The following a rather long musing of mine is in part a response to a fellow poster's accusation that I have not presented convincing arguments in favor of republicanism in Nepal's specific context. I have basically compiled some of my views already posted in Sajha Kurakani during last two years of my stay, added some updates to accommodate recent political developments and posted below.

I do not claim these as 'convincing' arguments. Rather they are my confessions about why I am a staunch republican against displeasure and embarrassment of some of my friends I value very much.

I apologize for the unusual and offensive length (~7600 words !) of this article. However, looking at the war zone of Nepal, a lengthy jaw-jaw is always better than a lengthy war-war, No ?

*************************************


Why Republicanism in Nepal ?


For clarity's sake, let's divide it into two parts- 1. Is it necessary ? and, 2. Is it possible ? (This division is important, because almost all of the arguments against the republicanism in Nepal boils down to a confusion of 'the Monarchy is necessary because it can not be removed' to 'the Monarchy can not be removed because it is necessary' !).

Why republicanism is necessary for Nepal

The answer is pretty simple (although the path itself may not be that simple)- Because the active Monarchy in the past and very recently and the Constitutional Monarchy throughout the last decade undeniably failed and there is no reason to believe why they should suddenly start to work now.

Now, let us examine, in simple terms, who failed, exactly at what they failed and why they might have failed.

Active Monarchy of the Panchayat era failed because of the corruption of the regime (the palace and the panchas) and those close to the regime (bureaucracy), the lack of the freedom to protest that and an overall backwardness in every aspect of national life.

The constitutional Monarchy as a system (with supposedly passive king) of the past twelve years until last Oct 4 failed to break the continuity of the Panchayati era corruption and on top of that extended it to the party machinery. Another most important failure was to prevent the Maoist uprising (not out of the security system, but out of the political system). The list can be made longer by adding other failures too. However, I think these two are the fundamental one, everything else is a direct or indirect result of these two failures. As a matter of fact, even these two are two faces of the same coin. But let's talk about them separately for the sake of discussion.

Since the King was supposedly passive, it is natural to think that the political parties who ran the governments one after another must be solely responsible for these failures. But, is it true ?

Let us examine a little closely to see how much the political parties are responsible or, to be more specific, if they had all the resources to address these failures and how much far away from all this the Monarchy actually was.

Political parties and the Corruption: uninterested to prevent or unable to prevent ?

Is it not intriguing that despite a continuous and strong public mandate, support, voice and demand, a serious attempt to eradicate the corruption was never started since 2046 ? It was only as a response to tackle the Maoist uprising with some reforms by gaining some public sympathy that the parliament took steps, although half-hearted, to empower the CIAA and formed JICP ? These goodies although insignificant vis a vis the magnitude and area of the corruption the country is in is, hello, a gift of the Maoists !

People do recognize that.

Why the CIAA and JICP or any other tool made within the current system is insignificant and incapable of eradicating the corruption ?

Not because they do not have enough resources (manpower, logistics etc), because that can be arranged.

It is precisely and solely because it does not have the power to reach to the very deep, old and extended root, symbol and culture of the corruption- the palace, the old regime, the continuity of the old power. Until and unless the CIAA, JCIP or any other anti-corruption tool can mortally strike this quarter, the corruption in Nepal is there to stay. Remember it is not only about forcing the King to show his property and it's source, it's also about making all beneficiaries of the palace since Panchayat's time come forward to get a clean chit. It's about zero tolerance. It's about not letting the war against the corruption is get morally and physically defeated even before it is born. It's about establishing the 'rule of
law', not in the book but in the minds of Nepali people. It's about not letting anybody and any family to be above the law.

What's needed to fight the corruption in Nepal ?

An economist with very high credibility tells that all he needs is a full resource at his disposal and just three months' time to prepare all necessary infrastructure to launch to campaign to establish a clean administration.

3 months or 6 months is not important. What is important is that it is not the lack of manpower and ideas that has been preventing the massive reform of the country. It is something else.

And that something is, in my view, the lack of a starting point. Except for the status of the political parties, everything of the Panchayat era has continued, the status of all old corrupt players and the system has remained intact. We will talk about the new corrupt players later.

A logical starting point would have been after 2046 when the first elected government took reign. Didn't we all expected that all old bhrastachari would be brought to justice and a new clean era will begin ?

It did not happen. Because they could not do it. They could not touch the corrupt Panchas, the corrupt police, the bureaucrats, the bhaibhardars of the palace (assuming that only the King got some untold immunity ) and just about anybody who was in the old power structure. Why? Simple, the King did not allow it. He did not allow because it was more important for him not to be humiliated that way than anything else. Bhand ma jawos desh ko clean future ! I wouldn't complain that the King Birendra did that, though. He might have justified it as a moral obligation to save those who had served him so well.

Whether our leaders had agreed not to touch anybody of the old power with Birendra or they just took cue from him or just did not dare to do it is not important. What is important is that it is the Monarchy component of the Constitutional Monarchy that made it happen. It was not due to lack of vision of KP Bhattarai, GP Koirala, Manamohan, Makune and Sher Bahadur. Their hands were tied and they are still tied.

Their tied hands were the beginning of the moral degradation of our once revered leaders.

One of Paschim's friends had made an interesting observation of how our leaders became more and more courteous to the king over the years. Interestingly, that also coincide with their becoming more and more corrupt and unaccountable.

One of the most heard disappointment among educated Nepalis about our 'democracy' is, why it did not produce a single leader we can look up to. I suggest them to take a closer look into the machine. Dear friends, don't expect a good product from a defective machine !

We did not have a visionary leader because their vision is blurred by their tied hands, their helplessness to go beyond piggybacking the king, their intimidation by the loyalty of the Royal Nepal Army to the King.

They have reduced themselves to a bhai-naike and a dai-naike of a jail where the King is the actual jailer. Our leaders' job has been limited to keep the law and order in the jail in which too they have failed miserably.

A perfect setting for their moral bankruptcy, directionlessness and a comfort in general darkness. Forget about a vision to free the people from that primitive jail. Forget about the corruption, the issues of economic and social justice and nation building.

In short, it was the lack of supreme power, not otherwise (that is, too much power), to the elected supreme leader together with the constitutional denial about the actual power of the King, that was responsible for the collective moral degradation of our leaders. But nobody was admitting it. Everybody was in denial. Not only the players, but the observers too.

The pinnacle of this denial was about the palace. The palace was successfully giving an impression to the general mass that it has nothing to do with the ineptness of the leaders. Even our educated folks praised the king saying he did nothing as required of him and has remained kosher !

They were unanimous to denounce the political leaders, which was fine, but the assumption on which it was based was totally wrong.

Their assumption was that it was a random and unfortunate inadequacies of individual leaders that was responsible for the degradation of politics. They fail to appreciate that it was a COLLECTIVE failure. They failed to see that it was a systematic failure intimately correlated to the power of the palace.

They failed even to understand themselves. I have quoted a seemingly minor, but important for it's generality and prevalence among the peers, note of frustration of BBC's Rabindra Mishra in his article 'Pratyosh Onta haru-le kina rajniti nagarney ?' a few times in this forum. Why indeed ! Why is there an unspoken boycott of politics by the intellectuals (exception: Dipak Gyawali !) ? Why is there a consistent cynicism towards politics among intellectuals ? This is a telling story. Unfortunately, however, some of our intellectuals were not getting the message.

In these frustrations, hopelessness and disillusion, anyone who would talk even a half-truth, who would show even a half way would easily attract people. This was bound to happen. And it happened.

There came a strange breed of people called Maobadi. Nobody understood their language fully. But it was enough to know they spoke of a radical change.

The rest is history.

Today 2/3 of Nepal is theirs. They have confined the government inside the Ring Road of Kathmandu valley ! And our educated folks have no idea how could that happen !

The Maoists: Did they come from the Mars ?

Pick any article/book by the 'experts' on Maosist, you will see they invariably relate the rise of the Maoists to people's increased awareness of their social, cultural and political rights and they prescribe to give the neglected and suppressed class, community and gender their fair share as a long term solution to the Maoist 'Problem'.

While there is no doubt about what we should be doing, I disagree with the link of the issues of social and cultural justices to the Maoist uprising.

It may surprise those who did not have a chance to follow all of my arguments in this forum, but my views in this particular case is very similar to what the most ardent Royalists or anti-Maoists have, that is- No, the Maoist uprising is not about equal rights to women (An US intellectual was asking in a discussion, "look, 40 % [?] of the Maoists cadre are women, isn't that a telling story ?". I think, yes, that is a telling story, but still the Maoist uprising is not about the equality to women.), it's not about economic and political rights of backward classes, janajatis, oppressed castes (although the Maoists have brought a new hope and sense of self-respect and pride to them !), it's not about eliminating exploitation or poverty (although that's the dream the Maoists are selling to the poor !)

Now, many who are sympathetic to the Maoists or those who see with their own eyes the obvious link of these issues to the Maoists ( the latter may include even the Royalists) might have been surprised and would like to know why.

My arguments are simple. A new force arises in history, not necessarily perfect or even just positively expressed, only when the existing forces are inadequate to address the contemporary challenge/s. And that goes with Maoists too.

A lot of issues that our 'experts' link to the Maoist uprising actually can be addressed by the constitutional Monarchy alone. It would just need a little push, that's all. Had it not been for the issue that is beyond the capability of the constitutional Monarchy to tackle, Maoists would have emerged as a pressure group or something like that, instead of as a revolutionary force.

There is something the constitutional Monarchy of Nepal is not equipped to deal with, hence the emergence of the Maoists.

What is that thing ?

Go figure out. This is where you should go to understand the nuclear source of the strength of the Maoists. This is where lies the 'solution' of the 'Maoist problem'.

The inadequacy of Nepali constitutional Monarchy vis a vis other surviving constitutional Monarchy is it's inability to deal with its own inadequacies- with it's contradictory and elusive power sharing on one hand and it's refractoriness to democratic cure on the other. The general directionlessness of the whole decade of our 'democracy' was a direct and indirect result of that. And unfortunately, everybody from the establishment, the King and the political parties alike, were hiding this like a guilt-filled AIDS-patient hides his disease.

Somebody had to come to fix that. Somebody from outside the system. Somebody illegal ! Maoists got that job !

Unfortunately our doctor was himself miseducated. He would talk sense in one thing and nonsense in two other things. While that remains as it is, the most important thing is that he diagnosed the disease correctly. He said the country has a brain tumor- hidden, engrained, protected and disinformed about it to the mass. And it was indeed so. He prescribed to remove it surgically and took the job himself, which was right too, and extremely bold, almost surreal to many, I should add. However, his prescription of additional date-expired drugs was not right. After the removal of the tumor, the patient would not need any additional drugs. His daily food of open thoughts and exercise of democracy has everything he needed to grow healthy and be productive. There is no dearth of sound minded and qualified people to help him. It was only his denial about the disease that had repelled them, made them cynical and boycott him.

Anyway, to the people tired of hypocrite establishment, the fact that the Maoists told a bold truth was enough to ignore their other nonsense. So slowly and slowly, the issues of social, cultural and economic justices, which was ignored and abandoned by the establishment, started to hitchhike the Maoist vehicle in hope of reaching to their destination. Today, the establishment does not have a proper job to do except playing the games like 'tug of war' and ' musical chair' to keep themselves busy and to have fun. They have a minor quarrel about the rule of the game since Oct 4, which has, to their disadvantage, have them exposed to the already opened eyes of the people. It is yet to be seen if they go back to the same old co-existence and the denial to the truth the Maoist broke out or they are now ready to face the truth to some extent.

The royalists have accused the Maoists that they used the period of last cease-fire to strengthen their position. And they are absolutely right. During last seven months of ceasefire, the Maoists achieved something they never had done before.

Maoists never had a chance of this scale and freedom to be in contact with urban elites, intellectuals and common people and explain what they are after. How much they succeeded to influence these urbanites will be clearer in coming days. However there are already indications of a huge change in their attitude towards them. From stunningly simple personality of Dr. Baburam Bhattarai to their highly skillful show in successive talks with poor 'representatives of the King' and particularly their public explanation that they are fighting for the bourgeois democracy for now, should have impressed different folks with different strokes. The support and sympathy for their demand of the Constituent Assembly has gone up. And whether we like it or not, it will go more and more up with each new dead body of innocent Nepali falling.

At this moment things are in a bargaining condition. But when and if it becomes a choice between a huge bloodshed and the Constituent Assembly, an overwhelming majority of people will stand by the later. In fact, the public support to the CA is already rapidly growing.

The call for the King-People Unity: A solution to the Maoists 'problem' !?!

It is in this backdrop, the royalists, some democrats too (to be fair to some anonymous posters in this forum !) and foreign friends are calling for a unity between the king and 'agitating' political parties to take the Maoists head on.

Before speculating how much that gonna change the political scene in Nepal, lets try to understand what the most important party, that is our powerful foreign friends, of this new coalition are trying to do for us. Because I think that's going to be the major source of the strength of the 'unity' and also a major source of inspiration to some democrats to become pro-unity in this critical time of our history.

I am not an expert on the US foreign policy. So what I write here is my naive thoughts based on my superficial observation of what's going on.

It could be a major disappointment to the aspirants of a democratic republic of Nepal as well as those who believes in the idealism of the constitutional Monarchy, but it is a fact that the US supports the Monarchy of Nepal, not just as a symbolic head of the state but as a strong institution with significant political power and role.

Why ?

I don't believe it is because the US wants to keep Nepal in it's control. I also have no doubts on the ideological commitment of the US to democracy in the world.

I think, at the philosophical level, let's say at the level of 'General Theory' (the theory that explains everything !), US support to a powerful Monarchy in Nepal derives from the limitation of a state to relate to the fine detail of historical evolution of a foreign state. To illustrate, let's say, a native of Nepal will easily relate to what I described in several paragraphs above. However, a team of foreign policy makers in Washington DC may not have patience to understand those detail. They might choose to ignore or suppress some details to suite to their own needs.

Why would they like to go through a headache of admitting they were responsible for the rise of Saddam Hussain when they can easily destroy him just by calling him an evil. OK, that was too much stretched. How about this- why would they not suppress their own knowledge that the Maoists uprising was partly due to rural people's increased awareness about their social, cultural and economic rights, when they think it is worth to try a military solution one more time to destroy them ?

When I said 'their own knowledge', I was referring to Hon'ble Ambassador Michael Malinowsky's own words in a meetings of Nepali intellectuals some time ago. It is interesting to compare that with Hon'ble Ambassadors lethal words to the Maoists and an open call for a unity of the King and political parties to fight them these days.

I don't think the US views 'the US watch-list terrorist' Maoists, who are anti-religion in ideology, as a partner of the Muslim terrorism it is after. I also don't think the US sees it a realistic scenario for the Maoists to establish a communist state in Nepal single-handedly through political maneuver or militarily at least any time soon. A lot of 'experts' don't find it realistic even to reduce the power of the Monarchy in Nepal. A communist state is a lot more unrealistic than that.

I think the US policy is simply not to take any chance with Commie Maoists. And their primary displeasure is Maoist's anti-US rhetoric, which is far more than a basal anti-Americanism among other leftists.

Julia Chang Blok, the flamboyant former US ambassador, proudly recalls her 'warning' in the early years of our 'democracy' to all that Nepal has only got democracy, it has not yet 'institutionalized' it. Without institutionalization, democracy will not be able to deliver. She relates the current crisis of Nepal partly to our failure to institutionalize the democracy.

It is hard for me to believe she would recommend to increase the power and influence of the King as a permanent solution to Nepal's crisis.

An alternative theory of mine: the US may be viewing Nepal as a strategically important country for it's current jihad against the global terrorism and so sees, like it seems to do in Pakistan, a stable dictator is easier to make deals than it is with unstable elected leadership.

I will leave it to my readers and 'experts' to interpret all this. To me, all in all, it looks like, our great friend US has given up the painstaking task of understanding a friend's problem in it's fine detail to find a just and truthful solution and has, instead, decided to push it for a quick, cheap and dirty solution.

We will find out very soon how seriously Nepali people take the advice of the only superpower of the world. Let's cross our finger to see thousands of people coming in the streets of our cities, towns and villages (OK let's leave villages out) to support their unity with the King and take the Maoists head on.

Or, alternatively, a show of 'shock and awe' ala Iraq in Nepali villages from Mahakali to Mechi.

If that did not happen, the great American advice is going to be wasted in one of the poorest countries of the world !

Not because the political parties may choose to ignore the US advice, but rather despite it (the unity of the King and the political parties) happens. It's not gonna make much difference, because it already did not make any difference. Let's not forget, until Oct 4, the King and the political parties were 'united' and were fighting the Maoists. Our foreign friends were fully behind us. What 'new' thing gonna be there this time ? Some luck ?

The 'unity' between the political parties and the King is a feel good concept and is totally misleading. As far as the Maoists are concerned there is no dis-unity between the parties and the King YET.

As I tried to explain earlier, during the past 10-12 years of their co-existence, they have reached to an equilibrium of non-interfering territorial co-dominance with separate niches of their own.

The equilibrium was that the parties can spoil themselves with old style corruption and the King can consolidate his power unchallenged.

Some of the current demands of the parties may look like challenging the power of the King. However, in reality, they are just the bargaining chips to get to the 'chair' of bhai-naike/dai-naike as soon as possible. Parties' crying foul of the King is hardly different than a baby crying when the pacifier it is sucking is suddenly removed.

Worse, or better, depending upon how you look, their 'anti-King' demands might be influenced by Maoists superlative anti-King position. In any case, most people are not going to be surprised if the party that gets to the 'chair' become pro-king like before and the opposition maintains a less milder tone.

There is one section, however, that seems to have undergone a change. That is- the lower level cadre and sympathizers of political parties.

While the leadership of the major parties has essentially remained pro-Monarchy, the cadre seems to have attracted to the republicanism. A case in point- Madhav Kumar Nepal recently issued a circular to the cadre of his party cautioning them not to misunderstand the anti-king agitation for a fight for the republic.

If people are to come to the streets to respond to the call of the 'King-people Unity' to fight the Maoists violence, the most likely scenario is opposite of what the sponsors of the call are hoping. Thousands of people will come to the streets of our cities, towns and villages (yes, of course, villages) to pressure the King to accept the 'Constituent Assembly'.

So, the renewed unity of the King and the leadership of political parties does not seem to be a solution to the Maoist problem. Their only deployable strength, the RNA, has already failed to defeat the Maoists, militarily as well as morally. People compare the RNA with the Maoists for their brutality and abuses.

A side note on the brutality of RNA. I believe a lot of cases of abuses is yet to be reported. Nevertheless, if you read what has already been reported by independent agencies, you will be shocked by the war crime committed by the RNA.

I am not hoping RNA to be nice to Maoists or to the people they suspect of sympathizing to the Maoists. But I think the level and the magnitude of the brutality and abuses by the RNA is surprisingly high if you compare that with, let's say, the brutality of Indian Army to their civilians in rebel's area (this is just my gut feeling and limited study of reports by AI . If you have data to prove otherwise, I shall stand corrected). In any case, what RNA has done is at the level of a disgrace to a democratic regime and a need for a war tribunal.

How do you explain that ? I mean, besides the brutality and abuses of the Maoists, what could have prompted RNA to be so brutal and abusive ? No doubt, it is due to lack of sense of accountability, lack of fear that they will have to bear the responsibility in future. My theory on this is that it comes from their belief in the mutual loyalty of the King and them and their surety in that the King is here to stay for good to protect them. They could not have done that if they have thought they are responsible to a democratically elected government which changes every five years. One more time, the brutality of RNA is not due to random and isolated weakness of some individual officers. It comes from the system. It comes from the Monarchy.

If the brutality counts as the strength, then definitely RNA under Monarchy will be much more stronger than they will be under the parliament. The King has a point when he insists the RNA should remain under him. (A poster in this forum recently and a lawyer in Kantipur Daily some time ago have argued that the provisions of the current constitution already puts the army under the parliament, so what's the point of demanding that the army should be put under the parliament ? My reply- it's a good question. If you find out the answer, it will explain everything about the political crisis of Nepal, hajoor.)

Back to the 'Unity'. As I implied above, unless the US is sending it's troops in Nepali villages ala Vietnam, it's call for elimination of the Maoists, the ruthless enemy, by the unity of the King and others does not make much sense. The King is not a SOLUTION to the Maoist problem, he is a PART of the Maoist problem. Only the presence of the US troops and weapons can override this fact. Nothing else can do that. Not even the Indian Army. I will doubt India will see a stronger king as in favor of India's interests.

Some of our posters who claim to be democrat (all right, I believe that) and pledge for the unity with the King have interesting proposal- let's defeat the Maoist, the greater enemy, first by combined effort of the king and the people. Then we will work on how to defeat the King, the lesser enemy. Some of these friends have even quoted Chairman Mao to make a point, how he made alliance with his domestic enemy to fight a foreign enemy.

While my respect for this proposal, particularly the straight forward wisdom in it and a bold readiness for a sacrifice (I mean bloodshed), is reserved, I've got a better proposal.

How about defeating both enemies with a single stone, that too without spilling a single drop of blood and without wasting several years that could take just to defeat the Maoists and another several decades that could take to defeat the King or make him irrelevant?

A just and permanent solution to the Maoist problem

There is no doubt that we, the Nepali people, should do everything to stop Maoist from making Nepal a guinea pig of the second communist experiment of our history.

There are only two ways we can do that, either by a forced foreign military intervention or by an honest political sensibility. I do not think we are ready for the first option yet. In any case, that sounds like inviting more trouble than solving the problem. But it is interesting to note that some folks are already talking about it- it's gonna happen, it's gonna happen. I very much hope that it's not gonna happen.

Some people may still be hopeful of Fujimori brand of solution, but the fact that Nepali Shining Path Comrade are not fighting against a bourgeois democracy but against a Monarchy and that Peru's wound is still open makes it very unconvincing option. And let us not forget our security forces already have failed us, well, of course for reasons explainable.

Then, the only option left is an honest political solution.

Now, some people might be feeling very uncomfortable with the adjective 'honest', which is natural, because honesty is an alien culture to us. Our culture is 'might is right'. Our culture is a tolerance to hanky panky of the mighty one. But friends, sometimes we should give up our culture. For our survival's sake. Ke garne ? Banchnai paryo !

So let's do it. Let's go to this.. our first experiment with honesty, this maiden voyage of truth, our pratham sahavaas with our future on an uncorrupted bed of bravery and sincerity.

One of the most popular phrases in the circle of civil society, particularly among those 'conflict management experts', since the first talk between the government and the Maoists took place, has been 'COMPROMISE'. I understand the diplomatic value of this phrase and that that's what happens eventually to the parties of a conflict. However, I feel this phrase is not serving it's purpose in the context of our conflict. As a matter of fact, I think, this phrase is doing the opposite- frightening the parties of the conflict and misleading the people.

A king is a king. He does not compromise. Got that ? He can sacrifice for the good of his subjects. But compromise ? What's that ?

Maoists are great revolutionaries, for God's sake. Sacrifice is their dharma. They don't do 'compromise'. That's a revisionism, that's a bourgeoisie ploy.

Now the ordinary people. When you say compromise.. compromise.. possibly what message goes to them ? That both parties we are talking about have legitimate positions. That they have a minor and solvable, but not a major and unsolvable disagreement. That the parties' slight flexibilities are all what is needed to solve the problem. That the people are supposed to accept them when they make an agreement between themselves. That that is even not a question. That people's huge participation has neither room nor is necessary in the process. And so on.

So I think 'SACRIFICE' is the phrase of the day. It is sexier, more powerful and telling than that dull phrase 'COMPROMISE'.

Now the honest, truthful, fare, fearless, bloodless, peaceful, democratic, economic and permanent solution to the Maoist problem and the answer to the other side of the coin, the question of the Monarchy.

We may chose not to thank the Maoists, but they have already tossed that solution in King's court.

The Constituent Assembly without any pre-condition about the Monarchy (the king is refusing it) and the Maoists (they don't have any) but with a guarantee of fundamental principles of democracy and freedom is the best and realistic solution at the moment.

While more and more people are mentally embracing it as the only exit from the present turmoil, some still have skepticism. And that is a good sign. Because our skepticism, concern and vigilance is what will make sure that there is no procedural flaws so that two extremists, the Maoists and the King, do not take undue advantage and that democracy remains intact or to be accurate becomes complete.

The king has yet to accept it, but he does not have too many choices. Either he has to resort to inviting foreign troops or give up. He may try to shield himself by putting political parties back to the 'chair' again. But that's just going back to the square one. That's not gonna change anything. I doubt he may choose abdication because he is enjoying the support of a major foreign power and, oops I almost forgot, deep ambivalence of some of our intellectuals. A simple referendum on Monarchy instead of CA is possible. However, it sounds harsher than CA to his prestige. So I am hopeful that sooner or later the king is going to accept CA.

Some believe that the king had given a signal of yes to CA or similar option to Maoists leaders, that's why they came to the capital. His current hesitation to accept it is due to friendly advice of foreign powers. This sounds plausible. Because why else would the King let Baburams come into his territory and, as I discussed above, spread their influence there for seven months ? I don't think he is that dumb to expect Baburam and Ram Bahadur come to his palace and say, 'Your majesty, here is our guns. Now would your majesty care to agree to make minor amends in the constitution so that we can satisfy our army and cadre?'

Whatever is the truth, the King's eventually gonna agree to CA or similar option. That's the only logical conclusion of the current balance of power of the King and the Maoists.

I did not talk much about the political parties. Because there is not much to talk about them. They don't have guns in their hands. And their equation with the King is more or less intact. The day Maoists questioned the authority of the King and the political parties failed to show they have authority to take decisions on that (that is from seven years ago until last Oct 4), they have lost their political relevance. Yes, they did not have political relevance all this time. Girija's and Sher Bahadur's attempts to solve the Maoists 'problem' was a joke. They merely were an elusive shield between the King and the Maoists.

It is the election of the proposed Constituent Assembly where our democratic political parties will regain their relevance. As a matter of fact, the success of CA to take out the country from the current mess and bring to a democratic path depends much on how our political parties succeeds to free themselves from the legacy of their corrupt co-existence with the King and how they succeed to snatch the agenda of a full democracy and other socio-economic agendas from the Maoists. Yes, our political parties with their purified hearts and changed role is out best bet. We just can not depend on a middle path automatically generated by the balance of two opposite and extremist forces, the King and the Maoists, although that is a safety net for success of CA to be in favor of the people.

There is nothing to be worry about CA per se. The only thing we should worry and therefore actively participate in public debate is about flaws, procedural or otherwise, that can creep in to sabotage it's very purpose, that is, not letting it to be a genuine expression of people's decision.

What are the chances that the Maoists or the King can abuse it to eventually establish their freedom-less regimes ?

Way too less than they will be able to do so by means other than CA.

What are the best, the worst and the most likely scenario of the election of CA and the constitution it will draft ?

In my view, the worst scenario is that we will have a better constitution than we have now. Now, before talking about the best scenario, I'd like to explain something first. It's about the likelihood of the King and the Maoists to accept democracy, yes yes, of course democratic republic of Nepal.

First the King. Assuming he is not a mad man and has some senses to know the objective world, it is safe to assume that once he accepts the proposal of CA, he knows that it is a public commitment to accept whatever is the result. He may hope this and that. He may even have some covert plan, let's say, spending kharabau rupaiya he has now to help elect his supporter candidates. Whatever he'd be thinking, he'd know that he has a public commitment to accept the result.

In case our honorable members of the Constituent Assembly decide to go for a republic, I don't think they will say 'now, take off that shripech, leave your money and leave the country'. Even the Maoists are not saying that. They are saying he will be given appropriate honor and he can keep his money. I personally don't mind even if he retains a title of the king (like bajhangi, Mustangi rajah) and keeps performing all cultural activities he is performing now- from exchanging the khadga with Devi to offering tika to thousands of people in Dashain. I am fine with giving him all the privileges except the political status. I do not know how much ambitious and greedy he and his family is, but to me, these proposals sound quite attractive, particularly when I inherit the throne by an accident (er.. accidental firing of a gun !). We will see when we come to that point.

Now, the Maoists. I do not have to introduce them here. Everybody, without exception, in this forum seems to know how ruthless they are, how evil their intentions are, how ferocious their determination is. They certainly deserve our condemnation, repugnance and curse that we have been expressing tirelessly here. Now, let's go one level up and try to identify what could have let them to be so, what could have let them be so and still be so God damn successful, what motivates them, both individually and collectively, where can we stop them, or shall we ever be able to ?

As I discussed earlier, a new illegal and political force (a Maoist-like, but pro-democracy and non-violent) was a historical need of the day when the Maoists emerged in today's form. Somebody had to come to expose the elusive power of the Monarchy and it's relation to crippling and degradation of parliamentary parties and a general national denial about the whole riddle. This need, this vacuum was filled by the Maoists. Had there been or emerged a democratic and non-violent force to do that job, the Maoists would not have emerged or even if they did, they would not be able to turn on so big mass they have now. Because what would they say to people, 'Hey people, let's go for a communist state' ? That does not sound very motivating.

I can't say with certainty what motivates the Maoists collectively. But let me share my experience of the time when I was an active member of ANNFSU (some of my colleagues are in the central leadership of the Maoists now, brrrrrr !!).

In brief, the central theme of our training, discussion and identification vis a vis other political parties and factions used to be our struggle to dethrone 'Samanti sattaa' and how others have inferior policy and programs to do that. The theme of communism was rarely a part of our meal. May be it was a post-meal desert, but definitely not the main course.

We all were clear about our democratic program- dismantle the Monarchy. But nobody was clear about our further communist program- establish 'Naulo Janabad'.

The basic difficulty was that nobody had an idea how the bourgeoisie democracy, once established, would give rise to a condition to establish the next 'Naulo Janabad', whatever that is, or further 'jana ganatantra', the full-flung communist regime. Was it by winning the election by majority enough to make required constitutional amendments or by winning the election by simple majority and then a coup d'état or by one more insurgency against whoever is in power was unclear. For this reason, nobody (among several factions of the communist party) had a clear khaka of 'Naulo Janabad' itself. It was a muddled concept with contradictory things. It was full of theoretical jargons and rhetoric but nobody had an idea how that will translate into the objective situation of Nepal. I suggest readers to go through the 75 points 'United Minimum Program' of the Maoists (a sajha poster had posted some parts of it in a thread), although the Maoists have shelved that for now, to understand what I mean.

My interpretation of all this is that the Maoists and all other communists of Nepal are actually never prepared for 'Naulo janabad'. Their vision ends at the bourgeoisie democracy, the democratic republic of Nepal.

And it shouldn't be surprising at all. Ousting the Monarchy first is already such a colossal, difficult and consuming task, they don't have time and energy to work out the things beyond that.

If they are actually not thinking about 'communist' programs, but rather only about 'democratic' program, how can they identify themselves with communism ?

In my time, it was Nepali Congress which we viewed as a force fighting only for some concession from the king, but not for the full democracy, was my identity - as the only and real revolutionary in Nepal. Today too, things are more or less the same. Except that the UML is competing with the NC for what the later stands. And, oh yes, I have grown up and I am no longer a communist. Maoists may call me a 'punjibadi buddijibi'.

There is one thing, however, that is alarming about the Maoists. That is, their relation with the international Maoist organizations, CCOMPOSA, MIM and RIM. Will that relation keep our Maoists from embracing the bourgeois democracy ?

I am optimistic that they will not be able to. First of all, these organizations are not powerful organizations. They are almost like paper organizations without any popular bases and resources. NCP(M) has more to give to them that they have to offer to the NCP(M). Then, I think, it is the isolation of the Maoists from the mainstream of Nepal that encouraged to highlight this logistically insignificant relation. Once the Maoists get a legal status and role in Nepal, this love affair will be more of a burden than something to show proudly. Do you remember how Comrades of UML removed the pictures of Marx, Engles and Mao from their Blakhu Durbar when Hon'ble Ambassador of the US visited them ?

Now, I think it is reasonable to hope that the glory of the success of the enormous and painful task of ousting the centuries-old Monarchy should be an incentive for the Maoists to own it, glorify it and defend it, the same way 'manchhe ko taauko kaatne Jhapali communists (UML) are doing with the glorious Jana Andolan of 2046.

If, God forbid, the Maoists tried to go beyond that to establish a communist state, then we will have no option but to wipe out the Maoists from the face of Nepal with whatever it takes, from the dirtiest war to military help from our international friends . And we will have a national resolve, unity and legitimacy to do that too.

Now, I will leave the rest for my readers to ponder, analyze and come to sensible conclusions. All I want to say here is that we do have the cure of the crisis of our country. We can stop our country from being a failed state. We just need to learn to think and see 'outside the box'. And we should stop being intimidated by the power of those who do not represent us.

We have had enough. We have blamed enough. We have been cynic enough. We have theorized enough. We have seen enough. We have wept enough. We have left a selfish king, a bunch of corrupt politician and a gang of misguided Maoists to ruin the country enough. Now is the time we the educated Nepali come forward and build the strong foundation of a modern, democratic and vibrant nation. Now is the time to say goodbye to denial, ad-hocism, compromise and ke-garne-ism for good.

The Constituent Assembly is our chance.

As I discussed above, there are not many choices for the king except to accept the Constituent Assembly or similar options if he wants to secure a future of honor. But you never know how an individual mind may work. He may be in a completely different world. As the Maoists may be justifying themselves with him, he may be justifying himself with them. But in any case, it's only matter of time. Sooner or later, they both should realize they are on the wrong side of the history.

Lastly, I want to address those who might be thinking I am dreaming a dream and those skeptics who might think what if the republicanism too failed.

I will borrow a line from a ghazal by Madhav Kaushik, a well-known poet from Chandigarh, as my reply-

Nepe hajur,

darshan!

dherai din pachhi jhulkinu bhayo ni. aram biram ke chha? katai minnesota tira sawari hoisya thiyo ki?

Why republicanism? term paper ho? gajal ko bhaka ma bhaye padhna sajilo hune thiyo.

Constitutional Maonarchy did not fail in last 12 years, it was
most successful. It was the failure of some idiots who high jacked
the democracy to fill up their pockets and stomachs.

GP

I think the other side of the coin "Maoist's verion" can be read
at

http://www.geocities.com/nc-fan-club/

You can understand Maoists of 1997-1999. I wonder whether
that Mao changed to ..........

Read the following number:

"There have been about 150 deaths--(15 policemen, 20 known Maoists, 50 innocent but Maoist fellow travelers, 65 spies/collaborators). "

In first ceasefire, it was 1500. In second ceasefire, it was 7500, now,
in third round: its going to be killing field as Prachanda cites, "may be
we have to kill half of the population?" i.e. 15million.

NEPE ,
Why don't u publish your article in some paper? A translation in nepali would be better to publish it in a nepali newspaper.

Nepe,
Extraordinary clarity and logical flow. For the first time, I did not lose my patience reading a political piece. Demonstrates your intellectual honesty and analytic capabilities, not to say your political knowledge and experience.

Nepeji,

To summarize you article: Monarchy is the root cause of present situation in Nepal and CA is the only soultion (as I undestand). I agree 100% with the first one and has some doubt on the second one.

This is an excellent article from the Republican side ( where I belongs to) and I expect similar article from the Monarcy side.

hmm satya ji,

From Monarchy side, let IF write something....EEtta ke jabaf patthar se dedo...eheeh

probably IF is busy with his classes in the land of dragons....

I have always beleived that theoritically republicanism is the best form of the political system. However, I had always doubt about its practicality in our case. Nepe jee's writing is really nice. It seems that I need to correct my belief. But,.......
Shall we wait for another opinions!

Bhunteji,

Land of dragons or land of morden emperors?

Today is Saturday and therefore no classes. IF might be busy with Chinese guniang.

Bhunte and GP ji,

Thank you for your remarks.
--------------------------------------------------------

Garibjanata,

Thanks for your suggestion. I will certainly like it to reach to a greater audience. However, I do not want to wait for myself to do it. I mean it is fine with me if you or anybody distributes or publish it, as it is or a modified version, translated in Nepali or in English, with or without referring me, in your own name or anybody's name. I do not claim it as an intellectual property of mine. Everybody, feel free to use it. You have my consent.

--------------------------------------------------------

Gokul ji,

Your words are going to make my life more difficult rather than easier.

--------------------------------------------------------

Ashu,

Yes, the credit for this article goes to your provocation. Thank you. I will certainly love to hear your criticism and feedback. If you find it worth publishing in any paper in Kathmandu, I will be grateful for you suggestion.

--------------------------------------------------------

Akawi,

Haven't seen you before. Welcome to Sajha. Yes, indeed. One should not give his/her judgement without hearing the both or, more accurately, all sides.

--------------------------------------------------------

Satya,

I agree with you. Regarding CA, I am not insisting on it. I am saying CA or similar options. My personal choice would be a simple referendum of Yes or No to the Monarchy followed by Constitutional ammendments by the elected parliament. I think this will be less messier and to the point. My doubt was whether the King finds it less prestigious than CA for himself.

Try refuting me.

The very essence of Monarchy is that the King is the sole rightful owner of his kingom or estate. The King does not work for the people; he works for himself, and for PROFIT. This is in fact a good thing. Just look at America, for instance. Here we have the Democrats and the Republicans. And here we have Gray Davis. The guy vetoed bill that let illegal immigrants procure driver's license without breaking a sweat. That was of course the right thing to do. California has hundreds of thousands of legal Latinos, who are for the bill. Since Davis is now facing a political upheaval, he suddenly changes his position and now is for providing driver's license to the illegals. Ergo, he was moulded by the will of the people, even though the longterm value of the estate will diminish because of this outrageous bill, as the illegals invading the country are unskilled laborers who can only find jobs by flipping burgers at Burger King or cleaning churches. On the other hand, the Monarch, in order to maximize his profit will think of Eugenics and thus will selectively allow high IQ immigrants to come in. This is of course a boon in the long run.

A monarchy does not function to serve the will of the masses, but that of the ruler, whose major objective is to ascertain that the estate is a long-term political/economic profit making-machine that abets him in filling up his pocket as quickly as possible. Think of him as the big bad capitalist. Of course, in order to prevent developmentd of political revolutions, he will have to pay people living in his land to do his bidding. Total capitalism, I tell you. Since I have essentially proven that the Monarch is essentially a capitalist, you can surely understand now why this can create an environment for revolutionists like the Maoists to boil with anger. So basically we have Monarchy, which is capitalistic on the macro level, and then we have systems developed like in America, where capitalism is on the micro level. Either way, both forms can create the environment for Maoists to gain popularity.

But we all know which system has proved to be expedient. That aren't any communist countries that you can call developed. None. Nada. Zilch. But that are many capitalistic countries that are highly developed. And so goes for constitutional monarchy as well, although I might say that what I described is absolute monarchy. Constitutinal monarchy is an in-between state. Answer me, why are these countries on the top of the economic ladder. These are all monarchy:
Denmark
Norway
Sweden
Belgium
Netherlands
Canada
Australia
Spain
Japan

If other countries can be successful, why can't we?