Sunday, October 30, 2005

Seven Party Forum In Jackson Heights


Bimalendra Nidhi, video clip
Ram Sharan Mahat, video clip
Jhala Nath Khanal, video clip

114 photos.

I woke up late. When I got off the F train to trasfer to the G train, as I waited on the platform I happened to look at a subway map on the wall. Someone had drawn a black line starting from Times Square. The line went left and then up. It read, the black train goes to Canada.

It was another transfer to the E train. I did not know the venue for sure, but I had been told I could ask at the Tibetan Yak Restaurant. I also needed to grab a quick lunch there. And it was literally going to be a grab: I was running a little late. And all the dignitaries were right there at the restaurant.

"Oho, Dr. Ram Sharan Mahat. Paramendra. Paramendra Bhagat."

"Jharendra?"

"Paramendra Bhagat."

After the caravan of cars got us all to the Satya Narayan temple, I approached him again.

"Dr. Ram Sharan Mahat has been all over the place online in his photos during the protests," I said in Nepali.

"You mean before Dashain?"

That is when he came out of the closet with a broad smile: "I have heard of you." I guess he is one of the readers of this blog. He mentioned some Professor Aalok who had talked to him about me.

It was a short ride in the caravan. It might have taken the same amount of time walking, as it did after I walked back to the same restaurant with Anil Jha after the program was over. I spent the rest of the evening with Anilji. I really wanted to make it to this poetry event somewhere where Kul Chandra Gautam was going to show up: ever since I got into town I have been wanting to meet that guy. But I skipped that for Anil. That is my dedication to the Madhesi cause. I hope I get to meet Gautam some other time soon.

This was a Youth Council program, Anand Bist and others. I liked this venue better compared to the Columbia University venue that was set up for Gagan Thapa. It was in Jackson Heights. It was larger.

Crorepati Mridula had sponsored the samosas for the event, it was announced.

This was one great event. There was a large crowd in attendance, the question answer session at the end was lively, to say the least. The speakers all talked great.

I honed in on the four point agenda of the seven parties. It can only take shape after the House is revived. There is nothing in the 1990 constitution that will allow for the revival of the House. The king can not do it. The Supreme Court can not do it. To revive the House would be a fundamental clash with the prerogative of a Prime Minister to dissolve the House. So why not go straight for an all party government, and then to the other points that culminate in a constituent assembly?

Dr. Ram Sharan Mahat said a House is needed so that the power comes back from the palace to the people. I too wish there were a parliament in the country. I am not for an executive monarchy like the one the country has now.

Jhala Nath Khanal gave a better answer. He hinted that talks are underway. And it might be possible to come forth with a new agenda. But until then the four point agenda was the common minimum program.

I took the same question over to Pari Thapa after the program was over. He gave an even better answer. He basically said this was not a matter of legality, but a political question. Reviving the House would be a political act.

Deuba dissolved the House in 2002. It was not the king. Then Deuba had six months to hold elections. He was not able to do that. The king sacked Deuba. Then he invited an all party government and a consensus prime minister. Upto that point the king is acting within the 1990 constitution. And then the document dies. Nothing the king has done after that is allowed by the 1990 constitution. And 2/1 was a coup. Just like he has been out of the constitution roaming around, he should similarly revive the House. That was the logic I interpreted from his brief remark.

Two leaders from the two large parties used the word "madisey" when touching on the issue of social justice. During my question I criticized the Congress and the UML.

"When only 2,000 people are dead, you are not for a constituent assembly, but after 12,000 people are dead, you are for a constituent assembly. When the king has not enacted a coup, you are not for a constituent assembly, but after he has organized a coup, you are for it. That proves you did not get there by doing your political homework, you got there because you were pushed."

Then the word became Madhesi in a subsequent remark. That proves people who use the "m" word in Nepal are fully aware it is like the "n" word in America.

The Congressias can act like high school bulleys. Which is the largest party? It is not the Congress, not after its vertical split. But they maintain the fiction. "Let's assume you are the largest party," Jhala Nath Khanal said at one point.

Minendra Risal was late coming.

Dr. Ram Sharan Mahat speaks like he is about to start a fight. He stands up. He is an imposing presence. He has a metallic voice. He talks loud. He emphasizes words. He does not sway his head. He looks straight ahead, maybe he is just looking at an empty chair, but it looks like he has locked his eyes with that one person sitting in front of him who he is going to go smack after his talk is over.

It was sheer delight meeting Bimalendra Nidhi. Nidhiji is the most senior Madhesi politician in the country right now. He is the reason why the Deuba Congress is for federalism. He is a fellow Janakpuriya. The Nidhis are like the Koiralas in stature. One criticism I have of Girija Koirala is King Gyanendra thought of making Badri Mandal a Deputy Prime Minister, but it never occurred to Girija Koirala to make Mahendra Narayan Nidhi a Deputy Prime Minister. His wife, a Bengali from Calcutta I learned, told me their children are the ones who check the family email. And they get excited when there are emails from me. I was touched. This was my first time meeting Nidhi.

After he spoke, he walked to me and asked me to show where the bathroom in the building was. We went downstairs. Dr. Mahat came along not long after.

Ram Sharan Mahat and Jhala Nath Khanal were particularly articulate.

The seven parties have come together with the four point agenda: (1) revive House, (2) form all party government, (3) peace talks with Maoists, and (4) elections to a constituent assembly. Okay, so the House is not to be revived because it can legally be revived. It is to be revived nevertheless, as a political decision. But peace making is give and take. The four point agenda is an achievement. I wish the Congress and the UML had come forth for a constituent assembly much earlier, especially the Koirala Congress.

But there are two other parties to the conflict: the Maoists and the Monarchists. Neither of them want the House revived. So if it is going to be a political decision to revive the House, why not make a political decision to forego that step and go straight for an all party government if that hastens both peace and democracy?

I really think Girija Koirala and the Congress need to look into this. The idiotic House revival stance is why the movement is not taking off. There should be a simpler program. One option is, all party government, constituent assembly. Another, democratic republic. The House revival stand is like a software bug. It is messing up the whole program.

I got to spend a lot of time with Anil Jha. It was tea and chheula at one place, long talks, a walk over to the Patel Brothers, and then a fish curry meal at a Bengali restaurant. We touched on so many different topics. We got to know each other. I asked him about him. He asked me about me.

"We are Madhesis also in America. There is work to be done here also," I said. "Aap long wahan kariye, main yahan karta hoon." And I was not talking about the Nepalis in America, the Pahadis, although they do need to be talked about. I also suggested how the democratic cause in Nepal is also of importance to the Democrats in America. Spreading democracy the progressive way like in Nepal is preferable to doing it the neo-con way like in Iraq.

I asked a lot of questions about the Sadbhavana, especially the inner happenings of the party since late 1996. Inner party politics in a small party like the Sadbhavana in a country like Nepal is a whole different ball game. It can feel like early stages of institution building. There are a lot of loose ends.

I learned Anilji's pesonal story. Quite a story.

What really got my attention is his telling me seven of the Sadbhavana district presidents are graduates of its student wing. That is encouraging. Looks like the Sadbhavana is proving better than the larger parties in terms of nurturing young leaders.

We talked about the Proposed Constitution. We touched upon the main points, like federalism and languages issue. I said, if the Sadbhavana supports the document, I will also approach the other parties. If not, I don't see why I should approach others. He sounded supportive. He wanted a minor technicality amended. That was all.

I also got to talk to Duman Thapa at Mridula Koirala's place. He is the Carter Center person. He is a western educated person. He earned his Masters at Harvard. I got his email address. He told me Nepal was number five on the Carter Center's priority list, as in it was way up there, that he had already lead a similar delegation of the Maoists to Europe. And next in line was a delegation of the Monarchists to the US. I suggested he take a look at my document.

Dumanji and I could really make some headway if he were to share some of his contacts in the three camps, even if only indirectly. We are going to stay in touch.

Barsha is also on the team.

Chakra Banstola was enjoying his drink when I left the place.

Saturday, October 29, 2005

Democratic Options


I tried to initiate dialogue among some members of the visiting Nepali delegation around the Proposed Constitution and made no headway. I think the attitude is this is too early. There is no participation from the king's side or the Maoist side. There is major reluctance to give room on the issue of federalism. A lot of the status quoists in the larger parties would like to postpone federalism for as long as they can. My document looks like a can of worms to them: it touches upon all issues political, social and economic, and it can feel like too much homework. I have also put the republican version of the same constitution at the table, but the reluctance does not go away. Partly it is also the anti-Madhesi prejudice that questions the very legitimacy of the idea that it is me taking the initiative. Partly it is the inherent reluctance to go for the new, groundbreaking ideas. It is also a lack of political skill and foresight on the part of the team members. Some of them also feel preached. Even when I have made it very clear I am not trying to convince them to any agenda. They have the option to disagree with every element in the document and say why.

Forget the visiting dignitaries. The Nepalis in town carry a similar reluctance. I think the bold proposal for federalism really irks a whole lot of people. And there is also the feeling if they will work through the framework of my document, they are going to have to give me credit.

Peace and progress end up the casualty.

As I have said before, the logical aspect of peace making is quite simple. It is the emotional aspect that is all tied up in knots. Peace making is more hand holding than anything else, looks like.

The outright refusal to even take a look at the document I find flabbergasting. But then it is not just the democrats. Sharad Chandra Shaha was as or even more reluctant. (Sharad Chandra Shaha Is A Dazzling Person)

Some strengths of my proposed document:
  1. No element is binding: the document is but a framework for a dialogue. (Wish Me Luck)
  2. First the seven parties could come together and make a list of all things they agree on. Then they could invite the Monarchists and the Maoists to come along or be done with. Or not. The points they disagree on they settle through a constituent assembly.
  3. This document is not a trick to retain the monarchy. Ever since I met Sharad Chandra Shaha some democrats have been casting suspicions my way. There is a republican version of the exact same document. All you have to do is express your preference for the republican version if that's what you want.
  4. The idea of a total, transparent democracy is really cutting edge. If it were to be introduced in Nepal, American progressives will demand it in America. It also is the best anti-corruption proposal any democracy has. It also addresses the issue of internal reform of the parties.
  5. It co-opts the Maoists politically. The document's emphasis on classlessness is cutting edge and pragmatic. The Maoists are pie in the sky and vague.
  6. The suggested structure for federalism is scientific. It is mathematical. The proposed structure will make people from all backgrounds feel included in the state structure. And it does so without identifying any of the groups. That is no small achievement, and possibly of a wider use. Between the state (30%), the district (10%) and the village/town (10%), the non-federal elements get half the state revenue. That four tier structure is a great way to decentralize power without having to draw boundaries along ethnic lines. There is a lot of room for the three states to go different ways. The three states also get to compete with each other and compare notes. There are many proposals for federalism. Two that I have seen are the Sadbhavana version and the Maoist version. I feel my proposal is better than either. And considering 20% of the income taxes stay at the district level or below, that is like having 75 mini states in a way. People from all ethnic groups can hope to attain leadership positions.
  7. Where the state intervenes or makes preferences to help out groups and individuals, it does so only based on income brackets. Considering the marginalized groups also tend to be the poorest, that might be the better way.
  8. My document gives a framework that will really save a lot time. Otherwise the constituent assembly can take years to conclude as happened in South Africa.
  9. The document and the suggested dialogue around it are not being presented as a substitute to a constituent assembly.
  10. Not only does the document co-opt the Maoists politically, but it also steals their economic messages, and in the process gets rid of their failed jargon on the topic. Baburam Bhattarai needs a serious dose of Economics 101.
In sum I think the Proposed Constitution would turn Nepal into the number one democracy on the planet. Will the democrats move beyond their prejudice and jealousy and go istead for glory and the good of the people?

I think the biggest reason for the refusal to take a look at the document is the prevalent Bahun prejudice against all other groups in the country. In my proposal the Bahuns also end up better off. But I think they are not too worried about their absolute welfare, but rather their relative welfare. That is primitive.

But considering these visiting dignitaries are out on the ground taking the risks, they stay in the lead, and they decide, and someone like me helps any way he can.

One way to help is by keep nudging the parties to internal reforms.

But the number one issue is to held the democrats in the major bipolarization exercise that is taking place in the country. Vigilance has to be maintained. The movement is to be extended all possible support. That is key. My proposal will still be there after the interim government is formed. So I am patient.

In The News

Thursday, October 27, 2005

To: NAC


To: Nepalese Americas Council, Executive Committee. Jeetendra Joshi, Puru Subedi, Tara Niraula, Ratan Jha, Annapurna Deo, Radha Basnyat, Baikuntha Thapa, Parashar Malla, Anil Pradhan, Mukesh Singh, Prakash Malla, Girija Gautam, Veda Joshi, Prahlad Pant, Deepak Shimkhada, Raja Bhattacharya, Suman Silwal, Gaury Adhikary, Ramesh N Amatya, Tulsi R Maharjan, Rohini Sharma.

Cc: Gagan Thapa, Pramod Aryal, Sanjaya Parajuli, Anand Bist, Mridula Koirala, Anil Shahi.

Subject: Extending moral support to the once in a lifetime democracy movement in Nepal.

Hello All.

When Gagan Thapa (
The Man, The Myth, The Legend: Gagan Thapa, A Day In The Life Of Gagan Thapa) was passing through town here in New York City, I asked him at his public appearance as to what the Nepalis in the US can do for the about to be launched movement for democracy in Nepal, moral, logistical, anything. He said logistical support was not needed. But moral support was needed rather acutely. There are many Nepali organizations all over America, but if there could be one umbrella organization that on behalf of all organizations could put forth immediate press statements of condemnation when, say, Kantipur FM comes under physical assault by the state, that would be a big help, he said.

This is like 1947 in India, 1776 in the United States. This is not about partisan politics, this is not about choosing sides between the Congress, the UML, the RPP, the Jana Morcha or the Sadbhavana.

I learned from Pramod Aryal a little earlier of the Nepalese Americas Council as such an umbrella organization. I urge the Council to take Gagan's request to heart and be at the ready.

There are many details from the impending movement we do not know. The triangular conflict makes it complicated to decipher as to what is going on politically at any one point in time. But there are things we can agree to take clear stands against. Despite the lack of clarity, we can and must choose to be on the side of democracy, human rights and rule of law. Any deviations by the state will have to be forcefully condemned. Physical assaults on peaceful demonstrators will have to be condemned. Attacks on the media will have to be condemned.

I would be more than happy to draft statements to forward to the Council as occasions might arise. Or the Council might pick one or a few of its own. Either way is fine. The important thing is that a rapid response mechanism is established and put to use.

Draft a statement, circulate it over email among the Council members, attach names of all member organizations to the statement, and then release it.

I feel like this is the least we can do. The Council needs to throw its total weight behind the movement. Moral support has to be extended, in a total way, in a sophisticated way. We might have to do more than issue press statements down the line. We might have to pick up the phone and jam the Capitol Hill switchboard in the worst case scenario. We have to maintain that threat if only to put pressure on the regime now so they think twice, thrice before they create worst case scenarios of possible heinous crackdowns on peaceful demonstrators.

We are here, we are not there. But they need us. We might be in the oldest democracy, but we are not totally free until they are free back there. We will likely not get this opportunity ever again over our lifetimes. There is this decisive tone to the impending movement.

On to victory.

Paramendra Bhagat
New York City
(
Timi Sadak Ma Utreko Dekheko Chhu)