On Moriarty's pontification By BABURAM BHATTARAI There is a place called Chor-kaatey near our village in Gorkha district. Chor-kaatey literally means, 'chopping off the thief '. There is an interesting anecdote about how this place got its name. In olden days whenever there was any crime in the locality, all the suspects would be herded there and made to lie down with their legs stretched. The village headman with an axe in hand would then shout aloud: 'Chop off the legs of the thief (or culprit)!' It often happened that the real culprit would involuntarily pull up his legs in fear and thus get caught and punished. The recent utterances of the US ambassador James F Moriarty have forced us to get reminded of this anecdote, but in a new context. After the February coup, there was wild speculation about the real motivating force behind it. The source of the seemingly unusual confidence of the autocratic monarch in the face of such complete failure and isolation of his regime over the period since then had obviously been the subject of intense guess-work among all political observers on Nepal. Moriarty, with his vitriolic monologue against the democratic republican movement on February 15 and an equally provocative interview to the BBC Nepali service on February 19, has demystified the suspense and exposed the strong nexus between the US imperialist ruling classes and Nepal's feudal autocratic forces. In that sense Moriarty deserves our appreciation, at least for his candidness. But looking at the matter more closely, the issue is quite serious. The whole political spectrums, except a few royalist die-hards, have rightly condemned the ambassador's unwarranted and deeply flawed pontification on the ongoing democratic republican movement. Particularly the Seven Party Alliance (SPA), the civil society and the independent media have so thoroughly repudiated and exposed the ambassador's pro-monarchy and anti-democratic outbursts that we hardly find any new arguments to supplement them. We just wonder why the ambassador is so intent on shooting at his own feet, or alienating the overwhelming majority of Nepal's masses and the urban intelligentsia that look towards the West for democratic inspirations and ideas. The timing of Moriarty's harangue is all the more inopportune when the entire international community, ranging from the UN, the EU and Japan to the most important neighbors India and China, seem to be arriving at a consensus for democracy and peace by dumping the recalcitrant king and his cohorts. If the US interests in Nepal are only geo-strategic, in a region flanked by over two billion people, as claimed by the ambassador himself in his BBC interview, this certainly is not the best way to achieve them. We wonder what more reasonable people in the US, like Senator Patrick Leheay, have to say on this. There is some insinuation in certain quarters that Moriarty may have got provoked by our leadership's observations on the role of US ruling classes in Nepal. We don't think objective facts substantiate this. We have rather consciously avoided to take umbrage with the sole super power even when it has blatantly violated our sovereignty and bolstered the royal regime and the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) against the revolutionary democratic forces. To make an ideological criticism of imperialism and the so-called globalization agenda is an entirely different thing. It is an open secret that without the massive modernization program in the form of training, weapons supply and ultra-modern fortification of the barracks carried out by US assistance after 2002, the RNA would not have been able to withstand this long and carry out the regressive monarchist agenda. The frequent high level visits of US military and intelligence functionaries to Nepal are definitely not meant for pilgrimage or recreation. Despite this, we have exercised maximum restraint, and Chairman Prachanda in his recent interview to the BBC television has categorically stated that we are ready to work with all international power centers, including the US, in the future democratic republican set-up. Hence the problem lies entirely with the US ruling classes, and not with us, which is amply reflected in Moriarty's outbursts. Firstly, the problem lies with the McCarthyian outlook and the Cold War era anti-communist paranoia. The central thesis of Moriarty's lecture is that the Maoists should be militarily crushed and not allowed to come to power at any cost. Hence anybody who can do this job will get the US support. This has been the rationale for the continued US backing to the royal regime. As the king has failed in this mission over the past year, Moriarty has now frantically appealed to the parliamentary political parties to abandon the anti-monarchy democratic movement and surrender to the king. He has labored hard to sell his paranoia to the SPA and goaded them to break out of the 12-point understanding with the CPN (Maoist). Moriarty further raises the bogey of future 'totalitarianism' of the CPN (Maoist) to scare away the SPA, as if the real and existing totalitarianism of the monarchy is better than an imaginary and hypothetical 'totalitarianism' of the future. Only a die-hard McCarthyian mindset can accuse the CPN (Maoist) of pursing 'totalitarianism' when the Party has formally passed an historic resolution on 'Development of Democracy in the 21st Century' and Chairman Prachanda has so well articulated the Party's commitment to a multiparty competitive politics in the future democratic republican set-up in his recent interviews. Secondly, the whole edifice of Moriarty's arguments is based on the thesis that the SPA and monarchy are "(T)wo legitimate constitutional actors- who should be on the same side." However, no sane person in Nepal is prepared to believe that the monarchy after October 4, and particularly after February 1, is a 'legitimate constitutional actor'. Even the Supreme Court in a recent judgment has ruled (though indirectly) that the king no longer remains so. The only 'legitimacy' of the king is his backing by the RNA and certain foreign powers, particularly the US. It is really paradoxical that the loudest votaries of 'democracy' fail to see the ground reality and swear by the worst despots when their strategic interests are at stake. That is why Suharto, Marcos, Pinochet, Musarraf and the likes are the best 'democrats' and 'legitimate constitutional actors' for the US. And the Maoists which has been consistently advocating for a free and fair election to a constituent assembly as a minimum basis for peace and democracy is branded 'totalitarian'! Thirdly, another fundamental flaw with Moriarty's arguments lies with his supposition that the RNA is the "logical source of defense" for the parliamentary parties and democracy. But the historical facts prove just the opposite. The RNA has been the principal bulwark of autocracy historically, as it was repeatedly used by the monarchy to stage coup d' etat against the parliamentary democracy in 1960 and again in 2003-5. Hence the most important precondition for institutionalizing democracy in the country is the creation of a new national army committed to democracy. This has been one of the key proposals put forward by the CPN (Maoist) and increasingly accepted by other democratic political forces and the civil society. But Moriarty has very conveniently distorted our proposal and provocatively insinuated that we intend to overtake all the other political forces on the strength of our People's Liberation Army (PLA) once the RNA is no longer there. As Chairman Prachanda has clearly enunciated in his recent interviews, what we have proposed is the restructuring of both the RNA and the PLA and the creation of a new national army according to the result of the constituent assembly elections. During the elections both the armed forces can remain passive and neutral under a credible international supervision. What is wrong with that? Moriarty has very selectively picked up names of individuals killed during the course of the civil war and has tended to sensationalize them for his political arguments. But has he cared to read the recent report prepared by Ian Martin and his team from the UN Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights? Does he dare accept that the royal regime is the worst perpetrator of human rights violations in the world? Does he know that the highest number of disappearances by the state take place in Nepal? Selective use of tragic cases of individual death for political arguments would serve no purpose except to expose one's own insensitivity and callousness. Moreover, Moriarty's suggestion to view Umesh Thapa's sacrifice "as a catalyst for reconciliation and compromise" with the king crosses all limits of insensitivity and borders on insanity. These are extremely rare historic times for Nepal. The need of the hour is a complete political, economical, social and cultural transformation of society. The 12-point understanding between the SPA and Maoist revolutionaries provides a minimum basis for democracy, peace and progress in the country. Let no one wreck this historic resolution of the Nepali people. No one but the Nepali people themselves have the right over their destiny. अङ्रेजी त ज्ञाने को भन्दानी राम्रो रैच हे केटा हो