Football World Cup and Nepal Peaceball Cup

The game of Nepali politics: Listen to Prachanda and you can see the Indian influence in Nepali Maoists

By Dinesh Wagle
Wagle’s Web Log

It’s the season of Football and the World Cup is getting all the attention from fans around the world. I am also following the game putting aside my sweet sleep: Favorites Brazil shockingly lost to Zinedine Zidane’s France folks last night disheartening me but making my brother very happy. The clash between England and Portugal was even more interesting (my favorites Portuguese won!). But the game of Nepali politics is no less interesting at all. Nepal can’t play the game but it has amazingly turned into the playground where the England, India and the United States are playing the Peaceball.

Last week English representative in the Nepali playground [Ambassador] Keith Bloomfield kicked off the game saying that it would be unfortunate if Maoists along with their arms joined the government. American [Ambassador] James F. Moriarty turned out to be a striker. He took up the issue both to the Prime Minister of Nepal and the Nepali public. Wiseman Moriarty yesterday suggested that the Maoists should change their attitude and abandon violence before joining the interim government with the political parties. In the typical American style, he issued a threat of stopping aid money to Nepal if armed Maoists join the government. Yes Moriarty cited his country’s law for that threat.

Now about the Indian team in the Peaceball Nepali Cup. They are not alone but are in Nepal in a size that can easily counter a real Football (soccer) team. India have never been qualified for the World Cup Finals and are at the end of the FIFA ranking but when it comes to the Nepali playground, they are on the frontline and at the top in the list. Look at the players: [Ambassador] Shiv Shankar Mukharjee, Communist leader Sitaram Yachuri and former ambassador K V Rajan. They quietly play the game of turning and twisting the Nepali peace process and love making speeches at the Reporters’ Club in Putalisadak.

A few days ago I saw a Nepali footballer in Kantipur TV. He was talking about how Nepali players can learn the game of Football watching world class players in action on TV. This evening I spent nearly 30 minutes walking around the town where I live (Pepsicola) and reflected what our political players might be learning from the International players. Compared to the footballers, they are in easier position: Matches are being played in home ground.

Look at Prachanda, the Maoist Chairman. Man, the Indian influence is so much in him that every time he tries to make a point, he refers to India and their interests. Amazing! Maoists agreed in the Baluwataar High Level Talks on inviting UN to manage arms. Now Prachanda is talking that the arms can be managed even without UN help. India never supported the UN arrival in Nepal. Never. Why? Because the arrival and involvement of UN in Nepal means no space for India to play the game. That is why they were against the UN observation of the ongoing Government-Maoist peace talks. For some reasons they couldn’t openly oppose the possible UN role in arms management but they are trying their best to keep the UN away from Nepal internal meddling.

It seems that Maoists and India have reached an agreement: Folks you don’t talk about the UN involvement and we will support you to join the government. Forget about what Moriarty says about you guys we will defend you but don’t let the UN come to Nepal. Start talking about how capable the Nepalis are and talk that Nepalis are capable of managing their arms internally. That is why Prachanda threw the card: let’s put the both armies under the leadership of the Prime Minister.

Here is the replay of the Nepal Cup: Who kicked the Peaceball and how:

US envoy meets PM; urges Maoists to abandon violence

KATHMANDU, July 1 – US Ambassador to Nepal, James F Moriarty said Saturday that the Maoists should change their attitude and abandon violence before joining the interim government with the political parties. “If the Maoists take part in the government without management of their arms, then the US aid will have to be discontinued,” Moriarty said after meeting with Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala at the latter’s residence in the capital today morning.

“We can’t supply assistance to those who support a terrorist group. We have to consider them (Maoists) a terrorist group until they give up violence.” Moriarty also reiterated that the management of the Maoist arms is crucial before joining the interim government. The US envoy, who is leaving for his country later today, added that the US laws did not allow US assistance to anyone involved in “violence and terrorism.”

He said that he would not hold any talks with the Maoists despite their recent round of talks with various foreign diplomats and envoys. “It is important that the Maoists renounce violence than just go on meeting with various diplomats and envoys.”
On Wednesday, Moriarty told a rotary function in the capital that he was concerned by the continued gap between Maoist commitments and actions. He said, “Kidnapping, extortion, intimidation and murder are not tools for mainstream democratic political parties—which the Maoists claim they are becoming.”
Moriarty, however, said that the new Nepal government had shown its good faith by trying to be responsible to the will of the people, and accordingly has invested heavily in efforts to bring peace to Nepal by entering into agreements and negotiations with the Maoists.

The US envoy is on a three-week-long trip to his homeland to discuss the current political development of Nepal with the US officials. In a historic eight-point deal, to put the country decisively on the road to a constituent assembly, the seven-party alliance government and the Maoists on June 16 had reached an agreement to draft an interim constitution; form interim govt containing the Maoists; dissolve the House, Maoist “local governments” and invite UN to manage, monitor arms of both the government and the rebels.’ (Source)

Now the Indian players:

Sitaram Yechury and Indian envoy Mukharjee meet Prime Minister Koirala

KATHMANDU, July 2 – Indian Ambassador to Nepal Shiv Shankar Mukharjee met with Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala on Sunday at the PM’s residence in Baluatar. The Indian envoy discussed over the remarks made by the US Ambassador to Nepal James F. Moriarty on the Maoists, sources said.

Influential politburo member of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), Sitaram Yechury was also present during the meeting. The Indian envoy’s meeting has taken place only a day after the US ambassador met with the PM to discuss the recent political development in the country. Earlier, Moriarty had expressed suspicion that the Maoist activities were centred at the “October revolution” so they could not be trusted.

“If the Maoists take part in the government without management of their arms, then the US aid will have to be discontinued,” Moriarty had said after meeting the Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala on Saturday. The US envoy, before leaving for his country later yesterday, added that the US laws did not allow US assistance to anyone involved in “violence and terrorism.”

India has been expressing its concern on Nepal over the “basic international norms” accepted by all countries and that it is up to the people of an independent country to decide on major issues. (Source)

Here is the Indian counter attack to the American strike:

Moriarty violated norms: Yechury

KATHMANDU, July 2 – Influential politburo member of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), Sitaram Yechury, said here Friday that US Ambassador James Moriarty’s recent anti-Maoist remarks “grossly violated” international norms.
Speaking at Reporters’ Club Nepal, Yechury said the “basic international norms” accepted by all countries is that it is up to the people of an independent country to decide on major issues. “In independent countries, nobody can impose conditions from outside,” he said.

“This is gross violation of international norms,” he added, referring to Moriarty’s remarks. Doubting Maoist commitment to mainstream politics, Moriarty on Wednesday had said the US wouldn’t support any government participated by the Maoists unless they renounced violence.

“They (Maoist) have to change their actions before we can provide assistance to the Maoist in anyway or to the government which they are a part of,” he had said, warning that Nepal would lose US support if the Maoists are included in a government in the present situation.

Yechury, who played a key role from India in the run-up to and during the April Revolution, is currently in Nepal. On Friday, he met, among others, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala; Maoist leaders Prachanda and Dr. Baburam Bhattarai. Likewise, on Saturday, he met CPN-UML General Secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal, Finance Minister Dr. Ram Sharan Mahat, and former foreign minister Chakra Bastola.

After meeting the Maoist leaders, Yechury got the impression that the rebels wouldn’t go back to jungle. “They won’t go back to the old path,” he said. “They are committed to implementing it (the 8-point agreement between the government and the Maoist on June 16)… they believe in multiparty democracy and competitive politics.”

His meeting with the Maoist leaders had focused on four major issues – arms management, grassroots-level implementation of the 25-point code of conduct, modalities of the would-be interim constitution and formation of a Maoist-included interim government. Before returning to Delhi, Yechury is again meeting PM Koirala, besides Home Minister Krishna Sitaula, Sunday morning. He also expressed hope that the 8-point pact would be implemented “as soon as possible”.

On possible release of Nepali Maoist jailed in India, he said all the Maoist – arrested by India on the request of Nepal Government – would be released once Nepal officially requests India to do so. However, he said those jailed for violating laws of the land on Indian soil won’t be released. Maoist have claimed that there are at least 137 of their comrades, including three central leaders – C.P. Gajurel aka “Gaurav”, Mohan Baidhya a.k.a. “Kiran” and Kul Prasad K.C. – in various Indian jails. (Source)

Before coming to Nepal, Indian communist leader Yechuri got the blessing from this captain in New Delhi:

Yechury meets Indian PM Singh ahead of his Nepal tour

Sitaram Yechury, a senior leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), who played a key role in winning the support of the Indian ruling alliance for the successful people’s movement in Nepal, met with Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh ahead of his tour to Kathmandu on Thursday.

Yechury discussed the latest political developments in Nepal with Dr Singh, Indian official news agency PTI said. During his two-day tour to Kathmandu likely from Friday, the CPI (M) politburo member will meet with Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, CPN (Maoist) chairman Prachanda and other leaders of the seven-party alliance (SPA).

He also held a meeting with Indian defence minister Pranab Mukherjee today, PTI said, adding that Yechury is likely to “press both sides to take the international community into confidence so that global legitimacy is granted to the future shape of democracy in Nepal”.

Yechury has been the most vocal of Indian leaders in favour of Nepal’s democratic movement and the ongoing peace process. He had visited Kathmandu before and after the successful April Movement.

India has welcomed the recent political developments in Nepal and has increased its economic assistance. The CPI (M) leader’s visit comes at a time when the Indian political establishment watches the imminent power sharing between the SPA and the Maoists with cautious nervousness. Yechury is considered to be in good terms with both the Maoists and the SPA leaders. (Source)

16 thoughts on “Football World Cup and Nepal Peaceball Cup

  1. yeah ain’t it a pity that we can’t put our own house in order. The Maoists, Palace and the SPA actively encourage these outsiders to enter the fray and then they shamefacedly talk about how much they love our dear Nepal.

    We Nepalis should learn from other countries where foreigners have tried to interfere-like Japan, China, India-and how they put their own country’s interest above everything else. We Nepalis should start thinking for the greater good of our people instead of always only looking out for our petty interests.

  2. i knew from the begining the this prachanda guy is an indian puppet.

    how can a party with guns be a mainstream party? what the hell is indians are trying to prove?

  3. I have several doubts over Prachanda’s political maneuvers but I do agree with him on his ‘No’ remarks for foreign involvement on arms management in Nepal. In true sense, at least – I want to give him a ‘benefit of doubt’ in this particular case!

    I would like to appreciate Mr Prachanda for finally realizing uselessness of involving some of the world organizations or foreign powers to solve our own household matters.

    We went thru a bitter experience of one of the bloodiest civil wars in recent past. It was a complete nightmare for us. I think no right minded person in present Nepal wants it to be continued. Now there seems a ray of hope, but some of own people and powers are trying to cast shadow over it.

    Now Prachanda seems to have taken 180 degree turn from his initial stand of communist republic, how much more should we expect from him? Are we ready to take risk of him being in the jungle again? India of course has some vested interest over Nepali politics and Nepali Maoists, and Indians always love to see Nepali political powers dancing on their tunes as puppets. It is same India which wanted to defeat Maoists thru (R)NA, but now they have found it impossible for instant and want to bring Maoists on main stream Nepali politics or to legalize them. …..but for what? The answer is simple- to curb the growing Maoist problem in their own courtyard. The Maoists sitting on the high chairs in Singha Durbar will not be in the position to support (at least formally) their onetime Indian Comrades-in-Arms. Why should not Prachnada cash this ‘chink in India’s armor’? It is an open secret that every politician loves to be in power! I think it is not unfair in Nepali political ‘football’, where most of the players like to don Nepali National Team’s jersey but love (‘compelled’ sometimes) to commit suicide goals for India. Prachanda should be given a benefit of doubt, with an optimistic thinking that he will not sell himself to the Indians.

    Whenever all belligerents decide to end belligerency, there remains no more conflict. In present context of Nepali conflict, if the Maoists rebels and SPA Government are ready to end the conflict and give peace a chance, what is the obstacle there? If there is any doubt, why don’t both parties sit and discuss? Why some of the politicians and intellectuals demanding foreign involvement? Don’t they think themselves able for it? I think it is due to poor and foreign-dependant mentality of some of the Nepali politicians or they just want to make their masters happy.

    I wont say all of the political leaders are puppet to foreign powers and all of the intellectuals are harvesting ‘green dollars’ thru INGOs, but sorry to say that most of them, demanding foreign involvement for arms management or conflict termination in Nepal are raising proxy voice for foreign powers and big organizations.

    Series of questions arise here; why there is a competition among so called world organizations and foreign powers to get involve on arms management in Nepal? Where were those ‘well wishers’ of Nepal, when we were suffering like hell? The so called world organizations and its top brass did nothing more than throwing some statement and that is only for the sake formality, and the foreign powers only fueling and refueling the conflict.

    I could not trace any successful example of so called ‘peace processes’ thru international ‘mediations’ or ‘involvement’. Almost all of such attempts turned out to be complete failure. Some rare cases, like UN involvement in Guatemala or Angola could be portrayed as ‘success’, but it was not the UN involvement but the willingness of belligerent parties for conflict termination and their commitment for peace made it possible. I don’t think those entire foreigner powers, desperate to get involved in Nepali conflict are not aware of the outcome from involvement of Nordic countries, led by Norway in Sri Lankan conflict. What is happening there in East Timor, Somalia and many other countries? Why is Sri Lanka burning again?

    I heard Mr Sitaram Yenchury, Politburo Member of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) criticizing US Ambassador Moriarty for ‘grossly violating’ international norms by making negative remarks on Maoists. Of course foreign diplomats in Nepal do not speak or act like diplomats, but they behave like British East India Company’s Resident. But, there is no difference between Moriarty’s comments and Mr Yenchury’s criticism on it! Mr Yenchury’s own current activities and his remarks on Nepal are nothing more than interference on the internal matters of a sovereignty of Nepal. It represents the mentality of general Indian politicians, who consider Nepal as 29th state of Republic of India.

    The foreign powers want to play a role in Nepali peace process only for the sake of their own (dirty) interests and the world organizations want their involvement only to put a feather in their cap. When peace is possible without their involvement, why should they be invited? The only demand of the time is Maoists must be ready to manage their arms by merging their armed elements with Nepal Army to form a new National Army, not politically active but answerable to the democratic Government of elected political power. It must be carried out prior to CA Elections, not only to prevent guns from influencing elections but also to ensure everlasting peace in Nepal.

  4. Be it without US assistance or whatever, peaceball must follow our own way. At least whatever we think is correct. We still remember what Moriarty said after 12 point agreement between mainstream parties and maoists. He was supporting the palace then while most Nepali didn’t like. He was not at all supporting the historic jana andolan II. ALl the time he was urging the protesters to return home and live in peace with the king.

    We did not listen to him at all. We went on our way. We know the US policy – support anything that is not communist even if is as worst as King Gyanendra’s rule. I don’t think that there is any change in US policy towards Nepal. They are just cleverly disguising it with different words. And some people in Nepal believe that they can use “red scare” to come to power again.

  5. without india’s tacit support, maoists would have been wiped away in the first year of their rebellion.

  6. Comrade Sita Ram Yechiri is just a tip of Iceberg of Indian hyppocracy. We should not forget a few facts regarding India:

    1. India had been main source of arm and ammunition for Maoists. It could be a different issue who in India and how they do it?
    2. India used to be a favorite hide out for Maoists from Nepal. It is a different issue that smart but one eyed security agencies of India always failed to detect them.
    3. R.A.W., a security agency of India is the smartest agency in India but it is also one eyed organization. It can see ISI agents in Nepal but always failed to see Nepali Maoists & their Leaders in India or even in New Delhi.

  7. hi frns,
    We should not view India in one perspective.India too has the far right and the far left and the Congress in between.When the BJP(the far right) was on the power they tried to help the gov.in fighting the maoists as much as they could,even the congress with its socialist idealogies helped.

    This UPA gov.is a combination of the congress and the leftists.If we had a democratic gov. figting the maoists India had to support our gov.but the leftist forces in India got a chance to get maoists on the top because of the stupidity of our dear ol KG.

    Sitaram Yechuri is so good at talking that when he was proposed as the speaker of the house,his party CPIM rejected it and said we need him as our party spokesman.As we all know every communist at heart fantasises the possiblity of a republic(people’s republic as we call it),poor ol yechuri knows its not a realistic thought in his own country but with his help could be a possibility in his neighbourhood.Thats what he is after.

    Tomorrow if the BJP comes to power i can assure you frns,they will support the royalists and venemently oppose the maoists.

    Sticking to the point of discussion.

    We dont need any other country playing politics here but We need UN,of course WE NEED UN !! I will trust a king cobra than INDIANS that too communists!! Because we know no foreign intervention basically means ONLY INDIAN MEDDLING.They think they are at home here, i guess that’s what Prachanda too seems to believe too.

  8. Though I do not agree with a lot of US policy in Nepal-especially their pro-palace stance -I agree with Moriarty that armed Maoists in the government is a big no, no. How can Maoists talk about peace and democracy while carrying guns?

    The SPA and Maoists should be focussing on getting the UN in here for the arms management and monitoring. For me the Maoists will have no credibility until they lay down their arms.

  9. The way I see it- we have false bravado as a Nepali. We let other dictate, rule by proxy, and serve their interest whereas only thing we do is cry foul and nitpick in aftermath.

  10. An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

    It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government–that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically–is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy–a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government–needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

    These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

    A Democracy

    The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

    This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature–the elective body there being the House of Commons–and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

    In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the “excesses of democracy” and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled “Constitutions.” Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts–next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

    It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his “Notes On The State of Virginia” written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . .” (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called “Constitution”–in reality a mere Act of that body:

    “All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice.”

    This topic–the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority–is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).

    The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the “excesses of democracy” The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America–the people at large of that period–who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the “excesses of democracy,” were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards–in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)–for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:

    “The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period.” (Text per original.)

    Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:

    “Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current.”

    It is correct to say that in any Democracy–either a Direct or a Representative type–as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949–indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

    For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

    Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:

    “Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

    Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to–is the very antithesis of–the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only “just powers” (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.

    A Republic

    A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution–adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment–with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term “the people” means, of course, the electorate.

    The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention–especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose–to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government–of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ “Autobiography” commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:

    “By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act.”

    Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the “Essex Result” (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.

    The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called “Constitutions” adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully – it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.

    This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only “just powers,” limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the “snob-rule” of a governing Elite and the “mob-rule” of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights–to endanger the people’s liberties.

    With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here–as follows:

    “As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.” (Emphasis added.)

    It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label “Republic” has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused–for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling–having essential characteristics of–a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to “the ancient republics,” but in any such connection the term was used loosely–by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy–often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his “Thoughts on Government” and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.

    From The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles.
    http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

  11. all work and no play makes kaley a dull boy……..
    ……indi bhais are gonna sing lullabyes and neps can go to sleep…..

    ….andar sey bahar nahee dikta hai..waisey hi bahar se andar nahi dikhegaa….

  12. why not 4ck Indians bulls in Nepal. so stupid guys u r in here for barking…

  13. a picture caught my eyes on thursday when i was reading one largely circulated newspaper named the kathmandu dated july 13 Caption was a maoist cader listening to the live bradcast of the budget speech at Maoists Dialogue Secretariat at Baneshwar.after looking that photo my imaginations start rounding in my mind quick & quick.being a student of journalism i guessed quick on picture and got a conclusion that maoists as they are claiming that fighting for the people and peoples’rights since 2052 b.s. are also trying to depend on the government and waiting the government budgetary support.actually there is not any special programms directly mention in the budget for them but indirectly they will get benifit.the budget have mainly focused on the rural development.

  14. nyauri mari pachhuto

    We all Nepali know that in Nepali language saying “nyauri mari pachhuto”.After establishing the loktantra in the country we heard the news from the medias like closing industries, vandalizing the hospital and beaten doctors,chhaka jam without any big issues, looting etc frequently.

    Such types news which are publishing and broadcasting from medias frequently makes us very worried because such types of incidents driving the nation towards distructive not constructive. We have get very good opportunities to make our nation prosperous after the very successful historic people’s movement-II recently.

    We use this time very carefully to the nation development. we have made very worried from the news like closing industries. Every body can broke out their unwanted voices in the democracy. Closing four hundred industries recently in Bara and Parsa industrial corridor hit our hurt badly; we make this news very sad.

    Everybody, every organizations and institutions can put their demands in democracy, but in right manners. Observing the incidents which are happening after the II janaandolan are not in any descipline, even in small case which can solve by sitting the table also raise in big manner and close the whole industries. These kinds of bad manners backed the country into the old age.

    Closing multinational companies like cocola; dabur nepal in the past gave bad impression in the world and it virtually impacts on attracting the foreign direct investment. Other industries which are establishing in solo in domestics investment also should not suffered from such types of incidents frequently.

    No thing is impossible to solve by dialogue, every problems and demands can solve in sitting dialogue table. from any name of unions if we destroyed the industries, as the also destroyed.

    If we do our work sincerely and responsibilly our organization and working place automatically will boost up and we can pressurize to the management for the fulfillment of any kind of facilities. if we always disturb the industries and factories or any kind of workplace in the name of labors rights how management can fulfill your demands? This is very serious.

    So being a senior citizen please stop any kind of demands which we are raising from the name of different unions, and make the conducive environment for the factories and industries run. otherwise we also regret like nyauri mari pachhuto.

Comments are closed.