Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy On Nepal
in the US Congress
on December 21, 2005

Some interesting points: (mostly verbatim)

� The army continues to see itself as the defender of an anachronistic, corrupt and autocratic monarchy.

� The political parties do not have a record of putting the interests of the nation above their own self interest. They urgently need to reform. Yet they are the real representatives of the Nepali people and there is no substitute for them.

� The international appeal to the King for reconciliation have failed. The Bush Administration should apply whatever pressure it can, including denying U.S. visas to Nepali officials and their families.

� The municipal elections announced by King Gyanendra for early next year, without any consultation with the political parties, are no solution. An attempt to apply a veneer of legitimacy to an otherwise undemocratic process will only prolong and exacerbate this crisis.

� There is a growing possibility that the King�s obstinacy and unpopularity will trigger massive civil unrest, shootings and arrests of many more civilians by soldiers and police, Nepal�s further isolation, and perhaps the end of the monarchy itself.

� 12 point understanding could be the basis for a national dialogue to restore democracy and end the conflict

� The United States should do everything possible including supporting a broadly inclusive political dialogue with or WITHOUT the participation of the palace.


Full speech:
- http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200512/122105f.html
- http://www.blog.com.np/?p=1052#more-1052

i thought nepal was going to be a democratic republic or at least the parties would declare that and fight against the monarcy (which may either be a smart move or a very stupid move) by the end of this year. We can't even trust the political leaders either. Madhav Nepal jee proclaimed to storm the capital and palace with 5 lac nepalese right after the festivals, but fell short. and two of three political forces joining hands and many party leaders leaving their parties to be with the king and continue the election.. sounds very very scary. now that there is only one party left with "constituional monarcy" in their statute, nepal is turmoiling... aba kay garney.. garney haru jati sabai america ma chhan.. malai jana ta man chha, tara.. mero kura tyaha kasley sunney.. kasaiko kura kasley sunney.. so.. just predict, speculate and watch.. and be sad and enjoy

I personally don't think that Ashu is a royalist. I think it's quite the contrary.

But looks to me that the problem is that in his quest to prove himself distinctly special and right all the time, Ashu has ended up disagreeing with some of the fundamental ideals that even he shares. With little misinterpretations and his wasted defense [to prove Nepe and others stupid], he has now put himself in a difficult position with some of Sajha's democracy proponents seeing him as their strategic opponent in this debate.

As for the real life Ashutosh Tiwari vs. Ashu, it looks to me that he often and deliberately tries to draw people to Ashutosh Tiwari through his postings. This obviously has risks, and he should be aware of it. If you do not wish to keep the two separate, people are going to comment on either (whichever they find convenient). But when people start critiquing Ashutosh Tiwari, he objects to it and says it doesn't have to be about him and such...

So I think it would be really useful if Ashu changed his ID and mentioned of no association with Ashutosh Tiwari. Otherwise, it's really easy for his sajha critics to inadvertently encroach into his real-life personal space and piss him off, as much as they wouldn't like to.

I am sure Ashu is well aware of this and prefers to leave it this way. To him, the advantages of this perhaps outweigh the occasional personal assaults? I don't know...

So people who try to object to his real-life character being attacked need to realize that, yes it is a very sad thing, but Ashu can keep this from happening if he chooses.

Use a nickname, just like many of us here do.

" garney haru jati sabai america ma chhan.."

No matter how much we hate party leaders, I want them to continue what they are doing these days even more vigorously.
Hoina Sujan, garne haru yahin chan,

The Fundamental Wrong with the Ashu et al brand of NEUTRALITY is that is not neutral.

They say, the political parties "of yore" are a spent force - morally, ethically blah blah.

And so the King is morally, ethically sound??? The only reason the King is not a spent force is because he has command over the MILITARY FORCE - and I don't think anyone doubts that.

Anyone who does not see the power asymmetry between the King - a god, a military supreme commander - and the Netas - mere mortals - is deliberately blindfolding herself.



And anybody who says there was no progress in the 10-odd years is a sorry victim of propaganda. Or is propagating it.

Indifference between two unequal options is NOT neutrality, mere indifference.

And no, this is not just semantic. Neutrality is a much stronger word than indifference. For starters, it implies knowledge of the difference options AND the difference between them. In other words, indifference can be a result of ignorance, neutrality cannot.

And just the fact that your automobile is in the "neutral" gear does not mean your car is not moving - it could be moving in EITHER direction, backwards or forwards.

Whatmore states"Anyone who does not see the power asymmetry between the King - a god, a military supreme commander - and the Netas - mere mortals - is deliberately blindfolding herself." he he What do you think ? Ppl don't goto colleges and universities for nothing. By making that statement you are undermining your fellow countrymen's intelligence.

WHATMORE STATES,"The only reason the King is not a spent force is because he has command over the MILITARY FORCE - and I don't think anyone doubts that." he he The main reason the king made a comeback was because of all the MORONIC POLITICIANS did so well in the past 15yrs. That gave a very good excuse for the king for Coup d'etat.

WHATMORE,"And anybody who says there was no progress in the 10-odd years is a sorry victim of propaganda. Or is propagating it." AND YOU ARE NOT MR KNOWETALL ! Show us the facts not a lameass statement.

Whoever gets the credit but you can't deny development in last 10 years. I would attribute a large portion to technological advancement in this decade. A little credit goes to those Moronic Politician who didn't block the flow.

In last decade Education sector had made a lot of progress. if not qualitative, quantitative indicators are better than before. Media has flourished. Everybody in the country knew which MP got his forge bills reimbursed. People are more informed and aware. Dependency on agricultural products has gone down. Country with such a hugh population and little natural resources can't make a leap jump. so was the case in India.

of course some of these morons are responsible for the rising of the rebels and the latest coup. They will learn their lesson and we will benefit from that. the democratic exercise will be more fair and better than before. its unfortunate that, king came into the scene and delayed the process. He made a decision, he will reap his harvest.

Hark_Bahadur, you got that half-right. Good thing you came out and posted what you presumed unlike some who has malicious intention but pretends to be sanctimonious.

Regarding your semi-correct assertion, you need to develop more critical thinking. Let's see how we can go about it. . . umm, how about writing an essay for your GMAT yet again? Post the contents here if you can score "7". :)

Not that sajha is a holy abode or Hollywood, and you obviously "matter," but I had to dig in to archives to see if you ever existed before in sajha. Honestly!

Now that I am in this politically charged discussion, where personal good-ol' "love" is obviously flowing amongst rationale arguments; let me be audacious enough to assert my belief.

Although, circumstances permitting, democracy is self correcting mechanism, I stand firm on my understanding that, until and unless political parties reform themselves (which SHOULD AND MUST include, developing new leaders, or for that matter anyone with some creditability who has NOT been protagonist in innumerable ignominious actions, avariciously sucking our blood while shouting democracy and what not, and leaving us in the bottomless pit to reek), I can not see these parties representing general Nepalese population which nullifies their power to bring any change to the current stronghold of the monarch. Party reform MAY not be pre-requisite for democracy, yes, but it definitely has to be "significantly" unambiguous for a regular, unpaid, not-there-for-amusement everyday foot soldier to put his body in the line of fire.

(IMO) --> Failing which, to imagine sovereignty that those inept politicians seek "in words" is whimsical at best. I mean, look at those cream of the pack so-called leaders. They are nothing but self-obsessed Narcissi, whose sole drive is their own self-interest. My personal opinion has always been this: "Those old farts, good for nothing, corrupt leaders MUST GO." There is nothing to discuss about it really. Period!

Also, I am not at all convinced that Maoists gives a rat's ass about what these political leaders would say IF they can take over the center. They, the Maoists, would ostracize these good-for-nothing leeches once their interests are met. We shall see if and when the time comes.

contd...

Like I said before too, by virtue of being born as a human, and a mind to think, rest assured, you can be certain that my blood is every bit as red as yours. I DO NOT believe anyone posses a moral, or any other right to rule by birth. I am adamant that I should be every bit "eligible" (Note: I did not say "capable," but hey, may be, may not be: who knows.) to lead the state as any of you, including Gyanendra. I want to live in a country where no one poses a birth right to anything, where no one is above the law and my liberty is protected just as any other citizen. I do not doubt the dreams that these so-called moral less corrupt to the bone leaders are propagating, but I do have a damn reservation about their real intentions, and the leaders themselves, so much so that I would rather wait and watch in the hope that we can finally see a reformed fresh political parties WITHOUT these old and corrupt farts, and with some creditable leaders.

I am just sick and tired of these disgusting personalities talking democracy while they moved from "chappal" to Pajero in no time, whereas all they have given us is nostrum which inevitably failed to bring any good to our society and nation in general.

Before I answer anyone about me being touted as "darbariya" and what not, let me make my stand clear on monarchy. I am fine with ritual monarchy as long as it is under the law, does not have power over ANY state mercenaries, bar their privately funded "sasthans" or whatever. Oh yeah, they better pay their taxes too and cut those god-damn millions they get. This has been my standing in the nutshell.

Feel free to disagree with my notion, but I stand firm on my observation, knowingly fully that I am, if not more, as good a citizen, as good a Nepali, and as free thinker as ANY of the self-proclaimed democrats. I do not believe shouting loudest against monarchy gives one the right to be in the position to bark at others not concurring with him/her. And I definitely do not believe it makes them stand on the moral high ground.

Look, opinions can be divided, understanding can be flawed, and we all can look at "a" picture and can be attracted by entirely separate reasons and also find flaws not agreeing with one another; in essence draw entirely differing depiction. Instead of acting like a hound dogs, ready to pounce and propagate things with "mirch-masala," why not use rationale and use our best judgment instead of maligning each other and branding people as this and that just because s/he did not sheep-walked with our perceptions.

Phewwwwwwwwww!!!! ;)

IndisGuise:)

kasto time paayeko lekhna lai indi.. keep it up ;)

Indi,
Everyone must have some birth right, dude. are you blowing smokes or typing in sleep.
Right to live, talk and of course poke...

Bravo Indi!!! ALl of ya all read what Indi wrote.

SunnyDev,

Parties are just paving a way to maoists. They are too selfish to think about commoners.

Self proclaimed couch democrats,

When you talk about Ashu, He is working in Nepal and giving back to the community in the form of his expertise unlike just taking a crap in some threads.

Echoes,

Your statement about Ashu is self contradictory in your last post.

peace out

Iamme :)
---

Testdirector, I was referring as someone regarded sacrosanct so much so that s/he can be above everyone else. Please do not twist the meaning.

On the second thought, might I as well take your birth right to poke in this case into cosideration and leave it at that.

Dhanyebaad.

IndisGuise:)

"I stand firm on my understanding that, until and unless political parties reform themselves (...), I can not see these parties representing general Nepalese population which nullifies their power to bring any change to the current stronghold of the monarch." --IndisGuise

I realize that the rest of your posting is really about supporting this point. So I'll take a crack at this with the hope that it will address your other arguments, as well.

The so called "stronghold of the monarch" is a myth if you travel anywhere outside Kathmandu. If the king had any meaningful influence over the population, the stalemate that exists in Nepal would have ended (or at least subsided) since he declared himself in charge. He has repeatedly put his influence to test (through regional visits, populist actions like changing administrative headquarters, firing "bad guys", and such) but none has worked thus far and there is no reason to believe that similar will work in the future.

Now the question then is, what is it that still keeps the monarch in power? The only reasonable answer I have is that it's his command over the Army. This is where it gets tough. The king would've been toppled long ago had it not been for this force at his disposal. Any pragmatic view of the situation will compel you to realize that the monarch is willing to kill as many people as needed to secure his status [again, it's not the people's interest that he has in mind] and that's what he has done and is going to do.

So now, as a citizen, you pretty much have two choices. Do you want to let this continue to happen because Girija Prasads are really bad or has the time come for you to realize that there is a greater threat to democracy...potentially winding the country back to the 50s. It's a matter of priority now. And my assessment is that the Nepali people have started realizing this, and as bad as their party leaders are, they are willing to fight for the restoration of democracy. This can be verified by the increasingly greater (I admit, the progress has been slow) participation of the people in the protests, rallies and mass meetings, despite a systematic crackdown, and even curfews, in some cases.

So I do not see that a few bad party leaders will necessarily cause the people to look the other way, or stop them from revolting, when things have gone terribly wrong.

" Your statement about Ashu is self contradictory in your last post" --highfly

Care to say where exactly and how so that I could perhas correct myself? Thanks.

"So now, as a citizen, you pretty much have two choices. Do you want to let this continue to happen because Girija Prasad’s are really bad or has the time come for you to realize that there is a greater threat to democracy...potentially winding the country back to the 50s. It's a matter of priority now."
- Echoes.

-->Your argument is based to hit home this point, thus I am taking a stab at this one.

I agree with you on two counts here:

1)"...there is a greater threat to democracy..."
2) "It is a matter of priority."

Let me illuminate the reasons why, and that shall hopefully give an insight on my understanding for holding my fort, while respecting your beliefs.

There is indeed a threat to democracy, peace and our everyday life in general, more so in coming days, than what we already have now. Let me segregate those threats in three coteries. (I understand education, poverty, etc. al., are also defining factors, but for the sake of not digressing, I shall present it in three coteries)

i) Monarchy
ii) Political Parties (with MANY leaders who are CORRUPT, IMMORAL, INEPT TO THE BONE, which is basically a "kamai khane bhado" of some leader & NOTHING else. )
iii) Maoists

Each of these three represents threat to democracy. Yes, even political parties as well. The way our politicians tends to get stuck like a leech and practices anarchy when in power and EVEN in their OWN party, in the sense that they can, in essence get away with anything and play a round game, which obviously never comes to conclusion, is a threat to democracy, IMO. Democracy only came to those who were in power, and has been the case till day in our country. Alas!

Now which one shall we, as an individual and as a society as a whole see as the greater threat? It is like choosing the lesser evil amongst the three.

Let's see. . .

Ideally the best solution would be to discard the two and hug political parties. They are supposed to be regular people's chosen representative to work our interest. Are they not? SO, have they? No I mean really. And with the leaders as such, will they?

Dovetail that with the threat of Maoists taking over the center by virtue of our very "capable" (pun intended) leader's yet another fatal failure to hold all the power that be, ARMED and civil; I fear to depict the scenario.

Thus, to have capable, fresh leaders is must, along with thrwoing these reeking leaders, to inspire a revolution such that someone can actually "hold" the population together, lest we see the genocide/holocaust to the proportion of Rwanda.

Before we disagree on this, the chaotic history of our country with regards to some of the gross human rights violation by both parties should be taken in to account. The point I want to hit home is, it could happen.

After all said and done, we are at the crossroad here, where, like you said, "it's a matter of priority." Absolutely, I agree, it is. I see the main threat to the nation as Maoist and you, the Monarchy.

While we both have the same interest, a peaceful progressive democratic Nepal, looking in to the dawn of 21st century with a hope for the bright future; not the fear of bloody red state and absolute monarchy.

I am afraid, this tiny, but significant twist in our priority have distanced our beliefs. I say, the time to get rid of these corrupt, inept leeches is NOW, because IF they achieve their goal, they would be almost as hard to get rid of. What then? Another blood bath copulated with another revolution to get rid to democratic anarchy? Why not start cleaning our house, i.e., political parties when the time is opportune. That, IMO, should be the priority, so that when the brothers and sisters will come to the streets they would know that they are NOT fighting for some Girjas, Makunes, Govindes, Wagles, Joshis, Bam devs WAR, or neither are they helping Nepal paint red for Maoists, but they are fighting for a new hope and new beginning in the true sense.

The movement would be fundamental IFF this happens. Or else, we will get democracy in "chillar" - meaning, in coin changes.

Yes, it is all about priority.

IndisGuise:)

Indi,
नेपालको लागि यो समयमा नेतृत्व हस्तान्तरणका सबै चरणहरु प्रक्रियागत रुपमा पुरा गरेर प्रजातान्त्रिक शक्तिहरुले अनि बल्ल सँघर्षमा उत्रिनेकी भन्ने सोचाइ राख्नु गलत हुन्छ । अहिले यी कुरामा लाग्ने समय हैन, पार्टीहरुको जुन वनावट (structure) छ त्यसमा अदलबदल गर्नतिर लाग्ने हो भने सबै पार्टीहरु अर्कैखाले विवादका भुमरीमा अलझिन्छन् जसले श्री ५ को कालो शाशन लाइ अझै बलियो बनाउन सक्छ। पार्टीभित्र सुधार अनि नयाँ पुस्ताको नेत्रित्व भन्नेकुरा प्रजातान्तरिक अभ्यास सगै बिस्तारै समयले लिएर आउँछ । त्यसैले, अहिलेको प्राथमिकता भनेको जसरी हुन्छ, राजाको मनमनीयूक्त एकतन्त्रिय शाशन प्रणालीको अन्त्य गर्नु र प्रजातान्त्रीक पद्दतीको शुरुवात गर्नु नै हो भन्ने मलाइ लाग्छ ।

Echoes,

You mentioned in the some thread above that Ashu is royalist and in the other thread you do not believe he is. Ashu can defend his stance himself. I thought those statements made by you were contradictory.

Lets get back to issue now.

"Any pragmatic view of the situation will compel you to realize that the monarch is willing to kill as many people as needed to secure his status [again, it's not the people's interest that he has in mind] and that's what he has done and is going to do." Echoes

You got this right. The Nagarkot incident is just a mere example of "power of gun". To bring any changes these old farts in the name of party leaders need to go. Its a must so that there could be pressure on the king and the parties can move the mass.

In Feb, its gonna be a complete year of Royal Takeover. Why cannot the leaders generate public support? I think its because the commoners do not trust them anymore and are not willing to trust them anymore. Its very rational too. How can you trust anyone who is gonna stab you at the back?

"The democracy is a self correcting mechanism holds truth if there is a democracy." But reality is there is autocracy. But there is not anybody who is representing democracy and people. There is no leader to lead. The so called leaders are too corrupt and selfish. Did you catch my drift here??

How is it possible for a democracy when there is no leaders who is gonna lead the movement to bring democracy?

Airight more later.

peace out