On a related note, The Himsa Birodh Abhiyan has demanded a unilateral ceasefire from the Maoists. Below is the press release. ***************************************** Press Release Demand for Ceasefire 10 February 2006 The Himsa Birodh Abhiyan (Campaign against Violence) has called on the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) to immediately declare a ceasefire in order to help achieve political resolution and reinstatement of peace. This call comes at a time when the country has been pushed back towards a violent, weapons-based polarisation following the end of the four-month long unilateral Maoist ceasefire. Such polarisation dims the possibility of peace and also renders the country more vulnerable politically, economically and socially. The developing situation also further jeopardises the coming together of all forward-looking democratic forces. The Campaign believes that only a ceasefire will promote a peaceful political evolution under the current context. At a time when the state establishment is bent on suppression of political forces and shows no inclination itself to call a ceasefire, the Campaign believes that a cessation of fire by the CPN (Maoist) can have the result of restraining the state. The Campaign recalls that the four-month ceasefire had the result of partially restoring the political image of the CPN (Maoist), and resuming the ceasefire would have the same effect. A ceasefire would also be a natural corollary to the publicly expressed commitment to non-violent political change by the senior-most Maoist leader in a newspaper interview. It does not seem possible that the 12-point understanding of November 2005 between the Maoists and the political parties can be implemented in the absence of a ceasefire. Further, the return to escalating violence can only destroy the power and position of the political parties who believe in non-violent political transformation. Contact: Kedar Sharma, Himsa Birodh Abhiyan himsabirodh@gmail.com ***************************************** And here is one of my postings to Nep Dem Google group in full support of the demand and in more demand to the civil society for being more STRINGENT regarding the campaign for PEACE and DEMOCRACY. ----- Original Message ----- From: ... To: nepaldemocracy@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 4:43 PM Subject: [ND] Re: DEMAND FOR MAOIST CEASEFIRE ...-jee and all friends, I have been carrying a serious complaints about lack of STRINGENCY in pro-democracy activism of the civil society in Nepal. Before explaining my complaint, however, I would like to talk about the things I admire Nepal's civil society about. I admire CS for it's strong grasp that peace and democracy are connected. SC no more talks about absolute or abstract peace in Nepal. Thanks to King Gyanendra's take over, it has opened everybody's eyes. Otherwise the discourse on peace before Oct 2002 used to be frustratingly abstract, so much so that Baburam Bhattarai used to ridicule by pointing that. I also admire CS for getting out of "twin-pillars" box of democracy. Once again with due thanks to King Gyanendra for revealing the bricks one pillar is actually made up of. I also admire CS for finally recognizing/identifying THE PEOPLE (Constituent Assembly/ Popular movement ) as the party that has the ultimate legitimacy and power to resolve the conflict the way it wants. However, there seems some confusion about it's stance on the nature of movement, political leadership and, more importantly, about post-conflict building of the nation. And this confusion, the way I see it, is not due to lack of knowledge about democracy or due to lack of intelligence to evaluate leadership or due to lack of imagination to speculate about future. This confusion, the way I see it, is due to being unsure about whether STRINGENCY or LAXNESS is more helpful to build a political movement. Err.. , No, actually CS seems to believe that STRINGENCY towards the perceived bigger enemy and LAXNESS towards lesser enemy is the way to go. That might be a good strategy for other situations in life, but not for the movement for democracy in Nepal. The movement for democracy in Nepal is not a uni-dimensional movement for "restoration" or even "establishment" of democracy. The movement for democracy in Nepal is a multi-dimensional (three-dimensional, to be exact) movement for "re-defining" democracy. Yes, "re-defining", but not really in unlimited way. The way democracy has come to this point of our history for re-definition, there are only THREE elements to be fixed. Let's say, we have three anti-democracy elements to reject. That's all. That will complete the job. The three anti-democracy elements that need to be rejected by our democracy are, 1. Illegitimate Ambition (king's) 2. Extremism (Maoists') 3. Unpopularity (Political leadership's) These three elements are inter-dependent. As a matter of fact, the stalemate we talk about is the stalemate of ambition, extremism and unpopularity of the King, the Maoists and the supreme leadership of the major party/ies, respectively. Being lax or apologetic or prioritized about one and stringent or militant about another will not work, because that will make you one of the parties itself. The problems of Nepal's democracy is extremely clear [to general mass]. So forget about LAXNESS. You got to be STRINGENT to every anti-democratic element and parties. Otherwise you won't get people's trust. And without people's trust, you can only go so far. CS in Nepal is the most trusted among all organized things at the moment. However, if it fails to exhibit it's stringent approach as I described above, I am afraid it is going to lose that trust soon. That will be the most disastrous thing to happen. So, I think, CS has one extremely rigorous test to pass/ show to people, which is that it is not soft to any of the three anti-democratic characters of three political payers in Nepal. CS needs to do the following three things rigorously, simultaneously and with perseverance, 1. Reject King's ambition (at the moment this is only thing CS is rigorous about) 2. Reject Maoist's extremism ( what CS is doing is not stringent enough) 3. Reject unpopular leaders of the leading parties (this is what CS is not sure about to do). Regarding (1), no suggestion is necessary. CS is doing great. Regarding (2), I am glad to hear CS's request (make that a demand) to the Maoists for a seize-fire. Now, what is left is a demand that Maoists issue a public pratigya-patra declaring "multi-party democracy" as their final and unalterable principle from now on. Regarding (3), Demand political parties to give leave to leaders convicted by CIAA for now and find a new commander for Loktantrik andolan. Girija Prasad Koirala is incompetent for the job. If CS has guts to do all of the above karmas, then all good things will follow. We do not need to worry. "Karmanye va dhikarasthe, Ma phaleshu kadachana". Apurna karma garee, purna phal ko asha rakhna chhadaun. Sincerely, ... ... -------------------------------