SHAMBHU THAPA: Eminent Lawyer and Senior Human Rights Advocate 1. Mr. Thapa began the presentation by noting that in a war of IDEAS, neither the Maoists, nor the Royalists can win, simply because they are trying to fight the war of IDEAS with guns. He said that the ideas and intelligence of the human kind could not be suppressed even by greatest dictators of our times, so neither can the King of Nepal do that today. 2. This war of IDEAS is going to be lengthy one. The fact that both warring parties, i.e., the King and the Maoists lack people from the mainstream middle ground means that there can be no negotiated settlement to the crisis at this present stage. 3. Constituent Assembly, according to Mr. Thapa, is not going to work as a panacea to Nepal?s political crisis either. He questioned if a Constituent Assembly was to be formed, and if the armed groups failed to elect "their" people in the assembly, would they easily give up arms and be content with the results? The answer from him was a resounding NO. The problem of political fractionalization has been exasperated by the fact that elements within each political groups have began to accuse each other of being soft, hence the notion of "real communists" or "less communists". The thoughts of those consider themselves "real communists" are laden with radicalism and that they will at no cost give up their armed revolution unless thy get it all their way. The idea of "no pre-conditions" to a constituent assembly cannot be contemplated either ? each other parties involved would obvious have their pre-conditions that conform to their own respective ideas. 4. Therefore, one solution can be to have an agreement among the middle ground people of the Maoists and the political parties in order to corner the King, provided that the that faction of "soft" Maoists would be willing to give up arms. If the King and the parties ally with each other to confront the Maoists, that would spell a major disaster IF they fail. The possibility of failure in this front is serious enough for a lot of people not to take this path. 5. Therefore, the best way forward would be to find ways to accommodate some of key legitimate demands of the Maoists on social justice into the government's policies and address those demands constitutionally and lawfully. If Sher Bahadur Deuba, the then Prime Minister, had given serious thought to identifying some of legitimate demands of the Maoists' 40-point demand, perhaps we would be n a totally different positive situation right now. 6. The King does not support the idea of multi-party democracy. He has proven his ill intent by imprisoning (in the name of containing terrorism) political leaders due to his personal loathe for them. Even the accusations of corruptions are invalid, for he had imprisoned the likes of Amik Sherchan and Narayan Bijukche, who have never even held any public post. He imprisoned the likes of Lokendra Bahadur Chand too, who is supposedly his own man, because Lokendra Bahadur served as a PM during multi-party system. Therefore, King?s intention seems clear that he is only looking into "selective punishment" of the system of democracy, rather than individuals who he claims to be corrupt. 7. Talking about corruption, the greatest corruption has been committed by the King's men themselves by indulging in the "corrupt practice on the constitution". 8. Even in 2017 BS, the King snatched authority from democratically elected government. There was not terrorism at the time, therefore this time too terrorism is just an excuse to squash democratic values. This war is not between terrorists and the government ? this war is between AUTOCRACY and DEMOCRACY. 9. 12 years of democracy has taught people some valuable lessons and has created enough awareness among them. We have been able to speak and express ourselves like we do today because democracy has empowered us to a great extent. The idea of "giving and taking away" fundamental rights of the people are non-sense and hold no truth to reality. The reality is that fundamental rights of the people are embedded in their existence from their birth. Any attempts to take away people's rights are unconstitutional and it kills the rule of law. 10. Vast majority of the lawyers in Nepal have been fighting neutrally for people's rights, regardless of the latter's ideology or political alliances. Only 21 lawyers out of over ten thousand registered are listed by the government to have supported the tyrannical regime. 11. Fear: Fear of being harmed personally is always there. Either one can desire to fight for public liberty and risk personal harm, or one can fear personal harm and refrain from fights to promote public liberty. Nepal bar Association has boldly chosen to fight for people's rights. 12. Defects in the constitution can be corrected constitutionally. Individuals can go astray, but the system cannot be blamed for individual?s ineptitude and incompetence. Mr. Thapa also highlighted some of the actions that Nepali Diaspora in the US can take vis-?-vis struggle for democracy in Nepal: 1. Keep feeding the local media here in the US with information on Nepal's condition and the status of fight for democracy. 2. Lobby to send fact-finding missions to Nepal consisting of US law makers. They should be encouraged to meet not only people of certain groups, but to engage in dialogues with individuals from EVERY aspect of Nepali crisis to accurately assess the situation. 3. Send reports of pro-democracy activities here in the US to Nepal. This will provide encouragement and strength to people struggling for democracy at home. 4. Raise funds to support pro-democracy institutions and activities in Nepal. Financial help is direly needed. 5. Organize a grand discussion forum on Nepal (on a convention level), and include speakers from ALL aspects of the conflict. Send reports/conclusions of such convention(s) to Nepal. This would also provide moral boost to pro-democracy activists in Nepal. 6. Mr. Thapa concluded his presentation by commenting that state of emergency rules only repress the strength of the civil society institutions, and do not provide for a good foundation for governance. The strength of the civil society (individual members and institutions) cannot be underestimated either. The present constitution of Nepal does not give ultimate authority to govern to the King, the power which is divinely vested upon the parliament only.