Supreme Court judges have no right to question the validity of the Parliamentary declaration. They must face reappointment
By Prakash Bom in New York
Many of us who are watching the democratic process in Nepal from abroad are skeptical about the way political leaders, legislators, Supreme Court judges, and government officials think, respond and act with their power to maintain the status quo. These ruling elites, especially the Supreme Court judges, have tried to defy democratic changes during this transition period. They raised constitutional questions over the House of Representatives Declarations 2063. This is an outright disgrace to the mandate of People’s Movement II.
We have to question the appointment status of these Supreme Court judges who have tried to invalid the historic political declarations that sprung from the mandate of people’s movements. These judges were appointed by the feudal oligarchic monarchy. Therefore they are prompted to question the validation of the historic legislative declarations. These judges really want to maintain the status quo by having the monarchy as the head of the state to validate the historic declarations. This is ridiculous.
‘Proclamation can’t be challenged in court’
KATHMANDU, Nov 24-The government in response to the Supreme Court Friday said the Parliament Proclamation can’t be challenged in court. The Ministry of Law and Justice was responding to a show cause notice, issued by the apex court over a petition filed by advocate Achyut Prasad Kharel challenging the constitutionality of the proclamation. In response the ministry said the proclamation was a political issue and the court can’t enter a political decision. (source)
For them, it seems, the mandate of people is not enough. Yet they tried to seek the independence of the judiciary during this transition period. How could the judiciary be independent if judges still cling to idea of absolute monarchy?
Now the government has to request the Supreme Court not to raise legal or constitutional questions over the House of Representatives Declarations 2063. We as observers from abroad insist that these judges either must be sworn in before the upcoming interim parliament or they should be reappointed via parliamentary procedures. Then only the independence of judiciary can be established.
On the other hand, it is pathetic for the judiciary to adopt the practice of party-line jurisdictions as the power shifted from the monarchy to the parties. How can such practice of judiciary be independent? The decision of the Special Court on former minister Khum Bahadur Khadka and former minister and Nepali Congress leader Govinda Raj Joshi by Supreme Court judges Bhupadhwaj Adhikari, Komal Nath Sharma and Cholendra Shumsher Rana are the fresh examples of party-line jurisdictions.
If the prosecutor Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority does not defend the verdict then this is a great lose for the nation’s corruption control procedures. This has already defamed future of the new democracy of Nepal. The prosecutor must question the validation of verdicts to seek answers on these questions: What are insufficient evidences? And what are entries of facts in the court?
If not the Parliament must step in to seek clarifications on these verdicts.
51 responses to “Supreme Court On Parliamentary Declaration: Bad Intention”
If the potilicians try to remove all the judges, the country will go to chaos. They are the experienced people. Who will replace them?
I think the path taken by the current government of cautiously and slowly replacing people, and taking no haste in large scale changes is quite a good idea for overall stability.
It is healthy to challenge some decisions of the government in court. Until the new constitution is formed, this might be gray area but it is still healthy to retain the practice. At this time, the gov can perhaps simply ignore the decisions of the court… as it has always been doing for some years now.
In the future, it will be good to divide power between the government, parliament and judiciary. The parliament would be ultimately powerful but the judiciary should have a role to challenge laws that are contradictory to basic human rights and other principles that are above the normal laws.
The new constitutions will hopefully declare certain good things (like human rights, equality) above normal parliamentary procedures. If the representatives don’t think straight sometimes, the legal system can act as a last resort of check and balance.
All real legal systems have contradictions; it’s probably impossible to avoid; but if someone is unfairly hurt by it there should be a way to resolve it.
COUNTERVIEW TO THE ARTICLE
First of all, Supreme Court does not challenge anything.It is some advocates who love to file petition, may be because of their unheard names appear in the newspaper for somedays. Now, after the petition is filed, it becomes the obligation and duty of the Supreme Court to examine the legal validity of any questions which has been raised in the petition. By sending notice to the concerned parties, Supreme Court proceeds to examine the questions that have arisen in the petition and and in its process, Supreme Court has rightly sent a notice/show cause notice why and by what process it is right to promulgate Special Resolution of parliament.
Now, first question arises whether Supreme Court(SC) has this power or not. Yes, definitely it has. Because Supreme Court is the independent authority under 1990 Constitution and that status is still intact even after April Revolution. That suggests SC can examine constitutional validity of any legislative process which affects the fundamental rights of the people.It is even because SC is the custodian of people’s rights and various writs can be isseued by SC To defend people’s rights.
It is the characyeristic features of “Independent Judiaciary” to be able to examine the outcomes of legislative process, otherwise, where is the independence? what shoiuld be the verdict or outcome of this petition is altogether different questions and on either lines it can be argued but to say SC has no power to enter the writ petition itself is to be ignorant of Judicial process.
Now, regarding the questions of judges appointed by Oligarchy Monarch, there is ample power to parliament to remove them on basis of impeachment. There is no great service to judiciary and people just to make reappointment of them. Because people are same and just mere reappointment can not change their thinking. we have to see each judges’s conduct in different case.
Checks and balances buddy, checks and balances. Everything can’t be run on emotions alone. The law should be above everyone, the King and your darling parliamentarians and the parliament as well.
For the people who call for the removal of judges just because the courts are questioning the decisions of parliamnetarians: Who will they be replaced by? Name me one judge serving currently who does not have some sort of connection with one power or the other? Or is it a question of kicking out judges and hiring ones that say “yes sir” to the politicians? Remember, these are the same judges you all praised when they ousted the RCCC and during the Kings rule to boot. I for one would still throw my money in with the current bunch as opposed to a bunch chosen by this bunch of parliamentarians.
Bom just dropped a Bomb- ‘Supreme Court judges have no right to question the validity of the Parliamentary declaration.’ And this guy lives in the US where the Supreme Court is so powerful and in a good way?
However the fact that we have one of the most corrupt and inefficient judicial systems in the world is a undeniable. A mechanism should be put in place to weed out corrupt judges and judicial reforms should be immediately enacted upon to make them much more efficient.
The author himself should be investigated. I wonder what his story is and where his affiliationas lie? This sort of get rid of any difficulty posed even legal ones by ousting people who question the rule and not through debate to be replaced by Yes Men, is the most ridiculous idea proposed. What next Bom? Kick out George Bush and replace him with Prachanda?
COUNTER VIEW (continued….)
One more thing here it is a great time for SC to show that they are still independent……They can give a very landmark judgement at this stage. There are two things that have to be demarcated here.
1. Find out the fundamental things of 1990 Constitution that can not be amended.
2. Find out the policy issues, that can not be challenged in Court of law.
While answering first question, it is a high time to show the judicial activism on the part of the court that these are the features that can not be amended at all under any circumstances like tomorrow, if parliam,ent promulgates and declaration or law saying there is no right to life and liberty and govt. can take life and liberty of any person in a way land is grabbed from people. This is inherently inconsistent with a basic and standard feature of any constitution. On the same footing right toi equality, no capital punishment, right against slavery can be declared “fundamental features” of any constitution and can be declared null and void from the date of its enactment.
These above mentioned points may not actually arise in the petition but SC can go upto the extent to demarcate the areas which can be amended and which can not be touched. If t5hese lines is taken, there is nothing in historic document that can be held unconstitutional.
Now, regarding policy issues, it is the prerogative of any governments to formulate any policy what it likes as promised toi the people and it is no business of courts to dictate parliament and government which policy should government formulate. In this basis, most of the things can be shown as the policy of interim government as promised to the peiople during April Revolution. Unless these policies touch such inalienable rights of people, court can not declare them unconstitutional.
Regarding political issues, There is no clear cut law to say political matters can not be challenged in court or court can not examine political decisions. A lot of political decisions stifle legal issues and resolution which in a way, amends some parts of constitution(Note that Constitution is SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND)can not be merely termed as political issues. These political decisions are bound to be within the realm of legalality. Otherwise, in future, in the name of political decisions, “Party dictatorship” arises which again, will be completely unacceptable to us.
Looks like Prakash Bom because he is in New York and not in Nepal is utterly confused about what he is trying to say about the courts in Nepal. On one hand, he calls the Supreme court judges “urban elites” who want to maintain the “status quo” and keep the king in power. And then he goes on to suggest that the same courts also decide along party lines. What I can’t understand is how the same judges, regardless of where they are sworn in, be both?
It is the right of the people to question issues in court and the King’s decision to restore the parliament can and should also be debated as the Jana Andolan II that Bam is referring to which, according to him, legitimazied the restoration of the parliament and thus, also according to him, “changed” the status quo, doesn’t make the decision to restore the parliament constitutional. If we are to always make decision in favor of those who make the most noise or have most powers, then the silent majority, who doesn’t always come out to the streets to protest either way will never be counted and this so-called “people aspiration” will only become aspirations of those who can and will make most noise. Some would rather follow the constitutional path and invoke constitutional priviledges to show their discontentment and one of the ways is to always challenge decisions in the court.
And the fact that the court then extertains such cases of discontentment doesn’t make the court pro king or partyliners or whatever else Bam might want to categorize the judges as. It is very important that regardless of the kind of political change that the country is seeing that we maintain fair and balanced courts in Nepal (which is not just brought about by where they are sworn in) and only by having this will the rights of the people be safe guarded so that those who don’t necessarily come outo the streets or go to the jungle to ask for their rights can feel secure enough that their rights will also be safeguarded.
I don’t think parliamentarians should have the right to appoint and replace judges at their will and fancy. They and any citizen should have the right to raise concerns regarding the judges, but their competency have to be decided by an independent panel of judges. This is what an independent judiciary means.
I also think that the Supreme Court has no any power to question in the declaraions ob parliament. Supreme Court has only established to give the justice to the people not to go against of public interest. It should have to question to the King, it should have to punish to the King who had made it a joke in his rulling period rather than the people who want to made it strong, independent and responsible towards the people of Nepal. Isn’t it questionable the SC had given clean cheat to the most corrupted people of the country ? Isn’t it questionable that the SC had freed rhinos killer ? Isn’t it questionable that SC has ordered to NRB not to intefare in the issue of NB Bank while it had been robbering the people ? The SC must be an independent body but it also have to be responsible towards the people. So, every judges must have to take oath in front of the representatives of the people (HOR). And i think that the most powerful body of the country should be Parliament coz this is our, we peoples’ body.
Bom is all over the place. His argument in the one hand reads,
” These judges were appointed by the feudal oligarchic monarchy. Therefore they are prompted to question the validation of the historic legislative declarations. These judges really want to maintain the status quo by having the monarchy as the head of the state to validate the historic declarations. This is ridiculous.”
and then on the other,
“On the other hand, it is pathetic for the judiciary to adopt the practice of party-line jurisdictions as the power shifted from the monarchy to the parties. How can such practice of judiciary be independent?”
It is neither here nor there. Bom must understand that the judiciary acts on cases filed to them and not by them, no matter where the cases come from – the palace, the parliament, the politicians or citizens.
And that is what they are doing in very difficult circumstances.
One wonders what happened to all the cases filed against the maoist party and their Chairman Prachanda on multiple counts of murder (individual and enmasse (think Chitwan bombings), and why Bom has not raised the issues of why these cases have been thrown out of court or quietly filed away? His venom is squarely placed with the King and corrupt politicians but he avoids the maoists altogether, and they are still breaking laws or any understanding or agreements signed as we write as well. One can only wonder where this New Yorker begins and ends his push for justice? I can see it beggining with the M for monarchy and stopping short of the M for maoists. This is not tunnel vision but a pin point vision indeed.
If the supreme court does not have a right through people filing cases to question declarations in the parliament then who does? Please again remember the Supreme court does not file these cases and questions themselves, they are there for a reason, to assist citizens to make their voices heard whether it be in the parliament or against any laws citizens feel are unjust. In other words, people file cases and the supreme court acts as the legal representative of the people and for the people no matter who a citizen may want to question. Or is the decisions made in parliament “afno kura” and not for the people?
Further afno kura,
Yes the court is there for the people, and people includes everyone who are citizens of this nation not just you, your ilk or political activists. Majority may rule the house of parliament, but in a healthy democracy the minority make up the opposition. A strong oppostion is the key to a thriving democracy not a unanimous majority, the sooner you understand this the better. And in the eyes of the law the majority does not rule, even individuals leave alone minorities have a legal right to justice.
I think you had better get used to this and change from being “afno” to “sabko”.
Even Mussaraf is accepting many decisions made by the court then why not this democratic political parties. “Are we in Rule of Law or Law of rule?” which someone had raised the question in this blog. Political parties are making law of rule in their favour and interest which will be harmful for them as well in future.
This is interesting:
“In response the ministry said the proclamation was a political issue and the court can’t enter a political decision.”
Really. Even if these decisions tread on the feet of people and cause injustice to them? I believe that every act that the government passes can and should be properly debated and scrutinised by the legal system. Winning elections is one thing and many a times with false promises, but then to allow a couple of hundred parliamentarians who have been elected and in this country maybe through debatable tactics to cushily pass anything and everything under the sun without recourse to the courts seems excruciatingly undemocratic.
Lets take women’s rights for example, we have heard many a promises but very little movement in this area, so are women, leave alone minorities to stay quiet and accept whatever crumbs are dropped from the parliament’s table? Or can they go to the houses of justice to demand more? If they can then why can’t others for other issues as well?
In times like these guys like Bom have a field day. I dunno what his real intention is but at core he is a communist living in a capitalistic society. The contradiction he sees makes him spew article that has no bearing or logic and even basic understanding of governance. give it a rest buddy. This long distance critical analysis does no good- just be an American and live your dream of milk and honey, if you can.
I see no rationality in politicizing each and every aspect of our lives- I guess even a rice will come in UML, NC or Maoist brand shortly, the way we politicize. If we are for good governance then independent judiciary is must- no ifs and buts on this. But if we are for one party rule or mobocracy then whoever says he speaks for the general mass will dictate and door will open for dictatorial rule- the slide will be swift. May be Janaandolan was for this in the first place after all.
Yes i m agree with ur view but the declarations made by the parliament is not just by mojority but by all in a same voice. So there is no any right to the SC to file a case in against of that declarations. And it is not possible to seek every one voice in any one decision. That’s why we have made Parliment and choosen Representatives. I only like to say that all the decisions made by SC is not unquestionable. And, there must be a body towards the SC also have responsibility and it should be parliament coz it is the supreme body of the people.
What do u think that the legal force is supreme than the people feelings and interest ? If u think so than i have total disagreement with u coz i think that the legal body has established only to make systematic to the public feelings and interest. I am not in the against of equality, equal justice but i m in the against of any files or cases comes in the court in against of democracy, human rights, peoples’ interest and such cases which helps or incourage to the dictators and the enemies of democracy. And at last, i would only like to be ‘afno kura’ not ‘sabko kura’ coz nobody in this world give more emphasis to others more than ownself. And, u too not. I can say it full of confidence. Also, how can i say my views to ‘sabko kura’ without understanding other’s views ?
Bom here’s one for you,
“As the debate on the structure of the state is ongoing, Speaker of the House of Representatives (HoR), Subash Chandra Nemwang has said that the HoR can declare the state a republic if the eight political parties wish so.”
What do you think of this? It may make you happy, but if the Speaker was to be followed then we could just be a republic on the say so of a couple of hundred outdated and therefore unelected parliamentarians. What gives these chaps the right to decide anything at all without holding elections, and if they do so why can’t it be challenged? These are MPs who are MPs without being elected, the time and peoples preferences have changed since 7-8 years ago when these same people were calling for the heads of the maoists on a platter (I forgot, was’nt it Bam Dev Gautam who wanted that?). Come elections than we will have the real picture, until then I’m afraid the speaker can have his wishful thinking but he has to wonder if his party will retain 73 of their seats or settle for far less if any.
for that please read my comment # 18,
regarding the “past their sell by date” of the parliamentarians. I doubt even half of them will retain their seats. Why should a clearly interim government decide on so many matters when elections are to be held next year ? Then also I still retain that parliament is just a part of whole that makes a nation and not the whole by itself. There is first, the citizens, then the parliament and the courts of justice. And the citizens have every right to question the parliament or the courts. No body is saying the courts are supreme, but neither is the parliament, therefore people have to always have the option of questioning both the parliament and the courts again and again and again.
So when you part with “Also, how can i say my views to ’sabko kura’ without understanding other’s views ?”; you must have realised that a few hundred parliamentarians deciding on something does not mean they have understood “sabko kura”, therefore room has to be given to debate and reform any acts that may have been passed if need be.
The first thing that the parliament should do is get an election for the parliament going. Without an ELECTED body the “parliament” (which was dissolved by Deuba’s govt. as per the constitution and reinstated by the King without referring to any article of the constitution!) has no mandate to proclaim take virtually anything let along taking decision like making Nepal a secular stat etc. THEY ARE NOT ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE. I HAVE NOT VOTED FOR THEM AS YET. pure and simple!
You can see my comments no 2 and 7 for further views. Here I can see nice interaction between Afnu Kura n scoop and I want add some points……
Mr, afnu kura…..Suppose all the MPs of parliament tomorrow declare u as a terrorist by passing “historic resolution” and decide u kill u, do u think that they are right? Not at all……..at that condition, we have to reach the SC for nullifying such law and have to ask stay order of ur death.
It’s not how many people pass resolution, it’s because their power to do so. All the judiciary in the world, which includes nepal also has/should have power of judicial Review over the work of administrative and legislative manner. Sc must be able to decide the constitutional and legal validity of any such decisions.
now, u are talking about people’s interests and happimess, what about any law which can say “u can loot the bank and distribute the money to the poor/beggers”…Do u think that such law will be valid? No.never. Because laws are not always made to make people happy. Yes, u are talking(If u know little about legal theory) about Utilitarian approach developed by Bentham and J. S. Mill but that is not the ultimate aim and policy backing to make law.
Think what about the laws to grap the lands like putting ceiling on land………Does it make happy to those people whose lands are taken by the government by giving very less or no compensation? Thay will not be but sometimes, such laws have to be said constitutionally valid.haina ra?
So, Mr. afnu kura.there are some norms, conventions and legal principles which can not be dictated by people’s happiness and emotions. The Historic document has sought to change a lot of issues which must be tested before the court in light of existing laws and constitutions and Supreme Court must have that power………..
N Mr Bomb’s arguments are irritating, ridiculous and devoid of any merits and logic.
Everything should be questioned and challenged.
I think that what we shouldn’t forget is that what the parliamentarians are defending is not necesarily the nation, but they are defending the parliament– which means they are defending their jobs. They were jobless for a number of years and have found a way to eb employed again– so, if they write to the court that restoring the parliament was a “politcal” decision supported by the masses (the masses who came out to the streets and not necessarily even by simple majority), then we, moot bystanders that we always are, and the supreme court, according to the paliamentarians are not supposed to smell conflict of interest and should blindedly decide not to question the decision. Now, that is very very democratic!!
and here is why the issues related to the parliament (including the issue about its restoration) have to be questioned by the supreme court:
“HoR can declare Nepal a republic: Speaker Nemwang
As the debate on the structure of the state is ongoing, Speaker of the House of Representatives (HoR), Subash Chandra Nemwang has said that the HoR can declare the state a republic if the eight political parties wish so.Speaking at a press conference organised by the Press Chautari Nepal in Pokhara, Nemwang said that the current House of Representatives, which is revolutionary in nature, can announce establishment of a republican set up in the country if the eight political parties agree to it.”
It is clear that the political parties, or at least many within them think that the parliament is now above the constitution and can go around any decision that suits them. Firstly, this is not an elected parliament. This is an interim arrangement. Secondly this parliament was supposedly installed to full the aspirations of the people (those people have never been defined and that is another issue for debate). And by the same token, the “aspiration” of the people during the April Revolution was to do away with an autocratic rule (that doesn’t necessarily meant abolotion of monarchy although some would believe that way) and secondly, the slogans towards the end of the april movement was increasingly asking for “nisarta” sambhidhan sabha. This latter demand was so that the people made their own decisions rather that what is traditionally done, others making decisions for you.
Now, if people like Nembang want to call it a republic even before the elections are held, then how democratic will the HoR be? Will it again be called the “aspirations” of the people without asking the people if it is in fact what they want? For how much longer will the direct opinions of the people will be neglected and for how much longer will these thugs continue to make decisions for us. The bigger aspiration of the same people is also to see these corrupt fatsos behind the bars– will the HoR first go ahead and make an annoucement on those issues or will it just continue to abuse its authorities and make decisions on their own favor?
Here you go:
Whatever you think what should be correct as Nepalese living in terrory of Nepal on the face of the earth, perhaps you can excel all the experts on Democracy as Nepalese speaking for Nepal in the name of the “‘MOTHERLAND’ -Our motherland we know the best of it.”
Who the hell you are speaking from New York, the homerun Nepali?
Get these right?
The structure of the judiciary, law enforcements (police force) and district administration (CDO) are the most corrupt government bodies that are centrally controlled from the nation’s capital. This system was built on the feudal oligarchic Rana regime and Panchayet systems.
If you do not see the need to change these government bodies through democratic electoral process then what change you desire in the name of Democracy?
Under the democratic electoral process Supreme court judges are first candidates for judges are nominated by the government cabinet for Parliamentary hearing and hoting.
The candidates who succeeded the Parliament hearing are recommended by the Parliament to the cabinet for their appointments.
If you do not demand this electoral process for the Supreme court judges the what kind of democracy you want people of Nepal to obey?
The district judges are elected by the popular votes of the people of each district during the general elections.
Similarly the district attorneys and sheriffs or chief of law enforcement officers are elected by the popular votes of the peopel of each district.
Those bloggers who do not see the necessity to bring such change in Democratic Nepal I beleive that either your dad, or brother or uncle or ant or some close relatives of yours or yourself are in these positions.
I personally seek and will fight for this change in Nepali politics as long as I live on this earth so that NON OF THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE REPRESENT (LIKE THE CDO) THE PEOPLE OF NEPAL IN THE VILLAGES AND DISTRICT OF NEPAL.
You will have to attempt with your power to restrict me like Russian President Putan who like to wipe out his opponents.
So I hope you got it now. I do not care your supremacy on the arguments. You only speak that what you think is the correct for yourself. Be it be.
But I still can challenge the kind of Democracy you want to people of Nepal to adopt without fulfilling basic norms and principles of Democracy that will guarantee the civil liberty and protect the human rights of people of Nepal.
You should look forward to confronting more challeging articles on this matters.
Bom’s diverse opinion is just waste of space and time. Please come clean. Did you sell this blog to Prakash Bom and other NRNs? If it is not, please, better invite ambassador Moriarty for blog articles. At least he knows Nepalese situation here; he can talk on behalf of American government; he knows the working system of American constitution far better than a new American convertee.
Judiciary, Administration and Legislature are the three pillars of Democracy. And they have to be independent for a successful Democracy.
Just by branding Nepal to Democratic state and removing HMG or Royal from everywhere possible does not proclaim Nepal as a Democratic state. It will take time definitely, to strengthen the forces, but it will be slow. May be our next generations will witness stronger Democracy than what we have.
Also, now it depends on we Nepali people how responsibly we adher to the norms of Democracy. Our job doesnt get over by electing a candidate but it starts there. As we brought down the centuries old Monarchy system in Nepal, we can definitely watch our Democratic government.
So lets work together to build a Democratic Nepal. Nothing can be acheived without a broad outlook and strong will.
Raj Rightly said the things. And the post by BOMB did not make any sense to me.what he is talking man? Just he is in US, does not confer him rights to make hue and cry against all the officers. yes, few are corrupt and may be too many as well but that is a given fact, and making non sense entry does not serve any great purpose.
Is he talking Constitution and legitimacy? or making just a noise against some existing problems????
Basically, if you do not intend to comply with the basic norms of the democracy then you wish to put people up front of Janandolan to be killed and enjured. You really want to rule the nation in the same way as the current establishment of the governance – feudal oligarchic way of governance.
Only call the nation the nation democratic but continue with tha same old stuffs. This what is the way of Nepali middle class brats way of ruling the nation in the name of democracy.
As I said I will be bugging you ‘brats’ no matter you rule me out because I am living in New York.
If you call Nepal a democrtatic nation then you must dissolve the government tradition to represent people of Nepal by the government employees such as CDOS, DSP and so on.
Nepal is to establish democracy it must adopt the basic norms of democracy. That means people of Nepal must be governed by their own elected representatives from local level to the Parliament.
No government employees no matter how experience and expert can only work under the elected representatives of the nation from local level to the central.
If you do not understand the basic norms of the Democracy to meet the international standard, get educated before you begin to respond such matters of democracy.
To speak whatever you think is right in the name of the Democracy you should check on yourself.
Remember the saying ‘half full jar makes more noise than its amount of content’.
The level of thinking that Prakash Bom has is evident from his reply in comment No, 28 which says “you all brat”. It reflects how wrongly we commented in a wrong article of the Blog.
Bom further says, “If you do not understand the basic norms of the Democracy to meet the international standard, get educated before you begin to respond such matters of democracy.”
tHEN WE MUST ASK HIM, why he chooses to write in blog of thirld world countries? Distinguished and erudite author like BOm should write in some well known magazines and Newspaper……..n not in this country , n that too in a blog……..Poor Bom.
His level/grade of answering tells us that there is no point of commenting on his post.
Guys, Beware and Cheers in ur personal business….
I agree with Sarkee ko choro, the current parliament holds very less substance and almost no mandate but to hold an election. It should not be making legislations to influence the elections. As for the Supreme court, its purpose to question, be it a murder or a constitutional amendment by a redundant parliament to legalize murder.
One more note: I am sick and tire of words being dropped like pigeon poop, for example: Urban elite, regressive, oligarchic, etc. without any background or explanation.
Bom has completely lost the plot and is venting his frustration through this blog. One one hand he says he is for changes in the demcratic norms etc and on the other he says the judiciary can’t challenge the decision to restore the parliament.
On the same note he also says “If you do not understand the basic norms of the Democracy to meet the international standard, get educated before you begin to respond such matters of democracy.” Well, I thought the basic norm of the democracy was to be able to appeal against things you don’t see appropriate and for the courts to at least give both sides a chance– but may be democracy works differently in New York and all of us “ganwar” Nepalma sadera basirakheko mancheharu aren’t as intelligent as Bom to understand the “real” democracy and the changes that are required in Nepal. Bom, take a break!
true, true, the current parliament/govt. s only mandate is to hold peace talks with the Maoists and to hold elections to the CA.
The April revolution was not a constitutional process. Thats why it’s called a revolution. If the judges are asked to test it’s constitutional valitity, they can only find that it was unconstitutional.
That doesn’t mean that the April revolution is wrong, it means that previous constition is wrong. Thats why a new one is being drafted. These judges are only serving a purpose as long as they are facilitating that process. If they stop facilitating that process they must be replaced.
These judges are hearing out a petition, and doing their job. They will continue to do so until the CA is held and a new constitution is drafted and from then on they will follow the rules under the new constitution. They are not rendering the “revolution” unconstitutional but not allowing an unconstitutional parliament to change the constitution unconstitutionally before a constitutional assembly is held appropriately.
So much for Hippie Niel and Bom Bahadur from New Road.
you are one of those person who thinks good but sometimes thinks from the wrong side. however, this was a good, representative article. there were lot of wrongs done in the past by nepalese.
i was thinking i will write more on this, but i just changed my mind.
just keep on thinking, though its not gonna get you any where in our beloved country.
Hahahahaha I just could resist this, although it might be cheesy as hell.
Bom say: “Remember the saying ‘half full jar makes more noise than its amount of content’.”
But the how come an empty jar like him can make such a ruckus.
I know, I know it’s cheesy but I just couldn’t help being a “middle class brat.”
you probably have mistyped. i think that was supposed to be “low class brat”.
No it is what it is typed as by Mr. Bom in his reply (#29, 2nd para, third line). I just reused it.
kaag le kaan choro bhanda, kaag ko pachhi daudne pani nepali ho. beluka raksi ra bhat khana paunchha bhanera manchhe marne pani nepali ho. kunchai party le paisa dinchha bhanera ulto sulto lekhne journalist pani nepali ho. ma bichara ghar ko na ghat ko, bolyo ki polyo, des lai maya garchhu bhanna pani nasakne ma pani nepaliho.
afnai khutto ma bancharo hanera, aaja loktantra ra prajatantra ko nara laune, bholi kunni kalle, ichha anusar latta hane pachi ni naterne, tyo pani nepali ho………..mero lagi jatha bhabhi tantra ho tara yo swikarne pani nepale ho.
ma ta aarkai des ma jhulke ko ghaam tapi rachhu. ma pani nepali ho bhaanna rahar lagchha tara daar lagchha…ke garne ma pani nepali ho
saade ko judhai ma bachha ko pisaan…….
tyo pani nepali parampara ho…….
It’s called a revolution because the SPAM called it so, not because it was. It was actually an organised mass political movement to oust the King from power. The SPA are political parties not outside revolutionaries and the maoists were also a political party who had initially accepted the 1990 constitution then rejected it after loosing heavily in the polls. Besides the house was reinstated interim or otherwise according to the last election results 7-8 years ago. These are’nt fresh new revolutionary faces we are represented by in parliament. There has been a lot of give and take and behind the scenes dealings to get the SPAM where they are, including foreign involvement especially India’s in all accounts. So with your limited understanding of the situtation I don’t fault you for calling a well organised political maneuver a revolution.
I don’t think the SPA were fighiting against the previous constitution which they had termed “the best in the world”. I think they were doing it to get rid of the King period, not the constitution. They just agreed to a new constitution to accomodate the maoists as one of their pre conditions, who helped them in the movement. Simply put – without the maoists the SPA would have got nowhere and without the SPA the maoists would still be in the jungle, but more so without international support (esp. India’s), there would be no SPAM and April 2006. We don’t have revolutions like the good old days anymore born out of grit and determination, these days they are carefully funded and pre booked political coups with a lot of give and take internally and externally.
Forgot to add,
I don’t think the Supreme court is testing the constitutionality or un constitutionality of the April movement. I think the Supreme court has a case filed against the parliamentarians questioning their right to pass all sorts of acts, bills etc. without holding elections, without the formulation of a new constitution after th elections. Let me remind everyone that the parliament jumps from referring to the 1990 constitution when it suites their purpose (after all the parliament is presently there according to the the 1990 constitution since all the MPs were elected according to the 1990 constitution 7-8 years ago)and shunning it and refers to the “peoples will” when they hit a road block. Therefore only a freshly elected parliament and a new constitution has the right to change anything. Until then the interim “fake parliament” should just get on with the task at hand of getting the CA elections completed and nothing else.
This bunch of “past it’s sell by date parliamentarians” and also the upcoming interim parliament should stick to the task of completing CA elections. Until the people’s will is really tried through elections, neither the SPA or the maoists have the constitutional, legal or moral authority to do anything. The people want elections to a CA, then the new MPs have the mandate to carry forward the people’s will.
I again say the April movement was against the King alone, because if we had no King, then a CA election is not necessary, a simple general election could amend and change clauses in the 1990 constitution by passing it thjrough the house. People should not be at all surprised when the new constitution is formulated after elections many of the 1990 clauses will also be adapted. The so called CA elections is infact just a referendum on the monarchy.
OK, read the chart in the link. It was a revolutionary process.
I’m not sure what you think I don’t understand. If you think that India or some other actor was funding the Maoists it doesn’t show you particularly understand anything, it just makes you a conspiracy theorist. Of course, faith in rumors seem to be a fundamental facet of Nepalese society. I’ve heard that one repeated a lot, and it makes no sense at all.
The Maoists had plenty of funding though robing banks and extorting businesses, and the vast majority of their arms came from the enemy. “Prachanda Path,” according to the Maoists is the synthesis of the “October road” and the strategy of “Protracted Peoples War.” In other words, the Maoists have been planing a guerrilla war followed by an urban uprising since 1999. They had been trying to coax the SPA over to their side since the palace massacre as part of their united front strategy. If outside forces played a role in the April uprising, they only did so in as much as they were manipulated into doing so by the Maoists.
That being said, most of what you say is true. If it were not for the SPA, the Maoists would probably still be out in the village (they were never in the jungle). However, if the SPA had not excepted the Maoist plan (yes, it was their plan) then they would have completely lost relevance. There would now be a pitched battle between the king on one side, and the Maoists on the other.
There is a difference between how revolutions and coups can take place now, but it is not a fundamental change. Unlike the shining path in Peru, the Maoists understood the international situation and were able to use it to their advantage. They successfully manipulated the different actors and played their interests against one another until they carved out a significant position for themselves, and achieved all of their core goals (Abolition of the monarchy, Constituent Assembly, Republican set up) without abandoning or even changing their ideology. It was not a “Soft landing.” It was a “win.” That’s why they held victory rallies. If it was not text book revolutionary strategy, it will be from now on.
Also, the Maoists never accepted the 1990 constitution as you say. Some of their members participated in elections, largely to “demonstrate” that that the 1990 constitution was a sham. They were wholly disappointed with the outcome of the 1990 movement, and stated so, long before they lost in elections.
I usually have to say this at some point so I’ll get it out of the way. I’m very interested in the Maoists but I am not a supporter. I have fundamental differences with their ideology and their approach. I have read enough of their ideology and spent enough time with them and their U.S. counterparts that I could pretend to be one without much trouble. If China is to be used as a model, the danger Nepal faces now is that the Maoists will be exceedingly competent for the first 5 years or so and gain immense popularity, at which point their ideology will increasingly control the public sphere, and it’s problems will begin to take their toll.
If however, the competence of the Maoists can be harnessed in developing the country while a pluralistic society is maintained, then Nepal my very well become the country it’s people dream it could be.
I would not give a hoot about this Bom guy- he is way off mark and it shows. But the thing I do not seem to understand is so-called -Andolan II. What was the gain and loss. It is quite evident now that people who do not agree or feel marginalized (all aspect)have an easy option to carry arm and be heard, like or not. I don’t think maoist are the last of these lots. As maoist have done, all in the name of people, same kind but of varied issues and grievances have the license to do so e.g, Terai Morcha. So the vicious cycle will continue and the euphoria has not even died down.
By going after Monarchy and making it falsely devil incarnate whereas Maoist as Saints- this nation has shown that it has its bearing wrong so any whip of wind can change its direction and color; therefore, stability is lady-in- waiting with no clue when its number will be called.
Every society has its own share of problem but nakedness of misplaced anger and misplaced priorities of Andolan shows that Nepalese still have not learnt to be their own master of destiny but a scapegoat and a placebo at the expense of future generation of Nepali. It gives me no pleasure in saying so.
Well, if the Maoists become an oppressive authoritarian government, I certainly hope someone takes up arms against them.
When society is structured in such a way that the people cannot change it without resorting to violence, violence happens.
Bom may have his views and he has right to express. If someone does not agree, it is his right to express his disagreement. Thats fair democratic practice. What may work and may not work is something that will be seen in future. But calling names and labelling plethora of gaalis is not democratic virtue
Now you’re just spewing maoist propoganda. I’m not surprised because you must have spent all your time in Nepal with them. I’m afraid trying to make you see the whole picture is at par with trying to make one of the maoist cadre’s see the whole picture. Only your gurus Prachanda and Baburam know exactly what they have been upto.