The only full timer out of the 200,000 Nepalis in the US to work for Nepal's democracy and social justice movements in 2005-06.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Prakash Chandra Lohani Is Off The Mark
Before I even get into the details of Dr. Lohani's article, let me make it absolutely clear, it has always been my position that a communist republic is out of question. An executive monarchy with only limited democracy is preferable to a communist republic. But then I am also opposed to any attempt at political blackmail by the Monarchists.
But my point is the Maoists do not want a communist republic, and they can not get it even if they might want it. They do envision a long term communist republic, some kind of a socialist utopia, but then America some day hopes to send a "manned" mission to Mars, if George W. is to be believed. That long term vision does not bother me the least. They are looking at 100 years or more by their own account.
After 2/1 I think I was the first and the only democrat who consistenly reached out to the Maoists to seek common ground around the goal of a democratic republic. The enemy of your enemy is your friend. Some people claim Dr. Baburam Bhattarai's time spent in "protective custody" around that time had something to do with his suggesting the Maoists should come around to the idea of a democratic republic and not see India as their primary enemy. But then I might be wrong on that one.
Prachanda: A Profile
Prachanda Is Angry
The Twins Gyanendra And Prachanda Are Watching Closed-Circuit Television
Nepali Maoists And The US Perspective
The Monarchists, Not The Maoists, Are Like The Al Qaeda
Online Coverage Of The Maoists
Nepal Communist Party (Progressive)
To: Prachanda, Baburam, Mahara, Badal And The Rest Of The Maoist Leadership
Doing Business With Baburam Bhattarai
Baburam Bhattarai On A Democratic Republic
Ideological Overture To The Nepali Maoists (2)
Democrats, Imagine The Worst From Monarchists/Maoists
Ideological Overture To The Nepali Maoists
Sought eDialogue with Dr. Baburam Bhattarai
Towards a Democratic Republic of Nepal
The Maoists have made it very clear they are for a multi-party framework in the 12 point agreement with the seven party alliance. Is that dishonesty on their part? Are they out to use the parties to finish off the king? I don't think so.
My position on the 12 point agreement is that it is work in progress. (10 Point Agreement To Succeed 12 Point Agreement) Actually my first reaction to the 12 point agreement was hostile. The Maoists had not said much that was new. Just look at this article by Dr. Bhattarai which came a long time before the 12 point agreement. Why could the parties not have just read that article and hurried things up?
To: Dr. Baburam Bhattarai
Baburam Bhattarai, Pramod Aryal, Ram Chandra Poudel
But then the king has consistently acted like the Maoists make it possible for him to become an executive monarch. He leaves no room for an ideological transformation on the part of the Maoists. A low intensity insurgency suits the designs of a guy who intends to be an activist monarch.
Why do I say that? Because the king and his people accuse the Maoists of having used every previous round of peace talk to only regroup. That just is not true. It is the king who has ensured the failure of every previous round of peace talk by refusing to come around to the idea of a constituent assembly. The king's idea of peace talk is that the Maoists surrender. Just like the king's idea of dialogue with the parties is that they come around to his ridiculous roadmap. The monarch has a feudal mindset.
Prakash Chandra Lohani himself is of dubious character. If the Panchayat had lasted forever, that would not have bothered Lohani one bit. If Lohani is a democrat, he is so by default and by convenience. Now that the executive monarchy is back, he seems to be feeling perfectly at home.
The Lohani tendency is to say the 1990 constitution is good enough. My position is that is one disgusting piece of document. I feel that way as a Madhesi. (This Inadequate, Improper, Insufficient 1990 Constitution) And you know I am no Maoist.
Do I trust the Maoists? I don't have to. I seek for them to come forth to a stated position that I can trust. And then I seek a roadmap that I can trust, and then I move ahead one step at a time. I wish to engage the Maoists in a respectful dialogue. I have gone so far as to challenge Dr. Bhattarai to come up with a more progressive constitution than the one I have outlined: Proposed Republican Constitution 2006. In stating that challenge, I am perfectly comfortable with the idea Dr. Bhattarai might quote Mao.
So what roadmap am I talking about? I think the 12 point agreement should be revised. (10 Point Agreement To Succeed 12 Point Agreement) The country should skip House revival and should go straight to an interim government. Madhav Nepal should be interim prime minister as the leader of the largest party. The interim PM ought be Commander In Chief of the army. The state army and the Maoist army should be integrated. The Maoists should be guaranteed physical safety. I am fine with the idea of their having their own armed cadres as their bodyguards, only now they will be on state payroll. They should become a political party. And the country should go for elections to a constituent assembly. Do I believe the Maoists will accept the outcome of the assembly? Yes.
I guess they can always go back to their old ways, theoretically speaking. But then they will have to raise an army from scratch.
But my bet is if the country were to adopt my Proposed Republican Constitution 2006, the Maoists will have no political room to go back to their violent ways.
So, yes, I believe in a political solution to the insurgency. Not only that, I have a clear proposed roadmap.
But then there is the Lohani school of thought that refuses to believe the Maoists are capable of ideological transformation. That school of thought is housed by people who enjoyed unchallenged power during the Panchayat, are even today just fine with the idea of an activist king, think the 1990 constitution is great, belong to the ruling class, have no empathy for the grievances of the DaMaJaMa (Pradip Giri: DaMaJaMa), and do not face discomfort of any kind personally no matter if the country go through famine, civil war, or worse.
Baburam Bhattarai on the other hand is an amazingly smart person, well read, of modest background, and never part of the power elite in the country. He speaks from the margins. Nepal's peasants are like Mao's peasants were. I can see how Maoism might have had appeal. But I want to give them ample room to transform themselves and help create a kind of democracy that does not exist in any other country on the planet. I am not asking them to surrender. I am not forcing them to defeat. I am saying their goals can be better met with my Proposed Republican Constitution 2006. I am giving them respect, and a positive outlet, the kind Mao himself never imagined. My attempt at classlessness is more sound, more real, more lasting, and it does not involve violence. But it does involve a fundamental restructuring of the state, more fundamental than has happened in any other country.
Yes, I am for a democratic republic. The king has had his chance to accept a constitutional monarchy. He wasted his opportunity. I don't think he is capable of coming around to the idea of a constitutional monarchy. He said no to tea and coffee. So now it is soda time. (Tea, Coffee Or Soda?)
If I were the seven party alliance, I like the Maoists better, because at least the Maoists engage in dialogue. It has been beneath the king to hold genuine dialogue with the parties. The heck with such a king.
We democrats talk from a position of strength. Neither the king nor the Maoists have it in their power to deprive us of democracy. It is called people power.