Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Baburam Moriarty Debate


Large quantity of explosives seized from Sunauli area

By A Staff Reporter

KATHMANDU, Feb. 28: The Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) seized a large quantity of explosives two kilometres away from Sunauli near the Nepal-India border Tuesday afternoon, the Defence Ministry said.

Around 2,500 kg of gelatines, 475 Kg of Neogel-90 (Emulsion Explosive Class-2), 7,500 meter of safety fuse, 29,500 sets of detonators along with 10,200 sets of electronic detonators were confiscated by the joint security forces on duty. This is the first time the joint security forces seized explosives in such a huge quantity, the ministry said.

The explosives were intercepted two Km away from the Sunauli check post while going towards Bhairahawa from a Tata truck with Indian plate no: JH 11 A 9822 at 3:30 p.m. The explosives were hidden inside the truck loaded with coal. The Defence Ministry has stated that had the explosives gone undetected then there could have been a colossal damage to life and property.
I kept reading Baburam Bhattarai has written a rebuttal to Moriarty. I searched on Google. I searched at the website of The Kathmandu Post. I called up friends and asked. I put a SOS at Sajha. I should have started at INSN for that is where I found the article.

This is an important debate. But this has not yet become a debate. The two are talking past each other. Specific issues are being bypassed by both individuals.

Baburam Bhattarai is for a constituent assembly. Moriarty is not against that idea. Baburam Bhattarai is for a democratic republic. Moriarty is from a democratic republic.

It is not true Moriarty is against the 12 point agreement. He has problems with only two issues in there. One, that the Maoists may use violence in the movement for a democratic republic. Two, the country will still have two standing armies when it goes through a constituent assembly. I myself have those two concerns. But those are not to be understood as a rejection of the 12 point agreement. Instead, it is like saying, let's keep talking. Let's keep clarifying matters. So instead of accusing Moriarty of rejecting the 12 point agreement, why not engage him on a debate on these two topics?

If the Maoists truly are for a democratic republic, they should be glad Moriarty and the other foreign powers have come forth to spell support for the idea of a constituent assembly. But that also means the mechanics of that assembly are open to debate now. I propose we dismantle both the armies and then go for a constituent assembly. What do you say to that, Dr. Bhattarai?

5 Point Agreement
10 Point Agreement To Succeed 12 Point Agreement

India, Europe, US For A Constituent Assembly
Moriarty Deserves Your Ears
Lohani Baburam Debate

I would like to commend Dr. Bhattarai for an exceptionally well written article. His command of the English language comes across as better than that of Moriarty himself. That is really saying something. Ever since the 12 point agreement, I have not heard Dr. Bhattarai himself say anything that would make me doubt his commitment to the idea of a democratic republic, although I have disagreed with his proposition that violence is the only way to victory. But Prachanda is a slightly different story.

Dr. Bhattarai, what does your party supremo Prachanda mean by this?
We Want To Stop Bloodshed: Prachanda (February 6, 2005) We are talking of multiparty democracy in a specific sense, within a specific constitutional framework. We are not talking about bourgeois parliamentary democracy. This multiparty democracy will be anti-imperialist and anti-feudal. In other words, only within an anti-feudal, anti-imperialist constitutional framework is multiparty democracy possible. That is why armed struggle is also necessary, and unity in action with the other political parties against the monarchy is also a necessity. The socio-economic change we are fighting for is against feudalism and imperialism and it is within the context of that struggle that we are talking of multiparty democracy.
This reminds me of Prachanda's outburst to spread socialism and communism across the world in a joint statement with the Indian Maoist leader that came days after an article by you in the Nepali Post where you very specifically committed your party to the idea of multi-party democracy, rule of law, and the whole nine yards. At that point I suggested Baburam is superior to Prachanda intellectually, but Prachanda has superior organizational skills to try and soothe Prachanda's nerves. First, your article came out. It elevated me. Second, Prachanda's outburst. I came crashing down to the ground. Third, the ceasefire. I was in the clouds again. I reached for a glass of water, with ice, a first during my entire time blogging. My head was ringing hollow. It had been a roller coaster ride.

After Ganapathy, A Ceasefire
What Is Prachanda Doing?
Is Prachanda For Real?
To: Dr. Baburam Bhattarai
Baburam Bhattarai, Pramod Aryal, Ram Chandra Poudel

If Prachanda is not talking of a "bourgeois parliamentary democracy," what is he talkng about? First define bourgeois parliamentary democracy. Then spell out the alternative that you have in mind. And if Prachanda is off the mark, say so. Prachanda just so happens to be the top leader in your party. I am going to take seriously his words spoken to the world media.

What myself am proposing is not your traditional democracy as practiced anywhere else on earth: Proposed Republican Constitution 2006. That is why it is important for me to seek clarification from Prachanda.

On Moriarty’s pontification

By Baburam Bhattarai
Kathmandu Post, 23 February 2006, Thursday

There is a place called Chor-kaatey near our village in Gorkha district. Chor-kaatey literally means, ‘chopping off the thief ‘. There is an interesting anecdote about how this place got its name. In olden days whenever there was any crime in the locality, all the suspects would be herded there and made to lie down with their legs stretched. The village headman with an axe in hand would then shout aloud: ‘Chop off the legs of the thief (or culprit)!’ It often happened that the real culprit would involuntarily pull up his legs in fear and thus get caught and punished.

The recent utterances of the US ambassador James F Moriarty have forced us to get reminded of this anecdote, but in a new context. After the February coup, there was wild speculation about the real motivating force behind it. The source of the seemingly unusual confidence of the autocratic monarch in the face of such complete failure and isolation of his regime over the period since then had obviously been the subject of intense guess-work among all political observers on Nepal.

Moriarty, with his vitriolic monologue against the democratic republican movement on February 15 and an equally provocative interview to the BBC Nepali service on February 19, has demystified the suspense and exposed the strong nexus between the US imperialist ruling classes and Nepal’s feudal autocratic forces.

In that sense Moriarty deserves our appreciation, at least for his candidness. But looking at the matter more closely, the issue is quite serious. The whole political spectrum, except a few royalist die-hards, have rightly condemned the ambassador’s unwarranted and deeply flawed pontification on the ongoing democratic republican movement. Particularly the Seven Party Alliance (SPA), the civil society and the independent media have so thoroughly repudiated and exposed the ambassador’s pro-monarchy and anti-democratic outbursts that we hardly find any new arguments to supplement them.

We just wonder why the ambassador is so intent on shooting at his own feet, or alienating the overwhelming majority of Nepal’s masses and the urban intelligentsia that look towards the West for democratic inspirations and ideas.

The timing of Moriarty’s harangue is all the more inopportune when the entire international community, ranging from the UN, the EU and Japan to the most important neighbors India and China, seem to be arriving at a consensus for democracy and peace by dumping the recalcitrant king and his cohorts. If the US interests in Nepal are only geo-strategic, in a region flanked by over two billion people, as claimed by the ambassador himself in his BBC interview, this certainly is not the best way to achieve them. We wonder what more reasonable people in the US, like Senator Patrick Leahy, have to say on this.

There is some insinuation in certain quarters that Moriarty may have got provoked by our leadership’s observations on the role of US ruling classes in Nepal. We don’t think objective facts substantiate this. We have rather consciously avoided to take umbrage with the sole super power even when it has blatantly violated our sovereignty and bolstered the royal regime and the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) against the revolutionary democratic forces. To make an ideological criticism of imperialism and the so-called globalization agenda is an entirely different thing. It is an open secret that without the massive modernization program in the form of training, weapons supply and ultra-modern fortification of the barracks carried out by US assistance after 2002, the RNA would not have been able to withstand this long and carry out the regressive monarchist agenda. The frequent high level visits of US military and intelligence functionaries to Nepal are definitely not meant for pilgrimage or recreation.

Despite this, we have exercised maximum restraint, and Chairman Prachanda in his recent interview to the BBC television has categorically stated that we are ready to work with all international power centers, including the US, in the future democratic republican set-up. Hence the problem lies entirely with the US ruling classes, and not with us, which is amply reflected in Moriarty’s outbursts.

Firstly, the problem lies with the McCarthyian outlook and the Cold War era anti-communist paranoia. The central thesis of Moriarty’s lecture is that the Maoists should be militarily crushed and not allowed to come to power at any cost. Hence anybody who can do this job will get the US support. This has been the rationale for the continued US backing to the royal regime. As the king has failed in this mission over the past year, Moriarty has now frantically appealed to the parliamentary political parties to abandon the anti-monarchy democratic movement and surrender to the king. He has labored hard to sell his paranoia to the SPA and goaded them to break out of the 12-point understanding with the CPN (Maoist).

Moriarty further raises the bogey of future ‘totalitarianism’ of the CPN (Maoist) to scare away the SPA, as if the real and existing totalitarianism of the monarchy is better than an imaginary and hypothetical ‘totalitarianism’ of the future. Only a die-hard McCarthyian mindset can accuse the CPN (Maoist) of pursing ‘totalitarianism’ when the Party has formally passed an historic resolution on ‘Development of Democracy in the 21st Century’ and Chairman Prachanda has so well articulated the Party’s commitment to a multiparty competitive politics in the future democratic republican set-up in his recent interviews.

Secondly, the whole edifice of Moriarty’s arguments is based on the thesis that the SPA and monarchy are “(T)wo legitimate constitutional actors- who should be on the same side.”

However, no sane person in Nepal is prepared to believe that the monarchy after October 4, and particularly after February 1, is a ‘legitimate constitutional actor’. Even the Supreme Court in a recent judgment has ruled (though indirectly) that the king no longer remains so. The only ‘legitimacy’ of the king is his backing by the RNA and certain foreign powers, particularly the US. It is really paradoxical that the loudest votaries of ‘democracy’ fail to see the ground reality and swear by the worst despots when their strategic interests are at stake.

That is why Suharto, Marcos, Pinochet, Musharraf and the likes are the best ‘democrats’ and ‘legitimate constitutional actors’ for the US. And the Maoists, which has been consistently advocating for a free and fair election to a constituent assembly as a minimum basis for peace and democracy, is branded ‘totalitarian’!

Thirdly, another fundamental flaw with Moriarty’s arguments lies with his supposition that the RNA is the “logical source of defense” for the parliamentary parties and democracy. But the historical facts prove just the opposite. The RNA has been the principal bulwark of autocracy historically, as it was repeatedly used by the monarchy to stage coup d’ etat against the parliamentary democracy in 1960 and again in 2003-5.

Hence the most important precondition for institutionalizing democracy in the country is the creation of a new national army committed to democracy. This has been one of the key proposals put forward by the CPN (Maoist) and increasingly accepted by other democratic political forces and the civil society.

But Moriarty has very conveniently distorted our proposal and provocatively insinuated that we intend to overtake all the other political forces on the strength of our People’s Liberation Army (PLA) once the RNA is no longer there. As Chairman Prachanda has clearly enunciated in his recent interviews, what we have proposed is the restructuring of both the RNA and the PLA and the creation of a new national army according to the result of the constituent assembly elections. During the elections both the armed forces can remain passive and neutral under a credible international supervision. What is wrong with that?

Moriarty has very selectively picked up names of individuals killed during the course of the civil war and has tended to sensationalize them for his political arguments. But has he cared to read the recent report prepared by Ian Martin and his team from the UN Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights? Does he dare accept that the royal regime is the worst perpetrator of human rights violations in the world?

Does he know that the highest number of disappearances by the state takes place in Nepal? Selective use of tragic cases of individual death for political arguments would serve no purpose except to expose one’s own insensitivity and callousness. Moreover, Moriarty’s suggestion to view Umesh Thapa’s sacrifice “as a catalyst for reconciliation and compromise” with the king crosses all limits of insensitivity and borders on insanity.

These are extremely rare historic times for Nepal. The need of the hour is a complete political, economical, social and cultural transformation of society. The 12-point understanding between the SPA and Maoist revolutionaries provides a minimum basis for democracy, peace and progress in the country. Let no one wreck this historic resolution of the Nepali people. No one but the Nepali people themselves have the right over their destiny.

at No comments:

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Mero Sansar Video Clips 4

(Please visit Mero Sansar and donate and/or click on ads.)

Mero Sansar Video Clips 3
Mero Sansar Video Clips 2
Mero Sansar Video Clips

लोकतान्त्रिक स्रष्टामाथि प्रहरी दमन
भिडियो ब्लगः कोही छ प्रधानमन्त्री बन्ने ?
अडियो ब्लगः जंगबहादुरसँगको पुनर्मिलन
अडियो ब्लगः जंगबहादुरको कुकुर
अडियो ब्लगः अर्जुन पराजुलीका कविता
विष्णुको अवतारका अगाडि राजालाई गाली
नागरिक देखेर राजा डराए



Nagarik Dharna

Manmohan Bhattarai










at No comments:

Monday, February 27, 2006

Protests

















at No comments:

Saturday, February 25, 2006

India, Europe, US For A Constituent Assembly


India and the European Union appeared to be positive on the Maoist ceasefire and the constituent assembly. You have been isolated on this count.

Moriarty: I do not feel isolated at all. In my conversations with the Indians, the Europeans, they all stress that giving up the weapons has to be the part of the settlement. It is not that you are going to put the arms under the supervision and you are going to grab them back later on which is what Prachanda is saying. The Indians, the Europeans all join me in saying, ‘no, once there is a movement towards constituent assembly, you do not get the weapons back, you don’t get to terrorize the villagers with threats.’



Can you believe this? I can't believe my ears. The Maoists just scored a coup. Who could have imagined? I am not suggesting this is a new position on the part of the foreign powers. But this is the first time I came across it.

America is for a constituent assembly. India is. Europe is.

I am not surprised. It is just that I think the Maoists should cash on this fast. They wanted a constituent assembly, and now they got it. If they have been wanting to isolate the king, they never had a better chance.

But this is no free lunch. The Maoists have their part to play. I urge Prachanda and Baburam to see this opportunity for what it is.

Actually I am a little surprised the foreign powers came around to the idea before the king did. Because they have been at pains to try and not give the impression that the foreign powers are calling the shots in Nepal.

On the other hand, the king did come for the idea of such an assembly right after February 1, 2005. It is just that these days he gives one bland speech, and then for the next six months you just see his pictures, then he gives another bland speech. I mean, if you are president, prime minister and king all rolled into one, why will you not let Rabindra Mishra grill you? Chairman Mao did not have that many titles as this king.

If Moriarty had been strong on the constituent assembly idea before the political parties in Nepal, the Maoist might have had a reason to accuse him of representing some country that might have imperialist designs on Nepal. That also means Moriarty has been listening to the Maoists. Because the Maoists use the "I" word, Moriarty has been careful not to act too intrusive in the country's affairs. He has been respectful of the opinions of the political leaders in Nepal. He has routinely deferred, even when I thought he was in the right and maybe some of these cat politicians were not making much sense. In the same interview he has also made it very clear that India has provided more military aid to Nepal than the US. And he has ridiculed the idea that the US might looking to have a foothold in Nepal to check India and China. The suggestion is so ridiculous it is not worth commenting upon, he said. And I believe him. America wants trade. India wants trade. China wants trade. All three powers want to grow off of each other. And if America intends to contain India and China, I would advise it to look for a better foothold than Nepal. Nepal just does not have that kind of a reach.

The Foreign Powers Need To Come Clean On The Constituent Assembly Question (September 25, 2005)

The whole point about sovereignty is it is not for America or India or Europe to decide if Nepal should get itself a constituent assembly. That decision is for Nepal's domestic forces to make. I don't remember Moriarty ever taking a stand against the constituent assembly idea. He has been disciplined. He has known it is not his place to be for or against the idea.

But now he has given a clear hint. All the big powers are for a constituent assembly.

But the Maoists are going to have to transform into a political party with no armed cadres before that happens. And the Maoists have several legitimate options to that same end. So now it is for the Maoists to prove they really mean a constituent assembly when they say a constituent assembly.

My personal first choice is to get rid of both the armies. Just plain get rid of them. Demilitarize the country. But I am not the only one talking. And all concerned parties should voice their opinions. And I am open to the idea people might disagree with me.

If the Maoists wish to pull a Lenin or a Mao in Nepal, that is not likely. They don't have the military capabilities to do so. And whatever political goodwill they earned through their four month long ceasefire and the 12 point agreement, they stand to squander it all.

Do I believe the Maoists are trying to pull a Lenin or a Mao? As in, Lenin used a constituent assembly as a tool to weaken the "autocrats" and rope in the democrats. Once the autocrats were out, he promtly got rid of the democrats. Mao used the Nationalists to fight the Japanese. As soon as the Japanese were off the radar screen, he promptly went after the Nationalists, and that is how you end up with Taiwan.

No, I do not believe the Nepali Maoists are trying to pull that stunt. I really don't. Nepal is not 1917 Russia or 1949 China. Nepal is a different country. This is 2006. Geopolitical realities are vastly different today. We live in a world were America, India and China genuinely want to make as much money off of each other as possible, as all of them realize deep in their bones that trade is not a zero sum game, it is a win-win.

But some of the recent Maoist rhetoric can lead you to believe otherwise, or that they are at some level confused.

This is what I understand to be happening. Look at some of the recent things they have done. Look at their unilateral ceasefire. Mao never did that. Lenin never did that. This was not in the books. Look at the ideological leap from a communist republic to a democratic republic. That is a huge jump. And look at the 12 point agreement. They have committed to things like rule of law, freedom of speech, and so on. It has not been easy for them. And they are still struggling. They have a few relapses here and there. It is like you grow up a Christian all your life, a devout Christian, and then in your 50s you decide you are going to become a Buddhist. All your Christian thoughts are not going to magically vanish out of your mind. Habits of mind die hard.

And the king has made a real nuisance by not reciprocating the ceasefire. The entire world expected him to, but he refused. He has his own bad habits of the mind. That made it really hard for the Maoists.

So, no, I don't believe the Maoists are trying to doublecross. I just think it is very hard what they are attempting. And they need help.

This is very important that all the major powers have put down in so many words that they are for a constituent assembly. This will help the Maoists talk more reason.

Now it is for the Maoists to do the right thing. It is unrealistic to think they can declare a ceasefire now, or that they can disarm. But they should come around to some revisions to the 12 point agreement. It is high time the seven party alliance and the Maoists again entered talks. I think they should agree to demilitarize the country before it goes through a constituent assembly.

For a long time I criticized the seven party alliance for not having enough political clarity. Now I would like to criticize the Maoists. They need some clarity of their own.

And the foreign powers are not even talking in terms of a conditional constituent assembly like I sometimes do. This is huge.

And I continue to have a standing challenge to the smartest person in the Maoist camp, Baburam Bhattarai. See if you can draw a more progressive constitution than this: Proposed Republican Constitution 2006. And I am talking of the poor, the powerless, the marginalized. What I am proposing is not something that America has, not something that India has. Tell me if you like it, tell me if you don't.

I mean, look at it this way. If Ambassador Moriarty and I were to start discussing American politics, we would have more disagreements than Prachanda and Baburam in early 2005. Only neither would end up in "protective custody."

at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)