Finally! :D The audio will also be available at www.samudaya.org soon. Nepalese Democratic Youth Council, USA (NDYC), American-Nepal Friendship Society (ANFS), and Alliance for Democracy & Human rights in Nepal, USA (ADHRN), jointly organized a talk program with Kunda Dixit on July 23rd, 2005, Saturday. The venue was Delhi Palace Restaurant in Jackson Heights, Queens, New York. The following is the summary of the event, including Kunda Dixit?s presentation. The program was moderated by Dr. Tara Niraula, current president of ANFS. Dr. Niraula delivered a brief welcome note, urging Nepali pro-democracy and peace-loving organizations, and people, in the United States to work collaboratively to achieve their common goal, which is to restore lasting peace and security, and to promote democratic values in, Nepal. He then introduced the featured speaker of the event, Mr. Kunda Dixit. Kunda Dixit is a founding editor of Nepali Times, a prominent weekly news magazine in Nepal, and is also co-publisher of Himal South Asia magazine. He also serves as directors for Asia-Pacific for Interpress Service and PANOJ INS., South Asia. He previously worked as a reporter for the BBC at the United Nations and is a graduate of Columbia University?s prestigious School of Journalism. Some of the key issues that Mr. Dixit raised about the current crisis in Nepal were: 1.Despite the fact that India has been playing increasingly key role in determining Nepal?s fate, which is evident in the fact that international players, including the United States and Great Britain, make stop over in New Delhi for consultations before coming to Nepal for talks with Nepali officials, the current government?s attitude towards India has been increasingly hostile and confrontational. Rightly or wrongly, it is clear that any international attempts to resolve Nepali crisis will be coordinated with India. 2.Current Nepali government?s justification that the extreme measures that it has introduced in Nepal are to curb the Maoist violence is dubious at best. It is very clear that repressive measures that the government of King Gyanendra has introduced have mostly targeted the democratic institutions in the country (political parties, civil society, media, etc.) instead of the Maoists. 3.King?s official takeover on Febraury 1st, 2005 was the ultimate result of careful planning to undermine the democratic process in the country. It started on October 2002 when the democratically elected parliament was first dissolved. 4.Nepali media was proudly one of the most free and vibrant in the world prior to February first, which was suddenly left in the dark immediately after King?s takeover. Even though some restrictions on the media has been lifted recently, and more and more writers on a national level are able now to write critically of the government, harassment, imprisonment, and torture (of the journalists) by the security forces on district levels are still continuing. It seems that the government?s decision to relax it?s tightening on the media on some prominent national news outlets is only to allay international pressure to free the media. 5.Despite the ban on news broadcast by FM stations in the country, we need to be proud of the fact that 10 years (or so) of democracy has instilled some creative values/ideas in the Nepali media people. They skillfully have been trying to circumvent the ban on news broadcast by performing live broadcast of the news in market places, or by having conversation-style outlet of news items, or even broadcasting news in songs formats! 6.Both the state and the Maoists (two armed groups in the conflict) are threats to national stability and progress. They both have engaged in arbitrary arrests, harassments, torture and ?disappearances?. 7.Government?s claim that it has clamped down hard on the Maoists is questionable. The security forces have killed ?Maoists? mostly in defensive actions only, and their success in defense has been limited to district headquarters only. Both the security forces and the Maoists seem to avoid contact with each other, rather than taking action to defeat the other. This has resulted in a MILTARY STALEMATE in the field, and a POLITICAL PARALYSIS in the center. 8.King Gyanendra?s government seem to say all the right things (e.g., ?we need democracy?, ?constitutional monarchy is the real solution?, ?there is no alternative to multi-party democracy?, etc.) but has been acting exactly opposite to those goals. What little hopes people had (out of desperation) in the King is rapidly losing grounds. Two formations of the cabinet full of individuals with notorious records of being corrupt and staunchly against democracy during the Panchayat times reflect upon King?s desire to quash democracy in the country for a long term. There has also been left no rooms for much-needed reforms within the institution of monarchy. 9.It is appalling how the current government of Nepal has been indulging in the practice of making a mockery out of international concern for Nepal. Some of obviously major backward steps have been taken immediately after key international player?s visit to Nepal. For instance, the new cabinet was formed just four hours after Dr. Brahimi, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan?s emissary, completed his visit to Nepal. Similarly, new stricter ordinances were issued soon after Christina Rocca, US Under Secretary of State for South Asia and her assistant Donald Camp?s respective visits. This has led Nepal into further isolation from the international community. 10.Current Nepali government seems to be using the Burmese model of governance. They (Nepali government) seem to be trying to copy the Burmese model of not only militarizing the country, but their 40 years of successful apathy to international pressure. 11.This increased polarization based on militarization of the country has painfully squeezed the people of the ?middle ground? (different from ?neutral?) whose key strength comes from their belief in non-violence. Political parties are part of this ?middle ground?. 12.Government?s wide spread tendency to label anyone disagreeing with them as ?anti-national? is also dangerously unwarranted. This practice on the part of the government seems to be directed towards making it easy to take action against dissidents. 13.There seems to be a deep split even among the Indian government agencies regarding their policy to Nepal. On the one hand, the intelligence community, the army, and some political establishment in India favor supporting the King for fear of Maoist victory; while, on the other hand, the CPI (the coalition government), ministry of external affairs and other political establishments favor continuing military blockade of Nepal. The latter believes in ?twin pillar? ? constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy ? will provide long term stability in Nepal. It is also believed that the leak of information relating to Nepali Maoist leaders? visit s to India came from the Indian intelligence themselves. The King has adroitly exploited and manipulated this rift among Indian establishments to his own advantage. 14.There are three perceived ways of resolving this unthinkable three-way crisis: --Political parties and the Maoists team up against the King --King and the political parties reconcile to confront the Maoists --Have a three-way mediation/negotiations It is not clear if the idea of political parties and the Maoists coming together to confront the King as a single force is merely intended as a threat strategy (to the King), or it becomes a reality. In either case, the government seems to have taken a keen notice of this possible development and has issued warnings that anyone colluding with the Maoists would be considered ?anti-national?. Most intellectuals and scholars seem to like the idea of the King and the political parties (two constitutional forces) reconciling to confront the Maoists (the unconstitutional force). By using the power of the constitutionality on their sides, it would be easier for the former to pressure the latter to come to the political mainstream. The last option of mediations/negotiation (by international, possibly UN or EU intervention) was initially thought of as impossible because of Indian opposition ? they feared that allowing international intervention in Nepal would herald similar attempts by the international community in Kashmir or Nagaland. However, since India is desperately seeking a permanent membership in the UN Security Council, they seem to have softened a bit on their initial hard line stance. Also, the moderates among the Maoists seem to be looking for a safe landing too, which can be provided by the international mediation team. 15. Mr. Dixit concluded his presentation by claiming that he is still optimistic that the crisis would take a positive turn soon. Thing shave gotten so bad that he believed it?s hard to imagine it getting worse. All three warring parties should realize the real danger of further lengthening this conflict, which would inevitably wipe out the entire three if prolonged much longer. **Mr. Dixit entertained many interesting questions from the audience afterwards.