absence of supporting law. In my opinion the present state of law is insufficient, which is the strongest justification for an Interim Constitution. It offers a process of complete overhaul in a systematic, decisive and legitimate way.
………Then ammend the Constitution…
and let the history repeat again!! It is just a foolishness.
Put
Gorkhapatra Corporation,
Radio Nepal,
Nepal TV in
Indian Public Auction
like KP and HiTimes
I agree with Shree Shrestha; a new constitution must have legitimacy. It also must provide for true equality for women citizens including citizenship for their children. No more double standard. Almost half of the Maoist fighters are women for obvious reason.
On Shree Shrestha and Bidesi’s point of view
First let us be clear on the point that amendment of the 1990 Constitution needs to be approved of by the King. Amendment cannot change the basic structure of the Constitution where the King is a Constitutional Monarch. This means amendment of the 1990 constitution cannot reduce the King lower than to the position of Constitutional Monarch. If we are clear about the agenda of the people’s movement we are not looking for a constitutional monarchy as envisaged by the 1990 Constitution. We are looking for a powerful parliament. Therefore, amemdment of the 1990 constitution is indeed meaningless. Resorting to amendment would be just an expungeable blunder. Let us not do that. In a week or a less than a week time the Parliament can promulgate an Interim Constitution and quash the 1990 constitution which is the need of hour.
If needed, the Parliament can also amend the Interim Constitution. Therefore, Maoist also need not to be scary having an Interim Constitution.
Surendra Bhandari
The 1990 Constitution should be declared null and void and an interim constitution should be announced by the Parliament by the same sitting. Because there cannot be any vacuum. All the salient features of 1990 Constitution can be changed, strongly emphasizing the source of inspiration i. e. People Power from Jana Andolan of 2063. We can also say that people have become sovereign and the people want to change the Constitution.
Jana Andolan II clearly shows that people did not like the Constitutional Monarchy as mentioned in 1990 Constitution. People want to decide the fate of the Monarchy through the elections of CA and drafting of the new constitution. These points can be clearly mentioned in the Interim Constituion.This will give us power to move forward.
NEPAL: Hope is Not a Method
Dr Thomas A. Marks
As Nepal moves towards a new order, its governing parliamentarians would do well to heed that most fundamental of maxims: hope is not a method.
To date, events have gone reasonably smoothly, but there continue to be ominous signs that a rougher road lies ahead. Not least of the elements for concern is that which has been at the heart of the matter all along, the motives of the Maoist insurgents.
Contrary to much ill-considered opinionating, the Maoists have not opted for peace in our time. Instead, their forces remain intact, even as they encourage the government to dismantle the only intact force that stands between the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), or CPN(M), and its ability to work its will, the security forces.
Situation
Its grudging moves towards negotiations notwithstanding, the Maoists have been very consistent. In their verbiage, in their briefings to their cadres, and even in their interviews given to members of the international media, they make clear that they do not accept the present state of things. Instead, they are convinced that they are riding the “will of history” that will see the complete ouster of the old-order.
They view the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) present course as an error of major proportions and are fearful that they – “the people” – will be “betrayed.” They certainly do not accept parliamentary democracy as the end-state, unless it emerges in a form of which they approve.
What stands behind their present tactical maneuvering is a willingness to go with the flow so long as the river does not leap its banks. If the SPA will do the work armed rebellion could not accomplish – especially, dismantle the security forces and do away with even a figurehead monarchy – that is agreeable. But one cannot expect them, if things do not go their way, simply to shrug and say they had their moment.
There is a veritable cottage industry of historical falsification abounding, in Nepal and abroad at the moment, which states the Maoists turned to insurgency only because they were not allowed to participate in parliamentary elections (as Masal). That is false. The machinations that led to one wing of Masal being allowed to run using party identification were an intra-Masal squabble, not something the system engineered.
Likewise, the outrageous claim that the monarchy is somehow responsible for the violence of the Maoists is as astonishing as it is absurd. The Maoists first systematically laid waste to Nepal and its weak democracy, then systematically carried out a campaign to claim the reigning monarch had killed his brother and engineered what they, the Maoists, in fact had done – destroy Nepal.
Having turned to armed insurgency, CPN(M) systematically destroyed the structure of the state, in the process eliminating all who opposed the local presence of the Maoists. Non-activists who tried to compile statistics were themselves assassinated.
Having gained control of widespread areas, which they will continue to control during “elections,” no matter for what purpose those elections are held, they are not about to allow their rivals to freely contest within “liberated space.”
This is classic “machine politics,” as the Maoists claim the Nepali Congress (NC) and Unified Marxist Leninists (UML) have been playing all these years. Since UML buys into this logic, at least partially, it is willing to front for the Maoists. The extremist wing of the UML does more than front — it works with the Maoists.
Role of India
Ironically, anti-communist India has ended up letting its own Marxists have their moment by unduly influencing New Delhi’s Nepal policy. This should not surprise, given the realities of coalition politics.
The ruling United Progressive Alliance (a coalition led by Congress) has roughly 218 seats versus the 189 of the National Democratic Alliance (a coalition led by the BJP) — of the total 543. With 71 independents, the 65 votes of the Left Front — 43 of those 65 votes are CPI(Marxist) — are what allow the UPA to rule (even in a hypothetical worst case scenario, 283-260). That is why the demands of the CPI(M) have been acceded to, and that is why CPI(M) figures such as Sitaram Yechury have become regular visitors to Kathmandu as they conduct the Indian left’s “foreign policy within a foreign policy.”
Actions of Congress Party itself need little explaining — this is the party that absorbed Sikkim, and that sees the Nepali King in the same light as the deposed Rajas of the princely states. This is the party that yet contains a wing that sees itself as heirs to “the Great Game.” In their assessment, the king of Nepal should have gone the way of the Rajahs “back then,” but the business of cleaning out the dead wood on the subcontinent was not finished.
The result, as needs little recounting, has been regular and consistent interjection of India into the affairs of Nepal. Having done this yet one more time, in the present crisis, India now expects Nepali politics to function as that of a union territory in all but formal status.
This issue is not one that need detain any analysis at this moment. It will ultimately be decided, one way or another, as it was in Sri Lanka, by nationalism of the target state. Nepali nationalism, to be sure, is something, which has rarely reared its head in anything save platitudes about “never having been a colony.” In fact, Nepal is as thorough a colony as ever there was (of India and of the international community through its utter dependence upon external aid).
Still, to be clear: first, India has no desire to become bogged down in the quicksand of Nepal, so having “democratic allies” in power is the proper route to realization of its geo-strategic designs; second, there is a strong wing of Indian politics that sees the present policy towards Nepal as misguided, counterproductive, and downright dangerous, given India’s own Maoist threat. The claim that there are no connections between the Nepali and Indian Maoists is falsified by a wealth of evidence, not least the pronouncements and actions of the Nepali Maoists before they became more media savvy.
The threat to Nepali sovereignty, then, is not from India per se but from the present situation that India has “enabled.” Its view is that it can “handle” the situation. This remains to be seen — just as India proved quite incapable of “handling” the Tamil insurgents.
Internal Issues
The most pressing danger, at this juncture, is that SPA, dominated by NC and UML, will revert to form (on full display during the dozen or so years of full democracy) and lead Nepal into a “Kerensky moment” for the Maoists, as occurred for the Bolsheviks in Russia of 1917-18. The Leninists were not the strongest party in post-Czarist Russia, only the party with a preponderance of force at the decisive point(s). This allowed them to gain control of the state and then to do what was necessary to consolidate their hold.
This is also how Hitler consolidated his hold on Germany, despite having only one-third of the parliament (Reichstag). Further, it is what the Sandinistas did in post-Somoza Nicaragua. One already sees the Maoist thugs threatening even UML politicians (who, in any case, have always been on the cutting edge as victims of the Maoists).
What all three of the cases just named share is that the security forces had fallen apart. This is not the case in Nepal. The key, therefore, is to make the new-order understand that the security forces have every intention and desire to serve democracy — but that they will not stand by and see compromised restored democracy and Nepali sovereignty compromised. What they desire is what they have fought for — a viable parliamentary democracy.
Already, the Maoists have stated repeatedly that they have other goals: trials for those central to the old-order, especially for the monarch and the Royal Nepal Army (RNA) officer corps (the Maoist leadership has asserted both of these goals in its less guarded moments). This is also what they have been saying to their cadres.
They have rejected integration into the Royal Nepal Army (RNA) by any name and demanded a new force, which they will dominate by default. This is just how the scenario played itself out in Nicaragua, the result being the Sandinista dictatorship, which rapidly produced its own counterrevolutionary insurgency by abusing the people. (Contrary to the hoary left-wing myth, the CIA could not even arm all the contras, so abundant was the influx of peasant manpower demanding the right to resist the Managua Marxist-Leninist dictatorship.)
Status of the Security Forces
In this situation, what is both puzzling and counterproductive is how little realistic consideration has emerged concerning the future of the security forces, of which the RNA is the dominant element.
This is puzzling, because the security forces are quite intact and – contrary to yet another theme pushed by both activist elements of the new regime and their international activist backers – exercised remarkable restraint during the recent upheaval. Lathi charges are not semiautomatic volleys, and the latter did not occur.
It is counterproductive for the same reasons: there are at least 150,000 armed government security forces in completely intact units. It is naïve to assume that they – and their compatriots in the other two forces, the Armed Police Force, or APF, and the Civil Police, or CP – are going to march off to oblivion, surrender, or slaughter.
The latter two, to be clear, are the Maoist position, and they expect to extract such from the ruling SPA as the Maoist price of “nonviolent participation” in the state. To judge that this inevitably will lead to confrontation requires no analytical acumen, simply looking at the Nepali security forces with clear eyes.
What is now on the field is a force quite different from that, which entered the conflict in November 2001, when RNA was attacked by the Maoists. This is especially so in the key middle grades of RNA and extending even to the younger brigadiers. It is also true in APF, perhaps to a lesser extent in NP. It is RNA, which is of particular interest.
RNA’s “field elements” accept parliamentary supremacy and seek a more professional, “21st Century military.” Critical in this respect is a functioning Ministry of Defence. Frequently (e.g., as in Sri Lanka), the Prime Minister will also be the Minister of Defence, with a Deputy Minister actually handling the day-to-day business of running the armed forces. This is a level of detail that does not concern RNA now. Officers know there are numerous friendly states with extensive experience in implementing and consolidating the proper mechanisms.
Many of these younger RNA officers have even considered the passing of the monarchy, but they are worldly enough to see that this leaves open the question of what institution or figure would serve the referee’s position (e.g., India has a president; many former Commonwealth states have a Governor General; the US has its Senate; Britain, the House of Lords). Hence, they believe it is preferable that a constitutional monarchy remain.
What they do not accept is the position demanded by the Maoists and their left wing allies: “replacing” one force by another, or of “purging” one force only to install the cadres of another. Reconciliation, to their mind, demands amalgamation, even if this is accompanied by reduction in overall numbers.
For their part, APF and CP are critical to the normal functioning of the state. Under no circumstances will any force accept being disbanded in favor of Maoist replacements. To do so would guarantee left-wing dictatorship.
Operational Matters
Ironically, whatever the precise manner in which events unfold, the sitting government is bound to find, in the months ahead, normal policing and security duties will assume heightened importance. A clear understanding must be worked out by the government as to what is expected to arrest a dangerous societal drift that has set in. Armed thugs, often claiming to be representing “the people” but invariably cadres of Maoist front organizations, roam all major population centers in Nepal and must be brought within the normal rule of law.
This is a job particularly of the police, supported by the APF, but it is inevitable that RNA will be involved. The present situation, to include the widespread threatening of individuals and institutions, cannot go unchecked.
Within the forces themselves, leave and training will assume heightened importance during the transition. The latter must be done in a way so as to maintain unit integrity and readiness but not be confrontational. Best way to do this is to integrate representatives of the local civil authority into coordinating bodies.
Politically, RNA is confronted with a Faustian bargain: It must serve the state even with the knowledge that the unity of SPAM (Seven Party Alliance + the Maoists) depends upon the SPA placating the M. The Maoists see the victory as theirs and see themselves as dictating the terms of surrender — and see only trials for those who have resisted them. Hence, the security forces must keep order even as they are plotted against (in certain circles) and held up as a bargaining chip (in other circles).
Their logical advocates, the Indians, who have the most to lose from a Maoist-dominated Nepal, remain, as noted above, very much an unknown element, given the array of actors waging mini-foreign policies. One factor has not changed as any perusal of large segments of the Indian press reveals: New Delhi has been ill-informed by a good fraction of its so-called “Nepal experts,” in just the manner it was led astray, two decades ago, by its “Sri Lanka experts.”
It cannot be said that Indian analysts have developed much actual knowledge of the workings of Nepali Maoism. The dominant position is that the CPN(M) can be bought off or simply directed – an astonishing position given what India seems to have realized quite belatedly about the Stalinist, anti-democratic essence of its own Maoists.
CPI(M), in particular, has little understanding of Nepali insurgent ground realities. The Indian left-wing political pilgrims to Nepal deal with their opposite numbers in the UML. If they meet a “Maoist,” they deal with personalities of their “own stratum,” who can be as engaging and sophisticated as any. They do not deal with what is in the hills, thus gaining no comprehension that there is an organization of LTTE clones, every bit as dogmatic and ruthless.
For those who have dealt with the Tamil insurgents, one conclusion is salient: orientation of manpower is never the issue in a situation such as this. It is leaders who are the lynchpin. It is insurgent leaders who have produced the endless cycle of insurgent brutality in Sri Lanka, a struggle that has long since seen its original causes vanish.
The situation is quite similar in Nepal. It is the Maoist leaders who are following an ideological play-book. Their followers are thrown up by local grievances. Maoist manpower is just as eager for “peace” as anyone else, but they expect to get something out of their campaign. They have been told consistently that the new order will belong to them and will bring justice and prosperity. There is no way to do that in the short term except by taking from the old and giving to the new.
That this is playing a losing hand has been made clear in study after study, most recently by the simple calculations of Dr Steve Gorzula. As he notes, divide the arable land of Nepal (22,627 km2) by the population (28 million in July 2006 estimates), and the result is a society that has exceeded the carrying capacity of the land. Lip-serve is paid to the only real possibility, development of hydropower, and the result is a vacuum into which Maoist coercive utopian solutions have no competitors.
What is to be Done?
Certainly Lenin, who set forth the query in his famous work, would be proud of his Maoist pupils. On the side of democracy, there is little worthy of praise. The stormy course ahead, though, will require more steady seamanship than has hitherto been demonstrated in the short history of Nepali democracy. More than “hope (it all works out)” will be required.
The role of the security forces will be paramount, for they are the only guarantee that Maoist violence will not be the trump card. Thus normal functioning of those security forces must be maintained at all costs, so as to avoid demoralization and possible desertion. Clear explanations of what is happening are imperative, with the emphasis upon “transition to parliamentary supremacy.”
Any impression of “defeat” must be banished, despite the concerted efforts of the left-wing to push this claim to front position in the ongoing struggle for control of the narrative describing recent events. Already, the Maoists claim their revolutionary forces were key (with their cadres inciting violence and caching explosives in urban areas).
Of course, it was not the revolutionary project that emerged victorious, but the demand for participation and results. “Reform,” then, must be the order of the day, as has long been called for by all interested parties.
“Reform” is not a word in the Maoist vocabulary, so forces of actual democracy (as opposed to “people’s democracy”) will be called upon to face the inevitable backlash. It is for the politicians to deal with this reality, but the security forces will be their shield.
It is possible that international mediation and even involvement may create new possibilities. For the moment, however, the Maoists have no intention of participating in a “new” version of the old-order. They are demanding and expecting that a constitutional convention will deliver a people’s republic in form if not in immediate practice. They are determined to exact vengeance.
They are not, in other words, seeking “democracy” as we know the word. There is a strong thread of thought which claims the Maoists will choose the path trod by the “other” insurgent groups in Sri Lanka (e.g., PLOT, TELO, EPRLF), groups that agreed, with certain misgivings, to work within the system. More likely, is that the Maoists will go the way of LTTE, which moved after each hopeful pause to resume its revolutionary project.
It hardly needs highlighting that such a course of action by the Maoists would put them squarely at odds with the desires of the Nepali masses – just as LTTE cannot today be said to represent much more than the aspirations of its rump state. If the CPN(M) is astute, it will realize this.
Unfortunately, historically does not provide grounds for optimism. There is no Maoist insurgency that has displayed such foresight. Neither do operational realities provide any more hope: the Maoists are not in any way standing down.
The up side? If the Maoists move as driven by their hate-filled ideology and resume their struggle. they will find themselves just where LTTE does – on the wrong side of history and facing a reasonably united, democratic society, amply assisted by friendly powers — to include India.
——————————————
Dr. Marks is a political risk consultant based in Honolulu, Hawaii and a frequent visitor to Nepal. He has authored a number of benchmark works on Maoist insurgency.
Dr. Marks,
Do not post whole article in such a blog. We can read your aricle in some news papers but not here. Nepalese people are trying to sort out their problems from within Nepal. Sorry, but I must tell you these things.
Dr. Mark’s view to me is very similar to Mohan Bikram Singh’s statement. Although they may be far apart in the political spectrum, anyone can see that they both do not trust the Maoists. I agree with them. I cannot see how people give them the benefit of doubt when both these gentlemen – one who has vast experience by dealing with maoists all over the world and the other who knows the maoist leaders personally and was their leader when they were a part of the parliament under the same party, doubt them to the core.
Especially the latter gent, who knows them intimately. Who can be a better judge? And yet there are people here who hope this and hope that. I think the democratic forces have to win back the confidence of the security forces, and there should be no mention of going back in to the barracks unless the maoists give up their arms entirely and be treated as normal law abiding citizens.
Further, as Mr. Singh has mentionbed, the cadres who have committed crimes against political activists and common people should be punished. Why is the parliament so weak to do what is right instead of just trying to do what is popular? To many of us, these victims are not only martyrs but real democrats, where is their honour and where is the justice for them?
I again ask the media to rise up to this challenge.
Dr. Marks, I applaud your well articulated overview of the current situation. I wish I could express my views as capably as you have done. I look forward to your future posts.
Plz read this article published in The Hindu
Agreed. Dr Marks article ( NEPAL: Hope is Not a Method)is blatantly truthful about situation in Nepal now. For those willing and capable of putting their own opinion aside while reading it will come out quite learned.
hey now one american is wrting on the Indian Interest on Nepal. You people getting serious, when i was wrting the same stuff may be 2 months back you people told me that i was a sheer anti-indian.
You gobar buddhees!
HELLO CAN ANYONE TELL ME IF MAOIST’S WEBPAGE http://WWW.CPNM.ORG AND http://WWW.INSOF.ORG , CAN BE VIEWED FROM NEPAL… JUST TO MAE SURE THE CENSOR HAS HEEN LIFTED…..THANX….
Just because he is an American doesn’t mean he is automatically wrong. Sometimes standing back a bit from the trees can allow you to see the forest more clearly.
Bhandari,
The reason why I against interim constitution is that this step distracts attention from the absolute priorities. (like bringing back maoists to mainstream, internalizing and taking steps to avoid past failures which resulted in weak/unfunctioning state). Accountability, corruption control, transperancy, justice to all, and Universal declaration of HR are the things which the justice system needs to address.
By my understanding, the day one Deuba declared emergency and sided with palace, 1990 constitution is dead. The present constitution is just a paper to keep the lawyers involved in ‘enlightened discussions’. No provision in 90s constitution entitles the king to assume executive role or to create unaccountable executive and to reestablish parliament.Current election commissioner and head of supreme court head are appointed unconstitutionally. These are all political decisions. Accept the fact. The current arrangement is already an interim arrangement to reestablish sovereignty to the people.
The 1990 Constitution says that all is applicable and binding unless the King disagrees. Read it. We need a new Constitution. On the other side of the equation, the Maoists should never be “brought into the main stream”. The must be defeated and put out of business.
Be advised: Dr. Thomas Marks is a professional counter-insurgency “expert”,, a professional counter-revolutionary, whose very business is to advise dictators, corrupt rulers, death squads, contras, brutal police forces, paramilitaries, and corporate predators on the Third World.
He is not just some opinionated American “academic” arrogantly posting an entire article on this blog. He is the represenative of the most brutal face of American imperialism.He has deep connections to the US military elite and to the intelligence services.
His “expertise” is in putting down rebllions, crushing demonstations, creating disinformation campaigns, interrogating prisoners,covert operations, black propaganda, and destroying popular movements. He is a reactionary and cynical opponent of the democratic movement of the Nepalese people and of progressive forces everywhere.
His sympathies lie with the security forces. Be very careful of this man!
Mr Mark R,
Either you are a Maobade or an Indian agent.
Mr. Mark R,
We are not as dumb as you make us out to be. [icd]. It’s very apparent with whom your sympathies lie, isn’t it?
Coke,
Why is it that India cannot be kep out of this? Why is everything wrong always attributed to India? Yes, India has bullied Nepal in the past.. I do not dispute that, but that does not mean they will want trouble brewing in Nepal. It’ll be great if you refrain from making such statements.
The way I look at it, India’s help will be crucial in bringing peace and stability.
I will never refrain and it won’t be great either.
Indian wants trouble in Nepal that is the only fact and that will remain a fact forever or as long as you and i live.
It is interesting discussion. But I would like to say that SPA went to the Maoists asking for their support because King was too harsh on them.If SPA did not have joined with Maoists, it was better. Now Maoists took all the credit for the success of Jana Andolan. SPA joined hands with teroorists Maoits and Maoists are dictating the events . The siuation may be dangerous if SPA antagonize the Army further. If they refuse to protect the politician at this stage, Maoists will take over and Maoists will kill all the leaders. That can be worst-case scenario, as Americans put it.
India wants to be a world economic power and does not want to be seen as an expansionist meddler in Nepal. A Maoist government in Nepal would be intolerable however. India would be compelled to intervene.
Not only India other countries also would not like it. But major player is India no doubt.Till now we are talking about only accommodating maoits Interim Govt. But when there would be fullfledged Govt. of their own, we don’t except their take over power by force.
Everything depends on the process of democratiztion including the elections of CA. I never beleive that Maoits will come to power through elections.
Ok Surendra you make a strong case for an interim constitution with your emphasis on ‘due process of law’, ‘governing law’ and setting a precedent whereby all actions of the government are backed by the constitution and not extra-constitutional like the king’s moves.
However I think you are indulging in a bit too much legalese. The present parliament (despite their mandate having lapsed) under the special circumstances of it’s reconvening still does have the authority to amend the constitution by the requisite majority to ensure the legality of their forthcoming actions. Much shorter than formulating an interim constitution and less troublesome but with the still the same legal authority.
A CA for new constitution is an absolute necessity. The 1990 constitution does not address the true aspirations of all the Nepalis. Besides it has been so abused that I don’t think anyone, executive, legislature, judiciary, the Maoists/RNA/Palace or the ordinary people have any respect for it anymore.
First ask the maoists on their offical views on Bhutanese Refugee Crisis and the Nepalese land encroached by India in more than 70 places.
Any maoists here would like to give me details on your party’s position in these issues?
Mr Bideshi
You are an ignorant chap. I suppose you are a son of an indian father.
And i’ll tell you India is the world’s most crooked country.
Indian people still have that slave mentality licking white ass.
I greatly regreat for having India as my neighbor.
Blackeesssssssss! Vomit!
I hope better Indians get US citizenship and go there to work collect money and wear an Indian pijama comb hair bihari style and pretend to be an indian.
Indians are the nation sellers. and M******fkrs.
My country men here may not know the Indian design in our motherland but i am clear about it. no confusion!
Mr. Coke, You will turn my head with flattery! I have also been accused of being an American white anglo saxon rascist. But ignorance is relative. The American humorist Will Rogers once said “We are all ignorant; just on different subjects..”. I believe that India’s interest in profitable trade with the West is greater than the urge to be an imperial expansionist power (or at least to be seen as one…). Your school yard rant suggests to me that you are rather young and could benefit from trying to view issues from more than one perspective. There are greater matters at stake now than our own narrow self interests.
For god sake ask moaists
on their offical views on Bhutanese Refugee Crisis and the Nepalese land encroached by India in more than 70 places.
Any maoists here would like to give me details on your party’s position in these issues?
Who is the Supremo of this movement? To be very frank Prachanda….
Who is leading this country? To be very frank Prachanda…
Why member of the parliament hiding and running from the back door of the parliament? Because they worry with the people…..
Then how come they are leading the mass movement?????????Do they think we are dull???
Anyway people are for the peace and whoever lead the country for the peace will be accpeted…
The people have no guns. The parties have no guns. Only the Maoists and RNA have guns. Only one of the armed groups will rule Nepal. Pray to God it is the RNA that prevails.
According to Marks R., Dr. Thomas Marks is a whole bunch of things that a facist communist would say to dicredit him. I think his is the exact sort of advise required to counter terrorists, fascists and generally people with guns who coerce peace loving citizens to follow their ideas.