Ian Martin of UNMIN Speaks to the Press

The UN Secretary-General will visit Nepal latter this month, is spokesperson said Thursday. While in Nepal, the Secretary-General will meet with the President, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and members of the Constituent Assembly. The Secretary-General will also visit Lumbini, the birthplace of Lord Buddha, the spokesperson said.

Ian Martin, Special Representative of the Secretary-General in Nepal, held a press conference at the Reporter’s Club, Kathmandu today. Here is the transcript as provided by the UNMIN. (Note: the questions in some cases are summarised)

Ram Kumar Kamat, The Himalayan Times: I read in today’s newspaper that Girija Prasad Koirala asked you that if Maoist army is integrated into Nepal Army, it will tarnish its image internationally. Apparently you agreed to this when he asked you. Do you want to say anything on that?

Ian Martin: First, let me say that neither I nor UNMIN have ever been an advocate for or against integration. We have never taken a position on this issue. We have always made clear that like other aspects of the peace process, this is for Nepalis to decide and the political actors reached agreements as to the process by which they would decide it. And that’s the special committee that I have referred to and that’s the place where the discussion about integration and re-integration has to take place. And if the United Nations is asked to make international experience available to the special committee then we will be happy to do so, but not with any United Nations proposal or any United Nations model to offer from elsewhere.

Of course as long as the PLA remains an army outside the State, and not a State Army, it cannot be considered by the United Nations for peace keeping. It is national armies, of course, that participate in United Nations peacekeeping. But, there are national armies participating in United Nations peacekeeping that include former insurgents who have become part of a fully professional State army. But I am not advocating anything, I am simply saying that these are issues on which the United Nations can make international experience available to the special committee if the government and the committee and the political parties desire.

Manesh Shrestha, CNN: Do you think it is practically possible, given the situation we are in and the progress that has been made so far considering experiences in other places, that the Maoist army be integrated even if, let’s say, there is an agreement overnight?

Ian Martin: Well, I think that’s really a question to put to the political actors and they are expressing different views as to what time period they think is necessary.

Manesh Shrestha, CNN: I am saying provided that there is an agreement overnight even within the three months time, from the UN’s perspective.

Ian Martin: It depends on whether you are talking only about reaching the key decisions on who is to be integrated or rehabilitated, in what way, or if you are talking about the full implementation. Certainly, full implementation in most peace processes has taken a significantly longer time than three months. But, you are a veteran, as others here are, of discussions that have suggested that UNMIN wants to prolong its stay in Nepal. The situation is the opposite. That’s why, for a very long time, we have been urging the parties to move as quickly as possible on setting up the special committee, on the discussions about integration and rehabilitation. UNMIN, and certainly the members of the Security Council, want UNMIN to complete its mandate as soon as it is practically possible, but that depends upon the parties.

Manesh Shrestha, CNN: That was not my question. My question was, even when verification was done, it took a rather longer time than generally expected. The UN has its own standards. Even with the integration, when you are going to oversee integration, do you think it is practically possible? I am not talking about a political decision.

Ian Martin: Again, there is no one set of experience from around the world. Integration has taken different periods of time in different countries where it’s been agreed, as has reintegration outside state security forces. It would, of course, be extraordinarily fast for everything to be completed within a period of three months, but again, it’s also up to the government, up to the parties, to decide what kind of international role they feel is necessary and for how long.

Sudeshna Sarkar, Indo-Asian News Service: NC and MJF are now saying that because the PLA has political indoctrination, it should not be integrated in the national army and also we have another report in which the Foreign Minister says that when the Prime Minister went abroad, he said that the PLA would not be merged with the Nepal Army. What is the UN’s reaction to these different statements coming from major political parties?

Ian Martin: I am not going to be drawn into public discussion with the political parties about the different views that they hold. The fact is that they have agreed upon a process to take that discussion forward through a special committee, composed now not only of governing parties but also of parties outside government. I think that’s the place where that discussion needs to take place. The UN won’t be advocating anything when that special committee is formed. We will be offering international experience if asked to do so.

Sudeshna Sarkar, Indo-Asian News Service: Are you concerned that there are conflicting statements?

Ian Martin: It’s clear that there are widely differing views. That has been true for a long time.

Sudeshna Sarkar, Indo-Asian News Service: What is your reaction?

Ian Martin: Of course, the special committee is not going to have an easy task, finding a way forward with the sufficient degree of consensus. But the only way, as in other aspects of the peace process, is to begin that dialogue. And maybe a dialogue at the political level can be assisted, as the 25th of June agreement envisages, by some discussions at the technical level and by a look at the experience of other countries as well.

Manesh Shrestha, CNN: Do you think whatever has been labelled against you about your not being impartial is a fair assessment, in your opinion?

Ian Martin: I have been here quite a long time now and during that time there have been criticisms from different parts of the political spectrum, left and right, towards the way we have played our role. I can assure everyone that we have done our best to play it impartially and objectively and without favouring any political party or side to the peace process.

Akhilesh Upadhyay, The Kathmandu Post: Just a follow-up on that. With the Nepali Congress, especially, coming out pretty vocally raising reservations about UNMIN’s role, do you see a historical legacy of UNMIN is kind of squandered?

Ian Martin: I don’t see in the views that Nepalis throughout the country express to us about the role that UNMIN has played through the peace process, any major criticism. What is usually expressed to me is a strong desire that the United Nations should continue support to a process that has come a long way and which most Nepalis think has been assisted by the presence of UNMIN and the United Nations as a whole.

Akhilesh Upadhyay, The Kathmandu Post: Do you think these are just expressions they have always been saying privately and that they are hardening their position now?

Ian Martin: I can’t answer that question – that’s for you or others to ask people with different views. But I can assure you that I have had many pleasant and positive conversations when I attended the Nepali Congress tea reception the day before yesterday, as I did yesterday at the UML reception.

Question: A senior leader of Nepali Congress Sushil Koirala has said UNMIN has been supporting the Maoists blindly. What do you say?

Ian Martin: I can assure you we don’t blindly support anything. As I’ve said, we seek to play our role as objectively as possible. And I’ve stressed again in my opening statement the consistent concern that we have had for victims of the conflict, and that’s a concern that I think got somewhat lost during the election campaign. Peace process commitments towards victims have not been fulfilled; they should be fulfilled, and they should be fulfilled irrespective of whether we’re talking about those who are victims of the Maoists or those who are Maoists and were victims of others, or whether they are people of no political affiliation at all who were caught up in the conflict. The responsibility of the state towards victims is one that the state should apply impartially to victims of all kinds.

Ram Kumar Kamat, The Himalayan Times: [inaudible] Maoist are saying they will take into account both national and international experience in terms of integration. What have been the international experiences? I know you won’t comment on the integration but can you talk about the international experience that can guide the process in Nepal?

Ian Martin: That’s a huge question. There are books written on the different experiences in different countries, it’s impossible to sum it up because contexts are very different. I think that Nepalis are right to say that they are never going to look for one foreign model; they’re always going to look for a Nepali solution to a particular situation in this country, but take into account what could be learned from elsewhere. Now, the moment I name one other experience, someone might think that I was advocating that as a model. I don’t think Nepal should be looking just at any one experience; it should be looking at what has happened in a number of post-conflict situations, where there is always a question of what is to be the future of the former combatants, and then drawing from that what Nepalis decide will work best in Nepali circumstances.

Question: There have been complaints from various quarters that UNMIN did not play an effective role to make both the warring parties abide by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, and accusations that UNMIN is conspicuously silent about Maoist victims. What do you have to say?

Ian Martin: Well, firstly let me go back to the point that I have made many times that UNMIN was never asked to come here with any enforcement authority. UNMIN has been a body with a monitoring responsibility, particularly in relation to the arms and armies; but not with a monitoring responsibility in relation to all aspects of the peace process. And yes, as long as we were heading towards a Constituent Assembly election it was indeed our responsibility to do everything we could to help the conditions of that election to be as good as possible, but never exclusively an UNMIN responsibility. We were originally asked to assist whatever national monitoring bodies would be established, and unfortunately I think not enough was done to ensure effective national monitoring of the implementation of the peace process. Now, I’m at the Reporters’ Club, but I’m not here to offer constant public comment on all aspects of the peace process. UNMIN has a very specific mandate; OHCHR has a very specific mandate. We have been very clear, particularly in the run up to the election, in our concern about abuses of different kinds, but very specifically, abuses by the Young Communist League. OHCHR continues to have a local presence that will monitor and speak out about that as necessary. I don’t believe that we have been silent about anything that is within our responsibility, within our mandate.

Prithvi Shrestha, People’s Review: Some armed groups in the Terai are seeking the UN’s role or UN mediation. Does UNMIN want to play a role to mediate the peace process with those groups in the coming days?
Ian Martin: This, too, is a question that has come up at earlier stages, so let me again make it very clear that UNMIN has never sought political contacts or had political contacts with any of the armed Terai groups, despite misunderstandings that sometimes continue to get repeated in the media. Yes, the Terai groups have sometimes asked for United Nations involvement, but United Nations good offices, obviously, can only apply if that is a request of the government and all parties to a situation of conflict. Let me say, I certainly welcome the fact that the government is, as they are committed to do, making fresh efforts to bring about a peaceful resolution to the situation in the Terai, but UNMIN is not seeking any involvement in that.
Sudeshna Sarkar, Indo-Asian News Service: What is the objective of the Secretary-General’s visit?
Ian Martin: Well, this is an invitation which was actually originally extended by the previous government. Some of you may remember when Mrs. Sahana Pradhan was Foreign Minister she met the Secretary-General in Geneva and hoped that he would visit Nepal. That invitation was reiterated by the Prime Minister in New York. It’s been something the Secretary-General was hoping to do when it could be done in the context of a visit to the region, and obviously it’s a symbol of the Secretary-General’s, and the United Nations’, interest in this peace process; the desire to see it be fully successful, as well as to maintain United Nations support for development in future in Nepal. As you know, previous Secretary-Generals U Thant, Kurt Waldheim, Javier Perez de Cuellar, Kofi Annan, have all visited Nepal, and I think it’s excellent that a very significant Member State is going to have a visit from Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
Sudeshna Sarkar, Indo-Asian News Service: Why is he going to India?
Ian Martin: Well, it’s not for me to comment on the purpose of his visit to India, but the Secretary-General tries to visit as many Member States as he can when he has suitable opportunities to do so, and as I’ve indicated, this is a four-country visit that begins with participation in an international conference in the Philippines and that has afforded an opportunity to visit three countries in South Asia that he’s wanted to visit.
Ujjwal Prajapati, Kantipur Television: The Secretary-General is coming to Nepal. Does that have anything to do with the extension of UNMIN’s time period?
Ian Martin: No, as I say, this is a longstanding invitation and a longstanding desire on the part of the Secretary-General. Of course when the Secretary-General and the Prime Minister met in New York, they began to discuss how the United Nations could continue to support peace and development in Nepal. But again, when I say United Nations I don’t just mean UNMIN or primarily UNMIN. The United Nations system was in Nepal long before the peace process, long before UNMIN, and the long-term UN agencies will continue to assist development in Nepal, hopefully now in a climate of increasingly secure peace.
Manesh Shrestha, CNN: This is a personal question. How does it make you feel, personally, when a body that you head is accused of being partial towards one group rather than taking a neutral position?
Ian Martin: I’ve been in Nepal for more than three and a half years now and the roles I’ve played have not been without controversies of very different kinds at different stages. But I believe that the role not only of UNMIN but of OHCHR as well, when I was responsible for that, has been very broadly appreciated in my experience, and that’s really the way I shall continue to look at it.
Ram Kumar Kamat, The Himalayan Times: Nepali Congress is accusing you of not playing a role to support the truth. Do you have anything to say on that? Is Nepali Congress biased against UNMIN?

Ian Martin: I’m not going to make any allegations of bias. You should ask other people about what they say publicly. I’m here to speak for the United Nations, and the United Nations obviously has no wish to be in a public political controversy with any group across the political spectrum. I’m not suggesting that the United Nations is perfect – of course we’re not. But I think Nepalis should judge the record as a whole of what UNMIN and the United Nations has done through this peace process, and my commitment will be as long as I’m here to continue to play that role fairly and impartially towards all parts of the political spectrum.

Question: It’s not just Nepali Congress; you were criticized by other parties before.

Ian Martin: I said earlier that there are times when we were very much criticized by the Maoists. I think I’ve said as much as I need to on this issue.

Prerana Masini, The Hindu: In which area do you think the former Maoist military can be mobilised? People are saying they can be used for border security and other security sectors.

Ian Martin: I’m afraid I’m not going to add to what I’ve said about the fact that this is something that should be looked at in the special committee. Some of the kind of experiences that you’ve referred to have occurred in other countries, and that can be looked at by the special committee. But the Nepali political actors have to try to move towards consensus on this in that special committee, and it’s not for the United Nations to make any particular proposals.

Prerana Masini, The Hindu: Will it be possible to integrate them in other sectors also?

Ian Martin: That’s happened elsewhere, but again that’s for national decision-makers.

Sudeshna Sarkar, Indo-Asian News Service: (inaudible)

Ian Martin: I’m not sure I understand the question.

Prithvi Shrestha, People’s Review: What do you feel personally for being a big figure in this peace process when the United Nations lauded the Nepali peace process in the General Assembly?

Ian Martin: I share with, I hope, all members of UNMIN a sense of considerable satisfaction at the way in which the peace process has moved forward and the contribution that I believe that UNMIN has made to that, that indeed was recognised in some ways internationally. At the same time, I’ve always stressed and I’ve done it again today that this has been a Nepali process, and the main credit rests with those Nepalis who have taken the process forward. And I don’t just mean in politics, but I mean in civil society, in the media and elsewhere. But again, it is certainly the case that when one looks at Nepal from an international perspective outside Nepal, it is a record of very considerable success in moving from a 10-year armed conflict to constitution-making now by an elected Constituent Assembly. But again, as I’ve stressed, that doesn’t mean that the peace process is yet completed, and we’ve been talking today about some of the work that is still left to do.


21 responses to “Ian Martin of UNMIN Speaks to the Press”

  1. Good Avatar

    Another headache for maoist is newly established National Peoples’ Army. Those who leftover from integration will certainly join the NPA. Also, because the committment made by Prachanda and Baburam if ever not fulfilled to the poor people then they start to support NPA. There are vast differences of assurances of maoist party toward real poor people and toward western world. That is why NPA can take the advantage of it.

  2. IT Freak Avatar

    Oh my gosh………… this is just too long for me to read.

  3. IT Freak Avatar

    Oh my gosh………… this is just too long for me to read. It could have been summarized or the main contents be highlighted.

    Admin le alik ta dukkha ta garnai paryo ni. Plain text rakhera ta padhnai garho po bho.

  4. nonetheless Avatar

    Process is slowed down for obvious reasons. What has m martin to say about the fact that only in nepal women have a shorter lifespan then men? Is it because of buddha or pashupatina?
    Maybe the maoist movement was supported by all the women that never went to school apart from most castes wanting power not understanding what it is and what it takes and the idea of democracy.
    Nepal is cathching up to modern times, peace starts in the ghar home where the men should be more like a mother than usurpator. Then Ian martin can really help africa and we manage ourselves. In most developing countries women are doing hard labour on the fields in the building. There is not feminism there is misunderstanding of where we come from which is your mother your wife your sister. If Ian Martin were a woman he would tackle this homely issue, most western intellectual women are now helping Africa by helping womens businesses, if the family unit is whol e the country is good. When the men are just making a mess you get democracy.

  5. United Voices Avatar

    Well… the main problem might be the joining the PLA with NA. will it even be possible ? what if only half of them are recruited in the NA? what about the other half of them? What will the total force of NA do? will the nation be able to make use of them?

    There are many questions unanswered.

  6. Good Avatar

    Why did NC and UML signed the agreement with maoist before without knowing the consequences ??

  7. important people Avatar
    important people

    I did not get the difference between iman martin and any blogger. but the idea of the special commitee is good this is used worldwide any thing did not work you get referred to a special commitee or they say look on internet or make the planet administratively impossible like soviet union. But if red tape keeps violence down lets have it. too very asian.
    welcome to india.
    where nothing works for you and everything for me ha ha. sorry. I love united nationalities.

  8. Good Avatar

    It is all foolishness of the politicians specially Girija…

  9. untitled response Avatar
    untitled response

    these days we are all responsable for paper and plastic. In my house someone left windows open with the heater on, who to blame? beer, work or just carefree behaviour.
    the real problem is tenets some like to keep all for themselves others will share it for you. And some peoppe are good. Did you meet many? I trust and meet good people. But there is confusion. Western people cannot go to Nepal anymore. Now it is not the danger of maoism it is false friendship all is just business. If nepalese people could get over the fact that they are just one country and we are like them, we have to work one year or ten years to save money for a trip to far away. Anyway with the world crisis in oil gas and money and the euro yankee summit Nepal will understand it is all in the country don’ have to look so far for help. Between tourism and peace keeping forces there is reason to be scared of the future ahead. Minimum appraisal of damage done. But the people are not ready to admit the guilty are in all ranks criminals have no political colour. Bandits and murderers killed citizens. Is that the lovely himalayan where you send your people on hike?

  10. Kamal Avatar

    No Moon’s visit would do any miracle unless our parties unite like the bloggers in this blog, United We Blog………………….

  11. change (human right, prosperous nepal) Avatar
    change (human right, prosperous nepal)

    is 95rs for petrol price reduction or just a joke. it should be around 65R.

  12. politbureau Avatar

    Getting gangsters of the streets will be a beginning give the villages back to the people.
    The way in which mao took the country is worldwide not appreciated, now that they are comfortably getting tihar tikka how about treating the people not like dogs? If women would go to school and educate their boys not to be gangsters we would not have this situation.

  13. happy tihar Avatar
    happy tihar

    nice people are everywhere. happy lights festival.

  14. law and order Avatar
    law and order

    Busenismen should better all go out the country if police cannot even stop the extortions which of course get worse…..
    Eat more vitamine think the mafia country we want.
    Or not. It is like racism once it gets accepted it is a cancer to society.
    Maybe the maoists should have remained illegal. But does the minister of finance approve of the illegal malpractices in dharan biratnagar and so on, because if he does not fight crime who £

  15. bhai tikka Avatar
    bhai tikka

    why dog tikka comes before bhai tikka? we need a logical religion.

  16. consensus Avatar

    consensus is good

  17. change (human right, prosperous nepal) Avatar
    change (human right, prosperous nepal)

    if army integration is progressed as intended by maoist it could have dangerious consequences….
    …………………………………………….. if generals, colonels (who are not qualified) in the maoist are given same post in the nepal army, there could be frustration in army………………………….. how could a terrorist with 14yrs of experience in terrorism be b.general in national army…………………………………………………………….. …………………… if it is happened then the dozens of armed criminals in terai and other reasons bosses would have to be made b.general of nepal army……………. ………… ……………………………….. what happens if hundreds of groups are formed in nepal army and.. revolt……………………………………………………………………. start armed struggle in the name of national security and kill criminals, terrorists, corrupts …………………………………………………………………………………………………. the then govt. have to beg them to come in to talk tabel and what if they demand they should be integrated in national army as it is ………………………………………………………………………………………….. then there ae going to be 10 more b.generals , many many colonels………………………………………………… ……………… i think nation army should revolt like i said and this is the only way to counter terrorist threate………..
    … ………………………………………………..terrorist b.general is not acceptable……………………… ……………………………. one maoist is talking about refrendum………. lets do it….

  18. Red Nepal Avatar

    Blog’s not been updated for a long time now. Dinwag please post something new!

  19. khoi Avatar

    Ian Martin is a leader of Maoist.I have never seen him and UNMIN saying anything bad about Maoist .

    Mr martin has a very very good role for creating opportunities for Maoist in Nepali mainstream leadership.

  20. Dirgha Raj Prasai Avatar
    Dirgha Raj Prasai

    Dear editor,
    I am sending the drama of UNMIN in Nepal. Since 2006, we are not satisfied about UN Mission in Nepal. UN Mission could not responsible for Nepalese peace process. Nepalese people had expected that the UN’s role would be impartial. But the UN could not remain neutral. From the very beginning, the UNMIN has been listening only to the Maoist rebels and the corrupt leaders of the so-called big party totally disregarded the aspiration of majority of the Nepalese people. By hatching such conspiracy of the UNMIN teams under the leadership of Ian Martin worked to push Nepal into a bloodier civil war and conflict. UNMIN Groups try to demoralize Nepal Army and supporting Maoist and its rebel by allowing them to keep the weapons with them in the cantonment and let them start the youth force (YCL), which can be the law and order itself as they used to do during their revolution. Nowhere in the world, would a country be able to protect its sovereignty by making the national army weak and powerless? If you want to understand the performance of UNMIN, I can express the reality and history of UNMIN here.

    Two years ago, UNMIN’s military chief Jan Erik Wilhelson damaged the neutral role of the UN and propping up the rebel forces. Does it indicate his neutral role and his effort to establish peace in the country when he participated in the function or even become the guest of honors accepting salute from the Maoist rebels at the function organized by the Maoists on the day they attacked the Nepal Army’s barrack, killed so many army men and looted weapons. When the National Army is inside the barrack, does it indicate the establishment of peace as he tried to present the Maoist militia at par with the National Army? It is all clear that all the YCL are Maoist militias and except a few hundred all those who are in the Maoist cantonments were new recruited and untrained bunch of people. Earlier, they said that their number was only 8,000. But later, the UNMIN and the Maoists worked together to present their number at 19,600. A few people have prevailed inside the UNMIN. The Maoists and the UNMIN have only put old and out of order weapons in the cantonment and they kept all modern weapons and those they had looted from the army and the police with themselves. How can there be a lasting peace in such a situation? Isn’t it that they are trying to play with the future of Nepal?

    We are totally puzzled about whether UNMIN is here to establish peace or confuse the people. We really don’t understand, “What are the interests of UNMIN in Nepal?” So we are questioning, why is UNMIN instigating civil war in Nepal? Can UNMIN answer the statements from the Maoist leader?

    One influential Maoist, Mr. Chandra Bahadur Thapa said (threat loaded statement) in June 8, 2009- ‘The Maoists’ Party still possesses weapons that can devastate the entire Kathmandu Valley. We have safeguarded those weapons that can destroy Kathmandu. Now even the incumbent Prime Minister is not safe. If the Maoists are further teased we can take action against any one on our own.’ What is that? Is this peace assignment of UNMIN in Nepal? And Maoist leader Prachanda recently said “If there is another revolt at least one million people may lose their precious lives. We need to be very careful at this juncture, to stop the casualties. When the people revolt they obliterate everything. If the mandate of the CA election is further ridiculed we will declare war” The Maoist wants to come to power by the dirty way.

    Dear Ms. Karin Landgren,
    Nepalese democratic exercise faced the black period in between 2005-2009. During the period, Nepalese people tolerated the worst political practice made by corrupt leaders. The nation achieved the climaxed height of the lawlessness, theft, robbery, ransom and murders. The corruption is out of control. Nobody is responsible to control the corruption. A corrupt tendency has been institutionalizing as a system. Experiences are the proofs to reveal that all the political leaders invested their time and energy just for power and to accumulate big chunk of money, land, home and expensive vehicles. Their amassed properties in the name of democracy are hidden in different banks, lands, big houses and business. They are beyond the reality that the people might be fooled for a moment with the political dishonesty, but not for ever. Democracy has been abused as a ladder for power by the anti-nationalist political leaders. It is a matter of deep regret that the UN representatives, American ambassador, European Union an others have made a great mistake in supporting the republic, secularism, interim constitution, so-called interim parliament and the council of minister. Opposing attempt to abolish monarchy that has remained the basis of this country assessment of the geography, geo-political situation and ethnic sensitivity for so long and to try to establish a federal state based on ethnicity indicates the bad omen of the break-up of the country.

    I request you and your Groups to respect the Nepal army. It’s because of wrong representatives like Ian Martin, that there were bloodshed in countries like Vietnam, North Korea, South Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq. Did UN play any role to avert the civil war? UN also never played any positive role for the right of self-determination of the Palestinians! Why did the UN fail to heal the misery of the people of Lebanon? These were the results of bad intention of UNMIN Groups. There is an example, when Ian Martin was in East Timor, it was on his initiative that the rebel armies were reintegrated into the National Army and that led to the army rebellion and invited a civil war. UNMIN Groups want the same to happen in Nepal. As Nepal is a sovereign country, Nepalese army is free to do anything for the country. But, UNMIN is going to demoralize the sovereign Nepal’s Army. Nepalese people don’t tolerate foreign intervention to our domestic affairs. So, please never forget the identity of Nepal Army.

    We all know, without monarchy Nepal can’t adjust peacefully. Only the agents of foreigners some leaders of NC, UML and Maoists want to abolish the monarchy. Nepalese people want the everlasting institution-‘the Monarchy.’ Nepalese monarchy is the most convincing identity of Nepal’s independence and its sovereignty. Nepali Congress leader late BP Koirala used to say (1981): ‘The state of Nepal cannot remain without monarchy and even socialism can co-exist with monarchy in Nepal, the best example of monarchy is in Sweden. I wish there is a meeting point of the King’s nationalist interest and the people’s democratic interest. On the ethnic issue, BP Koirala used to say, ‘To incite and instigate Madhesi, Pahadi, Rai, Limbu and others in the name of ethnicity is an act of treachery against the country. What might be the strategy of India it wants to weaken us? Won’t it adopt this strategy?’ Similarly, one of the founder leader of Nepali Congress Krishna Prasad Bhattarai also has said – ‘The country has been facing a series of problems due to the mistake of abolishing the royal institution’. So, we should understand the reality of monarchy in Nepal. There are some nationalists within Congress, UML and Maoists. None of nationalists either of parties or outsiders can remain silent. Now let’s be strong and committed from every corner for the country’s existence against the traitors. But, without monarchy we can’t hope the Nepalese sovereignty, stability, democracy and peace. So, I request you to convince that UN must realize to reinstate the Nepalese Monarchy and nationality.
    Thank you.
    Dirgha Raj Prasai Former Member of Parliament (Nepal)
    Political analyst.

%d bloggers like this: