Democracy For Nepal: Money, Message, Organization

Thursday, February 09, 2006

Money, Message, Organization

Most political operatives working within democratic systems would agree that these three are the components of power: money, message, organization. These components are even truer for a complicated democratic movement like Nepal is. There is a triangular conflict, major global powers are taking keen interest, the worst might still happen.

This blog has been at the center of my involvement which has been pretty much full time. I don't know of anyone else in the Nepali diaspora who has been such a full timer. I have had many offline involvements, I have done much phonework, in the US, across to Nepal and India, talking to key political leaders. But even when I have done more than blog, my work has been primarily in the message compartment. When I suggest strategies, or when I offer a Proposed Republican Constitution 2006, or when I seek dialogue with the king's camp (Possible Framework For A Negotiated Resolution), the work is still in the message department. In some ways I have been taking the lead on the idea that moral support is not enough, logistical support has to be extended. I have raised and spent some money. But it has not really caught on as it should have. I stay in close touch with the Alliance and the Youth Council leaders here in New York City, but that is only a circuitous way of organizational involvement. They are already doing well what they do, my addition would not jack things up much, besides event planning is not exactly my forte. And the broad spectrum of social organizations are not hard core enough for me. When they get mad, they put out a press statement, if that. That is not enough.

Those in the diaspora do not have the option to get out into the streets of Nepal, to get beat up by the police, possibly getting shot dead. That is why the diaspora needs to do everything else possible, and money is key. We have to outspend our opponents. We have to outorganize them.

So far organization for me has meant trying to convince other organizations to jump onto the logistical support bandwagon, and to discuss and suggest strategies to the politial leaders in Nepal. I have been in discussions with friends. Growingly I feel the need to help launch an organization to contribute to the movement more productively, and to fill a void. There are many organizations including the most overtly political ones that claim their charters do not allow for explicit fundraising. Some individuals have said fundraising is good, but it should be done by an organization, not an individual. Some have gone so far as to express fear the Department of Homeland Security might come after them if they donate. Chill, folks. As long as we stick to non-violence, as we will, you are more likely to get the Congressional Medal of Freedom than a call from the FBI. America has been fighting a war on terror, not a war on democracy. Some people even wonder if money is needed at all by the activists in Nepal. Look who is talking. Money is the reason why you left Nepal. Of all Nepalis, those in the diaspora should know why money is needed by the movement in Nepal, and it is not right to expect that money to be raised locally. Nepal is one of the poorest countries on the planet, and you know it. We have to donate primarily to integrate ourselves fully with the movement, not because money is needed. The need is secondary, although it surely is there.

I am under a lot of pressure to be uncompromisingly republican. My official stand as of this year is that. But I like the idea of maintaining flexibility, to keep open the possibility of talks to make possible a smooth transition to a democracy, and that might include a fundamentally reinvented monarchy: I am very open to that possibility. This is so because the seven party alliance leads the democracy movement. Unless somene like Gagan Thapa will break free, and he has made it very clear he will not since the idea is too unrealistic, and launch a separate political party that is clearly republican, I have to accept the fact that I am not on the ground in Nepal, and I am not in the lead. But then I am also very open to the possibility that we have to raise the republican mantra to the max if only to finally make talks possible. For now the democratic camp is squarely behind a constituent assembly, an unconditional constituent assembly. And that is the best, most democratic option. And that is what I am behind.

So I have been in talks locally here in New York with some of the most active local Nepalis on this topic. I would like to launch an organization. NYC is a great spot for Nepal activism. There are more Nepalis in New York than in any other place outside of Nepal, possibly, except for some places in India perhaps. Well, maybe many places in India. Noone competes with India on population.

The Madhesi theme keeps ringing through my Nepal work. On that this is what I have to say. There is the personal, and there is the political. My work is not all my life, and the Nepal work is not all my work. And my privacy is important to me. For example it is not my style to discuss family with comrades. I like to get to know people, I enjoy friendships. There is chemistry involved. And then there is the political. If you are for a constituent assembly, and for federalism, you are pro-Madhesi, if you are against the two, you are ant-Madhesi, and I will happily, respectfully debate you on the topic. Right now the entire movement is focused on the idea of a constituent assembly, so Pahadis should feel perfectly comfortable working with me, collaborating with me. I offer genuine comraderie. But then political work has professional overtones. Progress or lack thereof have to be measured, for example. We have to invite the largest possible swathes of people into our discussions. The more the merrier. And they don't even have to be Nepali. For me the Nepal work spills over into American politics. This is also about political dignity for the Nepalis in America: no taxation without representation. This is also about moving on to larger identities, from Madhesi to Nepali to Desi to Asian to non-White. Identities are social, cultural, political constructs. They have to be claimed, they have to be forged, they have to be taken pride in. Identity has to be a positive feeling, it has to be about inclusin, not exclusion. Identities have to be reinvented to that purpose. Pahadis, take note.

Globalization and the internet are two major themes of our times. A Nepali in New York or the US can do almost everything for Nepal as the Nepalis in Nepal, especially if there is close collaboration from both ends. And that collaboration is to be online. It is cheap, it is faster than fast, it is instant. We create virtual parliaments. We donate time, money, ideas. We seek time, ideas, experiences, observations, data. We invest down the line. We launch multi-national companies. "Brain drain" was a colonial term. Now there are only globalization and the internet. We are all global citizens.

And I never thought, for all my republican rhetoric, that if the king were to magically disappear, suddenly there will be roads and fiber optic networks that will connect every village, there will be high schools and health posts in every village, suddenly all the ethnic prejudice will evaporate off, like magic. All the political, social, economic problems will still be there. So this movement is more about raising the political consciousness of all Nepalis than anything else.

Visitors

9 February