Nepal:Maoists Killed A One Year Old Baby

 

The following article was published at Newsblaze ( http://newsblaze.com/story/20060610073359nnnn.nb/newsblaze/NEPAL001/Nepal.html ). This just gives a small insight on the horrific tales of death and destruction that the new rulers of Nepal (SPA has taken the back seat by now) have brought over the years. We are looking for examples from other countries where terrorists have been defined as legitimate political governing force but haven't come across any. You could perhaps help us in finding one? The article follows:

Op-Ed Contributor

By Kamala Sarup

1. In western Nepal, on June 14, 2005, Maoists killed an infant. Three of the victims have been identified as the wives of Armed Police Force personnel. A one-year-old baby is also among those killed. The six were abducted in western Nepal and their bodies were found in a forest.

2. Five persons are killed when the Maoists attacked a RNA base camp and the Panauti municipality office in Kavrepalanchowk district. (February 7, 2006)

3. Seven persons travelling in a passenger bus from Kathmandu to Dang were killed and three others sustained injuries in an explosion at Surai Naka section on the Mahendra highway at the border of Kapilvastu and Dang districts. (August 27, 2005)

4. At least 37 people were killed and dozens more wounded when a crowded bus detonated a land mine planted by Maoists in Chitwan. Thirty-seven people died and 72 others were wounded. "There was a small bang and then our bus was thrown in the air. The bus was ripped into pieces and many people were killed," said Khum Bahadur Gurung, 62, who spoke to The Associated Press from his hospital bed. Gurung's legs were injured in the explosion. (June 6 2005)

5. Maoists kill ten civilians, including a child, at Baragdawa in the Somni area of Nawalparasi district.(April 16, 2005)

6. Five children are killed and three others sustain injuries during a bomb explosion allegedly triggered by the insurgents at Pakhapani in the Rolpa district.(April 23, 2005)

7. A group of Maoists kill five civilians, allegedly members of an 'anti-Maoist retaliation group', at Kudarmatewa village in the Kapilavastu district. (March 6, 2005)

8. Maoists kill six civilians in the capital Kathmandu. (September 12, 2003)

9. Eight civilians are killed and 12 others sustain injuries in bomb explosions at six places in the capital Kathmandu. (September 8, 2003)

10. Maoist rebels killed 50 security men in midwestern Nepal. Maoists lined up 40 soldiers and shot them on the head and cut off parts of their bodies. An extreme form of barbaric act terrorists mutilated and killed soldiers. (August 7 2005)

12. At least 300 Maoists attack a hilltop police post in Rukum district and kill 31 police personnel, besides injuring 11 and abducting 23 more. (April 1, 2001)

13. 48 Royal Nepal Army troops and 49 police personnel are killed by Maoists in Mangalsen (Acham district) clashes.(February 17, 2002)

14. 49 police personnel are killed and 21 more injured in an attack by a group of an estimated 1,100 Maoist insurgents in Sindhuli district at the Bhimad police post. (September 8, 2003)

15. Maoists insurgents, numbering around approximately 1500 to 2000, attack Nepal Telecommunication Towers and kill 32 security force personnel in Bhojpur district.(March 3, 2004)

9. A group of Maoists kill five civilians, allegedly members of an 'anti-Maoist retaliation group', at Kudarmatewa village in the Kapilavastu district. (March 6, 2005)

Nepali people continue to fall victim to their barbaric acts. Maoists war enter a stage of genocide. It is unacceptable to let innocent people be killed in the name of Maoists. Maoists is a theoretical threat to Nepal's democracy and civil liberty. Nepal could turn into another Cambodia, Afghanistan, Bosnia or Rwanda.

Radical Maoists are attempting to preserve their killing culture from contamination. Nearly ten years of Maoists war have left roughly 15,000 Nepalese dead.

"The Maoists have links with similar groups in India, including the People's War in Andhra Pradesh and the Maoist Communist Centre in Bihar bordering Nepal. The Maoists plan a compact revolutionary zone stretching from northern Andhra Pradesh through central and eastern India to Nepal. This will not only offer a mutual moral support but also help them procure and distribute weapons illegally.

Insurgency in Nepal can have its impact in Indian states such as Bihar, West Bengal and Jammu & Kashmir as well, particularly if more weapons are delivered by foreign powers to militants clandestinely. The Maoists' struggle may even spill over to Bhutan. The cross-border linkage of the Maoists poses a great threat, now that they have become a major force in Nepal. But India's military power can ensure that the spillover of the Nepalese insurgency in under check within its territory.

In India, Andhra Pradesh state has brought forth a fairly lasting ceasefire with its insurgency group and talks are on. As a bigger power, it would be safe for India not to get into a quagmire of a neighbour, except for giving military support if needed. Of late, the policy of India towards Sri Lanka is the same, and that is why Norwegians have come in as mediators.

The Maoist insurgency in Nepal has claimed over 15,000 lives since it began in February, 1996. It now affects 73 out of 75 districts. The rebels have raised their own guerrilla force, militia and parallel government units in their strongholds. They also operate parallel people's courts and are preparing to implement new Maoist-oriented syllabi in schools in their strongholds. This has made the Government dysfunctional in almost all of western Nepal.

A negotiation with maoists depends on a give and take. Or else, the options are (i) rapid development of rural Nepal (underdevelopment being the fertile ground for militancy) or (ii) militarily eliminating the Maoists or (iii) a combination of both." Chief Sub-Editor with The Hindu, and advisor of PJ Dr. I Arul Aram said.

It is true, the Communist groups in the Universities and in the schools during the 70's tried for a Marxist revolution and failed. By tradition, the power behind any communist revolution was rejected. After that they then tried for black support, but again they were rejected. They then used the Vietnam War and Shining Path, that too disappeared. Lacking support, the movement apparently faded away.

The fact is that the Nepali Maoists are members of the International Revolutionary Movement (RIM). Nepali Maoists have joined the Coordination Committee of Maoist Parties and Organizations of South Asia formed in 2001.

Maoists And Combodia

Radical Maoist movements have failed to take power in Peru, but Khmer Rouge seized power in Cambodia and their tactic was to terrorize the countryside by setting up ambushes and seeding minefields. The Khmer Rouge regime traumatized millions of Cambodians and it created a permanent scare in every Cambodian citizen. A lot of individuals died because Pol Pot was too incompetent to deal with economic and social development in the country.During the 1975-79 rule of the radical Maoists at least 1.7 million Cambodians died due to disease, starvation, overwork and execution. There was no banking and finance, no private ownership of property, and no religion.

Peru And Maoists

During the 1980s, the Shining Path, waged an armed struggle against the Peruvian state. Approximately 30,000 Peruvians were killed. Shining Path Maoists organization was formed in the late 1960s. In the 1980s and early 1990s, vicious terrorist attacks were daily occurrences across Peru perpetrated by the Shining Path. Many dozens of people have died under Maoists violence. Now, all the leaders of maoists organization are in prison.By 1994, Shining Path had lost much of their strength. According to the Mesa Nacional Sobre Desplazamiento, a consortium of non-governmental organizations, the conflict displaced some 430,000, but "affected" as many as 1.6 million. Some 60,000 people remained internally displaced within Peru. Hundreds of thousands of Peruvians fled their Andean homes in the 1980s and early 1990s. They fled a violent insurgency.

Reference

1.The Telegraph,Wednesday, June 15, 2005.

2.World Security Network, Kamala Sarup, 19-Aug-05.

3. The Associated Press, June 6, 2005.

4.The Hindu, 10 June 2005.

5. South Asia Intelligence Review of the South Asia Terrorism Portal Major incidents of terrorist violence in Nepal, 1999-2006.

Hope is Not a Method

The following is an article by Thomas A. Marks published on Nepalnews.com on May 07th, 2006. His first Article (published in Nepalnews.com) can be seen in our post dated 17th May, 2006.

Hope is Not a Method

The most pressing danger is that the Seven Party Alliance will revert to form and lead Nepal into a 'Kerensky moment' for the Maoists, as occurred with the Bolsheviks in Russia in 1917-18

By Dr. Thomas A. Marks

As Nepal moves towards a new order, its governing parliamentarians would do well to heed that most fundamental of maxims: hope is not a method. To date, events have gone reasonably smoothly, but there continue to be ominous signs that a rougher road lies ahead. Not least of the elements for concern is what has been at the heart of the matter all along: the motives of the Maoist insurgents.

Contrary to much ill-considered opinion, the Maoists have not opted for peace in our time. Instead, their forces remain intact, even as they encourage the Government to dismantle the only surviving force that stands between the Communist Party of Nepal – Maoist (CPN-M), and its ability to work its will, the security forces.

Their grudging moves towards negotiations notwithstanding, the Maoists have been very consistent. In their verbiage, in their briefings to their cadres, and even in their interviews given to members of the international media, they make clear that they do not accept the present state of things and remain convinced that they are riding the "will of history" that will see the complete ouster of the old order.

The Maoists view the present course of the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) as an error of major proportions and are fearful that 'the people' will be 'betrayed'. They certainly do not accept parliamentary democracy as the end-state, unless it emerges in a form of which they approve.

What stands behind their present tactical maneuvering is a willingness to go with the flow so long as the river does not leap its banks. If the SPA will do the work that armed rebellion could not accomplish – especially, dismantle the security forces and do away with even a figurehead monarchy – that is agreeable. But one cannot expect them, if things do not go their way, simply to shrug and say they had their moment.

There is a veritable cottage industry of historical falsification abounding, in Nepal and abroad, producing the fiction that the Maoists turned to insurgency only because they were not allowed to participate in 1991 parliamentary elections (as Masal). That is false. The machinations that led to one wing of Masal being allowed to run using party identification were an intra-Masal squabble, not something the system engineered.

Likewise, the outrageous claim that the monarchy is somehow responsible for the violence of the Maoists is as astonishing as it is absurd. The Maoists first systematically laid waste to Nepal and its weak democracy, then systematically carried out a campaign to claim the reigning monarch had killed his brother and engineered what they, the Maoists, had in fact done – destroy Nepal.

Having turned to armed insurgency, CPN-M methodically destroyed the structure of the state, in the process eliminating all who opposed the local presence of the Maoists. Having gained control of widespread areas, which they will continue to control during any proposed 'elections', they are not about to allow their rivals to freely contest within 'liberated space'.

This is classic "machine politics", as the Maoists claim the Nepal Congress (NC) and Communist Party of Nepal – United Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML, or simply UML) have been playing all these years. Since UML buys into this logic, at least partially, it is willing to front for the Maoists. The extremist wing of the UML does more than front – it works with the Maoists.

Ironically, anti-communist India has ended up letting its own Marxists have their moment by unduly influencing New Delhi's Nepal policy. This should not surprise, given the realities of coalition politics. With its dependency on the Left Front, particularly the Communist Party of India Marxist (CPI-M) in Parliament, compounded by divisions within its own ranks as to the proper policy towards Nepal, the Congress-led Government has acceded to the CPI-M demands. As a consequence, CPI-M figures such as Sitaram Yechury have become regular visitors to Kathmandu as they conduct the Indian Left's 'foreign policy within a foreign policy'.

The issue of Indian policy or intervention is not one that need detain any analysis at this moment. It will ultimately be decided, one way or another, as it was in Sri Lanka, by nationalism in the target state. Nepali nationalism, to be sure, is something, which has rarely reared its head in anything save platitudes about "never having been a colony". In fact, Nepal is as thorough a colony as ever there was (of India and of the international community through its utter dependence upon external aid).

Still, to be clear: first, India has no desire to become bogged down in the Nepalese quicksand, so having 'democratic allies' in power is the proper route to realization of its geo-strategic designs; second, there is a strong wing of Indian politics that sees the present policy towards Nepal as misguided, counterproductive, and downright dangerous, given India's own Maoist threat. The claim that there are no connections between the Nepali and Indian Maoists is falsified by a wealth of evidence, not least the pronouncements and actions of the Nepali Maoists before they became more media savvy.

The threat to Nepali sovereignty, then, is not from India per se but from the present situation that India has 'enabled'. Its view is that it can 'handle' the situation. This remains to be seen – just as India proved quite incapable of 'handling' the Tamil insurgents in Sri Lanka .

The most pressing danger, at this juncture, is that SPA, dominated by NC and UML, will revert to form (on full display during the dozen or so years of full democracy) and lead Nepal into a 'Kerensky moment' for the Maoists, as occurred with the Bolsheviks in Russia in 1917-18.

The Leninists were not the strongest party in post-Czarist Russia, only the party with a preponderance of force at the decisive point(s). This allowed them to gain control of the state and then to do what was necessary to consolidate their hold. This is also how Hitler consolidated his hold on Germany, despite having only one-third of the Parliament (Reichstag). It is what the Sandinistas did in post-Somoza Nicaragua. One already sees the Maoist thugs threatening even UML politicians (who, in any case, have always been on the cutting-edge as victims of the Maoists). What all the preceding cases share is that the security forces had fallen apart. This is not yet the case in Nepal.

The key, therefore, is to make the new-order understand that the security forces have every intention and desire to serve democracy – and that they will not stand by and see restored democracy and Nepali sovereignty compromised. The Maoists, however, have stated repeatedly that they have other goals: trials for those central to the old-order, especially for the monarch and the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) officer corps (the Maoist leadership has asserted both of these goals in its less guarded moments). This is also what they have been saying to their cadres.

They have rejected integration into the RNA by any name and demanded a new National Army, which they will dominate by default. This is just how the scenario played itself out in Nicaragua, the result being the Sandinista dictatorship, which rapidly produced its own counterrevolutionary insurgency by abusing the people. (Contrary to the hoary left-wing myth, the CIA could not even arm all the contras, so abundant was the influx of peasant manpower demanding the right to resist the Managua Marxist-Leninist dictatorship). In this situation, what is both puzzling and counterproductive is how little realistic consideration has emerged concerning the future of the security forces, of which the RNA is the dominant element.

This is puzzling, because the security forces are quite intact and – contrary to yet another theme pushed by both activist elements of the new regime and their international activist backers – exercised remarkable restraint during the recent mass agitation. Lathi charges and rubber bullets are not semiautomatic volleys, and the latter did not occur. There are at least 150,000 armed Government security forces in completely intact units. It is naïve to assume that they are going to march off to oblivion, surrender, or slaughter. The last two options are what the Maoists envisage, and what they expect to extract from the ruling SPA as their price for 'nonviolent participation' in the state. To judge that this inevitably will lead to confrontation requires no analytical acumen – simply looking at the Nepali security forces with clear eyes. What is now on the field is a force quite different from that, which entered the conflict in November 2001, when the RNA was attacked by the Maoists. This is especially so in the key middle grades and extending even to the younger brigadiers. It is also true in the Armed Police Force (APF), perhaps to a lesser extent in the Nepal Police (NP).

The RNA's 'field elements' now accept parliamentary supremacy and seek a more professional, '21st Century military'. Officers know there are numerous friendly states with extensive experience in implementing and consolidating the proper mechanisms. Many of these younger RNA officers have even considered the passing of the monarchy, but they are worldly enough to see that this leaves open the question of what institution or figure would serve the referee's position. Hence, they believe it is preferable that a constitutional monarchy remain. What they do not accept is the position demanded by the Maoists and their left wing allies: 'replacing' one force by another, or of 'purging' one force only to install the cadres of another.

Reconciliation, to their mind, demands amalgamation, even if this is accompanied by reduction in overall numbers. Under no circumstances will any force accept being disbanded in favor of Maoist replacements. To do so would guarantee left-wing dictatorship. For their part, APF and NP are critical to the normal law and order of the state. Ironically, whatever the precise manner in which events unfold, the sitting Government is bound to find, in the months ahead, normal policing and security duties will assume heightened importance. A clear understanding must be worked out by the Government as to what is expected to arrest a dangerous societal drift that has set in. Armed thugs, often claiming to be representing 'the people' but invariably cadres of Maoist front organizations, roam all major population centers in Nepal and must be brought within the normal rule of law. This is a job particularly for the Police, supported by the APF, but it is inevitable that RNA will be involved. The present situation, including the widespread intimidation of individuals and institutions, cannot go unchecked. Politically, RNA is confronted with a Faustian bargain: It must serve the state even with the knowledge that the unity of SPAM (Seven Party Alliance + the Maoists) depends upon the SPA placating the Maoists. The Maoists see the victory as theirs and see themselves as dictating the terms of surrender – and envisage only trials for those who have resisted them. Hence, the security forces must keep order even as they are plotted against (in certain circles) and held up as a bargaining chip (in others).

Their logical advocates, the Indians, who have the most to lose from a Maoist-dominated Nepal, remain very much an unknown element, given the array of actors waging mini-foreign policies. One factor has not changed as any perusal of large segments of the Indian press reveals: New Delhi has been ill-informed by a good fraction of its so-called 'Nepal experts', in just the manner it was led astray, two decades ago, by its 'Sri Lanka experts'. It cannot be said that Indian analysts have developed much actual knowledge of the workings of Nepali Maoism.

The dominant position is that the CPN-M can be bought off or simply directed – an astonishing position given what India seems to have realized quite belatedly the Stalinist, anti-democratic essence of its own Maoists. The CPI-M, in particular, has little comprehension of Nepali insurgent ground realities. The Indian Left Wing political pilgrims to Nepal deal with their opposite numbers in the UML. If they meet a 'Maoist', they deal with personalities of their 'own stratum', who can be as engaging and sophisticated as any.

They do not deal with what is in the hills, thus gaining no comprehension that there is an organization of LTTE clones, every bit as dogmatic and ruthless. For those who have dealt with the Tamil insurgents, one conclusion is salient: the orientation of manpower is never the issue in a situation such as this. It is leaders who are the lynchpin, who produce the endless cycle of insurgent brutality in Sri Lanka, a struggle that has long since seen its original causes vanish. The situation in Nepal is similar. It is the Maoist leaders who are following an ideological play-book; their followers are thrown up by local grievances.

Maoist manpower is just as eager for 'peace' as anyone else, but they expect to get something out of their campaign. They have been told consistently that the new order will belong to them and will bring justice and prosperity. There is no way to do that in the short term except by taking from the old and giving to the new. That this is playing a losing hand has been made clear in study after study, most recently by the simple but telling calculations of Dr. Steve Gorzula. As he notes: divide the arable land of Nepal (22,627 km2) by the population (28 million in July 2006 estimates), and the result is a society that has exceeded the carrying capacity of the land. Lip-serve is paid to the only real possibility – development of hydropower – and the result is a vacuum in which Maoist coercive utopian solutions have no competitors. Lenin would certainly be proud of his Maoist pupils. On the side of democracy, however, there is little worthy of praise. The stormy course ahead will require more steady seamanship than has hitherto been demonstrated in the short history of Nepali democracy. More than 'hope (it all works out)' will be required.

The role of the security forces will be paramount, for they are the only guarantee that Maoist violence will not be the trump card. Thus normal functioning of those security forces will have to be maintained at all costs, so as to avoid demoralization and possible desertion. Clear explanations of what is happening are imperative, with the emphasis upon 'transition to parliamentary supremacy'. Any impression of 'defeat' must be banished, despite the concerted efforts of the Left Wing to push this claim in the ongoing struggle for control of the narrative describing recent events. Already, the Maoists claim their revolutionary forces were the key in the recent agitation (their cadres did incite violence and cache explosives in urban areas).

'Reform', then, must be the order of the day, as has long been called for by all interested parties, but this word finds no place in the Maoist vocabulary. Consequently, forces of actual democracy (as opposed to 'people's democracy') will be called upon to face the inevitable backlash. It is for the politicians to deal with this reality, and the security forces can be their shield.

It is possible that international mediation and even involvement may create new possibilities. For the moment, however, the Maoists have no intention of participating in a new version of the old-order. They are demanding and expecting that a constitutional convention will deliver a people's republic in form if not in immediate practice. They are determined to exact vengeance.

They are not, in other words, seeking 'democracy' as we know the word. There is a strong thread of thought which claims the Maoists will choose the path trod by the 'other' insurgent groups in Sri Lanka (e.g., People's Liberation Organisation of Tamil Eelam, Tamil Eelam Liberation Organisation, Eelam People's Revolutionary Liberation Front), groups that agreed, with certain misgivings, to work within the system. More likely, the Maoists will go the way of the LTTE that, after each hopeful pause, resumed its revolutionary project.

It hardly needs highlighting that such a course of action by the Maoists would put them squarely at odds with the desires of the Nepali masses – just as LTTE cannot today be said to represent much more than the aspirations of its rump state. If the CPN-M is astute, it will realize this. Unfortunately, history does not provide grounds for optimism. There is no Maoist insurgency that has displayed such foresight. Neither do operational realities provide any more hope: the Maoists are not in any way standing down.

The up side? If the Maoists move as driven by their hate-filled ideology and resume their struggle, they will find themselves just where LTTE is – on the wrong side of history and facing a reasonably united, democratic society, amply assisted by friendly powers, including India.

(A Honolulu-based political risk consultant, Dr. Thomas A. Marks has authored a number of benchmark works on Maoist insurgency. This article was first published in South Asia Intelligence Review. )

Nepal: Why I Support The King

The following article was published in Scoop.co.nz ( http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0512/S00170.htm ).

Thursday, 15 December 2005, 11:27 am
Opinion: Sagar Mani Lamsal

Nepal: Why I Support The King

By Sagar Mani LamsalA supporter of King Gyanendra's seizure of absolute powers on February 1, 2005 is inevitably criticized as being at least one of the following:

- A scion of the Rana-Shah oligarchy – genealogical or other wise — congenitally bent on subjugating the vast majority of impoverished and underprivileged Nepalis;

- A superstitious misfit who still sees the king as an incarnation of the Hindu deity Vishnu;

- A beneficiary of the palace payroll aiding and abetting the restoration of full feudalism;

- A remnant of Nepal's palace-led authoritarian past seeking to regain powers and privileges lost in the democratic upsurge of 1990.

As someone who does not fit into any of these four categories, I have decided to create a fifth: a foot soldier in Nepal's war of independence. It is in this spirit that, despite all the gloom and doom hovering over the kingdom, I detect something positive is about to happen regardless of how the conflict plays out.

The tripolar conflict between Narayanhity Royal Palace, mainstream opposition parties and the Maoist rebels is essentially a struggle for the future of Nepal. (I'm sticking with the term "tripolar" because I'm not sure how far the political parties and the Maoist rebels have actually bridged their differences.)

I certainly cannot claim to imagine the horrors those caught on the frontlines of the conflict have experience for no apparent fault of theirs. I can only hope and pray that the sacrifice of the murdered and maimed will not have gone in vain.

The Maoists have brought out the deep political, economic, social and cultural inequalities that have struck ever deepening roots under 236 years of monarchy. In their ardor to blame the king for this reality, the Maoists have let out another side of their thinking. Maoist literature recognizes that Nepal's stagnation is a product of its special form of partial incorporation as a semicolony of the British Raj and subsequently within the political economy of India. This experience, in their words, has ensured a degree of forced stagnation in the production and productivity which led to increased popular pressure on marginal land, emigration and ecological decline.

In seeking to redress these grievances, they have unleashed ancient hatreds to a dangerous level. Destruction and devastation, in the Maoists' view, provide the foundation to build anew. But do they have the ability to sustain even what would remain, much less build anything. Can they expect to retain power – much less initiate their radical programs? In recent months, they seem to have lost the spine to go head on against the monarchy.

Having joined peace talks twice under a king whose enthronement they so severely denounced, the Maoists have swung the other way. Their 12-point accord with the principal parliamentary parties to restore total democracy has raised more questions than it has answered. The circumstances in which they signed the accord have deprived them of their other novelty: the willingness to resist Indian pressures and practices. At least the mainstream parties are honest about their attitude toward Nepal's southern neighbor.

Girija Prasad Koirala, Madhav Kumar Nepal and all the other leaders and followers in the seven-party alliance now arrayed against the palace aren't gripped by some sinister compulsion to ruin the country through perpetual protests. Indeed, they believe the way forward for Nepal in today's day and age can only be by empowering the people.

They may believe the monarchy is the principal obstacle to Nepalese democracy as they envision it. But in their heart of hearts, do they still have doubts about their ability to hold the country together in a post-monarchy environment? Is that why alliance leaders worry in private conversations about the "vacuum" that might grip a small nation perched strategically between Asia's two giants? Is this why, like the Maoists, they have not been able to even articulate what total democracy is?

On the face of it, the mainstream alliance's belief – and even the Maoists', for that matter — in closer cooperation with India cannot be considered inimical to Nepal's interest. There is full merit their argument that Nepal cannot expect to go on receiving Indian concessions without offering reciprocal pledges on major concerns of New Delhi.

Logically, the new realignment created by the mainstream-Maoist accord should have spelt the end of the royal regime. The reason King Gyanendra remains unperturbed – at least in public — is because he recognizes that "total democracy" is not the real reason Indian engineered this union.

I personally believe the Indians do not want to do away with the monarchy. If King Gyanendra acceded to Indian demands on a broad package of concessions – I am personally convinced that such a proposal would not differ much from the versions New Delhi tried to impose on King Birendra and interim prime minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai – New Delhi would once again hail King Gyanendra's wisdom, experience and maturity in the same awed tone editorial writers used in the weeks and months after his enthronement four years ago.

For me, the king's game plan is clear. He is too smart to expect to monopolize power the way his father and brother did. But, then, he is not ready to retain the throne without the freedom of action his vision of the monarchy demands. King Gyanendra has made up his mind to wage Nepal's war of total independence. The cause of this war is what inspires me.

King Gyanendra's opponents don't need to stress the obvious. The royal government is autocratic, packed with yes-men and devoid of creativity. The lack of representative institutions at all levels has made the palace unaccountable. Royal relatives and hangers-on are abusing their power and privilege in a way the democratic leaders never could. This, to me, is a price worth paying.

Why is the government is going after the media? Actually, it is going after only one media house, Kantipur, which has been more responsible than any political party for subverting democracy. (The raid on Sagarmatha FM was merely a reflection of the royal government's resolve to implement the law. In the government's view Prachanda is still a terrorist, and the law forbids anyone to encourage terrorists.)

What kind of newspaper would report that the Maoists, in a massive extortion spree, had sought "donations" from its publishers but then hold back the fact that they had paid off. The Maoists had the decency of returning the day the story appeared to return the money. What kind of publisher or editor would carry Dr. Baburam Bhattarai's plea for a military uprising against the new king amid such grave national crisis? Probably one attuned to the traditions of the subversion and subterfuge of Indian journalism practiced against its neighbors.

No doubt, the public had a right to know what the chief Maoist ideologue thought about the royal massacre. Dr. Bhattarai may have had his own agenda in lavishing praise on each one of King Gyanendra's predecessors in the Shah dynasty while singling out the new monarch for calumny on the basis of hearsay and rumor? Was it so difficult to see through the Maoist propaganda?

How many Indians from Assam, Almora, Darjeeling and Meghalaya masquerading as Nepalis dominate Nepali newsrooms to spread Indian venom against Nepal in the name of a free press? Why are publishing houses with hefty property interests in India – including massive income-tax defaults – the most critical of the royal regime?

And the code of conduct for non-government organizations? Again, this was the way the United States and European imposed their color-coded "revolutions" in Georgia and Ukraine. Weeks after the Nepalese government issued the NGO code, the Kremlin came out with similar restrictions. One autocrat emulating another? Or two countries comparing notes to protect their flanks?

The royal regime cannot expose the charade because of King Gyanendra's core dilemma. His strongest loyalists are incompetent and the most competent people on his side have the temptation and tendency to become the most disloyal.

But, then, King Gyanendra is too shrewd not to understand the space history and geography have provided him. His plan to develop Nepal as a transit point between the rapidly growing economies of India and China has prompted much ridicule from his detractors, but it worked for Nepal – or at least Kathmandu – in the past. What the Malla kings could do for Kathmandu is entirely within grasp for the entire kingdom.

Nepal has reached a critical crossroads. The stakes are much higher than determining whether Nepal remains a monarchy or becomes a republic. Basically, this is the challenge: Nepal can either be truly independent of or truly dependent on India.

If India wants Nepal to be firmly in its sphere of influence let it incorporate the kingdom as a full member of the union. Having secured its foothold on Nepal's strategic position and established full control of its water resources, New Delhi can lay the basis for a healthy center-state relationship. Ordinary Indians would be startled to discover the commonalities Nepalis share, given the negative image their media have consistently portrayed.

But Nepalis must be assured of the full benefits of formal integration. We would need Central Police Reserve Force to step in to quell unrest. Natural disaster victims would require the full deployment of the relief and rehabilitation of the Indian machinery. Political representation in the Lok Sabha could be worked out in accordance with several factors that assuage concerns of underrepresented social, ethnic and linguistic groups. Indeed, India's current political map might have to be redrawn to optimize integration with bordering Indian states.

Indeed, some communities in Nepal may resist formal integration with India more violently than others, but then that is a price India has been paying in half of its states for more than a half-century.

If that is too high a price for New Delhi, then it must grant Nepal full recognition as an independent and equal partner. Nepal would enjoy the sovereign right to develop its own political and security ties with China, Pakistan, United States or any other country as it deems fit.

India would also need to fully respect Nepal's economic sovereignty. Why should Nepal have to go to such lengths to invite third-country investors like Kodak only to have them leave after India reneges on its promise of full market access? Bilateral treaties should hold the full force of law. If free and unrestricted trade is guaranteed by both governments, why are Indian state governments allowed to step in to impede commerce. Specifically, why do Vanaspati Ghee, zinc sheets, nails and bolts – a handful of Nepalese products that sell well in India – come under the periodic entanglements of Indian trade and commerce regimes?

King Gyanendra's roadmap is aimed at consolidating Nepal's sovereign options through closer integration with China. The first direct passenger bus service linking Kathmandu and Tibet began weeks after the royal takeover, although it has now stalled amid procedural hurdles.

Efforts at developing Nepal as a transit point between China and India have received a fresh impetus. Nepal expects to provide the transit facility with the objective of expanding its service sector and physical infrastructure development. A Nepalese government study has identified three alternative routes linking the three countries.

Chinese delegations have visited Kathmandu to expand cooperation in investment, tourism promotion and infrastructure development. Nepal expects China's modernization of Tibet will assist the development of its own mountainous northern districts. Specifically, the kingdom hopes to benefit from a railway project linking China with Tibet’s heartland. Chinese officials say the railway will bring in 5.64 million tourists to Tibet over the next five years. The Lhasa-Kathmandu bus service is likely to benefit.

Kathmandu is planning to set up a special economic zone in its north with Chinese cooperation. Both governments will have special laws, special taxation structure and special investment policies in an effort to ease the access of Nepalese products to Chinese markets.

Nepal and China have taken special interest in developing the kingdom’s vast hydro-electric power potential. China and Australia will invest in West Seti Hydropower project, the biggest hydro-electric project of Nepal with the capacity of 750 megawatt,
the Chinese news agency Xinhua reported recently.

The $1.2 billion project is scheduled for completion within five and half years. The power generated will be sold to India, yielding $29 million in the first year of operation.

The war of Nepalese independence has begun – never call retreat.

ENDS

Why The US Support For The King Of Nepal Is Important?

The following article has been taken from scoop.co.nz ( http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0504/S00146.htm ) and it makes some sense to the people at OhNepal. What do you all think?

Why US Support For The King Of Nepal Is Important?

Monday, 18 April 2005, 11:49 am
Opinion: Khagendra Thapa

Why The US Support For The King Of Nepal Is Important?

Dr. Khagendra ThapaNepal has been fighting the violent communist insurgents for the last nine years. After two failed attempts to have a negotiated settlement of the dispute between the government and the insurgents, the violence inflicted by the insurgents against the innocent citizens of Nepal has escalated. More than 11,500 lives have been lost as a direct result of the conflict and another 23,000 have committed suicide because they could not bear the pain of loss of relatives and the property owing to the conflict.

The supposedly democratically elected government was highly ineffective to fight the insurgents because the elected politicians including the prime ministers were extremely corrupt. According to Jana Dharana, a weekly newspaper published in Nepali language, in the course of last fifteen years, the elected criminal politicians, stole Rs.92,000,000,000 that is equivalent to US $1.5 billion. It is believed that the money donated by friendly countries to fight the terrorists was also siphoned away by the elected government. The country side is just about completely controlled by the insurgents.

The elected criminals were only interested to swell their bank accounts. They had absolutely no interest in the welfare of the poor people. The per capita income of Nepalese people has actually gone down after 1990 (was $265 and now it is $213) when democracy was introduced in Nepal. The elected government not only failed to control the violence from terrorists but they also refused to hold general elections. The government was ineffective, corrupt, and failed to maintain the law and order. There was anarchy in Nepal instead of the rule of law. The newspapers and other news media had become the mouth piece of the terrorists. The terrorists were also able to use the cell phones, internet, telephones, and FM radios as a means of communications. They were using the media to issue threats against the people. Insurgents were about to take control of the whole country including the capital.

Under these circumstances, the King Gyanendra of Nepal had two alternatives: one to give up the power to the insurgents and let Nepal be another Cambodia or dismiss the corrupt government and make a last minute attempt to save the thousands of year old monarchy and also protect the fundamental rights of the people to live freely without the atrocities of terrorists. Had he chosen the first track and given up the power to the insurgents and leave the country and the people at the mercy of terrorists, then definitely the insurgents would have killed millions of innocent Nepalese people including the corrupt politicians.

Fortunately, King Gyanendra decided to stay in the country and fight back both the insurgents and the corrupt elected criminals who were indirectly supporting the terrorists. Please note that the one of the coalition partners of the dismissed government was communist party (Marxist, Leninist). I believe that King of Nepal is making a last minute attempt to save the country and people of Nepal from the violent take over by the insurgents. It is a very risky attempt. If the King fails, Nepal will turn into another Cambodia and at least a third of the people of Nepal (that is, 8,000,000) will be killed.

Therefore, it is very critical that the US and the Western countries must support the King. The Nepalese King has put both his life and his throne at stake. He has no choice but to succeed. The takeover of the power by the King was widely supported by all sections of the Nepalese society. There were huge celebrations through out the nation in support of the King?s take over. Therefore, it is unwise and unhelpful to withdraw the support and military assistance to Nepal. If the military assistance is stopped for Nepal, it is extremely likely that the ruthless terrorists will take control of Nepal and turn it into an international terrorist?s hub. I understand that a group of Nepali Diaspora living in the USA and Western Europe are against the King of Nepal. They are indirectly lobbying for the insurgents. Nevertheless, it is wrong for the US government to listen to a select few individuals who are looking for the best interests of their power hungry corrupt friends and relatives instead of the destitute people of Nepal.

It has been observed that huge peace rallies supporting the actions of His Majesty the King of Nepal have taken place in Washington DC, New York, Sidney, Australia, and even in New Delhi, India. It is estimated that over 73% of the people of Nepal support the Feb.1, 2005 actions of the King.

According to the information received from Nepal, the security situation in Nepal has improved significantly after Feb. 1, 2005. The insurgents have lost badly in the battle fields. In western Nepal, over 200 insurgents were killed in a major battle. Various newspapers in Nepal have reported that the insurgents have started fighting among themselves. It indicates that the time for peaceful Nepal is not very far.

His Majesty the King has already proclaimed that he will ensure that the local government elections are held within a year in all municipalities. This is another proof that the King means what he says and he will restore democracy within the next three years as promised if not before. If the security situation improves, it is in the best interest of both the king and the country to hold the general elections and form an elected government. One can bet with certainty that the political leaders will oppose any kind of election in Nepal. It is because they will loose the election big time. Having looted the people for the last fifteen years they do not have the guts to go to the people. Therefore, they want to revive the dead parliament so that they could be members of parliament for life. It seems these leaders are taking lessons on democracy from Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak.

ENDS

EXPLAINING MAOIST STRATEGY: IT’S ALL IN THE SCRIPT

The following is an article by Thomas A. Marks published on Nepalnews.com on April 09th, 2006

EXPLAINING MAOIST STRATEGY: IT'S ALL IN THE SCRIPT

Even as I write, events in Nepal unfold as if a Broadway play – nary a miscue from the script passed out months ago in the Nepalese media.

Having declared a "ceasefire inside the Kathmandu Valley," thus to gain the media "spin" that would necessarily come from "peaceful protestors" being "attacked," the Maoists proceeded elsewhere in the country to attack positions. The Butwal attack is only the most recent example.

Open use of violence "outside" the urban centers has been accompanied by orchestrated rioting "inside." That the foreign media (with the help of the anti-government sectors in the Nepali media) persist in calling such "peaceful protest" only demonstrates how thoroughly detached they are from the reality of the people's war approach.

From the Maoist Playbook

To outline the Maoist strategy for those who were not present at the auditions for parts:

● Overload the security forces "inside" while attacking with main forces "outside." Claim to be only supporting "peaceful" forces for change.

● Use government troop deployments to advantage. If the security forces must move more men inside, flow into the vacuums left behind. If they move outside, send urban partisans inside.

● Exploit every death and claim that any setback (e.g. failure to overthrow the government) proves that only the violent way is left to install "absolute democracy."

● Break the RNA at all costs. RNA is the one real obstacle remaining in the quest for power. So caught up is the SPA in its short-term effort to remain relevant that it is oblivious to long-term peril. SPA can be counted upon to mindlessly perform on cue.

● Move now to exploit the opening provided by Indian perfidy. New Delhi senses an opportunity to at long last create of Nepal a dependency that will do as it is told.

From the Maoist perspective, they have adopted a "win/win" course of action: no matter what actually happens, they will benefit.

By declaring a "ceasefire outside Kathmandu Valley," they seal off the battle area, declaring that it will be a fight between rival bodies of manpower. They feel that the SPA manpower on the streets can overwhelm whatever the police and APF (the backup) can put on the playing field.

When the authorities make mistakes, which ultimately they must if SPAM plans go off as scripted, the government is again "human rights abusers" — and the howls can already be heard from the usual suspects. Some elements of the Nepali media appear to be working deliberately to fan the anti-government flames.

Further, the violence allows the Maoists to claim they at least gave "peace" a chance.

The dream scenario, from the SPAM perspective, is to replay 1990, with masses rushing across the open boulevard leading to the main palace gate, the troops forced to open fire, bodies filmed by international media and beamed worldwide, India declaring it can no longer stand by "as democracy is crushed."

Role of India

India's role remains to be untangled, but no one who was in Sri Lanka in July 1987 – as I was – can overlook the startling similarities. The Indian invasion, conveniently disguised as the IPKF (Indian Peace Keeping Force), was but the culmination of half a decade of support for Tamil insurgents/terrorists that New Delhi thought it could "manage."

Then, as now, the shape of the international arena played a significant role. India, many have forgotten, had sided with the Evil Empire. There were some 6-7,000 Soviet advisors in the country. It was the first country outside the Warsaw Pact to receive the MIG-29 fighter, the first (and only) ever to be rented a nuclear submarine.

Beyond all else, in a relationship only now emerging from files of the KGB spirited out of the country prior to the resumption of the authoritarianism, the government of Indira Gandhi allowed itself to be fed Soviet disinformation that convinced it Sri Lanka was a threat.

Alleged "special intelligence" provided by Moscow purported to prove Colombo was on the verge of granting Washington basing and spying facilities, India became involved with the Tamil insurgents, eventually training, arming, and basing them. When an initial massing of forces to invade in early 1984 was warned off by the Reagan administration, Delhi simply waited for a more propitious moment. This came in July 1987, as the Sri Lankans moved to crush the trapped insurgents in Jaffna.

What that moment shares with the present is the astonishingly bad "intelligence" that drove Indian policymaking, as well as the claim that "foreign hands" support the monarch. Putting the word in quotation marks only highlights what Indian field commanders realized within days of landing in Jaffna – there was little they had been given in their briefing packets that was accurate.

That India's Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) had produced "analysis" every bit as flawed as any in the annals of intelligence debacles has since been recognized by no less than India's imperious Proconsul at the time, J.N. Dixit (now deceased) – though he continued to claim, even in his last writings, that India's information on America's intentions was completely reliable.

That India had completely botched its assessments of Sri Lankan ground realities would not surprise anyone who has followed what has emerged as the dominant government position in the present Nepali crisis. Indeed, Indian participants in panels held in Washington, DC, such as S.D. Muni, have distinguished themselves principally in what can only be characterized as willful ignorance of SPAM pronouncements and motives.

To cite but the most egregious example, the Indians continue to claim SPAM is willing to negotiate for itself a role in a parliamentary framework headed by a constitutional monarchy, even as the Maoists give press conferences claiming they will try the monarch in a people's court.

There do seem to be analysts who have correctly identified the astonishingly strategic myopia involved in destabilizing Nepal further even as India itself grapples with its own growing Maoist challenge. In his recent "India, Maoism and Nepal," former Finance Minister Madhukar S.J.B. Rana hit the nail squarely on the head when he wrote, "India is playing a dangerous game of pure real politic where it seeks to intervene in Nepal militarily by using the Maoist [as published] as proxy under the unbelievable propaganda 'to secure peace and democracy for the Nepalese people and to arrest the impending refugee inflow into its own territory'."

Change a word here and there, and the logic is identical to the debacle that became IPKF. It is further noteworthy that in the three bloody years that followed July 1987, IPKF acquitted itself well in "India's Vietnam" (as it was called by the press), even as Indian policymakers sought to cast blame for the blunder on anyone and everyone except themselves. (The most ludicrous position, of course, was the very one the Maoists advance now: it is all the fault of American imperialism.)

Where to From Here?

As irony would have it, it is the growing amicability of India and the US which has served as the strategic cover for New Delhi to bring Kathmandu to heel. Nepali sources have become increasingly blunt (and strident) in the same manner as the Sri Lankans all those years ago, as the Indian ties to Nepali violence become more clear.

One does not have to engage in plot mongering to posit that India is making a major policy error in steering its present course. Neither does one have to cast aspersions to point out the obvious: the SPA portion of SPAM has been willing to play the quisling for momentary political gain.

For it will be momentary, come what may. Let us suppose that the present government collapsed tomorrow. Where would that leave SPA? With two useless pieces of paper and a worthless sheath of promises.

What is tragic is that very little would seem to separate the sides at the moment save profound mistrust. The king agrees that parliamentary democracy should be restored with a constitutional monarch. The Maoists claim they will accept a democratic republic of whatever sort is decided by a constitutional convention. SPA claims the same. SPAM as a whole claims to desire a "ceremonial monarch" (but the "M" has been unwilling to desist from claiming a trial or exile is the only way out for the present monarch). RNA would become a true "national" army, which, not surprisingly, it already thinks it is.

It is important to interject RNA into the discussion, because the shape of any successor organization was a major sticking point in the previous 2003 round of ceasefire talks. SPAM seems to think this institution will simply agree to dissolve itself without discussions of what this entails.

That this will not happen was put to the Maoists directly in 2003, but they were as unwilling then to grapple with the complexities thus raised as they appear to be now. Yet the growing stratum of combat-tested, politically astute officers is not simply going to go as lambs to the slaughter.

Thus a great deal more thought is required upon the part of all sides. This will not take place as long as SPAM persists in its present course.

( Dr. Thomas A. Marks is a political risk consultant based in Honolulu, Hawaii and a frequent visitor to Nepal. )