Stephen Bezruchka sabez@u.washington.edu King of Nepal's earnings proprtion compared to other country heads Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:13:15 -0800 (PST)
When I was in Nepal, people were leaving Bajura because they were starving. But the royal family seems to be OK. Stephen
How much money does Nepali king earn?
Dear Nepali citizens and foreign lovers of Nepal, You might be wondering why Nepal is still poor when its countries of equal economic status has reached the sky with booming economic development. Let me try to answer - this is one of the reason, I have recently found.
Nepal is one of the poorest counries of the world but Nepal's king is the highest paid king of the world.
The income of Nepali king Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev is : -2,426 times higher than that of Chinese president -318 times higher than that of Indian president 301 times higher than that of Pakistani president -173 times higher than that of Russian president -57 times higher than that of French president -15 times higher than that of British president 10 times higher than that of American president
-Netherlands queen's income : Rs. 22,32,00,000 (per capita income Rs 17,25,120 ) -American president earns Rs. 3,24,00,000 (1,15,20,000 returns in tax), (per capita income Rs 25,24,320) -Japanese king earns Rs. 22,23,52,000 (per capita income Rs.24,15,600) -Chinese president earns Rs. 1,35,000 (per capita income Rs 67,680) -Indian president earns Rs. 10,11,000 (per capita income Rs 34,560) -French president earns Rs 57,96,000 (per capita income Rs 15,84,000) -Pakistani president earns (after the coup) Rs 10,94,000 (per capita income 29,520) -British Queen does not get any salary from the state. She has a property of Rs 30,24,00,00,000 (the profit of investiment, after paying the tax, is hers) but even her neckless is the property of the country. -British president earns Rs 2,19,58,000 (per capita income is Rs 18,16,200) -Russian president earns Rs 19,03,000 (per capita income is Rs 1,54,000) -Belgean king receives salary as a civil servant (per capita income is Rs 16,74,000)
And, Nepali king earns Rs 61,91,00,000 (per capita income is Rs 16,560=US$ 230) [This means the Nepali king earns Rs. 19,878 times higher than a citizen. Last year it was 37,385 times higher. Thus a citizen can earn as much as the king earns in a year only after working for 19,000 years or in 316 lives. Ho la!]
Appendix
Nepali royal family is involved in various business. A king does not have to pay tax according to Nepal's constitution. The present king has inherited the property of earlier king's family and nobody knows how much it is. This king has taken Rs 1,06,45,00,000 in past three years for his small family.
Courtsey: Surya Thapa, Mulyankan Monthly (Nov-Dec 2005) US dollar 1 = Rs 72 Nepal has a writing system of giving comma after two digits except the last.
REQUEST: PEASE PRINT THIS AND PASTE IT ON THE NOTICE BOARD OF YOUR OFFICE. THIS WILL GIVE ANSWER TO THE QUEST WHY NEPAL IS ALWAYS SO POOR. PLEASE CIRCULATE THIS PAGE TO YOUR FRIEND - YOU WILL NOT GET ANY FORTUNE BUT WILL CERTAINLY OPEN THEIR EYES.
Thanks, Nepali Janata
In The News
Over 100 arrested in Kathmandu valley, dozens injured in clashes NepalNewsThe pain of Nagarkot in Nepali mediaDon’t play with fire Nepali Times .... The massacre at Nagarkot on Wednesday night drives home the point that continued militarisation can have unintended and tragic consequences. This was not just one drunken soldier running amok, it is symptomatic of a deeper malaise in a military-minded political class that believes everything can be resolved with force..... • How many other soldiers were with Sgt Basudeb Thapa when he returned to the temple with the assault rifle? • Why was he carrying a gun while in civvies? • Doesn’t the RNA have a policy on drunkenness of its soldiers while on furlough? • Not that this makes any difference now, but did Basudeb kill himself or was he shot by a fellow-soldier? • Why was he allowed to check out a gun at the barracks when everyone could see he was drunk? • Why was someone with a history of violence-prone drunkenness allowed to keep serving in the army? .... Given the frequency of such behaviour in the past, it is clear Nagarkot was just waiting to happen...... no commission will address the culture of arrogance, violence and hierarchical indiscipline that was tolerated and gave rise to such atrocities...... the militarisation that the country is going through ...... Once more, our myopic political parties frustrated by the lack of public support for their agitation are trying to make hay while the sun shines by trying to jumpstart their anti-king agitation...... This is nothing new, they have been known for political opportunism and irresponsible incitement while in power, they did it on 1 September when they unleashed Nepal’s first ever politically-coordinated communal pogrom. And now they are playing with fire again by unleashing terror on the streets that could easily turn ethnic....... SC empowers women to sell their property at their own wish Students, police clash in Nepal strike over killings Reuters AlertNet, UK Strike over killings hits Nepal capitalAljazeera.net Nepal parties call general strike against killingsStuff.co.nz Nepal in ferment over massacreNewKerala.com Killings spark violent anti-King demonstrations in Nepal Outlook (subscription), India Nepal soldier kills 12, protest turns anti-King Indian Express, India Nepal's Opposition Stages Emergency-Rule Protest in Kathmandu Bloomberg
On December 2 the UML held a rally in Baneshwar and 100,000 people or more showed up. Yesterday it was the seven party coalition at the same place with over 20,000 people.
Before that the UML managed to show 100,000 people in a place like Butwal. It was able to mobilize a few districts at once. The UML also had impressive shows in other places.
A few days after the UML rally on December 2, the Nepali Congress had a poor rally in Biratnagar, supposedly a bastion. The crowd size was more like 20,000. It was a much smaller crowd it showed in Bhaktapur.
What is going on? For one, the ground reality is that the Nepali Congress is no longer the largest party in the country after its vertical split.
But then if the UML can get 100,000 people, for the seven parties it should be 100,000 plus. But instead the numbers go down drastically. What's going on?
I think it has everything to do with a fundamental lack of clarity and coordination.
The UML has clarity. It has come out for a democratic republic.
But the seven party coalition has been held hostage by the Nepali Congress. That alliance is not even solidly behind a constituent assembly, let alone a democratic republic. Girija's plan is to revive the House and then revive the 1990 constitution. You don't need a revolution for that. If that be your goal, you are better off participating in the king's elections.
The Nepali Congress has a right to pick and choose its political stances. That is what democracy is. It can pick the leader it wants, it can pick its ideology, it can make its policy choices. But instead of secretly fantasizing about reviving the 1990 constitution, the Congress has the option to pick parts of the 1990 constitution it likes and then fight for those elements in the next constitution. A constituent assembly will allow that.
The seven party alliance does not have to come out for a democratic republic, but it does have to unequivocally come out for a constituent assembly. That it has not. Unless the House revival stance is ditched, the alliance's commitment to the constituent assembly is suspect.
That is not me preaching. That is what the people seem to be saying with their feet. Just look at the numbers.
The people are not afraid of the king, the army, the police or with Tulsi Giri. The people are not afraid. But they need a clarity of vision from the seven party alliance that has so far been missing.
An interim government under an interim constitution that will take the country to a constituent assembly is clarity of vision. The House revival idea is not. This is not a minor issue. This is the key issue. This is what is holding everything back. This is what made the king's misadventures possible. This has been the blunder of the decade.
The House revival idea does not excite people. That idea does not fire their imagination.
Autocracy is wrong, a communist republic would be wrong, but the 1990s were no heaven. The House revival idea is a promise to take the country to the past. The past was not that good. The people want to move towards the future, a bright future. A constituent assembly would be that bright future.
And the seven party alliance needs to have a permanent committee of seven individuals that meets at least once a week. No such thing exists. No wonder there tends to be little coordination.
But then there is a mirror image of the same among the diaspora Nepalis.
For the longest time the prevailing mood was that only moral support was to be extended. Organizations would labor to put out press statements. Those too would be few and far between.
Finally there was this shift of mood. Moral as well as logistical support was to be extended. That was nothing akin to the Maoists moving from a communist republic to a democratic republic. And I feel that more strongly more time that passes.
Then the next big achievement was to identify these five projects that we were going to work on, and we are working on.
And the house collapsed. I got kicked out of the online forum: NDF Owner, Stop This Nonsense, Reinstate Immediately. I think I have some idea now how Baburam Bhattarai might have felt under "protective custody."
What offended people? People made no secret of the fact that I was looking like a leader, and they were offended. (Time For Madhesi Militancy Is Now)
I had been incorporating all suggestions that were being brought forth. I suggested raising money online and I created a webpage. There was this major hue and cry. I incorporated literally every single alternate idea that came along. Why? Money is good no matter how you raise it. All money raising ideas are good as long as money gets raised and book keeping is transparent, some at the level of all peoples, some only at the committee level.
People complained I seemed to be getting a lot of publicity and was looking like the leader. I suggested a cloud model of group dynamics, not because I am publicity shy, but because I concluded that would be the most efficient, effective way. Your "glow" in the galaxy is directly proportional to your activity level. And there was to be no barrier to entry at any level of involvement for anyone.
Level 1: You are committed to the democracy cause. (90%) Level 2: You are for democracy, but the democracy movement is a spectator sport for you. You will watch, or you will watch and whine. (70%) Level 3: You are for it, and you would like to actively contribute. (20%) Level 4: Show up for your local Every Sunday 11 AM solidarity meeting. (5%) Level 5: Donate $100, and then sit back and watch how that money goes into one of the 5 projects. (2%) Level 6: Join one of the 5 teams. (0.1%) Level 7: Become a Project Manager of one of the 5 teams. (0.01%) Level 8: Be part of more than one project. Level 9: Be part of all projects. Level 10: Be part of all levels and all projects, and constantly be looking at the big picture.
I guess this would be put me at level 10. But that is still not a pyramid. Why? Because there is no barrier to entry for anyone at any level. Nothing prevents anyone else from also getting involved at Level 10. You will have access to the same news sources, the same discussions, the same data, the same numbers, many of the same people, many of the same phone numbers. The more the merrier. It truly is.
But then there are hitherto unnamed people who secretly believe they are the chairpersons of the whole thing. That would not be as offensive if they were actually putting in some work. But to them it is a status thing. Work or no work, they are at the top. And they don't even have names, many of them.
The work has been slightly disrupted, temporarily, but it has not been stopped.
I am going to keep working the underground to try and get me reinstated to the Nepal Democracy Forum. But I already have had people call me and suggest the comments sections of this very blog would be a better forum. For one, it would be open. I dig the idea, kind of. There are less than five active people at that forum in the first place. This blog has a much wider readership than that forum.
But I do want to be reinstated.
Another thing that came up is quite a few people at that forum are leery of attaching their names to the work being done. It is perfectly okay for them to work anonymously or to not work at all. But they go one step further: they stop the work! They get in the way! They will not do it themselves, and they will not let others do it. And these are people with sound democratic credentials. Speed of execution of plans is not an issue to some of these revolutionaries.
I believe I have given sound answers to every single criticism that got heaped my way. And if there are more, I would be more than happy to take them in the comments section right here. Criticisms on fundraising methods, criticisms on hiearchies within the movement work, I have dealt with them all. If you want to glow brighter than me, put in the hours. Don't begrudge that I am glowing. As far as I am concerned, publicity is the biggest chunk of the work. The more noise we make, the better for the freedom fighters in Nepal. So don't be complaining that we are partly succeeding.
And there is to be no compromise on free speech. It is weird that so many Nepalis with such advanced degrees from major American institutions do not get free speech. Free speech does not come with ifs and buts. I have heard some really weird excuses. "Oh, but we are family." "We are just a group of friends." "What you are saying is right, what is not right is the way you are saying it." "Such and such has such and such degree from such and such place." It is okay to say all those things and more, but it is not okay to say that or anything else and go ahead and curb free speech. If you disagree, you express your disagreement, you don't proceed to shut up the other person.
Maybe the seven party alliance and the diaspora Nepalis are not that different from each other.
I just read in news your explicit support for the democracy loving people of Nepal. I also learned you did a Peace Corps stint in Nepal.
Please keep up your staunch support to the democracy movement, and please get others on Capitol Hill to join you in a big way. All your colleagues should make five minutes of time for Nepal. They can't afford not to. Spreading democracy is and always has been a security issue for America.
I thank you, Sir.
Paramendra Bhagat Brooklyn, NY
I just sent this and I think you should too.
Let people decide what they want: US Congressman Nepalnews.com, Nepal Interacting with the journalists through video conferencing at the US Centre in Kathmandu on Thursday, Walsh said, “Let the people decide whether to adopt a new constitution or retain the existing one” ...... Expressing dissatisfaction over the king’s moves, Walsh further said, “We are deeply disappointed over his actions like attack on civil liberties, press freedoms and others,” adding, “The political consultation we provide to the king is to restore such rights.” ...... the congressman said that bringing Maoists to mainstream politics was urgent ...... restoration of civil liberties, works towards restoration of democratic process still are the US conditions for arms supply to Nepal...... Speaking on the occasion, Director for the South Asian Affairs at the US state Department, Steve J Blake, said that US has no problem with the idea of inviting foreign mediation in Nepal's peace process if the King and parties agree to do so....... questioned the credibility of proposed polls in the absence of broader public liberties and freedom to express their views..... Nepalis should decide their destiny: US CongressmanKantipur Online Walsh is known as money man here Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, NY After nearly 17 years in office, the genial Republican from Onondaga, Onondaga County, has become one of the most powerful money men in the House...... New York state Democrats acknowledge that Walsh — who won with 91 percent of the vote in 2004 and 72 percent in 2002 — will be tough to beat as he seeks a 10th term next year...... Democrats who work with Walsh on the Appropriations Committee said he is seen as bipartisan. "He puts the interests of veterans above partisan politics," said Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, the senior Democrat on Walsh's subcommittee..... Walsh, a moderate, said he tries to avoid the ideological battles that divide many of his colleagues. The 58-year-old former social worker and Peace Corps volunteer spends his spare time on the Hill trying to promote democracy in Nepal and peace in Northern Ireland.... . "I don't particularly like to fight with people," Walsh said. "Maybe it comes from being a middle child and trying to get along with everybody."...... "I've learned that with enough patience and perseverance, you can usually get what you want." ...... US: Talks possible only if rebels give up arms Gorkhapatra, Nepal Congressman James Walsh (R), another speaker in the discussion on “Congress, US Foreign Policy and Nepal” organised by the American Center at the American Library this evening, said that the Maoist revolution in Nepal is a bad thing as there can be no private army in democracy, adding that dialogues with the Maoists would be possible only if they lay down their weapons..... Walsh was a Peace Corps volunteer from 1970-72 and visited Nepal many other times later and Blake served as a consular officer at the US Embassy in Kathmandu from 1994-1996...... he wanted to see a democratic and peaceful Nepal. “But we can’t force for that to happen.” ..... Blake suggested to first solve the current political problem that would give constitutional forces strength to deal with the Maoists......
Thousands attend 7-party Naya Baneshwor mass meet Kantipur .....The alliance today afternoon announced fresh protest programmes against the Feb.1 royal takeover. According to the new programmes, the parties will stage a joint protest demonstration in Janakpur on Jan.12, 2006. The parties will also organize a mass gathering in Kathmandu on Jan.20.
I get the impression the goal is not to bring the regime down before February. The goal is to disrupt the February 8 polls. Unlike some people in the diaspora, I accept the political leadership of the seven party coalition. I routinely express my disagreements and try to shape outcomes, but I do come around to the decisions they make because they are the ones at the forefront. They can claim to have a much better understanding of the ground realities.
I do think there is still a lot of lack of clarity in the 12 point agreement (10 Point Agreement To Succeed 12 Point Agreement) but it is hard work what they are doing. One has to look at the achivements made rather than the achievements still in the works. They are working under some very difficult circumstances.
My primary emphasis is on having a clear roadmap. Once the agenda is clear and sound, issues of leadership become less important. Once the alliance draws the clearest and shortest route to a constituent assembly, I will be much less particular as to who might lead the interim government. The leadership question is for the seven party alliance to decide. The rest of us can only make suggestions, and express agreements and disagreements.
Freedom of speech is sacrosanct. That is one big thing we are fighting for. There has to be respect for the same within the democracy movement itself. That is there at the level of the individual. But then there is also the issue of clarity and unity. There is the issue of effectiveness.
I have been very critical of Girija Koirala's House revival stand. I continue to be so. This is not a small issue. That single stand has been the root of much of the political mayhem of the past three years. And it is that stand that is preventing the movement from really taking off. And if he does not see that, he is not qualified to take the country through the tortuous route of a constituent assembly. It is a political skill issue. I think Girija Koirala is good at taking strong stands and sticking by them, come high or low. That works really well when you are fighting for the cause of democracy for decades. But that does not work too well when you are working within a democratic framework where the idea is to build coalitions and make sound compromises along the way. Girija Koirala's greatest strength is also his greatest weakness.
That is why I have suggested he be promoted and made the Supreme Leader of the movement, so that Madhav Nepal is the Prime Minister in waiting. The Nepali Congress on its part could have Ram Chandra Poudel for Deputy Prime Minister. I do think that clarity is needed.
The interim cabinet in waiting should be common knowledge.
Clarity is everything. There is a direct relationship between that clarity and the positive response of the masses.
But I don't intend to be preaching, only suggesting. I know it is hard work. There are people and groups in each party pulling in all sorts of directions. It is not easy to get all to come along in any one direction. But these leaders are trying and doing their very best. And they do have much progress to show for it.
The movement could have gone two ways. One would have been to bring this regime down by February. But both the parties and the Maoists seem to be talking in terms of disrupting the polls. To me that is like their saying they both want to do business with the king. They still want a constituent assembly, but they want to get there with the king coming along.
But then this king has exhibited quite some stubbornness. If he continues down that path, there is this buildup to a final confrontation. Or he could opt for the sensible option: King's Peace Overture To Maoists: Fake Or Real?
He could reciprocate the Maoist ceasefire, and he could hold talks with the other two forces.
Nepal king appoints team for talks with Maoists Times of India, India Headed by the king's deputy Kirti Nidhi Bista, vice chairman of the council of ministers, the team also includes two new ministers ..... Home Minister Kamal Thapa and Land Reforms and Management Minister Narayan Singh Pun ..... A day after his appointment, Pun said in his maiden press conference that he would personally take an initiative to start peace parleys. .... Pun, a former colonel of the Royal Nepalese Army, had played an important role in 2003 when he single-handedly brought the insurgents to the table for talks. .... Gyanendra had been hoping to receive an invitation to visit New Delhi from Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran...... But after Saran did not convey any such message from Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the king formed the talks team as a second line of strategy..... the new talks team was formed not so much to bring peace to violence-torn Nepal but to create misunderstanding between the Maoists and the opposition parties..... With the Maoists having vowed to disrupt the polls and the opposition parties having begun a campaign asking people to abstain from voting, the king could be looking at new strategies. Nepal king appoints team for talks with Maoists Hindustan Times, India
These two news items in the Indian media caught my attention. Curiously this has not been covered in the Nepali media. How come? If this is valid news, as I have reason to believe it is, I do take it positively, though with reservations.
If the king is serious about peace, he needs to do two things immediately.
He needs to reciprocate the Maoist ceasefire immediately.
He needs to accept the concept of a constituent assembly.
Just like the Maoists can not pull a Lenin in Nepal, it is not possible for the king to break the newfound Democrat-Maoist alliance. And if he is trying, he is starting with the wrong partner of the alliance. The Maoists are much less likely to respond to any royal overture than the seven parties.
I doubt the Maoists will respond unless the conditions like in Pun's 2003 are recreated. That would be the first step. If the peace talks offers be unconditional, I am sure the Maoists will respond. Why? Because it is their idea to hold a roundtable conference of all three forces. So if they can start with two of them, they will have the option to expand it and invite the third force, the seven party coalition.
I am cautiously optimistic. I commend the king for this move.
Only a day or two before Kamal Thapa made news by suggesting a major happening is in the works. This might be it.
Pun has some credibility on this count. Within the parameters available to him, he did some important work in 2003, though ultimately fruitless. It is possible Pun might have been in touch with the Maoists even before he joined the cabinet a few days ago. His abduction into the cabinet might have been with the express intent to open up a channel with the Maoists.
The two things I have suggested the king do, why would he do that? One, he has no choice. Two, it really is in his best interests. Three, there are no other outlets for the country.
You can not have peace talks if you are still officially at war.
As for constituent assembly, it is a vague, elaborate term, it can have many shapes. Just look at some of the options.
A constituent assembly that guarantees a ceremonial monarchy, the guarantee resting with the Supreme Court even before elections to that assembly are held. The army would be detached from the monarchy.
A constituent assembly where the monarchy is an open question.
A constituent assembly that takes shape only after the monarchy has been abolished. So the assembly does not even debate the issue. The assembly functions within a republican framework.
Those are only three of the options. There are more. And all of them would qualify for a constituent assembly. If I were the king, I would come around to the idea of a constituent assembly, and push for the first option. He might not get it, that is another thing. It would be for the political parties and the Maoists to come around to it. But then, they just might.
The king's second best option would be to shoot for an all party government that also includes all the royalist parties, and then go for an assembly. He might win the vote.
It is my analysis though that the parties and the Maoists will be okay with the first option if they can have the rest.
And there is no clash. The king has time and again said he is not for an absolute monarchy, that this is the 21st century, and so the monarchy has to be for democracy. If he is honest on that, the first option is precisely what he would seek, I would think. He does not lose with the first option. He gets what he wants. And the other two forces also get what they want. Peace is back. Democracy is back. The Maoists disarm. Everyone ends up happy.
That is why the roundtable conference is so important.
On 2/1 he asked for three years maximum, as in if he can return the country to normalcy in less than three years, he would do so. This is his opportunity to take less than three years.
If, on the other hand, he keeps moving towards the February 8 polls like a rhino, I see the possibility of the Maoists perhaps breaking away from the seven parties in trying to violently disrupt the polls. That would be tragic. A whole new scenario would emerge.
A party like the Maoists are can not afford to take too many U turns. They already have taken a major U turn. They should not be asked to take a second one.
Kamal Thapa, by the way, looks like Suresh Oberoi, have you noticed?
Personally I have a lot of faith in Narayan Singh Pun to pull this off. If he failed in 2003, it was because the talks back then were not unconditional. The parameters he was functioning in were flawed. It was not lack of skills on his part that brought the talks down. The king should provide the parameters this time, and Pun should get down to work.
It is a stark reality that our region has been mired in terrorism, drug trafficking, human trafficking and environmental catastrophes as well as unbridled spread of pestilent diseases like HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. As these problems are transcendental in nature, we have the daunting challenge to address them mutually by enhancing coordination among us.
Poverty remains the most daunting challenge to our collective wisdom. Our past efforts have certainly helped reduce its intensity. Yet, we have to traverse a long way before this social evil is completely eliminated.
Success is a matter not so much of talent or opportunity as of concentration and perseverance, where commitments are matched by actions.
Programmes and activities of regional cooperation must contain poverty reduction elements.
As trade has direct consequences for poverty reduction efforts, we must take adequate measures to ensure that poverty reduction becomes the outcome of a free trade regime.
If he is so concerned about poverty, he should have at least some sympathy for Maoists who are willing to die for their dream of classlessness. He should be able to see at least some common ground. Instead he blatantly dismisses them as "terrorists." I have always been critical of their violence, but I have also made room for them to change for the better. The king has not. His priority has been power for himself, not poverty reduction.
SAFTA should serve as a forerunner of a more ambitious and deeper economic integration to eventually realize the goal of a South Asian Economic Union. We believe that the signing of the four agreements on Promotion and Protection of Investments, Mutual Administrative Assistance in Customs Matters, SAARC International Commercial Arbitration Centre and Avoidance of Double Taxation will further strengthen the SAFTA regime with a positive bearing on the growth of intra-regional trade and investment.
It has become imperative that we introduce and carry out parallel processes of economic integration and infrastructure development. Infrastructure development will obviously require huge investments.
Our offer that Nepal serve as a transit point between India and China, the two largest emerging markets in the world, has been born out of our deep conviction that, in an era characterized by heightened competition to capture world markets and capital, increased trade and economic interaction between the two up-and-coming economic zones, facilitated by transportation and communication links, would provide a level playing field for both our neighbours to reap benefits of a promising global economic order.
We are convinced that with our collective efforts and coordinated positions, the process of globalization can be turned into a force of growth and development in South Asia. Globalization in itself is not right or wrong; the impacts it creates on our way of life should be carefully analyzed. We do not want globalization to upset our harmonious social balance and crumble our rich traditions and cultures.
An inclusive global information society must be our goal and we must firmly and collectively reject digital domination that seeks to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
I like these segments of his speech where he talks of matters economic.
Terrorism has emerged as a serious threat to international peace, security, stability and democracy. The growing menace of terrorism, both at home and abroad, concerns us all. Terrorism has metamorphosed our world. My country has been the victim of senseless terrorism for nearly a decade now. The agents of terror are bent on overthrowing a constitutional order and replacing it with a rejected ideology of a one-party communist dictatorship.
This is misleading of him to say this. For one, monarchy as a political ideology is even more archaic than Maoism. On the other hand he knowingly refuses to acknowledge the ideological leap of the Maoists to move from the goal of a communist republic to a democratic republic. These Maoists in Nepal are willing to shift to a multi-party framework. It is the king who is not accepting of that framework.
We would like to emphasize that, as terrorism knows no geographical boundary, terrorism in Nepal is certain to affect the whole of South Asia. Nepal condemns terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, whatsoever and for whatever reasons. We expect a similar attitude on the part of the international community. South Asia must send a clear message that violence cannot be an instrument to further political objectives.
The February First step in Nepal was necessitated by ground realities, mainly the failure of successive governments to contain ever-emboldening terrorists and maintain law and order. It has not come at the cost of democracy, as some tend to project it. We remind the international community of the pre-February First situation in Nepal. Our friends and well-wishers were warning us of the danger of Nepal turning into a failed state.
Some guy by the name of George W. invented the term War On Terror. But the king is teaching Marxism to none other than Karl Marx himself, although knowing what I do know about George W. I would not equate W. with Marx or any thinker in any ideological camp. My point being your experiment has been one in dictatorship, not one in any War On Terror.
The terrorism card will not work. You have been watching too much television. The corruption card will work, but it will work against the palace and the army.
There is no place today in the Kingdom where security personnel cannot go at will.
Is that why Nepal is number one in terms of human rights abuses in the world?
We believe that there cannot be a meaningful exercise in democracy without elections. We have also asked those who have been misguided to renounce violence and to take part in a competitive democratic political process.
That is why we are for elections to a constituent assembly. Musharrafism has no place in Nepal. For that matter, it has no place in Pakistan either.
It is ironical to note that the global war on terrorism is not matched by global action against it. The global war on terrorism has failed to reach every nook and corner of the world, especially in weak and vulnerable countries, as if they do not deserve justice and protection from terrorism. It is this double standard and selective approach that is assuming a dangerous character rather than terrorism itself. We cannot make a distinction between good and bad terrorism; terrorism is terrorism. In our region, the Declaration of the 11th SAARC Summit held in Kathmandu categorically stated that “terrorism, in all its forms and manifestations, is a challenge to all states and to all of humanity, and cannot be justified on ideological, political, religious or any other ground”. We agreed that “terrorism violates the fundamental values of the United Nations and the SAARC Charter and constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security in the Twenty-first century”. Nepal has ratified the SAARC Convention on Suppression of Terrorism and its Additional Protocol with the belief that these instruments provide an effective tool to counter terrorism in the region. We call upon the SAARC member states to forge a strong partnership to eliminate terrorism from the region as well as spearhead a coordinated and earnest action against it.
I consider myself a minor authority on racism. I really like your bringing this up. If the US and Europe speaking for democracy is racism, where does that put India? Are Indians also racists? Where does that put the Nepali diaspora? Is that crowd also racist? I admire your guts to take on the big powers, but your claims are highly misplaced. The struggle for democracy in Nepal is not about those foreign powers. It is about the 27 million people in Nepal.
In order to promote people-to-people contacts on a larger scale, we must think of a visa-free regime in South Asia along with a free trade regime.
Free and frank exchange of views among the leaders in an environment characterized by a greater degree of informality will help further promote trust and understanding.
I wish he had the same attitude about the leaders of the seven party coalition. He does not even recognize their existence.
This Dhaka speech is a little more revealing than the Tunis speech for its political content. And there are parts of the speech that are praiseworthy, greatly so, most of them to do with the regional economy. That might suggest King Gyanendra is a smart individual. But that might as well be a strong case for a republican setup rather than a monarchical one. In a republican electoral fray, smart individuals like him and Baburam Bhattarai get to compete, and let the people decide as to who is more capable to lead.
My Proposed Constitution can also be read as a proposal to reinvent the monarchy itself. On the other hand, if the king continue his intransigence, the document has a clear republican framework. We are not willing to wait forever.
Tunis
Nepal is committed to the Geneva Declarations of Principles. We believe that the Internet, which has become omnipresent in our lives, can be truly beneficial to humankind if a multi-stakeholder participation, which is inclusive and transparent, can be developed.The international community needs to give special attention to the needs of the developing, land-locked and mountainous countries which face problems of promoting the use of ICTs due to high infrastructure costs.
The State's efforts have been further augmented with the establishment of an autonomous High Level Commission for Information Technology to enhance internal and external private investment and to stimulate new economic sectors like e-commerce. It is a matter of satisfaction that this has resulted in an ever-growing mutually beneficial partnership between the government and the private sector in the field of information technology.
The king did not say anything significant in Tunis. He merely offered a bunch of platitudes. There is no overarching policy intiative or technological breakthrough to be discerned here. It is not informative either to the political developments in Nepal, it not being a political speech.
He talks of infrastructure. He needs to understand 12 years of half-baked democracy did more for infrastructure in Nepal than more than 230 years of monarchy. That is not a statement on particular actors within that democracy, but on the ideal of democracy itself. That applies also to information technology.
When the king took over on 2/1, his first instinct was to cut off access to the internet from the country. That person is not a friend of information technology.
The internet is about opening boudaries and minds and societies. It is about interactive exposure. The king shut it off.
On the other hand, I could not imagine this democratic revolution without the internet. It is because of the internet that you can do almost everything except show up in the streets in Kathamandu when you are far away in New York City.
The king with his outdated politics is not helping the spread of the internet in Nepal. He is in the way.
It is only through the internet that a country like Nepal can hope to bridge the gap between itself and the richest countries. The internet is that fundamental.
When Nepal finally comes around to adopting my Proposed Constitution, it will have adopted the first constitution in the world that has the word internet in it. It will be the first information age constitution for any country.
Podcast
December 13, 2005 (15 minutes) My participation at the Nepal Democracy Forum online has made me much more understanding of and patient with the leaders of the seven party coalition in Kathmandu. The group made an important leap from the idea of moral support only to the idea of moral as well as logistical support. Then five specific projects were identified. There are people working on each. But the speed is so slow. Taking two weeks to compose a one page letter is not revolutionary work. Ego, ethnic prejudice, jealousy and primitive group dynamics come into play and slow down efforts.
Militancy, as in non-violent militancy. A militancy where you use words like they were bullets.
It is about using the reverse psychology on the Bahuns.
Bahuns are less than 10% of Nepal's population, more like 5, but they have managed to keep every other group off balance. How? They attack at the level of the collective identity, and keep every other group off balance. The Bahun democrats have a long way to go.
Democracy without social justice can not be imagined. And the time to see that and say that is now. You can not wait for later. Later when? After the Bahuns have managed to scuttle federalism? Is that when? No, the time is now. The right wing in power wishes to deny us democracy, the Bahuns wish to turn that democracy into a joke, not into social justice. The game is very much on.
How do you go about it? The Madhesi presence wherever there is Madhesi-Pahandi interaction tends to be along the 95-5 lines. That is true also in America.
That 5 has to learn to speak for the missing 45. That is where the non-violent militancy comes in.
The Madhesi-Pahadi divide is the fundamental issue of social justice in Nepal. Madhesi Dalits are discriminiated against, Madhesi women are discriminated against. The hill Janajatis often are very much part of that Pahadi superstructure.
The Dalit-Madhesi-Janajati-Mahila mantra comes second.
First and foremost is the Madhesi-Pahadi dynamic. The anti-Madhesi prejudice and hostility is front and center. This country is not going anywhere without resolving this fundamental knot.
The solutions are so very obvious, but the Bahuns are in the way.
But the political aspects are for later, in the political rings. The social aspects are immediate.
The mental slavery has to go.
The pride has to be active.
The renunciation of Pahadi prejudice has to be total, vocal, immediate. And the effort has to start in the diaspora where the Madhesis do not depend on the Pahadis for career advancement. If not here, where? If not you, who? If not now, when?
Taking the country to a constituent assembly, and attaining total political equality for the Madhesis through that constituent assembly is the only way. There is no other way. The time is now. Very much now.
If the Madhesis miss this boat now, the Madhesis are passing the workload onto the next generation. That is irresponsible. That is unnecessary. The time is now.
Act. Reach out. Bond. Contribute. If you have not been political before, become so now. Donate. Become part of the conversation. Call people. Talk. Ask questions. Seek answers.
It is so easy to do.
This revolution does not ask for your blood. This is a revolution that will reinvent non-violence itself. But this is a revolution that does ask that you stand up and speak up.
This is not a quest to seek vengeance, but to seek justice uncompromisingly. There is no half there. Ye aar ki paar ki ladai hai.
We have to become a loud voice inside the movement now. Or the movement will slow down. Even if it reaches its zenith, it will cheat us like every revolution in Nepal before.
I am not the ultimate authority, I am just one voice, and there must be other suggestions. But I think there are two things that can be done concretely. Pride is important, but not enough. Ultimately there has to be concrete action.
The iron is hot. The time to strike is now. The mud is wet. The time to shape it is now. Tomorrow will be too late. So reach out from wherever you are.
