Deliver or quit

More than a year has passed since the election of the Constituent Assembly (CA). On April 10, 2010, the stipulated term of the CA, which is mandated to draft a new constitution and decide the federal structure of Nepal, expires. In the past 14 months, CA members, who draw a salary of 50 thousand rupees per month (the 601 CA members have so far drawn 420 million rupees in salary alone), have been engaged in everything from land grabbing and brawl within the CA secretariat campus to availing services of masseuses. The political parties seem to appear interested in everything else except drafting a constitution and agreeing on a functionally viable federal structure.

Having a constitution also means complying with the stipulated rules. But who wants to play by the rules in “New Nepal” except the poor who are forced to? At least, not the major political parties. If the media is to be believed, only six days in the past six months did not experience a banda. The bandas that accounted for 166 days of lost productivity in the past six months were not called for by the disgruntled silent majority, which in reality should have been the case. The largest party in the CA leads the pack in enforcing bandas. Organizations affiliated with UCPN (Maoist), which claims to be the only force capable of bringing sociopolitical and economic transformation in the country, was responsible for enforcing 39 bandas and strikes in the month of May and June alone. It enforced 69 bandas and strikes in the past six months.

Remaining insincere towards people’s need and the nation’s progress while drawing a paycheck can be at best called a morally-repugnant act. CA members should either stop draining the state’s coffer or get back to business.

Others, who claim to be the alternative to the Maoist bullying, are not very far behind. The CPN-UML and the NC organized 17 and 15 bandas respectively during the past six months. So, if we combine the strikes and bandas called by the major three parties, they are responsible for 101 days of lost productivity in the past six months. What does that say about the seriousness on the part of the political parties that are responsible for solving common people’s problem and taking the nation forward?

There is a rapid decay in the sense of public service among the politicians. Sadly, the political parties are using democratic process and institutions to legitimize their undemocratic and antisocial activities aimed at achieving their ultimate goals. Lack of viable alternatives has left Nepali people at the mercy of the morally-bankrupt political class. You can contest elections on ethnic agendas, become a foreign minister for nine months and get away without uttering a word on the need for ethnic empowerment. The globe-trotting foreign minister, Upendra Yadav, is again back in action posing himself as an ethnic messiah. Political insincerity of a few politicians is diluting the purity of the demand for ethnic rights.

Nobody, at least not the politicians, want to have a serious constructive debate on the form of federal structure that is viable and just. The major political parties, whose leadership comprises of mostly pahadi Brahmins and Chhetris do not want to raise the issue because they clearly see their clout diminishing if ethnic federalism is realized. But they do not want to say that, at least not in public. So they give it a nationalist color. They phrase it nicely. Ethnic mindset is antithetical to the notion of national integrity and nationalist pride. Sounds great, doesn’t it? But the ethnic minorities that are pushing for ethnic federalism do know where the Mecca of these politicians is located.

Progress should be the ultimate criteria for designing a federal structure. The federal structure should be founded on administrative prudence and developmental prospects rather than petty issues of politics like ethnicity, caste and language. It is important to ensure that the poor, who are not only ethnic minorities, benefit from the new structure or else the demand for separate states is not going to go away. For example, in India, the demand for separate states did not die down with the creation of Uttaranchal, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh, which were carved out from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh. Currently, the demand for creation of 10 new states is lying before the Indian government.

India, which was governed and governed quite effectively by the Britishers under four administrative blocks – Bombay, Madras, Calcutta and Delhi – now has 30 states. If the demand for 10 more states is met, it will have 40 states. The portioning of India engineered by VP Singh is getting deeper.

Nepal should learn from the Indian experience. A sincere effort towards drafting the constitution and rigorous debate on Nepal’s federal structure should start immediately. Running away from the problem is not the solution. It will require a sincere dialogue and consensus building. Political elites of yesteryears do not want to cave in to the demands of regional parties as it will shrink their political base and bargaining potential. The regional parties do not want to compromise on anything less than “One Madhes, One Pradhes” because the very minute a regional party will agree to anything less than that, other regional players will cry foul and call it a “sellout.” But this game of waiting for the other party to drop the ball cannot go forever, can it?

Constitution drafting and design of the federal structure has been put to the back burner because of political insincerity. Remaining insincere towards people’s need and the nation’s progress while drawing a paycheck can be at best called a morally-repugnant act. CA members should either stop draining the state’s coffer or get back to business.

Living in Lawless Times

It’s been almost a month since Madhav Kumar Nepal was sworn in as the country’s new prime minister. While the country continues to hemorrhage from never-ending political instability and lawlessness, Mr. Nepal is yet to figure out ways to deal with his own share of problems: Filling cabinet berths, keeping ideologically- and temperamentally-incompatible coalition members’ support intact and, the hardest part of it all, finding ways of keeping the Maoists engaged and off the streets. Given the internal rifts within the major political parties and unquenching thirst for greater power amongst the coalition members, safeguarding the majority needed to remain in power may be harder than Mr. Nepal had anticipated.

Even though Mr. Nepal has done everything possible (from extending an olive branch to Maoists to bifurcating ministries to satisfy the demands for lucrative ministries by coalition partners and nominating cabinet members who are not members of the Constituent Assembly) in order to diffuse possible future rebellion against his leadership, in the muddied political culture whereby loyalties towards the power center outside the nation’s geographical boundary is greater than one’s own land and people, support for his government may vanish into thin air the very minute he fails to serve foreign interests in the capacity he is expected to. Pushpa Kamal Dahal is an example of what happens when you try to outgrow your foreign master. So, given the expectation from foreign masters and fragmented support from within the coalition partners, Mr. Nepal is sure to have a tightrope walk.


While the pie is being divided at a painfully slow pace, lawlessness is spiraling out of control. School bus carrying children is getting attacked by vandals and educators are being assaulted in broad daylight. An attack on a microbus carrying students of Saipal Academy at Sukedhara, Kathmandu, and a brutal physical assault on Devidatta Sah, the campus chief of Mahendra Bindeswori Campus, Rajbiraj, are examples of how uncivilized Nepali society is becoming with each passing day. The growing indecency within the college campuses is nothing new but what is becoming increasing troublesome is how the major political parties are coming out of the closet and supporting the goons in guise of students within the college campuses openly. The major political parties – NC, CPN-UML, MPRF, TMLP – instead of condemning the attack on Mr. Sah, ganged up in favor of the infamous Yadav trio – Ramchandra, Jaya Prakash and Santosh – who committed the crime of assaulting the campus chief. So, it is not only the Maoists whose actions are perpetuating lawlessness and culture of impunity in Nepal. The other major political parties are equally responsible. Building a nation needs human capital.


By supporting goons who traumatize children and attack educators, these very politicians, who talk about building a “New Nepal” are destroying the foundation in whatever capacity it might be available. Children, whose buses are getting attacked, will have no desire to remain in the land of goons when they grow up. Educators that are getting attacked will have no interest in sincerely imparting the knowledge that they have acquired by slogging hard. Like everything else, education system in Nepal too is crashing. With the culture of impunity seeping into college campuses, educational institutions across the nation may very well end up becoming brainwashed-demagogue producing factories.


Do our politicians have even the slightest sense of the need and role of human capital in governing the states that they are clamoring to establish in future? With social capital in tatters, financial capital leaving the country like never before, and now, the institutions responsible for producing human capital under attack, capital assets required to build a prosperous nation will become even more scarce in future. With what do they intend to build a “New Nepal” if the hoopla about building it is nothing but populist circus to remain in the corridors of power? A brutal physical assault on Devidatta Sah, the campus chief of Mahendra Bindeswori Campus, Rajbiraj, is an example of how uncivilized Nepali society is becoming.


From Rishi Dhamala to the Yadav trio, political parties by openly siding with perpetrators are not only promoting the culture of impunity but also subverting the judicial process, which could have very well taken care of unlawful activities that Devidatta Sah might have indulged in. While promoting political violence, what our politicians fail to realize is that it will definitely come back to haunt them in the future. Once these musclemen in college campuses across the nation gain further clout and make money, which in present day Nepal with booming abduction and extortion industry is not too difficult, they will outgrow their masters. You don’t have to go too far to witness this phenomenon. Just look at student politics in the Indian states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh and what it has produced over the years and you will soon realize that a goon in guise of a student does have political ambitions and will do everything in his power to establish his foothold in politics. While the Maoists are culprits for trying to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat in the name of “civilian supremacy,” the other major political parties are equally responsible for encouraging “jungle raj” in an otherwise peaceful nation by standing in favor of those that take laws into their hands. Where in the civilized nation do we see the major political parties coming out in favor of goons in the guise of students that assault mentors?


With each passing day, Nepal is increasingly becoming ungovernable. Priorities are different for different sets of people. For politicians, it is all about consolidating power, whereas for the general public, it is about day-to-day survival. What will it take and who will bring back the normalcy? The new “normal,” however, will never be the same; it will be about respecting each other’s ethnicity, religion, political beliefs and playing by the laws of the land. Even though there is not much ground to be convinced that the current government, which has not been able to take a proper shape so far, will be able to pull it off, it has saved us all, at least for now, from getting trapped into the clutches of self-righteous blowhards called the Maoists. But the political experiment continues.

New Rules, Same Game

It did not take even three years for Nepali politicians, with their “business as usual,” under the table, tit-for-tat mentality, to get back to their infamous ways of mid-1990s. Once again, horse-trading of parliamentarians and backstabbing of fellow party men to grab and remain in power is back in vogue. Rules may have changed but the game remains the same.

The irony of Nepali politics is that the party which won the largest share of votes in the last election does not believe in multi-party democracy and the party – Nepali Congress (NC) – which calls itself the torchbearer of democracy and is the second-largest party in the parliament is the least democratic in its practices. By nominating Sujata Koirala, who is not even a member of the current parliament, to lead Nepali Congress (NC) in the new government, Girija Prasad Koirala (GPK) has put even the worst dictator to shame. As long as GPK is alive, it appears that the scourge of nepotism will never leave NC. Now, we all know what “democracy in peril” talk of GPK during the Maoist rule was all about, don’t we?

If democracy is all about the likes of Sujata becoming a minister, then people of Nepal will soon back the Maoists for whatever they stand for. Whatever the Maoists will have to offer will still be far better than what Sujata will offer.

If we look around, it becomes pretty clear that dirty politics of yesteryears is here to stay with us as long as the likes of GPK are around. This is probably going to be the last chance to weaken the Maoists, who are hell bent on annihilating the multi-party democratic set-up, but looking at GPK’s actions it becomes clear that he is least interested in securing the liberty and freedom of people and more interested in establishing his controversial daughter with zero political acumen in politics. If democracy is all about the likes of Sujata becoming a minister, then people of Nepal will soon back the Maoists for whatever they stand for. For the poorest of poor, whatever the Maoists will have to offer will still be far better than what the likes of Sujata will offer anyways.

The new prime minister, who actually lost the CA elections to a junior Maoist politician, is here to solve the problem with Sujata as a minister and Kul Bahadur Khadka as the security advisor. Trying to consolidate democracy with the assistance of people like these is like banking on Osama Bin Laden to destroy Al Qaeda. Sujata should have faced disciplinary action and Khadka should have been court-martialed for his treacherous act. Rewarding them is the biggest sham in the country today in the name of democracy. With Sujata as a cabinet minister and Khadka as a possible national security adviser, do the Maoists need a mole in the government?

Madhav Kumar Nepal (MKN), with liabilities like Sujata on board and his flip-flopping past, does not come across as someone who can actually solve the problems that confronts the nation. Hiring the right people to do the job is the most important indicator of whether or not the job at hand will be successfully done. Even though it is NC’s prerogative to choose the members it likes to have in the cabinet, it was MKN’s responsibility to ensure that his cabinet members are competent, non-controversial and relatively clean so that people have faith on their ability to deliver in this troubling time. By caving in to GPK’s irresponsible and morally-repugnant act of nominating his daughter as a leader of the NC in the new cabinet, MKN has actually shown that he is ready to compromise his principles and stoop as low as possible to remain in power. If you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

MKN may try to please everyone from GPK to Pushpa Kamal Dahal (PKD) by nominating Sujata and Khadka to increase the longevity of his tenure but by walking in the middle-of-the road, he has tremendously increased the possibility of getting run over by traffic coming in from the opposite direction.

At this point in time, Nepali people are not asking for much. They would be happy if he could just provide them an opportunity to live in peace. Asking for employment, social safety nets and access to healthcare services, which is by and large the government’s responsibility, would be like expecting a mule to give birth to a calf for us to worship during the upcoming “Laxmi Pooja”. So, no point raising our expectations. If politicians’ words were to be taken seriously, we would already have been like Switzerland long time ago.

On contrary, the politics of social mobilization, which the political parties carried out recklessly has surpassed institutional capacity and has dangerously destabilized the country. Maintaining a certain degree of law and order alone will be a great challenge for MKN as violators of law and order have enough cards at their disposal to play, when busted. Ethnicity, caste and class are the few cards that will remain potent to justify innocence till the government ensures inclusion of the people that have been bypassed by the political elites for decades. Providing cabinet berths to a few people from ethnic and indigenous groups is not the answer. Make everyone equal.

In order to empower people, one does not have to be a rebel. Abraham Lincoln, who abolished slavery, was not a rebel. Was he? Actually people who have been a rebel have fared far worse when it comes to empowering people. Our very own PKD did everything to extract political support from ethnic minorities but when it came to empowering them, he followed in GPK’s footsteps and nominated a couple of people from selected ethnic groups to show that he was sympathetic towards minorities’ rights.

MKN has a chance of a lifetime. His pragmatic actions, which may not be popular at times – and does not have to be – can whitewash his “flip-flopping” past. But, at the same time, if he is unable to come out of the spell of the likes of GPK and PKD and deliver, he will prove that he is just another goofball always ready to compromise on principles and stoop low to remain in the corridors of power.

Lessons For Nepal

The decimation of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the victory of the Congress party in the recently held parliamentary elections in India were the news that surprised many both in the Indian subcontinent and elsewhere. Mahinda Rajapaksa and Manmohan Singh have proved that the politics of ethnic chauvinism can be defeated, although the route these two men took was quite different. Rajapaksa resorted to military might whereas Singh adhered to greater economic reforms and pro-poor developmental policies. But again, the route they took also had to do with the level of threat ethnic chauvinism posed, in their respective countries. Rajapaksa faced violent ethnic fundamentalism whereas Singh was more exposed to bullying of coalition partners that flourished on ethnic and caste rhetoric.

Rajapaksa has proved that even the most sophisticated insurgency in the world can be decimated if there is a political will. There were countless occasions in the past 26 years of insurgency in Sri Lanka whereby Velupillai Prabhakaran could have gotten the state to fulfill genuine demands of minority Tamils. With time, more rights would have come Tamils’ way. It would have taken time but it would have eventually happened. But Prabhakaran’s hard-headedness and secessionist tendency has, in the end, left Tamils worse off. After 26 years of struggle and thousands of Tamils dead, LTTE got nothing, neither an independent state, nor the esteem of the civilized world.

While Sri Lanka has shown that appeasing the insurgents is not the only way to establish peace, India has shown to the world that the politics of ethnic chauvinism can be defeated through democratic means if the leadership in the country is visionary. Earnest and honest image does pay off in politics. Indian PM Singh is a living example. The recent election, in which, for the first time since 1962, a government that served its full five-year term has been re-elected under the same leadership, is a clear example of economic development taking over ethnic and identity politics in determining election outcomes. The recent election has also demonstrated, and demonstrated handsomely, that anti-incumbency can be beaten by delivering on the development front. Indian voters have rejected ethnic and caste politics. Finally, they have realized that identity-specific rhetoric, a process that they were told would empower them eventually had devolved into single-leader hegemony and blackmail politics, which neither empowered them, nor uplifted their socioeconomic status. India might have finally outgrown “Mandalism.”

Mahinda Rajapaksa, Manmohan Singh, Sheila Dikshit, Naveen Patnaik and Nitish Kumar have provided us with examples that both hardcore ethnic fundamentalism and ethnic- and caste-based politics can be defeated.

Regional leaders such as Naveen Patnaik of Orissa and Nitish Kumar of Bihar have shown that you can remain relevant in politics without riding ethnic agendas. Their effort to promote good governance, improve law and order and bring about overall development has paid off handsomely. Nitish’s Janata Dal (United) which had won six seats in 2004 Lok Sabha election won 20 seats this time around. And, Naveen Patnaik’s Biju Janata Dal won 14 seats, which is three seats more than 2004 Lok Sabha elections. Unlike in the past, Lalu Prasad Yadav and Ram Vilas Paswan were not able to fool Bihari voters with their caste-based rhetoric this time around.

While Lalu’s Rastriya Janata Dal had to contend with four seats compared to 22 in 2004 election, Paswan’s Lok Janshakti Party failed to register a win. By making development and law and order as the major poll issue in the caste-ridden state, Nitish has proved that these are other ways of claiming relevance in politics.

Not a very long, the military solution to LTTE problem in Sri Lanka and the defeat of Lalu and Paswan in India were conceived as impossible. But as it appears now, nothing is impossible if there is a political will.

In a country likes ours whereby the president, who refuses to join populist ethnic bandwagon, is chided by the members of his own community; where a journalist is not only a journalist but also a member of civil society and covertly involved in politics; where a human right defender runs for the chairmanship of one of the largest political parties, conflict of interest will always remain as a major obstacle in effectively dealing with the elements that pose threat to law and order and stability of the country.

Mahinda Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka and Manmohan Singh, Sheila Dikshit, Naveen Patnaik, and Nitish Kumar of India have provided us with examples that both hardcore ethnic fundamentalism and ethnic- and caste-based politics can be defeated. We may disagree with the approaches taken but it has been established that there are ways to deal if we really have to. The major question, however, is that, will Nepali politicians, who do not think beyond immediate political survival and who have mastered the art of operating outside the constitution with impunity, bother to learn from these examples? Had we learnt from the world history that appeasement of ideologically-indoctrinated demagogues does not establish peace and stability, we would not be where we are now.

For Nepal to come out of the current mess, which is partly self-created no matter how much political elite of the country try to escape from sharing the blame, there has to be a consensus on crucial but contentious issues such as designing the federal structure, land redistribution and ways to ensure ethnic empowerment. Plus, there has to be a sincere effort towards strengthening existing institutions and maintain law and order in the country, in the absence of which, politicians will keep on playing on either sides of the fence and mushroomed insurgent groups will keep on holding the communities across the country hostage.

But before all that can happen, a million-dollar question that arises now is: Will Madhav Kumar Nepal be able to bring a much stronger Dahal – whose party now is the largest in the parliament, has thousands of militiamen in UN-monitored cantonments and almost a 100 thousand strong paramilitary group (YCL) that can operate with impunity – under the framework aimed at strengthening multi-party democracy? It is a tall order. But again, anything is possible. Who had thought that LTTE could be decimated and Lalu and Paswan could be defeated?

Sponsored Coalition

Never-ending speculation about the fate of army chief Rookmangud Katawal came to an end following the Maoists’ unilateral decision to sack him (only to be reinstated by the president). The Maoists went ahead and did what they had decided to do anyways, despite stern warnings from all quarters – coalition partners, the main opposition party Nepali Congress, and most importantly, India that had provided the Maoists leaders safe haven during the decade-long insurgency.The NC, which not a very long ago, along with the Maoists chided the army for being a feudal institution, came out openly against the sacking of the army chief. All of a sudden, the NC, which had once agreed with the Maoists for the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) integration, is rooting for the man that is against the PLA merger. Why change of heart and why now?


With the Maoists’ increasing dominance in Nepali politics and their reluctance to abandon violence, the NC clearly saw doomsday coming. Unable to stand the Maoists’ wrath on its own, it found a perfect shield in Katawal. But the question that baffles many is: why did India decide to back the army to which it had once refused to supply arms? How does it look on the part of the world´s largest democracy when it has to covertly back an army general of a neighboring country to correct its foreign policy failures?India likes to blame the victims – Nepalis – for the current mess in Nepal and call it Nepal’s internal affair. But for Nepalis, who very well know where the top-rung Maoists leaders were during the decade-long insurgency (the Maoist leaders have themselves time and again acknowledged the Indian hospitality) and who catapulted insurgents from jungle to the corridors of Singha Durbar, sharing the burden of someone else’s faults has not been fun.


It is not the increasing dominance of the Maoist party in Nepali politics but its willingness to become the mentee of China that forced India to back Katawal. India had no option but to back Katawal because the political parties of yesteryears neither have the motivation, nor the muscle power to wrestle with the Maoists at this point in time. The backing of Katawal is another addition to the list of foreign policy failures of India but the cost of remaining a lame spectator would be even greater in terms of India’s national security interests.While the political parties of yesteryears are looking up to India to rescue them, for India, it is all about “safe landing” in Nepal. So, in the days ahead, the real confrontation will be between the Maoists and India, obviously through the Nepal Army and the coalition that India has put together. Will India be able to beat the Maoists on their home turf? It is an uphill battle.


How long will the Indian-sponsored coalition last? Not very long. The need for coalition has to come from within the parties for it to last. There has to be a shared goal.This is precisely why the SPAM alliance did not last long. The Maoists were clear about why they wanted to be a part of the current framework and what they wanted out of it, whereas the other political parties were clueless about what they would do if they failed to defeat the Maoists in the CA election. Basically, they had no clue about what they would do after the country was declared a republic. They were all convinced that the Maoist party will stick to the multi-party democratic framework and will not dare to act against India’s dictate. The coalition fell apart simply because there was disconnect between the end goal of the Maoists and other parties. For the Maoists, it was always about capturing the state, which should be clear to all those deniers out there. It was never about reintegration, because that simply means accepting the existing order against which the Maoists wedged the People’s War.


India, for its national security interest, will try to maintain political stability in Nepal through this coalition, but the costs of doing that will be several times higher than what it would have taken for Indians to contain the Maoists insurgency. What will it take for this coalition to work for a decent period? Basically, three things: (1) huge amount of money on the table that will produce visible changes in terms of both immediate needs (solving energy crisis – electricity and fuel shortages) and long-term development (this will act as the proverbial carrot and help change peoples’ perception about the dubious game that India plays in Nepal) (2) Logistical support to security forces and heavy security presence on the southern side of the border (will act as the proverbial stick and force Maoists to renegotiate terms and condition of the peace process) (3) Full-time mentoring to the politicians. A detailed short-term plan to contain the Maoists and long-term plan to weaken them should be crafted and handed over to the politicians and security forces.


In the meantime, another framework should be developed and force the Maoists to agree to it. The current peace process is not working. It is producing everything but peace and stability. Hence, salvaging the process is not the issue at hand. The process needs to be re-engineered from the word go. Why? Because it is now evident beyond any refute that the strategic end goals for the negotiating parties are diametrically opposite. One wants a single-party communist republic; the others want a vibrant democratic polity. We need to decide here what each of us wants Nepal to become. If we want a liberal multi-party set up, then there´s a huge problem. If we want a single party communist republic, then there´s the Maoist path.The twelve-point agreement has outlived its utility. It has been producing everything but peace and political stability. Now we need to formulate a completely new agreement where the vision, the strategic end-state, is common to all parties. This is the starting point – agreement on an end-goal – from which all tactical steps and processes must evolve.

Strategic Intent

Annie Lowrey of Foreign Policy, the award-winning magazine of global politics, economics, and ideas founded by Samuel Huntington and Warren Demian Manshel lists Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s government as one of the five governments worldwide that deserves to fail. One of the major charges against him is that he has been unable to maintain political stability and contain violence. Lowrey asserts, “Prachanda must maintain political stability and avoid any violence at all costs – or Nepal risks catastrophe.”

Lowrey correctly identifies what needs to be done in order to avert catastrophe, which in my view is not that difficult, but whether or not Prime Minister Dahal is doing enough to maintain political stability and contain violence is the most important question. Is Lowrey overreacting? No! Somalia and Afghanistan are excellent examples that showcase what political instability and violence can do to a nation.

Some of us think that political instability and violence are part of a package that a nation trying to take a giant leap has to live with for a while. But how long should that period be allowed to exist? The shorter, the better. And, it really depends upon the ability of the political leadership of the country in question to understand what political instability and violence can do to the overall economy and social fabric. For example, in poor landlocked Botswana, a unique form of democracy combining British parliamentary ideas with African traditions has been functioning well since the 1960s. A free press and a lively political system have developed. One of the many reasons why Botswana is a functional democracy in a largely dysfunctional continent is because the statesmen that took over were mindful of the importance of political stability and law and order in the country. On the contrary, seemingly endless ethnic conflicts in Sudan, Rwanda, Burundi, Nigeria, Chad, Angola, Ethiopia, and the Congo have cost many millions and made these countries highly unstable. One of the major reasons behind political instability in these countries is that the politicians deliberately invoke "ethnic action and nationalism", for ulterior motives, to achieve political and economic objectives. When that happens conflict takes shape of a vicious circle with no end in sight making political instability a norm rather than an exception.


We have started to see similar signs in Nepal too. While lawlessness continues, politicians talk as if a peaceful democratic transition can be taken for granted. But it cannot. Failure to combat lawlessness and instability undermines a country´s stock of ´social´ capital - that is, the relations of inter-group solidarity and cohesion which allow negotiation, compromise, and agreement between opposing factions. In Nepal, the consequence of the failure to stem the vortex of violence and lawlessness is that the country is fragmenting into an archipelago of competing power factions. Unless these centrifugal forces are contained, the country will drift further and further from a social compact.


The question, however, in the case of Nepal is whether or not Dahal is interested in maintaining political stability and containing violence? If the answer is yes, why is political instability and violence increasing with each passing day?Anyone following Nepali politics closely knows very well that the Maoists want more political violence and chaos—not less. If you look at the Maoists movement, it becomes evident that as the frequency and magnitude of their violent activities increased, so did their level of recognition and their domination over the existing political parties and the state got greater. For the Maoists, violence pays and as long as they benefit politically from it, they are not going to abandon violence. It’s a no-brainer. The chief ideologue of the Maoist movement, Baburam Bhattarai, has openly admitted that violence and chaos benefits his party politically. If violence did not matter and benefit them politically, they would not have formed the Young Communist League (YCL).


Unlike visionary statesmen such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Nelson Mandela, who followed acts of destruction with greater acts of construction, Nepali Maoists ideologues’ quench for destruction seems to have no boundary. Nehru and Mandela fought tirelessly against oppression and injustices, but after coming to power, they spent many years preserving the systems that their predecessors had put in place. Once in power, Mandela, who had approved radical and violent resistance to apartheid, reached out to White’s to create a multicultural South Africa. Maybe, it is absurd to compare Bhattarai – who thinks destruction alone will pave the way for construction – with Nehru, who preserved existing institutions, which he rightly thought was necessary to build a modern democratic state. The point I am trying to make here is that people without violent streaks have proved to be more constructive in world history. If destruction was the only way towards construction, Somalia and Afghanistan by now would have been the most prosperous state on the face of this earth.It is time that we, Nepalis, realize that putting too much faith on politicians will only result in disappointment.


The moderates within the society need to come out before it is too late. We need to force the state to address the genuine grievances of ethnic minorities and maintain law and order. It is not the ordinary Nepali citizens who are blocking the emancipation of ethnic groups. It is the ruling coalition’s largest partner which is not able to fulfill the promises that it made on its way to get where they are today. Why should an ordinary Nepali struggling to remain afloat pay the price for someone else’s wayward political ambitions?

Re-thinking Maoist Democracy

The populist floodgates that have been thrown open has dangerously destabilized the country. In the name of equality, ethnic fundamentalism is on the rise. Law and order situation is in a shambles. Judiciary is being ridiculed and attacked. Can a nation with an acutely vulnerable judiciary, absence of law and order, and social capital (dangerously depleted by rising ethnic hatred) prosper and consolidate democracy?

Nepal represents a failing democracy in which the prospects for consolidation have narrowed down significantly mainly due to the politicians´ inability to manage peoples’ expectations and to look for solutions for domestic political problems from within the country.The ruling party has been inconsistently consistent about their lack of faith in multi-party democracy and the opposition parties do not have the required strength and vision to mainstream the Maoists. Democratic consolidation in Nepal now is a generational challenge, requiring a long-term process of locally embedded civil society development, party institutionalization, and the disarmament of insurgency groups.

Virtually nothing will be achieved at this point by blaming the Maoists for derailing the democratic process and looking for an external solution to the problem. Why would the Maoists strengthen a system in which they never had faith to begin with? The Maoists had it all figured out. They wanted to get rid of the old political structure and fill the vacuum, which they have succeeded in doing so. With their militia controlling rural areas, they knew very well that major political parties of yesteryears would not be able to stand their wrath for long. The Maoists’ calculation went awry when ethnic dissent sparked off. But they quickly figured out a way to deal with it. By accommodating Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) and Nepal Sadbhavana Party in the government, they have frozen the chances of large scale ethnic revolt that could potentially bring down their government. As far as small-scale ethnic dissent is concerned, they are ready to strike a deal even if such deals have the potential to hurt the nation in the future. Their past deals clearly show how well they have mastered the art of using “useful idiots.”

Their biggest hurdle for now is neutralizing the Nepali Army (NA) and overhauling the bureaucracy. They want to neutralize the army because it is the only institution in Nepal that can put a brake to the Maoists march towards establishment of one party rule. By neutralizing the army—the process has already begun with the formation of Army Integration Special Committee—they want to negate the possibility of a takeover by the army or an army-backed government. For the Maoists, overhauling the bureaucracy is equally important because the Maoists know it very well that the Nepali bureaucracy is not neutral. The Maoists will not hesitate to provide golden parachutes so that they can get rid of civil servants they don’t want. By doing so, the Maoists will not only substantially reduce the threat to their regime but also please donors and other external players that have been advocating for reforms in security sector and bureaucracy. Actually, it might be perceived as a step towards promoting good governance by the donors and the Maoist government might end up benefiting both diplomatically and financially.

The Maoists have never shied away from making known their desire to establish one-party rule in Nepal. The one-party rule they want to establish does not have to be like North Korea´s. They can live with the West Bengal-type model, where they can run the show without much of a threat from other political players. Probably, that is the easiest and safest route for the Maoists. All they have to do is continue what they have been doing so far—flush out the political cadres of major political parties from rural areas. That way they can guarantee the outcome of future elections and appear democratic to the external world at the same time. This formula was successfully experimented in Constituent Assembly elections and it worked out pretty well in favor of the Maoists. They might want to take this experiment to the urban areas now. But how difficult would that be when you have the covert support of security forces, and the bureaucracy is willing to do the needful?

While the Maoists are working hard to find a way within the country to consolidate their rule, the opposition parties appear clueless regarding how to preserve their political space. The leaders of the opposition parties once again want our southern neighbor to devise a survival formula for them.What the politicians of opposition parties fail to understand is, even if they come to the power and rule the country, which is only possible through NA´s backing, they will not be able to run the show for very long. They want to rule the country that no longer exists. Today’s Nepal is drastically different from the past. Nepal, as a nation, has gone too far left. First of all, even if India supports the opposition’s quest for power, removing the Maoists from power will not be as easy as removing Gyanendra Shah. The support that Pushpa Kamal Dahal has and the scale of violence that he can unleash is no match to the support and options that the former king had. So even if opposition parties bounce back with tacit support from India and the backing of NA, which in my view is completely unacceptable and undemocratic, they will not be able to rule for long. Dahal has way more support than what Gyanendra enjoyed during his rule. And, think about the cross-mobility of communists from the CPN-UML to the Maoist party. The recent college elections have clearly shown that the younger generation in Nepal is increasingly leaning towards the left. There is nothing to be cheerful about the poor showing of the Maoists in recent student union elections. Third place is good enough. It will not take very long for student leaders from the UML-affiliated student wing to migrate to the Maoist wing. They share the same ideology.

The options that the opposition parties in Nepal have at this point are very limited. For now, they should forget about scratching the backs of foreign leaders to garner support to bounce back to power. Such move is neither democratic, nor will it help them remain in power for long. The only way to keep the Maoists deviating away from democratic path is by keeping them engaged. It will take time, which Girija Prasad Koirala and other aged leaders unfortunately do not have on their side given their age and desire to establish their siblings in politics. We had an option to taste the success that Mahinda Rajapaksa in Sri Lanka is enjoying now, but we decided not to take that route and it is now too late to even think about it. Now, it is an ideological battle between the hardcore leftists and true democrats, if any. NA should not be dragged into this fight.

Let the people of Nepal themselves realize the difference between living in a liberal society and under hardcore leftists´ rule. A revolution that will occur then after will be the real revolution for democracy. It will be a long slog but would be worthier than the shortcut our southern neighbor devises for us. Not very long ago they devised a formula to establish democracy in Nepal and we all know how well it worked out. We are the ones who are now paying for their five-decade-long expertise in democratic consolidation. Do we really need another set of formulas from them again?

Unite for Democracy

Radical communists regard goodwill gestures and concessions as nothing more than contemptible weakness and an irresistible invitation to take advantage.

The Maoist ascendency to the power was the biggest political surprise of 2008. The result of the Constituent Assembly (CA) poll, which was conducted without the required political preparation and adequate security arrangements by the Nepali Congress (NC) led government, shocked everyone: from immediate neighbors to the power centers overseas. As a matter of fact, the “April surprise” not only shocked the keen observers outside the country, but also the major political parties of the yesteryears, who till then thought that they were the ones that were actually mainstreaming the Maoists.

The CA election completely turned the table around. All of a sudden, benevolent appeasers, whose never ending concessions to the Maoists reduced a genuine peace process to an “appease process” were at the receiving end. An unexpected victory in the CA election gave the Maoists an opportunity to go their own way.

While the people who are aware of what radical communism is capable of delivering watched the Maoist ascendancy to the power with trepidation, gullible “coffee shop” hopping intelligentsia appeared least bothered. The defeat of democratic forces in the CA election was rationalized as a step forward in integration of the Maoists into the democratic process. The Maoists know very well as and how to garner the sympathy and support of a gullible intelligentsia and partisan civil society, don't they?

It's been almost nine months since the CA election was conducted and approximately four months since the Maoists formed the government. A question that we ought to be asking ourselves is -- are we in fact better off than we were a year ago? If the answer is no, how long should we wait before we decide to do something about the rapidly worsening situation?

Puspa Kamal Dahal, himself, has admitted that he has failed to deliver and match the people's expectations. The grand dream of transforming the nation with hydro dollars has gone bust after the declaration of energy crisis. Hundred plus hours of load-shedding per week and labor union militancy have dwarfed the possibility of foreign direct investment in the country. How will the Maoists transform the nation and provide dividends they have been promising all along? Every Nepali should be asking this question in order to come to a rational conclusion on whether or not the Maoists have what it takes to transform the nation.

The Maoists simply do not care about the sufferings of poor and the downtrodden. They gain from the unfair advantage that Nepalese people suffer from a lack of hope in the possibility of getting an authentic and good government that will tend to the grossly unattended needs of our society. What the Maoists are doing is cleverly manipulating the psychological insecurities of Nepali people. They are least concerned about how badly it hurts collective self-esteem.

Instead of taking responsibility for the failures, Puspa Kamal Dahal and his psy-war experts, are once again threatening a "mass revolt." They do so because it benefits them politically. By simply reminding of us pain, suffering and dread of future terror, they want us to eventually weaken and give in to their demands. Their ultimate goal is to capture our hearts and minds -- to convert us.

How can threat of bloodshed transform our attitudes in favor of the Maoists' worldview? Wouldn't we recoil in horror and, if anything, move farther away from sympathy toward the perpetrators of violence? Nope. Look at how jihadists in radicalized Islamic societies across the world "convert" innocent individuals to Islam by threat of death. It is just a matter of applying the tactics that works at individual level to a larger scale. It does work. The counterintuitive result of the CA election is a proof. It's been already tested on our own soil.

When Thomas Jefferson said that “people get the government they deserve,” he must have had people like us in mind, who can easily be duped. It did not take us very long to buy “revolutionary dreams” sold by the Maoists, did it?

So what is the way out? A strong democratic alliance is the need of the hour. It, however, has to have clear goals and objectives. Or else, it will be perceived as a “grand design” of fat cats within the NC, UML, RJP, and RPP to make a grand come back, and hence, will not take off. The Nepali people, who have been duped again and again in the name of salvation, deserve a detailed plan about how salvation would occur this time around. There are way too many “dream merchants” in Nepal for people to believe in.

Patience is great, but the longer we wait, the more damage gets done. The very day our southern neighbor comes to a conclusion that the China-leaning Maoist regime cannot be dislodged anytime soon, disintegration of Nepal is guaranteed. For India, its national security is more important than territorial integrity or sovereignty of Nepal.

The delay in emergence of a strong democratic alliance will cost us dearly. The Maoist party by cozying with Upendra Yadav is under a false impression that Madhesi revolt is all but over. Besides that, the Maoists do not have any moral ground to go against the wishes of the ethnic parties since they ignited the flame of dissident politics. It has to be done by an outfit that understands the threat and is genuinely interested in empowering the Madhesis. By not going after a permanent solution, the Maoists are allowing ethnic hustlers that are ready to outdo Lengdup Dorje to forward their political agenda.

By attacking media and interfering in religious tradition, the Maoists are feeling the pulse of Nepalese society. They will tell you what you want to hear, but will do what benefits them politically. The Maoist ministers' sojourn to the jail where Ramesh Babu Pant and Ramesh KC were housed clearly exhibits moral bankruptcy on part the Maoist ideologues. Don't we know already how low they can stoop?

There might still be some within the major political parties of yesteryears that think “appeasement” is the only way out to moderate the Maoists and secure the lost political space. This is a prescription for disaster. Appeasement always encourages your master to further subjugate you. If more subjugation is not immediately forthcoming in response to appeasement, it's only a strategic delay. Radical communists regard goodwill gestures and concessions as nothing more than contemptible weakness and an irresistible invitation to take advantage.

Ignore history at your own peril!

Practice what you preach

Last month's terrorist attacks in Mumbai shocked everyone. Nearly two hundred innocent men and women lost their precious lives and many more were injured. In anger over Mumbai attacks, while the nation was grieving the loss, Indian media and politicians, as usual, tirelessly vilified and pointed the finger at Pakistan. Blaming the usual suspect, Pakistan, began even before evidences were gathered and the lone surviving terrorist was interrogated.

Although the notoriety of Pakistan's Intelligence Agency, ISI in providing aid and comfort to Islamofascists that want to inflict harm on India cannot be denied based on its past activities, India should also take responsibility for its own security lapses and failure to address issues that are fuelling the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the Indian subcontinent. Is it because of India's rigid posture on Kashmiri issues or is it due to India's inability to lift the status of millions of Muslims that are at the bottom of the pyramid, to whom, the prosperity of the last two decades has failed to bring about any real changes? What actually is it that is luring young men and women in Indian subcontinent towards radical Islam?

By attacking landmarks in the financial capital of India, Mumbai, jihadist juggernauts wanted to do two things: expose India's vulnerabilities and slow down India's economic progress. The recent terrorist attacks in Indian subcontinent also signal shift in venue of global terrorism. Lately, South Asia has become a focal point for terrorism directed against the western nations. By targeting westerners in Mumbai, Islamic radicals wanted to send a message about shift in venue for holy jihad. It clearly shows how the trends in terrorism continue to shift from the Middle East to South Asia. With Afghanistan slipping into chaos and Nepal on freefall, jihadists have more than needed space to operate in South Asia. If terrorism is to be wiped out from South Asia, along with Pakistan, India too, has substantial homework to do.

First and foremost, India should work on its definition of “terrorism.” For India, groups that are waging armed struggle for the liberation of Kashmir from Pakistani soil are terrorists, and it wants Pakistani government to go after them, but when it comes to India's turn to act, it simply looks the other way. While India blames Pakistan for providing aid and comfort to the anti-Indian elements, India's own record is not as clean as it wants others to believe. It is an open secret about where the Maoists ideologues, who raised arms against the state, and whom Indian government unilaterally branded as terrorists lived for the most part of the decade long insurgency. The Maoists movement that brought Nepal to its knees would not have been succeeded without India's generosity. India not only provided the Maoists a safe heaven to operate, but also forced democratic forces to bed with them, whose ugly repercussions are unfolding slowly.

India's soft corner for those that raise arms against Nepali state did not end with its generosity towards the Maoists. It continues to provide safe heaven to armed secessionist groups that want to disintegrate Nepal. How is Pakistan's support to Jihadists that want to free Kashmir different from India's turning blind eyes on groups that have raised arms to seek secession? Armed struggle in Nepal will not survive without Indian benevolence.

What India as a nation should understand is that, it can only progress the way it wants to, when South Asia as a regions is, stable and peaceful. It cannot and will not remain insulated from the pouring in of negative externalities if its neighbors fail. It should, thus, stop providing safe heaven to groups that raise arms against its neighbors. Only then, India will have moral authority to ask Pakistan to go after the groups that carry out anti-Indian activities in Pakistani soil.

If India continues to provide safe heaven to the armed groups that raise arms against Nepal, armed struggle in Nepal will never wane. Bunch of incompetent but ambitious individuals that lack patience and caliber to win the hearts and mind of Nepali people through peaceful democratic means will keep on waging wars in the name of fighting oppression. Looking at honeymoon period of the Maoist government, it becomes evident that rhetoric alone is not enough to bring changes. For change to come, the rulers should have a vision and competence. Is India ready to be held accountable, if the so called revolutionaries, to whom it provides safe heaven, fail to deliver, like the Maoists, and bring about positive changes?

The Maoists in Nepal had an excellent opportunity bring about changes. There was no need to create rogue institution like Young Communist League (YCL). They had already created a political space for themselves. The defeat of stalwarts of the United Marxist Leninist Party (UML) at the hands of the obscure Maoists figures clearly showed that the UML's grassroots operatives had mass-migrated to the Maoists Party. Instead of trying to capitalize their gains and focusing on providing services to the people, the Maoists remained glued to their red book, which states terror as a method social control.

With the honeymoon period over, the excitement generated by Maoists' revolution has dissipated. With waning of euphoria, Puspa Kamal Dahal finds himself under fire. His next step? If worst comes, step down and wreck havoc till the next government is overwhelmed. The Nepali politics is sure to get confrontational in days to come. The way things are unfolding, it appears that, we will once again witness a bloody conflict, whereby the very same people who declared the Maoists terrorists will be at the helm of affairs, and the Maoists at offensive. Who gains from this, if this is to really happen? Not Nepali people for sure!

India, when it comes to its own security, aggressively calls for wiping out groups that act against India's national security, but when it is India's turn to reciprocate, its record has been pretty dismal. If nothing, what India can and should learn from the failure of the Maoist government in Nepal is that, there are tons of incompetent and ambitious politicians in Nepal, who are ready to wage war against the state. How do you identify true revolutionaries that can change the face of Nation from phonies, who pose as revolutionaries and wage wars against the state to forward their political agendas? And, will the justification for armed struggle ever get over if a neighbor keeps on rewarding armed insurgencies targeted at its neighbor?

There will always be complaints about injustice caused by the state. No country has ever been fully able to satisfy its citizens. But that cannot simply be the reason for armed struggle. India should force various armed groups that are waging wars against its neighbor to shut down their shops if it really wants Pakistan to go after jihadists that are waging holy war against India.

India cannot win the war against terrorism on its own. If it really wants to win this war, it has to stop the blame game and cooperate with its neighbors.

They just don't get it!

There is plenty of room to suspect the motives of the trio -- Koirala, Sitaula and Mahat

The constitution drafting process has not begun even after the six months of the Constituent Assembly (CA) election. While Puspa Kamal Dahal and his men are busy enjoying the power, for the likes of Bam Dev Gautam, it is business as usual. The Madheshi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) does not appear very much interested in pushing Madheshi issues, which it cashed in successfully during the CA election forward. For now, Upendra Yadav is happy to be, where he is. As long as he is in power, Madheshi issues will remain on the back burner.

While the parties that are in power are enjoying the limelight and the power, the Nepali Congress (NC) that ruled the country for the last one and a half decades appears bewildered, bitter, and directionless. The party leaders seem to have run out of fresh ideas. All they do these days is -- regurgitate how big of a threat the Maoists are to democracy in Nepal. Are the Maoists really a threat to democracy? Absolutely yes! I, for one, never believed that the Maoists were for multiparty democracy. It is not just me; the Maoists themselves have time and again reiterated that their ultimate goal is to establish a communist state. The misinterpretation of the Maoists' strategic intent always came from the very people that are now charging the Maoists for being threat to democracy.

While in the corridor of power, it never occurred to Girija Prasad Koirala, Krishna Prasad Sitaula, and Ram Sharan Mahat that the Maoists were a threat to democracy. While we were questioning the Maoists' strategic end goal, these were the very people telling the Nepali people that the CPN (Maoist) was a reformed force that wanted a safe landing and were in the process of getting mainstreamed.

As long as they were in power, they didn't utter a word about the Maoist intentions. Then Home Minister Krishna Prasad Sitaula looked the other way when the Maoists committed heinous crimes (the murderers of Jitendra Shah and the Young Communist League thugs that thrashed Dr Gyanendra Giri never got punished) and former finance minister Ram Sharan Mahat exhibited his sense of entitlement on national coffer by disbursing 330 million to the ex-members of the legislature-parliament. He never told the public, whose money he was handing over to the Maoists, that he had records of whether or not their hard-earned money were being put to good use by the Maoists.

All of a sudden now, these very people who put our freedom into the clutches of the Maoists, are trying to convince us that they are the ones, who understand the threat to democracy from the Maoists and are actually capable of getting us out. Isn't that ludicrous? Why would anyone want to go to a doctor, who misdiagnosed the problem in the first place?

There is plenty of room to suspect the motives of the trio -- Koirala, Sitaula and Mahat. Are they really for democracy or simply playing the 'democracy' card to bounce back to the power? After getting wedded in a submissive relationship for three years, these people are opening up their mouth now. Should the Nepalis believe them when they say they understand that radical communism poses a threat to democracy and are actually capable of defending people's freedom?

What did Koirala and his henchmen in the cabinet do to ensure the victory of democratic forces in the CA election? Actions speak louder than words. You can fool some people sometimes, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

In a nation where a third of people live on less than a dollar, a mere use of a "noun," a "verb," and the word democracy in political speeches won't convince people. And, if you were one of the happy campers that allowed the Maoists reduce the peace process to appease process, forget about it. For these poor, there was no democracy to begin with. They never got a chance to enjoy the dividends of democracy or else they would not be such a massive support for the Maoists amongst the poor and the downtrodden. For another 40 percent or so, it is all about jobs, good education for their children, and better access to health care. If anyone can assure them of that, they will readily side with that person or the party and that is what is precisely happening in Nepal. The poor are happy dreaming about the prosperity that the Maoists have promised them. By the time the younger generation that is rallying behind Dahal actually understands what communism is capable of delivering; there will be no Puspa Kamal Dahal, Baburam Bhattarai, and the likes. The Maoists henchmen will have played their innings by then.

What percentage do educated and economically well off people that value democracy and freedom make up in Nepal? Ten percent would be a generous estimate. Do the people in this ultra minority actually believe that Koirala, Sitaula and Mahat really stand for liberal democracy and freedom that educated class cherishes for? Had the answer been in affirmative, people like Professor Krishna Khanal would not be deserting the NC. When people like him jump off a ship, it is time to know that either the ship has a hole on it or the sailors are a bunch of drunkards, who have no clue about where they are sailing the ship to.

Is the game over? Not yet, but it has definitely gotten increasingly difficult. Personally, I don't have confidence on the very people who lacked the judgment on what the Maoists stood for and what they were actually up to. If they knew it, then they were not being honest about it. In any case, they are not the kind of leaders Nepal needs to consolidate democracy.

We need new faces to confront new challenges that we are facing. There still exists an opening.
Freedom and democracy can still be snatched from the clutches of the Maoists. But for that to actually happen, we need young politicians that believe in democracy to come out and take political centre stage. The mainstream media is still up for democracy in Nepal. So, with media on your side, you can obscure the Maoists' propaganda with clear and concise message. But all this has to come from someone clean and credible, not from phonies, who pose as democrats. Not from someone who got us into the Maoists' lap, and are now posing as saviors.

The sheer regurgitation of the phrase "democracy in peril" will not be sufficient to defeat the Maoists, who want to destroy people's right to choose whether they want to send their kids to a private or public school and which hospital they want to visit and which doctor they want to see, when ill. If the Maoists have their ways, like in Cuba, specialised diagnostic studies (e.g., CT scans, endoscopies, ultrasound, etc.) and treatments (e.g., chemotherapy, radiation therapy, surgery, etc.) will have to be approved by bureaucrats. Ask general Nepalis if that is what they want.

The Maoists have been clamouring that they would transform the country in the coming decades by attracting foreign investments. Who would invest in a country where union militancy is promoted by the party that runs the government and where the largest faction of the coalition government has a brigade or brigands that can take laws into their hand and operate without impunity? Who will invest in a country whose finance minister openly threatens private sector ordering that private school and hospital owners should look for investment alternatives? Ask these questions to the Maoists that are selling dreams without being challenged.

It is important for people to understand that, what the democrats in Nepal have to offer is, far better than what the Maoists are promising. The sheer regurgitation of "democracy in peril" will not do the trick. The more you regurgitate it, the more you will look stupid and out of touch with reality.

From freefall to a basket case?

It's been four months since the Constituent Assembly (CA) election was held and we still don't have a legitimate government. Is it because the proportional representation system has started producing disproportionate results or because the self-portrayed progressives have resorted to the same old tricks played during the coalition era of the past decades?

If the government formation takes four months, how long will it take to undo the failures of the past governments and deliver the dividends of democracy? With this pace, when will the wholesale transformation of Nepal's political and social foundation and the apparent consensus be achieved between various ethnic groups in Nepal?

As usual, no political party is ready to take the responsibility for the current political impasse. Accountability has evaporated in countless networks, bargaining and search for compromises. Shouldn't someone somewhere be responsible for the current state of affairs?

A daughter of noted neurosurgeon was abducted in broad day light from the heart of the capital. Unable to rely on the professional ability of the security apparatus, the hapless father pays multi-million rupees in ransom for the safe release of his sibling. Dr Devkota's willingness to pay ransom to the abductors is an example of erosion of people's faith in government's ability to solve their problems. This is one among hundreds if not thousands of cases happening every month.

Our so-called intellectuals get baffled when high profile abduction cases like the one involving the daughter of Dr Upendra Devkota occur. Like an ignorant little child who suddenly wakes up after a bad dream, they start questioning the existence of the nation's security apparatus and the responsibility of the Home Ministry. Anyone keeping a close tab on Nepal can easily tell that the law and order situation in the country is in a shambles and it has been so for a long time now. It certainly did not happen overnight for anyone to miss it, did it? What appears as if the abduction of Dr Devkota's daughter was the first ripple in a perfectly calm lake? The lake has been muddied and unsettled for a long time now. It is just that in order to appear politically correct some of us chose not to question the abilities of the guards responsible to keep the lake clean and healthy.

We live in a country where the vice-president of the country flouts court order, home minister overlooks crimes (killers of Jitendra Sah and Ram Hari Shrestha are still at large) and the prime minister, instead of firing the incompetent home minister, uses him as his emissary. Lawlessness starts from the top and trickles down to the common man. Criminals at the bottom of this food chain of lawlessness are taking every opportunity to take the law into their hands because that is the example leaders are leading with.

The major political parties are intoxicated by foul poison of power and this is evidenced by their disgraceful attitude towards formation of the new government and writing a constitution. From old guards of Nepali politics to the new entrants like the Maoists, MPRF, and TMLP, political honesty is something that is seriously lacking. Moral nudity on part of the Maoists has become so apparent that it is hard to trust their words.

Needless to say, they were not trustworthy to begin with. When the chances of getting into the power brightens, they suggest the return of all seized properties and curbing illegal acts of their brigade of brigands (YCL), but as soon as their chances of clinching to the power fades, their threat-laden statements start flying in all directions. They get verbal diarrhea.

It is not only the Maoists that have mastered the art of deal making. Upendra Yadav has picked it in a relatively shorter period of time. He is ready to join hands with anyone and everyone so long as he gets his share. The Maoists' call for having a Madhesi president and a Pahadi vice-president was a logical one, but for Upendra Yadav, having his man as a vice-president was more important than ensuring ethnic balance in the top most posts of the land. For him, inclusion of other ethnic groups is irrelevant. So long as the process ensures the inclusion of the members of his vote bank, ethnic empowerment is on the roll!

In order to minimize the dissent that arises from the incompetence on the part of politicians, the political parties have divided the nation along political ideology and ethnicity. And with each passing day, the people are getting sucked into this game plan devised by our politicians to cover up their incompetence and enhance their own political agendas. If a Madhesi intellectual raises a red flag against functioning of Madhesi leaders, he is immediately branded as a traitor. He becomes an instant enemy of his community. Many Madhesis dislike the president simply because, in their eyes, he is not Madhesi enough. His clarion call for national unity is in collision course with agendas pursued by those that do not see anything wrong with vice-president taking oath in Hindi even though it is unconstitutional. If something is unconstitutional, it is unlawful. And, that is how it ought to be.

How we got here and where are we headed? Many of us decided not to raise our voice against the failures of our politicians because our beloved politicians have created an environment whereby anyone, who questions their ability to handle the situation well automatically falls into a least wanted category-status quoists. Is it finally time to realize that Bollywood-type happy ending is not something that happens in African-style drama?

Unless the people rise and make their voice heard, politicians are not going to mend their ways. If we continue to remain divided, we may lose any chances that we might have from this point onwards to emerge as a functional democracy and may end up as a basket case of Asia.

Nepal, in every sense, is a nation under construction. The depth and scale of the transformation taking place in every dimension of Nepal's social, economic, and political lives is very rapid and difficult for even experts to comprehend. The ongoing experiment of building a "New Nepal" if handled properly could be one of the most successful developments in the history of the nation. But if it fails, the consequences for Nepal could be tragic, and possibly catastrophic.

The ultimate betrayal

Finally, by nominating Ram Raja Prasad Singh for the post of president, the Maoists have officially ended an era of consensus politics. An eternal journey with the Maoists, which the Nepali Congress (NC) and the United Marxist Leninist (UML) told us was necessary to build a "New Nepal," is in lurch, after the Maoists have shut the door on the NC and the UML and have decided to build a "New Nepal" on their own.

Things are shaping up to be pretty odd. With the Maoists' latest act of betrayal, Nepali politics is, slowly but surely, getting confrontational. With the Maoists resorting to, my-way-or-the highway attitude, the settling of political vendetta will take the center-stage. Constitution making is the last thing in the minds of politicians. For the Maoists, it is all about how to consolidate the power, and for others, how to contain the Maoists and maximize political bargains.

The mainstream political parties of yesteryears are back to the square one. In 2005, an autocratic monarch had shut the door on them, and now, after three years, it is the very party that they helped spread base in the urban center repeating the act. Is it fate's cruel prank or inability on the part of UML and NC politicians to understand and tackle authoritarian tendencies?

Was it expected? Oh, yes, except a few greedy power-mongers within the NC and the UML, who thought that protracted ideological decay was worth it, everyone else were well aware of the Maoists' intent, and saw betrayal coming. Short term power mongering over long term political survival was almost certain to yield the consolidation of state power, but with the Maoists at the helm.

The NC and UML were bound to get betrayed. It was just a matter of time. It is not only because the Maoists' modus operandi is based on betrayal and lies, but also because the Maoists' strategic end goal: the establishment of a one-party communist republic directly conflicts with the end goal of the NC and UML. Anyone following the Maoist insurgency can easily tell that, at no point throughout the entire period of insurgency or the peace process has its leadership or the surrogates expressed anything but a full-fledged commitment to the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariats. Any misrepresentation of the Maoists' strategic intent has come from outside the party -- mainly from the power-mongers within the NC, UML or the left-leaning civil society.

Had Girija Prasad Koirala not allowed the peace process to be reduced to an "appease process" by fulfilling each and every demand raised by the Maoists, the situation would have been quite different now. Had he taken time to dispassionately evaluate the Maoist machine, he would have understood long ago that the Maoists are in this to win -- not to compromise, or become mainstreamed or to play by anyone else's rules but their own.

The Maoists were successful in clouding his judgments by dangling "Presidential Lollypop" in front of him. Once the Maoists started doing that, their anti-social and undemocratic means were simply shrugged off as negativities associated with the transitional phase.

The NC and UML should learn a lesson from how the Maoists have done "business" to date. Their failure to put oneself inside the Maoist mind and see things as they see them, to understand their beliefs, strategy, and supporting tactics have put ordinary cadres in far flung villages in a very difficult position.

In the last two years, the fat cats within the NC and UML might have profited financially, but when it comes to grassroots cadres, they are worse off than they were three years ago. In the tarai, they have to face the wrath of the secessionists like Nagendra Paswan and Jay Krishna Goit, and in the hills, newly mushroomed ethnic militant groups have made their life miserable. It is not only the NC and UML cadres that are having a hard time in the changed political context, but there is another group called Internally Displaced People (IDPs) that did not benefit a bit from the grand coalition of the last three years. They are the forgotten heroes, whose woes both the NC and the UML chose to ignore.

What next? The Maoists will use different combinations of muscle power and ballots to eliminate all marginal threats to their expanding power base. Whether this process of elimination occurs figuratively or literally, whether through perversions of democratic process or through decrees will get clearer in the days ahead.

There is a very little evidence to support that the Maoists will play by the democratic rule book. They will pretend to act democratic as long as it benefits them to do so, but that does not mean that the Maoists have embraced multi-party democracy. They have already started to interpret their victory in the CA election as unconditional support for the full execution of the 'Prachanda path." The chances for a radical party to continue carrying out radical policies in the changed political context should not be negated. It would be a mistake of Himalayan proportion to rely on liberal interpretations of what the Maoist leaders say.

Puspa Kamal Dahal is not that foolish to adopt North Korean-styled one party rule in the current geopolitical situation, but he will do everything to ensure that there is no threat to the Maoist regime from the political opponents that believe in Western-styled multi-party parliamentary democracy. With the brigade of brigands (YCL) at his disposal and the state's security forces under his control, it will not be very difficult for him to find other ways to subvert political competition and administer social control.

The future of the mainstream political parties of yesteryears such as the NC and the UML and the new entrants like MJF and TMLP will largely depend upon how quickly they can reinvent themselves and provide credible alternatives to the Maoist writ. They have a very difficult role to play: checkmate the Maoists and appear constructive to the general populace at the same time. Or else, they will be painted as obstructionists. With security apparatus under the Maoists' control and YCL in villages, the Maoists have more than they need to win elections. The last thing you want to do is give them a chance to vilify your personality.

Lethal freefall

Lately, politicians have discovered a new mantra for building a "New Nepal." And that new mantra is, "negotiation." Be it mutiny within the security forces or an absurd demand like creating a single province to house heterogeneous populace, anything and everything is up for negotiation. Nepal could tip into "freefall" if a parameter for what is negotiable and what is not, is not set.

There is no method to the ongoing political madness. Politicians can do anything and everything and get away with it. There is no accountability whatsoever. We have a finance minister, who talks about fiscal responsibility and financial restraint, but runs finance ministry like a drunken sailor. He wants to exhibit his sense of entitlement on national coffer by disbursing 330 million to ex-members of the Legislature-Parliament. And, we have another great one -- Krishna Prasad Sitaula. Nobody has really been able to understand, who his real masters are.

Sitaula's job is to maintain law and order in the country and that is what precisely he has been unable to do for the last two years. The Young Communist Leaguers seem to be safer than ordinary citizens under his tenure as a home minister. Sitaula has his own unique way of uplifting the spirits of Nepal Police -- negotiate with mutineers. What a brilliant home minister we have, don't we? If you negotiate with mutineers, mutiny will never end. The only way to deal with it is, do what other countries do -- use brute force to bring it down so that it never happens again. If there are institutional problems like ill-treatment of the fellow servicemen and corruption in the security forces, which I am sure there are, initiate institutional reforms.

In a lawless society like ours, mutiny if negotiated, will shatter the required cohesiveness within the forces and destroy its ability to maintain law and order.

It is not only the Nepali Congress (NC) that houses "luminaries," Jhapali Naxalites too have their own set of geniuses that are relentlessly engaged in churning out innovative ideas. In order to fight widespread corruption and social injustices and counter youth brigade of brigands of Ropali revolutionaries (read YCL), Jhapali Naxalites have come up with a custom and unique solution -- create brigade of brigands of their own. Initially, we had one brigade of brigands to deal with, now, we have two. For ordinary citizens, it might be "political warlordism," but for our progressive leftists, it is an efficient use of wasted youth force. Can anyone argue against such a brilliant proposition?

In Nepali politics, politicians' past does not hold any importance. You can be from a Tharu community; marry a Pahari woman, serve pahari masters for decades and make fortune out of it, marry off your siblings to paharis, and overnight propose yourself as the biggest proponent of Madhesis' rights. Pahari-bashing is fine, you might have to do that to disassociate with past associations, but discrediting Tharus' revolution against one Madhes, one province proposal as UML's sponsored act is, totally outlandish. And, strangely, Madhesi friends with whom we grew up idolize such politicians and see us as colonizers. Where in the world will you find such a well- intentioned people other than in Nepal?

As an undergraduate student at the University of Delhi in the mid-nineties, I was surprised to see my Indian friends hate Pakistan. During the cricket matches between India and Pakistan, hostel's common room where we gathered to watch matches would be filled with curse words. It was surprising to see my friends whose parents might not have been born during the partition share such strong emotions against their neighbor. Pakistan-bashing politics practiced in India for the last fifty years is to be blamed for that. While India shirks its responsibility in establishing and supporting Mohajir Qaumi Movement in Pakistan, it blames Pakistan for every terrorist attack that takes place in Indian soil. In the process of finding a "scapegoat" for its security lapses, India has permanently vilified Pakistan in the hearts and minds of millions of Indians.

Like in India, where Indian politicians have been cashing in on anti-Pakistan rhetoric for more than half a century now, Madhesi politicians in Nepal are filling the hearts and mind of illiterate and semi-literate Madhesi populace with anti-Pahari propaganda. Every pahari living in Madhes is being painted as colonizer, which is far from reality. There are hundreds of thousands of Pahari like myself, whose family have been living in the tarai for more than eleven generations. We might have been in the Madhes well before the family of many Madhesi politicians, who now claim that the Madhes belonged to Yadavs, Thakurs, Mishras, Shahs, Shuklas, Tripathis, Mahatos, and Guptas and paharis colonized it.

I grew up with the first generation Madhesis. And, it didn't bother me a bit. So forget about, who came first and to whom Madhes belongs. Such debate will not lead us anywhere. Either by design or by default, we all are there now, and should try to prosper together. The Madhesi people should not get carried away by political slogans put out there by the politicians. Where were they when the late Gajendra Narayan Singh was fighting a lone battle against Pahari elites for Madhesis' rights and dignity?

The very same people, who blame the past rulers of forcing a national language upon Madhesis, are now giving speeches in Hindi rather than in Maithili. Politicians by nature are self-serving. It is, thus, important to remain vigilant about their motives.

It would be foolish to look upon India for emancipation of ethnic minorities in Nepal. The Bhutanese refugee imbroglio is a case in point, which clearly shows India's sensitivities towards ethnic rights of foreign nationals. For India, its national interest comes well before democratic rights or ethnic emancipation of foreign nationals. The Madhesi leaders should not be too influenced by the assurances of India's point man in Nepal. If they are really for ethnic rights of Janjatis and Madhesis in Nepal, where were they all these years? Why didn't ethnic minorities' issues come under their radar for so long?

Had India not supported King Mahendra's autocratic regime, we would have had democracy long ago. It is because of India's backing of Mahendra's rule, life of a visionary politician like B P Koirala got wasted. When India could not trust a person like BP Koirala, who had close ties with Indian leader like Jaya Prakash Narayan fully and force King Mahendra to bring down his autocratic regime, Madhesi leaders should reassess the assurances and promises made by the point man in Lainchaur durbar. Their unequivocal support for the Maoists, whom they had unilaterally branded as terrorists, in the changed political context shows how quickly they change sides. It might be worth joining hands with fellow pahari citizens in Madhesh and putting up a fight against the ruling elites for greater rights rather than be at the mercy of Indian benevolence.

One thing that I still remember what my Sri Lankan roommate of two years during my stay in Delhi University told -- there is no clear winner or loser in an ethnic conflict, we all lose equally and often wish we could undo the past. Pahari rulers should not hold the rights that Madhesis deserve and Madhesis should not stick to unreasonable demand like one Madhes, one province just because New Delhi's point man wants you all to stick to it. Sticking to unreasonable demand will make the conflict intractable and worsen the lives of not only paharis but also madhesis, whom Madhesi politicians want to see prosper.

Is it the geography, stupid?

Hari Bansha Dulal & Samyam Wagle

While the debate about the probability of miraculous economic success in Nepal under Maoists leadership is going on, they have not still come up with such strong convincing economic policies that would bring such dramatic turn allowing the three fold increase in GNP in a decade's time.

No doubt that if it is possible, it is possible only through capitalism. The much needed prosperity cannot be achieved by doing what ideologues of left-populist political trajectories in Latin America do-fault neo-liberal economic policies for slow growth, no improvement in poverty rates, and sparse investment in human capital through health and education. The failure of China under Mao and success under Deng is something that is out there for the Maoists in Nepal to ponder. Repeating failed polices of Mao in some form or the other to appear politically correct would be a blunder of Himalayan proportion. The famine that resulted from Mao's short-sighted policies is far greater than African famine or the number of people killed by hunger during the entire post-independence in India.

Approximately 25 to 30 million perished in China then. Hence, replicating Mao's "super-collectivism" of 1958 to 1960, the so-called Great Leap Forward, in some form or the other would be a blunder of Himalayan proportion. If history is of any use, it is quite clear from the past that only capitalist culture can ensure both the freedom and prosperity. Never ever in the history of mankind a famine occurred in any capitalist nation.

How the Maoists will transform an impoverished landlocked nation into a promised economic powerhouse without sound economic plans is in itself a big question. It will be interesting to see how they overcome the geographic constrains. The noted economist Jeffrey D. Sachs researched the effect of geography on economy and found that nearly all landlocked countries in the world are poor, except for a handful in Western and Central Europe like Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, and Switzerland which are deeply integrated into the regional European market, and connected by low - cost trade. Besides them all other land locked countries are poor because of geography that leads to high cost trade.

His famous research found that development surely seems to be favored among the temperate-zone economies, especially the subset that: (1) is in the Northern Hemisphere; (2) has avoided socialism; and (3) has avoided being ravaged by war. Tropical regions are hindered in development relative to temperate regions, probably because of higher disease burdens and limitations on agricultural productivity.

He further adds that coastal regions and regions linked to coasts by ocean-navigable waterways are strongly favored in development relative to the hinterlands. Landlocked economies may be particularly disadvantaged by their lack of access to the sea, even when they are no farther than the interior parts of coastal economies, for at least three reasons: (1) cross-border migration of labor is more difficult than internal migration; (2) infrastructure development across national borders is much more difficult to arrange that similar investments within a country; and (3) coastal economies may have military or economic incentives to impose costs on interior landlocked economies.

Leading thinkers have pointed out the four major areas in which geography will play a fundamental direct role in economic productivity. They are transport costs, human health, agricultural productivity and ownership of natural resources (including water, minerals, hydrocarbon deposits, etc).

Economists say it is the high transportation cost that inhibits the ability of landlocked countries to engage with the outside world to trade goods, exchange capital, and borrow ideas. Jeffrey Sachs also points out the burden of diseases on economic development. Tropical regions are more prone to diseases which have vital effect on economic growths. He even claims fertility decisions are affected by geography. Country like ours is still dependent on unscientific agricultural activities which again depend on monsoon rain.

Besides the fate of nations are shared by gift with valuable resources as Kuwait, Saudi Arab, Qatar, Arab are simply rich not because of their well governance but by natural gifs oil! Botswana is also the land-locked country but has diamond mines below them which make them better! Second is about the neighbors. Some might blame god for not keeping us next to Finland, Canada or Liechtenstein! Though our neighbors are the rising superpowers, our immediate neighbors are, Bihar in south and Tibet in north, both of which are the least developed states.

Even though geography plays significant role in the economic performance of a nation, it is not the only factor that determines the level of well being. Geography alone is not much of a help when it comes to evaluating the success of South Korea and backwardness of the North. If geography was the only factor determining economic prosperity, former east-Germans would not be risking their lives crossing the wall that separated starving proletariats of the east Germany from the highly prosperous Germans couple of yards west from the wall. Needless to say, the authority and policy play a major role in determining the fate of a nation. It does not take very long for a nation to go downhill and vice versa. Burma and Singapore are two nations that serve as classic examples.

While Burma, a nation with abundant resources and access to sea and once a better-off country, continues to lags behind under military Junta, continuous pursuit of Lee Kuan Yew's policies has helped Singapore surpass its east Asian neighbors. Does Puspa Kamal Dahal also have the spirit and determination to lead the impoverished Nepal and be the helmsman of 27 million Nepalese or he simply got lucky in cashing in the past failures of the major political parties and disgruntlement of the populace is yet to be seen.

The future Maoists' government should work around the geographical constraints by making shipping less relevant through lightweight manufactured and processed agricultural exports and can convert our perceived geographical liability into tourism and water wealth and other service-based industries. Maoist should create a sound atmosphere for foreign investments. Without foreign investments it would be virtually impossible to utilize the potential of the existing labor force put the existing natural resources into wealth generation. Without providing employment to the youth, it would be impossible to break the cycle of perpetual revolution and enhance the process wealth creation and multiplication. And, in the case of Nepal, both are equally important.

Apparent populism will not be of any help in achieving the required economic growth and slogans alone will not feed the proletariats. It is good to be optimistic but there should not be disconnect between what is being proposed and what can actually be achieved. Such disconnect, if any will cause an outburst of pent-up frustration. It would be wise to come up with deliverables that are really achievable. The current proposal put forward by the Maoists seems unrealistic with regards to geographic and resource constraints. Plus, with the existing stock of human and socal capital, it is virtually impossible to triple GNP in a decade's time. It is high time that the Maoists get off the populist bandwagon and pursue real achievable economic goals. No more gimmicks, please!

The great president hunt

It has been more than two months since CA elections were concluded. Except for the abolishment of monarchy, which was already agreed upon, political process has not moved forward by an inch so far. It appears that unless the ongoing power sharing negotiation gains some momentum and a deal is struck, pressing issues such as skyrocketing inflation and lawlessness will have to wait. In a nation where politicians' gain come before peoples' need, do citizens have a choice?

The parties involved in the negotiation are trying hard to sell their choice for the first president of Democratic Republic of Nepal. Puspa Kamal Dahal vouches for a non-political person but proposes Ram Raja Singh for the top job. Since when did Ram Raja Singh become a non-political person? June 20, 1985's bombing, for which Singh, has taken responsibility, is not something that a law abiding non-political person gets involved in. However, when compared to the death and destruction caused by the man who is proposing him for the top job, Singh's crime is minuscule.

Although Girija Prasad Koirala has not expressed his desire to become the first president himself in public, it is an open secret. As long as the likes of Krishna Prasad Sitaula are around, is it even necessary for Koirala and Dahal to do their dirty laundry?

The Maoists were clever enough to keep Koirala guessing when it came to the issue of the first president of Nepal for the last 2 years. What the Maoists know very well but may not acknowledge in public is that, had Koirala known that he would not become the first president, he would not have pushed for a republic as hard as he did. Had the Maoists made it clear well in advance, Koirala would have refused to become a "useful idiot." So they played it smart and played it well.

Dahal and his men do not want Koirala to become the president because they seriously think that they are the ones who brought this change, and to a large extent, they are right about it. For the Maoists, making Koirala president is like acknowledging him as an agent of change. Furthermore, it opens up a space for future intervention. Given Koirala's proximity with the international players and the Nepali Army, the Maoists' game plan of swiftly marching towards the authoritarian regime may come to a grinding halt. Why take a risk? From the Maoists' stand point, it makes a perfect sense.

No matter who becomes the first president, the power sharing negotiations should come to an end pretty soon. For common Nepali citizens, Dahal's desire to checkmate Koirala and deny him the chance of fulfillment of his desire to become the first president is irrelevant. All they want at this point in time is a regular supply of fuel, textbooks for their kids, and some degree of law and order. It is, thus, completely unjustified and immoral to overlook the problems faced by the citizens and concentrate solely on sharing the pie.

It is time to move beyond the petty politicking and address the problems faced by impoverished Nepali populace. No point beating around the bush. Do what it takes and move the political process forward. If the politicians were really serious about having a well respected and accomplished citizen as a first president, they would be proposing the likes of Ganesh Raj Sharma, who not only respected the law of the land himself but also made others do it, not someone who has been involved in bombings. When the entire process is not about setting a right precedence and selecting an individual with a strong moral character, how does it matter whether it is Ram Raja Singh or the killers of Dikendra Thapa, Jitendra Sah, Ram Hari Shrestha, or for that matter, another bomber Babban Singh?

If it is all about political correctness, then why not propose Jwala Singh for the first president? A Dalit, a Madhesi, and an insurgent. What could be a better package? For the populists who value ethnicity over meritocracy and character, it would be a super deal. It might even help insurgency in the southern plains to subside. When a former insurgent can be a prime minister, why not at least discuss the prospects of an insurgent, who happens to be a Dalit and a Madhesi for the top job?

Regardless of whom the Maoists propose, when it is all said and done, there is a big probability that the Maoists might end up accepting Koirala as the first president. They are not that foolish to blow away the revolutionary gains just to appear politically correct.

How long Koirala's legacy will last in a society, which is engulfed in perpetual revolution is, altogether a different question.

Actually, the Maoists might gain by accepting Koirala as a president. The best way to preempt Koirala's anti-Maoist moves in future is to make him the president. Koirala's lust for limelight is simply too big to be underestimated. The infamous back-stabbing of Krishna Prasad Bhattarai to secure the prime ministerial berth in one of the general elections not very long ago serves as a classic example of how far Koirala can go to get what he wants. When Koirala could not contain the Maoists as the most powerful Prime Minister in the history of Nepal in the last two and half years, why should the Maoists be afraid of him as a ceremonial head of state?

Given his age, letting him become the president might be a safer bet for the Maoists.

The very minute someone else becomes the president, seven party alliance (SPA) is unofficially over. After that, political realignment will take place. The political resistance that will start after Koirala is denied his cherished dream job might be, too soon and too big, for the Maoists to contain.

Becoming a president of the youngest republic might be a dream come true for Koirala and might benefit his blind followers, but for democracy in Nepal, it will be a disaster. Once Koirala becomes the president, the ongoing appeasement of the Maoists will continue further. Having secured the place in history, it would be foolish on the part of liberal democrats to assume that Koirala will do anything to contain the Maoists and strengthen democracy. In the last two and half years, instead of containing the Maoists by forcing them to disband the YCL and surrender all their weapons, Koirala relentlessly engaged in their appeasement, which resulted in strengthening of both the political and muscle power of the Maoists. When Koirala could not understand that appeasing radicals only makes them bolder through his half a century long political career, what will he do differently and significantly after he becomes the president to force the Maoists to change their beliefs and embrace multi-party democracy?

If it is really for democracy in Nepal, the Maoists' hardheaded pursuit of having a left-leaning individual as the first president should prevail. The political realignment will occur only when Koirala is forced out. As long as Koirala enjoys the limelight, in the name of taking the peace process to its logical end, NC will keep on rationalizing the Maoists' high handedness and the march toward authoritarianism.