See? This was written by the professor doctor, dated March 19, 2006, posted in ideaforum.org: The Kingdom, the Power and the Glory By Professor Dr Brian Cobb Bertrand Russell, the great analytic philosopher, distinguishes several forms of power. Great, widespread respect for the person or institution may be a source of power; power may also be derived from an army or militia. Mohandas Gandhi and Dr Martin Luther King, Jr, had immense power based on the espect they earned through their integrity, wisdom and courage, despite never having held any governmental post. Monarchies and Prime Ministries carry power because of trust in the institutions themselves. But dictators rely on violence and intimidation to maintain their positions; consider the military junta in Myanmar. Few Burmese respect or support them, so their hold on power extends only as long as the bullets last. This naked power, maintained by the gun and the prison, is not sustainable. Sooner or later the dictator is overthrown, assassinated or dies. Yet the current government is trading the personal and institutional prestige of the monarch for exactly this sort of naked power. This is hardly a wise trade. The government of Nepal is now locked in a vicious cycle: greater dissent and opposition are met with harsher repression and more atrocities, resulting in more support for the Maoists and the parties, who have been allied by having a common enemy in Singh Durbar. With each loop of the downward spiral, the institutional and personal power of the King and government diminish both within Nepal and internationally. The recent elections have detracted from the perceived legitimacy of the government, rather than adding to it as intended—and claimed. I recently proposed a peace plan calling for free, fair, UN supervised parliamentary elections with participation by all parties including the Maoists, placing the RNA under UN command to supervise voluntary disarmament of the Maoists and the elections, and demilitarizing the country by placing armed authority only in the police and transforming the RNA and Maoist armies into a national corps to build infrastructure, contribute to education and health care, and otherwise assist in reconciliation and progress. This corps would remain, under the 1990 constitution, in His Majesty’s command. The Maoists and parties have promised great public works initiatives, and have indicated that they might be willing to accept a continued role for the monarchy. This proposal would transform the monarchy so as to allow it to regain its personal and institutional prestige and eliminate the stigma it has lately acquired. It would also fulfil the parties’ and Maoists’ promises. By preserving the current constitution, it bypasses the conflict between palace and parties-Maoists over the proposed constituent assembly. The proposal also restores confidence in the democratic process by warranting the legitimacy of the parliamentary election. And by demilitarizing the country, as both Costa Rica and Haiti have done, it allows all government spending to be directed to the benefit of the people. Every rupee spent on a bullet is not available for an anti-TB tablet, and every crore spent on armored vehicles is a crore not available for hospitals or schools. The most beneficial power any government can have is the power to vanquish illiteracy, poverty, disease and the structural violence of lack of opportunities. A legitimate government’s real enemies are not dissenting segments of its own population, but suffering, death and deprivation. A government which realizes and acts upon this insight is extremely unlikely to be troubled with revolutions or electoral defeat. As Dr Abraham Flexner pointed out, “[N]o nation is rich enough to pay for both war and civilization. We must make our choice. We cannot have both.” To those who oppose UN involvement, or indeed my proposal, as “foreign intervention,” I point out that this war is partially financed with foreign funds and entirely fought with foreign weapons. It is not a question of whether there will be foreign assistance, only whether it will be for good or for ill. As long as the various factions hold rigidly to positions unacceptable to the others, no agreement is possible and thousands of lives will continue to be sacrificed to ideologies which have become so locked into specific strategies that they fail to find other, mutually acceptable ways to achieve their goals and they abandon their principles. If we begin with the principles of peace, democracy, justice, respect for human rights and the duty to serve the people, and the goals of free, fair multiparty elections, economic and infrastructural development, improved health and educational services and ending the bloody conflict, we can use our intelligence to find solutions which will appeal to all factions and are in the best interest of those factions and, more importantly, the Nepali people. It is very likely that Nepal as a zone of peace would attract tourists, assistance and investment from abroad. As Abraham Lincoln said at the end of the American Civil War, “With malice toward none, with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive to finish the great work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.” As a foreigner without governmental portfolio, I can do no more than offer a proposal; as a physician who sees war as a public health emergency and a former resident of Nepal who cares deeply for its people, I can do no less. Send your comments to the Author : drbriannepal@yahoo.co.in