आदिवासी लोकतन्त्र: त्यो अफगान मोडेल जसलाई अमेरिकाले कहिल्यै प्रयास नै गरेन

Tribal Democracy: The Afghan Model America Never Tried

आदिवासी लोकतन्त्र: त्यो अफगान मोडेल जसलाई अमेरिकाले कहिल्यै प्रयास नै गरेन

सन् 2001 मा जब संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिकाले अफगानिस्तानमा आक्रमण गर्‍यो, उसले कुनै “जातीय” देशमा होइन, तर स–साना राष्ट्रहरूको देशमा प्रवेश गर्‍यो — पुराना, गर्विला, परम्परामा गहिरा र नेतृत्वमा विशिष्ट। “Tribe” भन्ने शब्द आफैं गलत थियो; यसले अफगान समाजलाई पिछडिएको र टुक्रिएको देखायो, जबकि वास्तवमा त्यो विविधता र आत्मनियममा आधारित जटिल संरचना थियो। अमेरिका बुझ्न असफल रह्यो — अफगानिस्तानमा लोकतन्त्र सम्भव थियो, तर अमेरिकी किसिमको लोकतन्त्र होइन।

---

छुटेको नक्सा: नक्कल गणराज्य होइन, एक जनजातीय महासंघ

लोकतन्त्रको अर्थ हो आफैंले शासन गर्ने अधिकार — न कि थोपिएको शासन। तर अमेरिकाले यसलाई गलत बुझ्‍यो। उसले अफगान जनताको बीचबाट उम्किन सक्ने स्वतःस्फूर्त लोकतन्त्रलाई बढावा दिनुको सट्टा वाशिंगटनको नक्कल मोडेल थोप्‍यो — राष्ट्रपति प्रणाली, पश्चिमी संस्थाहरू, र विदेशीहरूद्वारा नियन्त्रित चुनाव।

तर अफगानिस्तानका लागि राम्रो मोडेल एउटा जनजातीय लोकतन्त्र हुन सक्थ्यो — एउटा ढिलो महासंघीय संरचना, जहाँ प्रत्येक जातीय वा स्थानीय समूहले आफ्नै नेता रोज्थ्यो, र ती सबै मिलेर राष्ट्रिय राष्ट्रपति चयन गर्थे। यो, वास्तवमा, अमेरिकी इलेक्टोरल कलेज को प्रारम्भिक अवधारणासँग मिल्दो थियो — स्थानीय सहमतिको तह हुँदै संघीय एकताको निर्माण।

अफगानिस्तानमा प्रत्येक “जनजाति” लाई राजनीतिक स्वायत्तता दिन सकिन्थ्यो। स्थानीय परिषदहरूले न्याय, शिक्षा र कानून कार्यान्वयनको जिम्मेवारी लिन सक्थे। तालिबानलाई नष्ट गर्नुको सट्टा अवशोषित गर्न सकिन्थ्यो — स्थानीय प्रहरी, प्रान्तीय सुरक्षा बल वा राष्ट्रिय सेनाका रूपमा। उनीहरूको पोशाक पश्चिमी होइन, अफगानी पहिचान झल्काउने हुन सक्थ्यो। सांस्कृतिक मौलिकता वैचारिक थोपाइभन्दा बलियो हुन्थ्यो।

---

इस्रायलबाट सिकाइ: विखण्डनबाट एकतासम्म

इस्रायल बन्नुअघि त्यहाँ पनि विभिन्न सशस्त्र समूहहरू थिए — हगनाह, इरगुन, लेही — आफ्ना-आफ्ना कमाण्ड, भू–भाग र लक्ष्यसहित। उनीहरूले लडे, वार्ता गरे, र अन्ततः एकजुट भएर इजरायल डिफेन्स फोर्सेस स्थापना गरे। अफगानिस्तानले पनि यस्तो बाटो लिन सक्थ्यो। प्रत्येक जातीय मिलिसिया, प्रत्येक स्थानीय सेनापति, आवश्यकताका आधारमा र संवादका माध्यमबाट एउटै झण्डामुनि आउन सक्थे। एकता विदेशी निर्देशनबाट होइन, राष्ट्रिय आवश्यकता र सहमति बाट जन्म लिने थियो।

---

भारतको उदाहरण: नियन्त्रण होइन, सम्मान

वाशिंगटनको अहंकारको तुलना नयाँ दिल्लीको सूझबूझसँग गर्न सकिन्छ। भारतीय कूटनीतिज्ञहरूले अफगान नेताहरूसँग बराबरीको व्यवहार गरे। उनीहरूलाई विद्यार्थी होइन, साझेदार माने। भारतले सडक, शिक्षा र सांस्कृतिक परियोजनाहरूमा लगानी गर्‍यो — जसले अफगानी आत्मसम्मान र आत्मनिर्णयलाई मान्यता दियो। नतिजा थियो विश्वास, निर्भरता होइन।

---

साम्राज्यको अहंकार

अमेरिकाले यस्तो किन गरेन? किनभने ढिलो–ढिलो विकसित हुने लोकतन्त्र सैन्य–औद्योगिक संरचना का लागि फाइदाजनक हुँदैन। जराबाट पुनर्निर्माण ढिलो र कम–नाफा हुने काम हो; तर सबै कुरा ध्वस्त पारेर ठेक्का र सल्लाहकारका सहायताले पुनर्निर्माण गर्नु — अत्यन्त लाभदायक व्यापार हो। प्रत्येक नष्ट गाउँ पछाडि नयाँ ठेक्का थियो। प्रत्येक नयाँ संविधान पछाडि दर्जनौं अमेरिकी सल्लाहकारका बिलहरू। वाशिंगटनका अधिकारीहरूले कागजमा “प्रगति” देखाउन सके, भले पनि वास्तविक अफगान धरातलमा केही नहोस्।

अमेरिकी शक्ति–अहंकार — नियन्त्रणको लत — ले अफगानिस्तान र इराकमा केवल खरबौं डलर होइन, लाखौं ज्यानहरू पनि गुमायो। पेन्टागन र सीआईएलाई लाग्यो, उनीहरूले वैधता “इन्जिनियर” गर्न सक्छन्। तर लोकतन्त्र हवाईजहाजबाट झर्दैन — त्यो जनताको माटोमा उम्रन्छ।

---

साँचो शक्ति संयममा हुन्छ

साँचो शक्ति बोलाइमा होइन, सुन्ने क्षमतामा हुन्छ। अफगानिस्तानमा अमेरिका धेरै बोल्यो, कम सुनेको। उसले आदर्श थोप्‍यो, विचार रोपेन। जनजातीय महासंघ — अफगान शैलीको लोकतन्त्र — सायद सुरुवातमा उदार वा लैङ्गिक समानता भएको हुँदैन। महिलाहरूले सुरुवातमा मताधिकार पाउने थिएनन् होला। तर समयसँगै त्यो विकसित हुन सक्थ्यो — जसरी अमेरिकी लोकतन्त्र आफैं शताब्दीऔँमा विकसित भयो, विरोधाभास र सुधारका साथ।

तालिबानलाई शत्रु मानेर मेटाउने होइन, राष्ट्रका अंगको रूपमा समावेश गर्ने बाटो लिन सकिन्थ्यो। स्थानीय स्वायत्तताबाट सुरक्षासँगै आत्मसम्मान पनि आउँथ्यो। तर त्यहाँ ज्ञान होइन, अहंकार हावी भयो।

---

सम्भव भएको महासंघ

कल्पना गर्नुहोस् एउटा यस्तो अफगानिस्तानको जहाँ —

• प्रत्येक जनजातीय क्षेत्रले आफ्नो नेता छान्थ्यो।

• ती सबै नेताहरूले मिलेर एक ग्राण्ड काउन्सिल बनाएर राष्ट्रिय राष्ट्रपति चयन गर्थे।

• स्थानीय मिलिसियाहरूलाई जनजातीय प्रहरीमा रूपान्तरण गरिन्थ्यो।

• तालिबान आफ्ना प्रान्तका सुरक्षा संरक्षक बन्न्थे।

• महिलाका अधिकार शिक्षा र स्थानीय सहमतिबाट क्रमशः विस्तार हुन्थे।

• र लोकतन्त्रको अर्थ हुन्थ्यो — आफैंले शासन गर्ने अधिकार, न कि विदेशी प्रमाणपत्र।

यो असम्भव थिएन। बस लाभदायक थिएन।

---

नसुन्नेको मूल्य

अमेरिकी सैन्य–औद्योगिक तन्त्र र वाशिंगटनका “कागजी अफिसरहरू” ले साझेदारी होइन, अधिपत्य रोजे। उनीहरूले विदेशमा लोकतन्त्रका नाममा सरकारहरू ढाले, तर लोकतन्त्रको आत्मा गुमाए। अफगानिस्तानमा उनीहरूले लोकतन्त्र बनाएनन् — निर्भरता बनाए।

दुनियाको सबैभन्दा शक्तिशाली देश बिर्सियो कि सभ्यताको साँचो मापन तपाईं कति जोडले बोल्नु हो होइन, कति गहिराइमा सुन्न सक्नु हो। र जब अमेरिका सुन्न असफल रह्यो, उसले अफगानिस्तान मात्र होइन — आफ्नो नैतिक स्पष्टतासमेत गुमायो।

---

निष्कर्ष: लोकतन्त्र दिइँदैन, हुर्काइन्छ

लोकतन्त्र कुनै निर्यात–योग्य वस्तु होइन; यो स्थानीय वैधता र सांस्कृतिक माटोबाट अंकुरिन्छ। अफगानिस्तानलाई अमेरिकी लोकतन्त्र चाहिएको थिएन — उसलाई अफगानी लोकतन्त्र चाहिएको थियो। स–साना राष्ट्रहरूको महासंघ, कठपुतली गणराज्य होइन। अफगानिस्तानको वास्तविक त्रासदी यो होइन कि लोकतन्त्र असफल भयो — तर यो कि, उसलाई कहिल्यै साँचो अर्थमा प्रयास नै गरिएन।

साम्राज्यहरूको चिहान: किन अफगानिस्तान हरेक आक्रमणकारीलाई पराजित गर्छ

दुई शताब्दीभन्दा बढी समयदेखि अफगानिस्तान साम्राज्यहरूको अन्त्यस्थल बनिरहेको छ। उन्नाइसौं शताब्दीमा ब्रिटिश, बीसौंमा सोभियत, र एक्काइसौंमा अमेरिकी — सबै महाशक्तिहरू जसले यो कठोर भूमि कब्जा गर्न खोजे, अन्ततः अपमान, पराजय र फिर्तीसँग फर्किए। अफगानिस्तानका पहाडहरू कुनै शक्तिको अगाडि झुक्दैनन् — ती शक्ति सोस्छन्, थकाउँछन्, र अन्ततः धुलोमा परिणत गर्छन्।

---

साम्राज्य र प्रतिरोधको दोहोरिने कथा

इतिहासले अहंकारलाई नम्र बनाउने आफ्नो तरिका जान्दछ। सन् 1842 मा, विश्वका शक्तिशाली साम्राज्यहरूमध्ये एक ब्रिटिश साम्राज्य पहिलो एङ्ग्लो–अफगान युद्ध मा लगभग पूरै सेना गुमायो। काबुलबाट जलालाबाद फर्कँदै गरेका १६,००० सैनिक र उनका परिवारमध्ये केवल एक व्यक्ति — डा. विलियम ब्राइडन — जीवित बचे र पराजयको कथा सुनाए। ब्रिटिशहरूले पटक–पटक प्रयास गरे, तर अफगानिस्तान कहिल्यै झुकेन।

एक शताब्दीपछि, सन् 1979 मा, सोभियत संघ ट्यांकर र हेलिकप्टरसहित अफगानिस्तानमा प्रवेश गर्‍यो — समाजवादलाई बलपूर्वक स्थापित गर्न सकिन्छ भन्ने भ्रममा। दस वर्षसम्म उसले केवल विश्वास, राइफल र पहाडका सहारामा लड्ने मुजाहिदिनसँग युद्ध गर्‍यो। सोभियत साम्राज्य त्यहीँका पहाडमा रगतले सिँचियो, र केही वर्षमै सोभियत संघ नै ढल्यो।

फेरि अमेरिका आयो — ड्रोन, उपग्रह र खरबौं डलरसहित। बीस वर्ष लामो युद्धपछि, ऊ पनि त्यही फन्दामा पर्‍यो। परिणाम उही — अराजकता, अधूरा वाचा, र त्यो आन्दोलनको पुनरागमन जसलाई उसले नष्ट गर्न खोजेको थियो — तालिबान।

---

सम्प्रभुताको आत्मा

अफगानिस्तानको प्रतिरोध केवल सैन्य होइन — यो आत्मिक र सभ्यतागत हो। यो वैचारिक होइन, संप्रभुताको प्रश्न हो। विदेशीहरूले अफगान सादगीलाई पिछडोपन ठान्छन्। तर सादगी कमजोरी होइन — उद्देश्यको पवित्रता हो।

यी ती जनता हुन् जो भूमिसँग बाँधिएका छन्, जसले कठोर जीवन बाँच्न सिकेका छन्, थोरैमा बाँच्ने र धेरैको रक्षा गर्ने सीप राख्छन्। उनीहरूका लागि शक्ति हतियार वा सम्पत्तिबाट होइन, सहनशीलता र गरिमाबाट मापन हुन्छ। जसको आत्मा माटोसँग बाँधिएको छ, उसको लागि स्वतन्त्रता नारा होइन — सास हो।

साम्राज्यहरू शहरहरूमा जन्मिन्छन् — जहाँ नियम, नियन्त्रण र भ्रम हुन्छ। तर अफगानिस्तान पहाडहरूको देश हो — र पहाडहरूको मालिक कोही हुँदैन।

---

“असभ्यता”को विरोधाभास

विडम्बना यो हो कि ती गुणहरू जसलाई आक्रमणकारीहरूले “असभ्यता” ठान्छन् — आधुनिकताबाट दूरी, जमिन र समुदायसँगको गहिरो सम्बन्ध — यही गुणहरू अफगानहरूलाई अजेय बनाउँछन्। जब जीवन नै संघर्ष हुन्छ, विदेशी सेनाहरूले न त लोभ देखाउन सक्छन् न त डर देखाउन।

जस सैनिकसँग गर्वबाहेक केही बाँकी छैन, उसलाई कसैले जित्न सक्दैन। आधुनिक संसारको सुविधा नै उसको कमजोरी हो; अफगान ग्रामीणको कठिनाइ नै उसको कवच हो।

---

जहाँ पहाडहरू सुरु हुन्छन्, त्यहीँ साम्राज्यहरू ढल्छन्

अफगानिस्तानमा इतिहास केवल दोहोरिन्छ होइन — यो नियम जस्तै दोहोरिन्छ। यहाँ भूगोल नै भाग्य हो। साम्राज्यहरूले मैदान, बन्दरगाह र शहर जित्न सक्छन्, तर ती पहाडहरू होइन — जहाँ हरेक घाटी घातक छ, हरेक गाउँ दुर्ग र हरेक परिवार प्रतिरोधको कथा हो।

अफगानिस्तान सेनाहरूलाई संख्या वा हतियारले होइन, धैर्यले हराउँछ — त्यो सबैभन्दा लामो चल्ने हतियार हो। आक्रमणकारीहरूले वर्ष गन्छन्; अफगानहरूले पुस्ताहरू गन्छन्।

---

संसारले अझै नबुझेको पाठ

हरेक साम्राज्य अफगानिस्तान प्रवेश गर्दा भन्छ — “हामी फरक छौं।”
ब्रिटिशले भने — हामी व्यापार मार्ग सुरक्षित गर्न आएका हौं।
सोभियतले भने — हामी समाजवाद फैलाउन आएका हौं।
अमेरिकीले भने — हामी लोकतन्त्र ल्याउन आएका हौं।
तर अन्ततः सबैले भने — “हामी जित्न सकेनौं।”

सत्य सरल छ: तपाईं ती जनतामाथि शासन गर्न सक्नुहुन्न जसले शासन अस्वीकार गर्छ। अफगानिस्तान अझै अजेय छ किनभने उसका जनताले आफूलाई प्रजा होइन, स्वामी ठान्छन्। उनीहरूको निष्ठा कुनै विदेशी झण्डातर्फ होइन — आफ्नै भूमि, विश्वास र वंशतर्फ हुन्छ।

---

अजेय सादगी

नीतिनिर्माताहरूका लागि “साम्राज्यहरूको चिहान” एक लोकप्रिय उपमा हो, तर शायद यो गलत बुझाइ हो। अफगानिस्तान चिहान होइन, ऐना हो — जसले शक्ति सीमित छ भन्ने, अहंकार मूर्खता हो भन्ने, र स्वतन्त्रता अमर हो भन्ने देखाउँछ।

साम्राज्यहरूले सेना पठाउन सक्छन्, तर भूमि निष्ठा माग्छ। अफगान किसान — उसका जलेका हात र अडिग इच्छाशक्तिसँग — त्यो शाश्वत सत्यको प्रतीक हो जुन हरेक आक्रमणकारी बिर्सन्छ:
जब कुनै जनता आफ्नो माटोलाई त्यति माया गर्छ जति कुनै साम्राज्य पराजयलाई डराउँछ, उनीहरू अजेय बन्छन्।

---

अन्ततः ढल्ने अफगानिस्तान होइन — ढल्ने हो नियन्त्रणको भ्रम। र त्यो भ्रम, गोली वा बमभन्दा पनि घातक हुन्छ।

Nepal’s Gen Z Revolution: Building the World’s First Corruption-Free Democracy

---

नेपालको जेन-ज़ेड क्रान्ति: संसारकै पहिलो भ्रष्ट्राचारमुक्त लोकतन्त्र

१२ घण्टा भित्रै नेपालको जेन-ज़ेड क्रान्तिले केवल एउटा सरकार मात्र होइन, दशकौँदेखि भ्रष्ट्राचार, जडता र विश्वासघातसँग गाँसिएको सम्पूर्ण राजनीतिक वर्गलाई नै सफा गरिदियो। यो विद्रोह केवल महँगी वा भंग भएका वाचा विरुद्ध मात्र थिएन। यो नेपाली कांग्रेस, एमाले र माओवादी जस्ता तीन भ्रष्ट्र पार्टीहरूको लामो समयदेखिको शिकन्जा विरुद्ध थियो। तिनको युग सकियो। अब बाँकी छ असाधारण अवसर—धरतीकै सबैभन्दा नवप्रवर्तनशील लोकतन्त्र निर्माण गर्ने मौका।

एक-दलीय, योग्यता-आधारित लोकतन्त्र

असफल दलहरूलाई पुरानै ढाँचाको नयाँ प्रतिलिपिबाट बदल्ने सट्टा, नेपालको युवापुस्ताले केही साहसी कल्पना गरिरहेको छ: पूर्णतया योग्यता-आधारित एक-दलीय लोकतन्त्र। यसको अर्थ तानाशाही होइन। बरु यसको अर्थ पारदर्शी राजनीतिक मञ्च हो, जहाँ हरेक पदको लागि दुई जना योग्य उम्मेदवार आपसमा प्रतिस्पर्धा गर्नेछन्। पार्टीले मानवअधिकार—विशेष गरी अभिव्यक्ति स्वतन्त्रता र असहमति—को रक्षा गर्नेछ र धन र बलको सट्टा योग्यता, प्रदर्शन र जवाफदेहितालाई संस्थागत गर्नेछ।

चुनावलाई प्रति पद केवल दुई सक्षम उम्मेदवारमा सीमित गर्दा जनतालाई विकल्प पनि हुनेछ र अयोग्य, भ्रष्ट्र वा आपराधिक आकांक्षीहरूलाई बाहिर राखिनेछ। यसले लोकतन्त्रलाई गुणस्तर र दक्षताका लागि परिष्कृत गर्नेछ।

चुनाव भन्दा अगाडि: निरन्तर जवाफदेहिता

सही तरिकाले लागु भएमा यो मोडेल परम्परागत चुनावभन्दा अगाडि पुग्न सक्छ। परम्परागत लोकतन्त्रमा असक्षम नेताहरूलाई हटाउन वर्षौँ लाग्छ। नेपालको नयाँ व्यवस्थाले यस्ता संयन्त्र ल्याउनेछ जसले खराब प्रदर्शन गर्नेहरूलाई तुरुन्त हटाउनेछ र उनीहरूलाई आन्तरिक योग्यता-आधारित प्रक्रियाबाट प्रतिस्थापन गर्नेछ। यसको अर्थ निरन्तर जवाफदेहिता हो—नेता हरेक दिन जनताको सेवा गर्नेछन्, केवल चुनावी मौसममा मात्र होइन।

क्रान्तिकारी अन्तरिम संविधान

यसका लागि नेपाललाई क्रान्तिकारी अन्तरिम सरकार र अन्तरिम संविधान आवश्यक छ। यसले केवल एक-दलीय योग्यता-आधारित मोडेललाई मात्र स्थापित गर्ने छैन, बरु अझ गहिरो रूपान्तरणको यात्रा पनि सुरु गर्नेछ—कल्किवादी अर्थतन्त्रको जन्म।

पैसारहित समाजतर्फ

यो क्रान्ति केवल राजनीतिक मात्र होइन। यो आर्थिक पनि हो। कल्किवादी दृष्टि पैसारहित समाजतर्फ इशारा गर्दछ जहाँ भ्रष्ट्राचार असम्भव हुन्छ—किनकि पैसा नै हुँदैन। सेवा, विश्वास र सामूहिक समृद्धिबाट मूल्य मापन हुने प्रणालीतर्फ अघि बढ्दै नेपालसँग संसारकै पहिलो भ्रष्ट्राचारमुक्त देश बन्ने अवसर छ।

शिक्षा, स्वास्थ्य र न्याय सबैलाई निःशुल्क र सार्वभौमिक रूपमा उपलब्ध हुन सक्छ—अभिजात वर्गले चुस्ने करबाट होइन, बरु पैसारहित अर्थतन्त्रको दक्षताबाट। कमी र लालचको पुरानो मानसिकतालाई प्रचुरता र योग्यता द्वारा बदलिनेछ।

नेपालको ऐतिहासिक भूमिका

सदियौँदेखि नेपाललाई विश्व शक्तिहरूले कम आँकिरहे। तर क्रान्ति प्रायः साम्राज्यका केन्द्रमा जन्मदैनन्—ती सीमाबाट उठ्छन्। आफ्नो भ्रष्ट्र विगतलाई अस्वीकार गर्दै नयाँ लोकतान्त्रिक मोडेल कल्पना गर्ने साहस गरेर, नेपालसँग संसारलाई नयाँ युगतर्फ लैजाने अवसर छ।

ती युवाहरू जसले आधा दिनमै सरकारलाई ढाले, अब अझ ठूलो कार्य गर्न सक्छन्: यस्तो प्रणाली तयार गर्ने जसमा भ्रष्ट्राचार संरचनात्मक रूपमा असम्भव हुन्छ, जहाँ लोकतन्त्र योग्यता-तन्त्रमा परिणत हुन्छ, र जहाँ अर्थतन्त्र पैसा भन्दा पर पुग्छ।

यो विद्रोह विगतविरुद्ध थियो। यदि अवसर समातियो भने भविष्य नेपालको हुन सक्छ।

---

Can Meritocracy and Multiparty Democracy Coexist? Rethinking Elections for a Data-Driven Era
The Meritocratic Governance Party (MGP)
China: Meritocracy? Autocracy?

Pakistan’s Deep State, Imran Khan, and the Illusion of Democracy

A Concrete Five-Year Plan for Bihar
Can Meritocracy and Multiparty Democracy Coexist? Rethinking Elections for a Data-Driven Era
Drone Warfare: Guerrilla Warfare In The Age Of AI, Robotics And Drones
India's River Linking Project
Why Paul Krugman Thinks Trump’s Trade War is “Stupid and Self-Destructive”
Going Back To Keynes On Global Trade
Britain Stole 45T From India
The $50 Trillion Unlock: Why GovTech, Not the BRI, Will Transform the Global South
The Superpower of AOC: Capturing the Political Moment with Precision
Narendra Modi: Number 1 Policy Innovator On The Planet
San Francisco at a Crossroads: From Capital of Tech to Capital of Urban Renaissance

3 June 2025: 𝐈𝐦𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐊𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 668 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬.

🚨The authoritarian military regime, under General Asim Munir, has kept 𝑰𝒎𝒓𝒂𝒏 𝑲𝒉𝒂𝒏 𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒈𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒂𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔… pic.twitter.com/tDhnt9tKZo

— PTI (@PTIofficial) June 3, 2025

 

Pakistan’s Deep State, Imran Khan, and the Illusion of Democracy

On 11 September 2024, Amnesty International issued a statement that ripped through the illusion of democratic process in Pakistan. Their assessment was blunt and damning: the former Prime Minister, Imran Khan, remains in arbitrary detention—not due to the rule of law, but because of its subversion.

A year after Khan’s conviction, Amnesty noted "several fair trial violations under international human rights standards", directly linking these violations to the weaponization of the legal system. This is not a metaphor. It is a clinical description of a system hollowed out by political coercion, where due process exists only as theater, and justice is reserved for the powerful—or those serving them.

The Military’s Grip on Pakistan

The real power in Pakistan lies not in parliament, nor in the courts, nor with elected leaders. It lies with the military and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Together, they form what can only be described as a deep state oligarchy—an entity that controls not just national security, but the judiciary, media, economy, and now, politics. Pakistan today is not a democracy with military influence; it is a military regime with a democratic disguise.

Imran Khan’s fall from power—and his subsequent imprisonment—was not an organic legal process. It was engineered. Each court date, each charge, and each denial of bail or hearing was orchestrated with one goal: to remove him from the political equation. Why? Because Khan, for all his populist flaws, posed a challenge to the military’s absolute control. He galvanized street support. He questioned the military’s behind-the-scenes puppeteering. And he did what no civilian in decades dared to do—he made Pakistanis imagine civilian supremacy.

That, for the generals, was unforgivable.

Amnesty’s Warning, the World’s Silence

Amnesty International’s language is unusually clear. It calls for immediate release. It outlines a pattern of abuses. And it places the blame not just on legal institutions but on the system behind them. But international response has been tepid. Governments who claim to champion democracy continue to arm and engage Pakistan’s military elite under the guise of strategic stability. In effect, they are enabling the repression they publicly lament.

This silence is not neutrality; it is complicity.

The Need for a New Beginning

Pakistan does not need another election under the current constitution. Elections held under military tutelage are elections in name only. What Pakistan needs is a Constituent Assembly—freely elected, free from military interference, and mandated to write a new constitution that ensures civilian supremacy, judicial independence, and press freedom.

This is not a radical proposition. It is a necessity for survival. Because if the current trajectory continues, Pakistan will not evolve into a flawed democracy. It will regress further into military feudalism—a state owned not by its people, but by an army that answers to no one but itself.

The Final Verdict

Imran Khan’s imprisonment is not just about one man. It is a litmus test for the soul of a nation. If Pakistanis—civil society, journalists, students, workers—do not demand a new social contract, one not underwritten by generals, then the dream of democracy in Pakistan will remain exactly that: a dream.

And dreams, under military regimes, are often crimes.

---

Sources:

• Amnesty International (11 Sept 2024): “Pakistan: One Year on from Conviction of Imran Khan, Fair Trial Concerns Persist”

• Ongoing reporting by Pakistani human rights organizations and international observers

• PTIofficial on X: https://x.com/PTIofficial/status/1929945072621195432

Pakistan’s Deep State, Imran Khan, and the Illusion of Democracy https://t.co/betTUNFHGw

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) June 3, 2025

Trump's Expansion of Surveillance Powers And Palantir
Tariff On, Tariff Off, Tariff On? What's Going On In The Courts?
A Radical Blueprint to Transform New York City into the World’s Greatest Metropolis
Economies Poised for High Growth
India’s Chances of Achieving Double-Digit Growth Rates
St. Louis Renewal
Components Of A Sane Southern Border
Assessment Of High-Speed Rail Feasibility And Desirability In India
Wargaming Iran's Possible Moves
A Roadmap To A Palestinian State And Peace
Operation Sindoor: The Details
Impediments To A Ceasefire In The Russia Ukraine Conflict
The Silent Revolution: How the Global South Is Reshaping the World Economy
Engineering Lasting Peace Between India and Pakistan: The Path Through Democracy
What Would a Truly Great Global Trade Architecture Look Like?

The 20% Growth Revolution: Nepal’s Path to Prosperity Through Kalkiism
Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy
The $500 Billion Pivot: How the India-US Alliance Can Reshape Global Trade
Trump’s Trade War
Peace For Taiwan Is Possible
Formula For Peace In Ukraine
The Last Age of War, The First Age of Peace: Lord Kalki, Prophecies, and the Path to Global Redemption
AOC 2028: : The Future of American Progressivism

Pakistan’s Deep State, Imran Khan, and the Illusion of Democracy 🧵👇

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) June 4, 2025

Pakistan’s Deep State, Imran Khan, and the Illusion of Democracy ☝️@BBhuttoZardari @AseefaBZ @ImranKhanPTI @GovtofPakistan @PMOIndia @narendramodi @AmitShah @DrSJaishankar @MEAIndia @WhiteHouse @StateDept @amnesty @PTIofficial @CNN @nytimes @Dawn_News @republic @BDUTT

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) June 4, 2025

The GOP bill slashes Medicaid and food aid—while handing tax breaks to the ultra-rich. I challenged Republicans: keep modest cuts for the working & middle class, but scrap the $400K giveaway to the top 0.1%. Ending those breaks would cut over $1 trillion in deficits. pic.twitter.com/yQtBMQbkaG

— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) June 4, 2025

Narendra Modi

Is actually

Surender Modihttps://t.co/PbQ44skm0Z

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) June 21, 2020

So did you.

— Paul Graham (@paulg) June 4, 2025

I couldn’t get Google’s CEO to try my work while I was there, I guess some goals are easier to reach from the outside. https://t.co/o2dMaA8YLj

— Zhen Li ⠕ (@zhenthebuilder) June 4, 2025

The questions around globalization are changing faster than ever. @Harvard College students: join Robert Lawrence and me this Fall for GENED 1120: The Political Economy of Globalization. We’ll bring in guest speakers to explore key debates from trade wars to AI. We will equip you…

— Lawrence H. Summers (@LHSummers) June 3, 2025

Ukraine has never wanted war – but it has every right to defend itself, its independence, and its people. And that is exactly what we are doing – by all means available to us. This right is guaranteed to Ukraine by international law, by the UN Charter, and by simple human common… pic.twitter.com/muclcfyuQR

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) June 4, 2025

Drone Warfare: Guerrilla Warfare In The Age Of AI, Robotics And Drones https://t.co/CxI6sghayb

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) June 4, 2025

My Uber driver in SF said he’s working on a startup—then asked me to sign an NDA before telling me the idea 😂

— Hubert Thieblot (@hthieblot) June 4, 2025

IVF isn’t the only path. It’s just the one most people hear about.

At Ferta, we’re building the path no one talks about:

Root-cause fertility care.

It works a LOT better than IVF.

— Preethi Kasireddy (@iam_preethi) June 4, 2025

Last year I raised $5M to build a brand new investment bank from scratch. Not software for banks or a fintech marketplace - a real M&A advisory firm.

This is a very long post explaining what we're doing, why, and how it's going (sorry, I don't like threads).

OffDeal: The First… pic.twitter.com/vEsEmNa4LB

— Ori Eldarov (@leveredvlad) June 3, 2025

China

सड़क आन्दोलन सँग वार्ता नगर्ने तानाशाह

कोरोना को तेस्रो लहर आउन लाग्यो। झट्ट वार्ता गरेर फटाफट समस्या समाधान गरिहालौं भन्ने छैन। केही माँग छन तत्काल समाधान गर्न सकिने। केही मॉँग छन आजको आज समाधान गर्न नसकिने। रातारात सिंचाइ नहर खन्न सकिन्छ भन्ने लिंडे ढिपी किसान आन्दोलन ले गरेको देखिँदैन त। लामो समय लाग्ने समाधान हरु बारे सँगै बसेर रोडमैप बनाउन सकिन्छ। 

समाधान ननिस्केला ह रे। मानौं। तर वार्ता त गर्नुपर्छ एउटा लोकतान्त्रिक सरकार ले। किसान आन्दोलन ले महिना काटिसक्दा पनि देउबा सरकार वार्ता मा नआउनु तानाशाही को पराकाष्टा हो। भ्रष्टाचार, कमिशनखोरी र बिचौलियावाद ले धमिरा ले जस्तै लोकतंत्र लाई भित्र भित्र खाइदिएको छ।

यो आन्दोलन लोकतंत्र का लागि पनि हो। 

फ्युजन को प्रयास

बर्लिन को पर्खाल ढलना साथ पुँजीवाद र साम्यवाद बीच को बहस शायद सकिएन भन्ने कुरा को ज्वलंत उदाहरण नेपाल पो हो कि? अमेरिका र भारत का लोकतंत्र एक अर्का का फोटोकॉपी छैनन। बहुदलीय लोकतंत्र को चरित्र प्रत्येक देश मा विशिष्ट छ। अमेरिका कै कुरा गर्ने हो भने म नजिक बाट नियालेको र अझै नियालिरहेको मान्छे। आफै संलग्न भएको मान्छे चाहे स्वयंसेवक भएर नै किन नहोस। अहिले आजित भएको मान्छे। अमेरिका दुई पार्टी लोकतंत्र हो। भारत जस्तो बहुदलीय लोकतंत्र होइन। त्यो दुई मध्ये एक पार्टी अहिले गोरा हरु ले मात्र मत खसाल्न पाउनुपर्छ भनेर कम्मर कसेर लागेको छ। त्यस्तो पनि हो? 

माओ को विवेचना गर्ने हो भने आलोचना पनि गर्न पाउनुपर्यो, प्रशंसा पनि गर्न पाउनुपर्यो। चीन मा माओ को आलोचना गर्न पाइँदैन। त्यो भन्दा घोर अवैज्ञानिक कुरा के हुन सक्छ? अमेरिका मा एक समय मा टेलीफोन सेवा मा एउटा कंपनी को एक क्षत्र राज थियो। त्यो कंपनी लाई सरकार ले बिभिन्न टुकड़ा मा तोड्यो। त्यो नतोड़ेको भए अमेरिका ले शायद इंटरनेट नदेख्ने। अर्थात त्यो कंपनी तोड्नु मैं देश, जनता र खुद त्यस कंपनी लाई फाइदा थियो। तर त्यो कदम त्यस कंपनी ले आफै नचालने। 

चीन मा एउटा पार्टी को मोनोपोली त्यस्तै हो जस्तो लाग्छ मलाई। सन १९९० देखि २०१० सम्म चीन ले जुन औसत १०% आर्थिक वृद्धि दर देख्यो त्यो कायम नरहनुपर्ने कुनै कारण थिएन र छैन पनि। तर त्यस का लागि जुन राजनीतिक सुधार गर्नुपर्छ त्यो गर्न एउटा कम्युनिस्ट पार्टी लाई दुई वटा बनाएर देश को प्रत्येक तहको निर्वाचन मा वास्तविक प्रतिस्प्रधा दिन सक्नुपर्छ।   

अमेरिका मा शिक्षा र स्वास्थ्य को क्षेत्र मा थुप्रै यस्ता काम छन गर्नुपर्ने जुन चीन बाट सिक्न सकिन्छ। तर वाक स्वतंत्रता, धार्मिक स्वतंत्रता त चीन लाई पनि हो चाहिएको। त्यो कस्तो कमजोर राजनीतिक प्रणाली हो जसको खुल्लमखुल्ला आलोचना गर्यो कि गरलयंगुरलुम ढलने? 

नेपाल संविधान सभा मा गएर विश्व लाई उच्चतम लोकतंत्र दिने प्रयास मा जानुपर्छ। 

Democracy And Revolution In Nepal

When I think about democracy I don't start in the United States. I start in the human heart, for liberty rings inside every human heart. But there are outward expressions of that ringing. That might look like a traffic light. And there the United States is fair play. If democracy is great, is it great in America? That is a fair question to ask. Democracy works and democracy can be seen to fail. But when it fails it is often the lack of democracy. The answer often is more democracy. 

But the quality of a democracy is its citizens. Not just citizens who stay adamant about their rights but also citizens that stay at work individually and in family settings and in small group settings honing their moral fiber, willing to give more than they receive, or when they don't receive at all. That endpoint is the domain of the higher power. But so is the starting point. That all human beings have been created equal is not a human axiom. That comes from up above. Democracy is saying all human beings have been created equal. 

Let's face it, America right now is openly flirting with the idea that maybe it wants to become a South Africa, a country of white minority rule, except that it doesn't need to create white minority rule, it has always had white minority rule. When you have only two political parties for all intents and purposes, and one party is busy restricting voting rights, you got a problem. The problem is not that the effort might succeed, it likely will not, but the attempt itself is a problem. That country should stop lecturing the rest of the world about democracy. 

That is where Nepal comes in, sitting right next to the largest democracy. It is an Iraq size population that did the democracy work without the trillions. It has been seeing revolutionary fervor since 2006. The revolution is not over yet and, guided to its logical conclusion, could yet give the world not only its most cutting edge democracy, the one closest to one person one vote, but also a 20 per cent growth rate for 20 years, thus proving democracy indeed is the best vehicle for prosperity, but it has to be fully applied. 

A revolution is not about substituting one elite for another, or making possible a wholesale looting of the public treasury by elected leaders and long entrenched bureaucrats. Corruption is proof of absence of democracy. Of course a corrupt government will not deliver. And that is why Nepal is still in revolutionary fervor 15 years later. Because the delivery has not been made. The street has not been honestly translated into state power. The people remain powerless. 

Afghanistan as a country and society was not that different from Nepal before the two superpowers took turns going in. Expat white folks would sing songs about how welcoming and hospitable the Afghans were. They still do so in Nepal. Just don't show up with your military, or the tune might change. 

As a country in revolution Nepal offers an amazing opportunity to political scientists around the world. If you were to fashion an optimum democracy today, what might that look like? Nepal as a country with a low economic base also offers economists around the world an opportunity. How could Nepal achieve a 20 per cent growth rate for 20 years straight and eradicate poverty in Nepal and, by example, in the rest of the world, much of it in next door India? Let's bang heads. 

When people like Bernie Sanders in the US talk about health care, they sound like they want some of what China has. Those like me who would like to see China go back to double digit growth rates seem to suggest China should become a little more like America. Maybe China needs not one but two communist parties. Break it like they broke AT&T. Take it from Nepal where they have three major ones, and no one knows how many minor ones. You should be able to criticize Mao in China, for where you can not fearlessly criticize, how can you openly and genuinely praise? You can not claim your methods are scientific if opinions are not allowed. That choking is unscientific. 

In Nepal perhaps a fusion can be attempted. Many parties are a given. Free speech is the bedrock. But parties can be regulated so as to take the political process as close to one person one vote as possible. And the proof will be in the pudding. Can Nepal eradicate poverty fast and do so without sacrificing the family, the environment, the culture, and the spirituality? 

Let the revolution decide, but even revolutions, and particularly revolutions, have to be guided by enlightened minds and open debates.    

दुनिया को नवीनतम क्रान्ति बाट दुनिया को उच्चतम लोकतन्त्र को अपेक्षा

पहिलो कुरा त संविधान ५० वर्ष मा स्वतः अवसान भएर देश आफसेआफ नया संविधान सभा मा जाने प्रावधान हुनुपर्यो। 

दोस्रो कुरा विगत शताब्दी को शीत युद्ध सकियो भन्न मिल्दैन। त्यत्रो ठुलो सिंगो चीन छ। मेरो आफ्नै अनुभव हो यदि लोकतंत्र एक व्यक्ति एक मत हो भने अमेरिका त्यहाँ पुगिसकेको छैन। बरु अमेरिका को दुई मध्ये एक पार्टी अमेरिका लाई गोरा हरु को अल्पमत शासन भएको दक्षिण अफ्रिका बनाउने प्रयासमा व्यस्त देखिन्छ। त्यो प्रयास सफल नहोला तर त्यो उच्चतम लोकतंत्र अवश्य होइन। 

भने पछि नेपाल मा लोकतंत्र यस्तो हुनुपर्यो जुन भारत, अमेरिका, बेलायत आदिमा छैन। सकेसम्म एक व्यक्ति एक मत को नजिक को लोकतंत्र। त्यो भनेको चुनाव मा मत पाएको अनुपातमा पार्टी चलाउन सरकार बाट नै पैसा पाउने, त्यो बाहेक अर्को कुनै स्रोत हुन नहुने हो कि? 

चीन मा माओ को आलोचना गर्न पाइँदैन। जुन ठाउँमा खुला दिल ले आलोचना गर्न पाइँदैन स्वाभाविक छ त्यहाँ गरिएको प्रशंसा को बारे शंका गर्नुपर्ने हुन्छ। भारत मा महात्मा गांधी को इच्छा लागे जति प्रशंसा अथवा आलोचना गर्न पाइन्छ। 

नेपाल मा भारत र चीन को फ्यूज़न खोज्नुपर्ने हो कि? दुनिया को उच्चतम लोकतन्त्र कस्तो हो? नेपाल मा संविधान सभा ले त्यो विषय सँग कुस्ती खेल्नु जरूरी छ। 

China And Political Reforms

The Chinese state has been designed thinking capital has to be subdued by people. And so the people organization, the Chinese Communist Party, sits atop pretty much everything. But capital is not that evil. Adam Smith's insight was that large masses of people all driven by self-interest end up taking care of the public good. So movement of capital can be seen as an expression of the people's will.

Be that as it may, and with concerns mounting in the American and European political and economic conversations (Piketty's insight that if capital grows at 10% per year, and wages go up by 3%, then the gap will just keep widening until society collapses), even if the Chinese thought is taken at face value, I believe that still creates a lot of room for political reform inside China.

It can be argued the Chinese Communist Party has deviated from its origins and is today just an organization with political monopoly. Ordinary members of the party are not the people that the party derives its power from, let alone the Chinese masses. The party members, large in number, merely provide legitimacy to the people higher up who hold the real power. The organization is well-funded, well-organized, arguably the best organized and best funded political organization on the planet.

The CCP currently provides two candidates for each office at the most local level, and then ordinary voters pick between the two. That is still something. But what if those two had to run in some kind of a primary election inside the party. All party members at that level would vote for candidates. The top two winners of such a primary election would then go face the voters. Would that take away from the original promise of keeping people above the forces of capital? I think not.

What if that is also made true for elections higher up? For the governor of a state? For the president of the country? So all party members inside Tibet would vote for candidates for Governor. The top two would go on to face the voters. Similarly all party members across the country would vote for all presidential candidates, and the two top candidates would then go face the ordinary voters. Would that take away from the original promise of keeping people above the forces of capital? I think not.

They say in China, economic rights over political rights. As in, feed the hungry before you talk about free speech. But that was a long time ago. The people have been fed. Now shall we talk?

If people could talk freely, and if the internet that an ordinary person can access in the US were also the internet that the people inside China could access, would that lead to a collapse of the current system? The system today perhaps. But if China were still a one party state where ordinary people could vote directly for their mayor, governor and president, I don't see how free speech could topple that system. I think China could end up with a system superior to the one in the US. Freely speaking Chinese would simply brag about their political system, them belly full.

The concluding argument of the Trump-Xi trade war from the Trump side was, China can't make chips. China has ambitions to do well in all sorts of cutting edge technologies. I don't see how you can deliver on that unless you have a culture of robust free speech.

The American political system has huge deficiencies. They can't do gun control! They go round and round in circles talking about abortion! They seem incapable of universal health care, or lifelong education. I think China undertaking political reforms would give the country a huge leverage globally. It would put pressure on America to do things like universal health care, and campaign finance reform.

The CCP needs to fight the forces of political monopoly within its ranks and should truly seek to reprsent the people. Minus that it will not be able to lead China to great economic heights on the way to 2030, 2040 and beyond. The political monopoly is moral corruption. With these political reforms most of China's border tensions will cease. There will no longer be any need for external enemies.

Economic rights have been achieved. Poverty has been eradicated (hardly the case in America!). Now it is time for political reforms in China.

China's Xi throws down gauntlet to US Xi warned that China will not be “bullied, oppressed, or subjugated,” and that anyone who dares to try “will find their heads bashed bloody against a great wall of steel forged by over 1.4 billion Chinese people.” The speech has been characterized as “defiant” and “fiery.” ........ in a speech of approximately 7,200 characters (where each character or ideogram is in effect a word), only about 770 characters were devoted to the military and the warnings about China not being bullied. ........... Above all, the speech focused on China’s (and not just the People’s Republic of China’s) efforts to modernize and advance from being one of the most backwards nations to reassuming its place as a global leader. ........ Xi placed the CCP’s development and programs alongside such events as the Taiping Rebellion (the Chinese civil war that was the bloodiest conflict of the 19th century), the Tung-Chih Restoration and the Boxer Rebellion. All of these were characterized as efforts at reforming China in order to modernize and progress. The salient difference, according to Xi, is that these previous efforts all failed, whereas the CCP’s efforts have succeeded. .......... the “Century of Humiliation” and the fall of China from economic and political preeminence in Asia (and arguably the world) to becoming the “sick man of Asia.” Xi noted that while China was exploited by foreign powers (in particular the United Kingdom during the Opium Wars), it was also internally weak and backwards. Xi describes it as semi-feudal, and that’s arguably accurate, certainly in the Chinese countryside of 1921. This domestic weakness, in turn, made China vulnerable to foreign depredation. ............ It is the CCP, Xi emphasized, that broke China out of this backwardness. In essence, the CCP has earned the support of the Chinese people through its demonstrated effectiveness. ...........

the CCP represents the pinnacle of 5,000 years of Chinese history and civilization

........... a full-throated reaffirmation of the socialist credentials and nature of the CCP and the PRC ........

there is an ideological component to the challenge posed by Xi and the CCP, one rooted in socialist thought

........ the PRC won’t tolerate being lectured, nor will it evolve in directions set by others. China has its own “core interests,” which it will not make concessions on — an important point when considering developments ranging from the South China Sea to human rights to cyberspace and outer space to expectations of a more liberal CCP. ...........

the United States was not qualified to criticize China

........... trying to get China to liberalize, whether with regards to the Uighurs or Hong Kong, was portrayed as “bullying” and “subjugation.” ......... Insofar as the West wants China to conform to the rules of a rules-based international order, Xi and the CCP are indicating that those rules must be ones that China has forged. ........... Napoleon is said to have warned, “Let China sleep, for when she wakes, she will shake the world.” Xi Jinping’s speech suggests that China is, indeed, roused and ready to start that shaking.

To understand Xi Jinping's China, we must look back to Liang Qichao — the 'godfather of Chinese nationalism' Liang Qichao may not be as familiar to most of us as Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping or Xi himself, but Liang has been called the "godfather of Chinese nationalism" and is the voice that has whispered in the ears of China's leaders for the past century. ........... It is impossible to understand China today without going back to the fall of the Qing Empire in the early years of the 20th century, and a man whose writings triggered a dark night of the soul for the Chinese people. ........ When Xi Jinping talked about "national rejuvenation", "sovereignty and territorial integrity", he was channelling Liang Qichao. When he warned that no foreign force "will bully, oppress or subjugate us", he was echoing the words of Liang. It was Liang Qichao who helped popularise the idea of "humiliation" that Xi now uses as a mantra to bind Chinese people to a militant identity that pits China against the world. ................ He was a writer and activist, one of the most significant thinkers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries in China. He campaigned for reform of the Qing Empire, making him a target, and fled overseas, living in Japan and Canada. He visited Australia, meeting our first prime minister, Edmund Barton. ............ Liang embraced the West, soaking up new ideas. But it only reinforced

his view that China was morally corrupt

. Liang looked at his nation, and saw defeat, humiliation and weakness. .............. He coined the phrase "the sick man of Asia" to describe China's fallen state. ....... Being defeated in war by Japan in 1895, Liang said "awoke our nation from its four thousand year old dream". ........

Liang set about inventing a new nation. He advocated the unity of the "yellow race".

He coined a term "minzu" to describe the people of the nation. He began to talk of what he called "hsin min"' — a "new people". ............ a new "definition of the Chinese people as a nation ... based upon common ties of place, blood, custom and culture". In today's terms, we might call it "make China great again". .............. But Liang's vision for this new China did not include democracy. .......... Liang preferred what he called "enlightened despotism." ........ "from 1842 to 1942, China had been treated by the West with distrust, ridicule, and disdain, mingled from time to time with pity and charity, only occasionally sympathy and friendliness". .........

In 1949, Mao crowned victory in the Communist Revolution with the words "the Chinese people have stood up".

......... He grew disillusioned with politics in China and retreated to study and writing. But

he was perhaps the greatest influence on a young emerging revolutionary, Mao Zedong

. .......... It isn't a show of strength but a reminder of humiliation. It reveals

the paradox of China: at once powerful yet fragile.

........... for all of its undoubted success, the Party does not believe in its people. .......... Like Liang Qichao, Xi believes the people need to be re-made.

‘Keep your eyes on the sun’ the Chinese Communist Party that leads it will today celebrate 100 years since its founding and nearly 72 years in power. .........

The authoritarian regime transformed China so rapidly that today the nation identifies as both an emerging superpower, and a developing nation, at the same time.

......... when we see “China” in a headline, it’s often talking about the CCP, not the country’s 1.4 billion people. ........... Mr Xi oversees the party and its 92 million members — ..... less than 7 per cent of China’s 1.4 billion people. ......... the party and the government are inseparable. ........ The structure of the CCP is highly opaque and complex .......... Mr Xi sits atop what’s known as the Politburo Standing Committee (PSC), a circle of seven men who effectively run China. ........ the National People’s Congress — China’s parliamentary equivalent — some 3,000 delegates who meet annually to “rubber stamp” laws. .......... Every five years, thousands of CCP representatives convene to elect the party’s central leadership bodies. ......... the intra-party mechanics of the CCP get complex and bureaucratic ........ these ranks — who make up a tiny fraction of China’s population. ........ China does hold elections for local representatives. But all candidates must be CCP-approved. No photos or candidate information are provided — only a name. ......... in a nation with more than 680 million females, there are no women in the top rank ........ raising controversial issues is effectively prohibited ......... Single-party rule allows for significant policy changes and difficult decisions to be made without much political fallout from the Chinese people. It also means that long-term targets can be set and political decisions made without concern or worry that an opposition party will gain popular support or unwind policy every few years. ............... the idea for a population control policy had been ruminating within the Politburo Standing Committee for nearly a decade through the 1970s under Mao Zedong, before being formally enacted as the one-child policy in 1980 by late paramount leader Deng Xiaoping — it would stay in place for the next 35 years. ............. Deng’s economic reforms transformed the country from being one of the world’s poorest to the second-largest economy on earth within a generation. ......... “My parents explained to me that I was a second child, that it was forbidden, and if it was disclosed, they would lose everything” ............ “[CCP] leaders have nothing to do with the ones below them, just like the whole mechanism of the Communist Party — it

only looks at the faces above, not the people’s feelings below.”

......... “the CCP doesn’t use the ordinary people’s perspective, it uses a comparative sociological perspective” that prioritises societal progress over individual struggle. ......... “There is so-called ‘intra-party’ and ‘extra-party’ democracy. But if you can’t discuss the Central Committee’s policies, what kind of ‘democracy’ do you have?” .......... Despite its socio-capitalist wealth, the CCP is still guided by communist principles like

democratic centralism and collective leadership

. .............. These ideas strive for leadership through consensus and unity. ........ This “collective” order is also maintained under an extrajudicial process known as ‘Shuanggui’ – overseen by the PSC’s Disciplinary Commission – to punish disloyal party members who cross the line. ...........

what constitutes “the line” is fluid, and up to the discretion of senior ranking CCP members.

........ “The party guides rather than instructs: it saves giving direct orders for when something is really important.” ........ “Normally, the goal is to get everyone to read the leader’s mind, and so there are lots of [iterations of] what the party thinks.” .........

while issues like human rights do get raised, it’s not in a way liberal democracies would expect: the discussion is framed in terms of extreme rationality, with emphasis placed on the socioeconomic advancement of the society, not on the suffering of individuals, which is seen as counterproductive when governing so many people

. ............ “No Communist Party member — including Mao Zedong — sincerely believes in communism, and no Communist Party member would say that openly” .......... “The legitimacy of ideology is actually a very contradictory thing for the Communist Party of China —

it plays the Marxist-Leninist card, but it actually follows the Chinese emperor system.”

............ People like Yin maintain some policies seen by many as “cruel” would not be allowed to exist if the Chinese people could voice their opinions. ......... as a ruling party it is very much supported, but

I wouldn’t dare to say it’s supported by the majority of the people because it wouldn’t dare to announce a general election in China

............ policy in China does not attract much public consultation. If [the public had a chance to speak], these millions of tragedies wouldn’t happen.” ........ when a group of leftist-inspired students took over Tiananmen Square in 1919 to protest against foreign powers who were violating China’s sovereignty after World War I. .........

In July 1921, the CCP held its first National Congress, attended by a dozen members including a 27-year-old Mao Zedong.

By the end of the civil war in 1949, former student-turned-CCP leader Chairman Mao would declare the People’s Republic of China, and the party as its sole governing authority. .............. Some say this history informed the CCP’s own handling of the 1989 protests in Tiananmen Square some 70 years later, which were sparked in the same spirit as those of 1919. .......... In 2020, the CCP claimed it had achieved its centenary target of eradicating absolute poverty across the country. .......... The party also has a goal for the centenary of the founding of China in 2049. It hopes that by then the country will be “a modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong,

democratic

, culturally advanced and harmonious”. .............. Prioritising pragmatism over strict ideology — for example, inviting foreign investment into its communist tradition — has been integral to the CCP’s success and domestic popularity. ............ “By guiding more than directing, they can take the praise for things that go right — and many things have in the past 30 years — while blaming problems or failures on subordinates not acting the way top leaders want them to.” ......... “Politically, the West’s theory that capitalism is the ultimate has been shaken, and socialist development has experienced a miracle,” Mr Xi said in a speech after first coming to power. ............. “Western capitalism has suffered reversals, a financial crisis, a credit crisis, a crisis of confidence, and their self-conviction has wavered.

“Western countries have begun to reflect, and openly or secretively compare themselves against China’s politics, economy, and path.”

................ Foreign relations are regularly strained by an inability to see eye to eye on issues around human rights —

China’s frustration stems from alleged “hypocrisy” and “double standards”.

......... lifting “850 million people” out of poverty, a feat small Western countries have no experience with ..........

“As one African diplomat famously put it: ‘You cannot eat democracy.’”

........ 2022′s National People’s Congress might see a reshuffling of power, as the CCP seeks to project a more tame image in the future. .............. “Keep your eyes on the sun, and you will not see the shadows.” ....... look at the positives, and stop focusing on the dark sides.

निधि, सिंह, कोइराला, थापा: समायोजन को एक रेखा

एक कार्यकाल का लागि निधि पार्टी सभापति। अर्थात अर्को महाधिवेशन मा अहिले देखि नै घोषणा गरिदिने, गगन। गनगन थापा। दुई एक्का को समायोजन भयो। निधि पार्टी सभापति रहँदा सम्म कांग्रेस को प्रधान मंत्री हुने मौका जुरेछ भने त्यो प्रकाशमान। अर्थात संसदीय दलको नेता। तीन एक्का को समायोजन भो। वीपी पुत्र फेरि महामंत्री। यदि पार्टी ले सभामुख पद पाए दिने गरी। भयो चार एक्का समायोजन। यी चार एक ठाउँ आए अरु जोसुकै लड़े नलडे फरक पर्दैन।  

तर चार मर्द। तीन डायनेस्टी। समावेशी खोइ? त्यो त मिलाउनुपर्छ। हुन त नेवार जनजाति हो। नेवार प्रधान मंत्री हुन्छ भने सन्देश त राम्रै जान्छ। दमजम। यादव। मिलाउने ले मिलाउलान। मधेसी र जनजाति, निधि र सिंह। हुन त बाहुन बाहुन मात्र भएको ठाउँमा शायद थापा पनि एक किसिमको जनजाति नै होला। डायनेस्टी त डायनेस्टी तर अंतिम डायनेस्टी। गगन सम्म पुग्दा डायनेस्टी समाप्त गर्ने डायनेस्टी। गनगन थापा का छोरी हरु राजनीति प्रवेश नगरुन। हार्दिक इच्छा। 

अथवा वीपी पुत्र भारत का लागि राजदुत। कसो? वीपी लाई भारत मा मानदान गर्ने समाजवादी हरु आज पनि प्रशस्त छन। थुप्रै लाई थाहा छैन तर ली कुआन यु को  सिद्धांत पनि लोकतान्त्रिक समाजवाद नै थियो। 

देउबा को स्थिति यस पटक अत्यंत कमजोर छ। जति सुकै लड़े नलडे देउबा तर जित्दैनन। त्यति स्पष्ट छ। त्यही स्पष्ट भएर त जो पनि लड्छु भन्दैछन। देउबा लाई जित्छु भनेर थुप्रै लाई लागेको छ। तर देउबा ले समर्थन गरे पनि यदि यी चार एक्का को समायोजन हुँदैन भने निधि लाई गारहो छ। समायोजन हुन्छ भने जित सुनिश्चित। देउबा चाहियेन। हुन त पुछन का लागि पुछने गरे बिग्रिने होइन। आपसी सम्बन्ध का लागि राम्रै हो।

तर मेरो प्रमुख कुरा मुद्दा हो। हुन त सत्ता पनि मुद्दा हो। अनुहार पनि मुद्दा हो। तर मैले संविधान संसोधन को कुरा गरेको। 

कांग्रेस भित्र निधि को पक्ष मा संभावना 

जनकपुर–जयनगर रेल

प्रतिक्रान्ति विरुद्धको संसद पुनर्स्थापना र कॉंग्रेस भित्र विमल गगनको सम्मिश्रण

कार्यकर्ताले हामी तीन भाइको एकता खोजेका छन् १५ औँ महाधिवेशनमा मलाई सभापति बनाउने हैसियतमा शेरबहादुर देउवा रहनुहुन्न ............  कांग्रेसका यसअघिका चारवटा महाधिवेशनमा म शेरबहादुर देउवासँगै थिएँ । ........ म १० कक्षा पढ्दा नै जेलमा पुगेको विद्यार्थी हुँ । टेष्ट परीक्षा जेलभित्रैबाट दिएको हुँ । आइकम पनि मैले जेलबाटै दिएको हुँ । ........  म उहाँसँग पनि जेलमा सँगै थिएँ । ..........  कांग्रेसभित्रको आन्तरिक राजनीति बुझ्ने धेरैले भन्ने गर्थे– यो टिममा देउवा पनि विमलेन्द्र निधि नै हो । हाम्रै टिमका साथीहरुले पनि शेरबहादुर देउवापछि तपाईं नै हाम्रो नेता भनेर भन्नुहुन्थ्यो । कांग्रेसमा त्योबाहेक पनि अर्को इतर समूह या टिम छ । त्यो टिमभित्रका साथीहरुले पनि देउवापछि निधि नै हो भन्नुहुन्थ्यो । ............  रामचन्द्र पौडेल र रामशरणजीले त्यहीबेला अस्वीकार गर्नुभयो । उहाँहरुले सक्रिय राजनीतिक गर्ने हो भन्नुभयो । त्यसपछि शेरबहादुर देउवा र रामवरण यादवको नाम रह्यो । मनोनयन गर्ने दिन बिहानसम्म पनि शेरबहादुर देउवाले मैले सोचेर निर्णय गर्छु भन्दै हुनुहुन्थ्यो । मैले त्यसबेला नै रामवरण यादवलाई म तपाईंको पक्षमा छु है भनेर भनेको थिएँ । किनकि मैले गिरिजाबाबुको आदेशअनुसार उपेन्द्र यादवसँग कुरा गरिरहेको थिएँ । ............. हामी तीनजना गोप्य कोठामा बसेर ‘शेरबहादुरजी तपाईंले अहिले रामवरण यादवलाई छाडिदिनुस्’ भनेर भनेँ । ............ मैले त्यो बेला नै उहाँलाई के भनेको थिएँ भने– तपाईंले सभापति जित्नुभयो भने मलाई उपसभापति बनाउनुहोला । अनि म १४ औँ महाधिवेशनका लागि सभापतिको तयारी गर्छु । उहाँले हुन्छ हुन्छ भन्नुभयो । यही हो उहाँ र मबीचको कुरा । ............  त्यसबेला बीपीले नै विमलेन्द्र निधिलाई नेविसंघको सभापति बनाउनुपर्छ भनेर कार्यक्रम उद्घाटन गर्न आफैँ जानुभएको हो । ............ हुन त शेरबहादुरजीले केन्द्रीय कार्यालयमा सबैका सामु भन्नुभएको थियो– मलाई त उठ्ने इच्छा थिएन, तर मलाई भित्तामा धकेल्ने ? निर्वाचनमा पार्टी पराजित भएपछि नैतिकताका आधारमा राजीनामा दिनुपर्छ भनेर भन्दा उहाँले त्यसो भन्नुभएको थियो । ............... नेपाली कांग्रेसमा आफ्नै मात्र समूहबाट कोही पनि सभापति भएको छैन । यो बीपी कोइरालाकै पालादेखि देखिएको विषय हो । बीपी कोइरालाको समयमा पनि सुवर्ण शमशेर, गणेशमान सिंह र सूर्यप्रसाद उपाध्याय हुनुहुन्थ्यो । चारजना शीर्ष नेता हुनुहुन्थ्यो । किसुनजी र गिरिजाबाबु शीर्ष नेता हुनुहुन्नथ्यो । आज हामीले गुट भन्छौँ तर समूह त्यसबेला पनि थियो । ................... ३० वर्षे पञ्चायतकालमा महाधिवेशन हुन सकेन । ........... नवौँ महाधिवेशनमा गिरिजाप्रसाद कोइरालाविरुद्ध उठ्नका लागि हामीले शेरबहादुर देउवा र रामचन्द्र पौडेललाई हात जोडेर अनुरोध गरेका हौँ । चिरञ्जीवी वाग्लेको ‘हाइट’ पुग्दैन तपाईंहरु अघि बढिदिनुस् भनेर आग्रह गर्‍यौँ तर मान्नुभएन । हामीले वाध्य भएर वाग्लेलाई अघि सारेका हौँ । ............. अन्तिम दिनमा त गिरिजाप्रसाद कोइरालाले किसुनजीकै समूहबाट मान्छे तान्नुभयो । योगप्रसाद उपाध्याय, बासु रिसाल सबैको समर्थन प्राप्त गर्नुभो ।  गिरिजाप्रसाद कोइराला पनि आफ्नै समूहबाट निर्वाचित हुनुभएको थिएन । ............. १२ औँ महाधिवेशनमा सुशील कोइराला आफ्नै समूहबाटमात्रै निर्वाचित हुनुभएको होइन, उहाँले पनि शेरबहादुर देउवा, किसुनजी समूहका मान्छे तान्नुभयो र जित्नुभयो । उहाँहरुको निधन भइसकेपछि १३ औँ महाधिवेशनमा रामचन्द्र पौडेलसँग शेरबहादुर देउवाको प्रतिस्पर्धा भयो । शेरबहादुरजीले पनि कोइराला समूहकै मान्छे तानेर जित्नुभएको हो । ...................  शेरबहादुरजीलाई सभापति बनाउने भूमिका खेलेको हुँ । बीपी कोइरालादेखि अहिलेसम्म कसैले पनि कांग्रेसमा आफ्नो समूहको मतले मात्रै जितेको छैन । ................  मलाई पनि एक त आफ्नै समूहबाट शेरबहादुरजीले समर्थन गरिराख्नुभएको छैन । शेरबहादुरजीबाट समर्थन प्राप्त भयो भने मलाई सजिलो हुन्छ । म यो पनि भन्छु शेरबहादुरजीले मलाई ‘ल मेरो क्यान्डिडेट तपाईं नै हो’ भन्नुभयो भने पनि जित्न त्यति सजिलो छैन । ..................... बीपीको असली राजनीतिक उत्तराधिकारी म हुँ । ........... उहाँ गणेशमानजीको छोरा म महेन्द्रनारायण निधिको छोरा । अरु पनि साथीहरु छन् । यो नेपालमा मात्र होइन जहाँ पनि हन्छ । माफ गर्नुहोला तपाईंहरुको पत्रकारिता क्षेत्रमा पनि हुन्छ, डाक्टर, इन्जिनियर, साहित्यकार, चित्रकार, कलाकारको क्षेत्रमा पनि हुन्छ । त्यसकारण विरासतलाई हेयको दृष्टिकोणले हेर्नु हुँदैन है । .................  मैले उहाँलाई म तपाईंको निवासमा भेट्न आउँछु भनेको थिएँ । तर उमेर र पदका कारणले पनि म आउनुपर्छ भनेर उहाँ आउनुभयो ।

सरकारबाट बाहिरिएसँगै महन्थ ठाकुर समूहमा तीव्र असन्तुष्टि  पछिल्लो समय अध्यक्ष ठाकुरप्रति कार्यकारिणी समितिका सदस्यहरु शरतसिंंह भण्डारी, राजकिशोर यादव, राष्ट्रियसभाका सदस्य शेखर सिंह, विघटित प्रतिनिधिसभाका सदस्यहरु प्रमोद साह, अमृता अग्रहरी, नेता गोविन्द चौधरीलगायत असन्तुष्ट देखिएका छन् । उल्लेखनीय छ, उनीहरु सबैले जसपाभित्र ठाकुर र अर्का अध्यक्ष उपेन्द्र यादवबीचको शक्ति संघर्षमा ठाकुरलाई नै साथ दिँदै आएका थिए ।  ........ सुरुमा भण्डारी उपेन्द्र यादवको पक्षमा थिए तर सरकारमा सहभागी हुने चर्चा चलेपछि उनी महन्थ ठाकुरको पक्षमा लागेका थिए । उनी निकट एक नेता भन्छन्, ‘शरत् दादा महन्थ ठाकुरको क्रियाकलापबाट सन्तुष्ट हुनुहुन्न तर उहाँलाई साथ दिनु दादाको बाध्यता छ ।’ ....... ‘महन्थ ठाकुर पक्षमा कुनै पनि कुरा विना भागवण्डाले हुँदैन, जे पनि उहाँहरु भागवण्डा गर्नुहुन्छ, पार्टीमा जनाधार भएका नेताको वास्ता गरिँदैन, आफ्ना आसेपासेलाई मात्र मौका दिइन्छ ।’  ........  सरकारमा मन्त्री पठाउँदा पनि ठाकुरले पार्टीमा कुनै छलफल नगरी आफूखुशी निर्णय लिएको ........ ‘ओलीलाई साथ नदिएको भए पार्टी विभाजन हुने थिएन, तर उनीहरुले बरु पार्टी विभाजन भए होस् तर ओलीलाई नछाड्ने अडान लिएका कारण पार्टी यो अवस्थामा आएको हो ।’ ......... जसपाका अध्यक्ष उपेन्द्र यादवले पनि गलत गरेको बताउँदै उनले जसरी महन्थ ठाकुरहरुले ओलीका लागि अडान लिए, त्यसरी नै उपेन्द्र यादवले पनि प्रचण्डका लागि अडान लिएको प्रस्ट पारे । दुवैको अडानले गर्दा पार्टीको यो हालत भएको उनको भनाइ छ । ‘दुवैजना एकएक कदम पछाडि हटेको भए पार्टी विभाजनको अवस्थामा पुग्ने थिएन’ .......... त्यसो त, पार्टीलाई विभाजनबाट रोक्नका लागि सांसद प्रमोद साहले सांसदहरुको एउटा भेला गरेर शीर्ष नेतृत्वमाथि दबाब नै दिएका थिए । पार्टी कुनै पनि हालतमा नफुटोस् भनेर केही समय दबाब दिए पनि आफ्नो पक्षमा उभिएका सांसदहरु नै नेताहरुको पछि लाग्न थालेपछि आफूहरुको केही नचलेको उनले बताए ।