All that proponents of violence promise can be achieved through non-violence and better. Violence actually gets in the way. If we stick to non-violence, we are forced to work to raise the people's political consciousness. Violence is an unwelcome short cut. It is not even a short cut. Violence muddles up things where what is needed is clarity.
The seven party alliance is unflinchingly committed to non-violence. I am not worried there might be an ideological shift towards violence. I am not even worried about Maoist infiltration. I am worried about state violence and I am worried about accidental violence on our part.
We have worked out a loose alliance with the Maoists. That is great. But we democrats should be leading the Maoists rather than the other way around. We will not be actors in a multi-party communist democracy. The Maoists will be one party in our multi-party democracy. We will not resort to violence. They will eventually disarm, as they have said they will.
If we stoke the people's passions, but not provide a clear roadmap, a clear leadership, or if we disappear from the scene, or are pushed out physically by the regime, the marchers could turn into a mob. That mob could turn violent. At the end of the day the old regime will likely have collapsed beyond repair. On the other hand, instead of like France in the late 1700s, we could end up like one of the African countries of recent times. There could be a long drawn out civil war at the end of which the country is worse off than it was before. We have to skip that part. We have to avoid that part.
Political leadership matters. The seven party alliance will make sure the country does not slide into a civil war. The alliance will make sure our revolution stays non-violent. Non-violence is our weapon, and it is stronger than the mightiest sword.
I am open to the idea of talking to the king and his people like Nelson Mandela was open to the idea of working with de Klerk. Remember, Mandela did not compromise on principle. South Africa became a full-fledged democracy. White rule was abolished. Apartheid was completely dismantled.
But dialogue requires that the king play ball. We can not hold dialogue with a king who does not want to talk. We can not hold dialogue with a king whose idea of dialogue might be that we finally come around to his ridiculous roadmap. If the Maoists are willing to get rid of the mantra of a communist republic after talks with us, what ground is the king willing to give? That is what the talks will be about.
The first order of business would be to cancel the municipal polls and get all the political leaders released. That could be a confidence building measure. And then we could go from there.
Dialogue with the king is not to break the Maoist-Democrat alliance to form a Democrat-Monarch alliance. That is not the idea. The idea is to bring the monarch to the table so as to create some common ground for all three forces to find a positive outlet for the country as a whole. The idea is to break the political paralysis.
But what if the king does not play ball? Then we will have the revolutionary non-violent option. We could get a few hundred thousand people to gherao the Narayanhiti until the king abdicated the throne. Then the revolution would declare the House revived. That House would act like the parliament during the French revolution. It could lawfully abolish the monarchy, bring the army under the parliament, confiscate the property of the members of the old regime that might have illegally amassed it, imprison members of the old regime on charges of treason for that is what conspiring against democracy is. You don't need a bloody revolution to do all that. You need a non-violent revolution, political clarity, and bold leadership. Bloodshed is uncalled for.
Considering we do have this revolutionary option, if and when we do talk to the king, we do so from a position of strength. That is why we have to be open to the idea of dialogue.
I don't understand the principled opposition to the idea of dialogue that some in the democratic camp hold. If you engage in talks where all you do is demand the release of all the politial prisoners, that is still dialogue. How could any democrat be opposed to do that? How much longer do we want our comrades behind bars!
If we then negotiate a roadmap to a constituent assembly, that is still dialogue.
A constituent assembly would be 300 constituencies of near equal population sending one elected representative each who will get together and write a new constitution for the country. I think there is basic agreement among the democrats and the Maoists that that is the goal. There can be more than one possible roadmap. And I think we have to be flexible about the roadmap. That is where dialogue comes in.
The roadmap is to be a political decision.
As to what form the dialogue will take, that is a second step discussion. What I mean to say here is that we have to be open to the concept of dialogue with the regime. I have Nelson Mandela on my side. What about you?
There can be no compromise on the idea of a full democracy, there can be no compromise on the idea of a constituent assembly. But we have to be flexible as to the roadmap, because we are trying to take three very different political forces to that assembly idea. We can not have a my way or highway attitude.
Constituent assembly will be a ton of dialogue. If we can not even manage the easier task of dialogue for a roadmap, what chances will we have with the assembly? Let the roadmap dialogue that includes the three forces be the dress rehearsal for the mega dialogue that a constituent assembly is bound to be. And we will have a second dress rehearsal when we hold our formal peace talks with the Maoists.
My proposal does not rule out the idea of getting rid of the monarchy before the constituent assembly elections are held, and it does not rule out the idea of getting rid of the monarchy with the sheer force of a revolution, but my proposal does suggest even that revolution has to be non-violent. What my proposal also says is that we have to gather strength for any eventuality, and the revolutionary alternative, but from that position of strength we have to be very open to the idea of dialogue with the king. We should end the autocracy like Mandela ended apartheid, it was through dialogue.
Dialogue is political work. It is in dialogue that your political skills get tested. If you are opposed to the very concept of dialogue, what kind of a political worker or leader are you?
अहिंसाका प्रश्न
Bringing them to book in the US
By MURARI RAJ SHARMA
The group plans to take these human rights abusers - politicians, administrators, and army and police officials as well as Maoist leaders and commanders -- to US courts. It will collect information, facts and evidence against these abusers and prepare grounds for the attorneys to file lawsuits against them.
This group will name and shame the human rights violators by sharing information about them with UN agencies, civil society organizations and foreign governments. To shrink external space for such violators, the group will seek to collaborate with similar outfits in other democratic countries, which have laws with extraterritorial jurisdiction. While it will consider prior cases, the group will mostly focus its attention on serious cases of human rights violations that have occurred after February 1, 2005.
According to a press release issued on 18 January 2006 by Nepal Democratic Youth Council, USA, and Alliance for Human Rights and Democracy in Nepal, the group has established a panel, Human Rights Protection Coordination Committee (HRPCC) in New York and outlined its functions and scope. Through the press release, the group has also appealed to the victims of human rights violations, their family members, non-governmental organizations and interested individuals to share relevant and specific information with HRPCC to help do its tasks.
Keshav Sedain, a prominent Nepali-American attorney in New York, told this writer that Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789 "shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." He added, in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala and Kadic v. Karadzic cases, US courts have held that a crime "perpetrated under the color of official authority violates universally accepted norms of international human rights law, and that such a violation of international law constitutes a violation of the domestic law of the United States…"
Often the compensation for damage runs into millions of dollars. A US federal appeal court upheld in 2003 a $4 million lawsuit against former Chilean army officer, Armando Fernandez Larios, held responsible for the 1973 murder of political prisoner Winston Cabello. Failure to pay such compensation might invite the confiscation of the assets or the jailing of the defendant, he added.
Sedain informed that criminal cases too could be brought to American courts if witnesses are available to testify against tormentors. To help this process, HRPCC intends to provide victims or their family members with travel assistance, in extraordinary circumstances, to take a stand in a court of law outside Nepal.
A member of the group told this writer that, as no one would expect Maoists to travel to the United States, government officials who come to meet their children, seek training or participate in meetings would mostly be brought to book in America. And security officials who wield force and who commit most human rights violations would, by default, constitute the majority of the panel's caseload.
This member added that the Committee would give priority to netting those security officials who have been accused of killing, raping, torturing, and causing disappearance of innocent people. Those who harm and hurt peaceful political demonstrators by the use of excessive and unwarranted force would not be spared either. Army and police officials who violate professional norms, or Geneva Conventions would be prosecuted. Those who have crushed people to help King Gyanendra consolidate his absolute power would not be condoned.
Another enthused member of the group confided that HRPCC had already swung into action. It was looking for collaborators in Nepal, the United States and elsewhere to collect concrete information and evidence to build litigable cases. It had begun lobbying UN officials to bar the known human rights violators in the Nepali military and police forces from participating in UN peacekeeping operations. The panel, he said, intended to pursue the recent assertion by the UN Human Rights Commissioner that not only rank and file but officers and commanders would also be brought to book for human rights violations. It plans to press for the implementation of Senator Leahy Patrick's call on the Bush administration to refuse US visas to the Nepali human rights abusers.
If the panel succeeds in its objective, government officials who are accused of human rights violation in Nepal would run significant risk of stiff financial penalty or jail term in America.
That said, another member of the group intoned, honest and human rights respecting security officials should be happy that they, as the rogues are weeded out, will have an increased opportunity to participate in peacekeeping operations and will not have to fear be prosecuted in the United States or under a UN tribunal.
The bell tolls only for those bad apples that, blinded by power, engage in wayward behavior to harm and hurt ordinary people or order to do so.
In The News
Warring parties killed 1,608 in 2005: Report Kantipur
One year of king's rule unsuccessful: Rana
Thousands demonstrate against autocracy in Delhi
Maoists attack Nepalgunj again, woman killed
Lift all radio censorship: AMARC
Municipal elections: No candidates for more than half seats
No comments:
Post a Comment