I saw this in soc.culture.nepal. It is thought provoking.

What do you think?

Will Biswo comment on this?

---------------------------------------------------------

Analytic

Neighboring Thoughts
===========================



Nepal is going through unprecedented time in its history. The continuous
protest of the five (one less now) political parties and their many demands
even to amend the constitution, and "regression" as well as of constituent
assembly over the years has really become profound agenda. Present
constitution though thought to be revolutionary and best, during its
inception was their own creation, which even violates individual property
rights and supports the dictum of communism. The long and many terms ruler,
ex-Prime Minister who is not only insensitive to the peoples interest but is
also infamous for corruption, misuse of power and inaptness; is still the
leader of opposition. No one is sovereign in a democratic sociaty, but party
bosses of major political parties have become souvern and are leading their
parties regardless of corruptions and crimes committed by them towards the
people and the country. Who can be responsible to restore democracy and
democratic rights of the people? Is this not a mockery in itself?

A powerful fraction of left was not satisfied with the newfound leadership
and started armed struggle approximately eight years ago. However, party
bosses like G.P. and M.K.N. directly blamed the present king for creating
and nurturing the insurgency. It started to throw away the democratic system
not just the monarchy as reported in Indian media, which is being copied by
others as well. Maoist belive, that Nepal cannot have a successful
democracy. The parties in power conducted the elections in undemocratic
manner, booth capturing, political murders and autocratic culture has become
normal democratic practice. Rampent curruption was the root cause of Maoist
uprisig. Maoist also has outside base and support. The same forces that
supported the pro-democratic movement of 1950, 1962 and 1990 are supporting
these forces to destabilize Nepal.

If we study how democracy was functioning in Nepal, we will find that there
was no democratic culture in any party who ruled the country. Left and Right
both ruled jointly without any hesitation and nakedness in corruption, power
misuse and enforced mafia-type management where human life became valueless.
Many party cadres and leaders became billionaires over night in the name of
"serving people" and now they want power in the name of "regression" prior
to election or even without election.

contd...

Undoubtedly, the politics of Nepal is influenced by the politics of
independent India. The infamous pair Lalu and Rabadi Devi is also relevant
in this context. Lalu had made well known but un-convicted criminals even
union ministers by his grace. Is this the moral and ethics of India's famous
left and socialist parties? Politicians have long practiced corruption,
sheltered criminals and even encouraged criminals by giving them party
tickets have established "criminal" democratic culture? Lalu's reign was
always protected by congress, neglecting the sufferings of the people and
criminalizing politics of Bihar. The infamous Bo-force, Fodder scam etc. is
still unresolved and Tahalka like incidence has become normal democratic
culture

It is noteworthy to gaze factual Indian history of independence, which might
be helpful to understand the current situation.

British gave freedom to India not just because the Gandhiji's wanted. They
(British) were compelled to leave India due to shortage of manpower to
control the colony as they faced great loss and heavy casualty in Second
World War. That was the sole cause of giving freedom to India. Even Azad
Hind Fauz of Netai defeated British in Imphal. Gandhi and Nehru both
vehemently opposed Netaji and supported British; in another word they openly
denounced the freedom.

Sir Winston Churchill had clearly emphasized "if there would
have been few more Gandhis' were born in India, we could have ruled that
country for few more centuries." Nehru was so excited; he was even ready to
take arms against Netaji. Who dedicated his life for the freedom of India.
Nehru had an agreement with British to hand over Netaji whenever he will be
arrested. That's the reason why British handed power to Nehru instead of
Shardar Ballave Bhai Patel when they left India.

The only place in our 'planet earth' where slaves managed to enslave was
India and established a slave dynasty that ruled the country for decades. It
shows how India is unconcerned who ever the ruler may be. That's why
Gandhiji's "ahinsa" was overly glorified and praised but it failed in
Kashmiri context. They fought many bloody wars, why? Even in twenty first
century when India became a Nuclear power (why &what for?) and had practiced
democracy for more than half a century. Sonia a foreign born lady has become
a central power, without any constitutional definition. Is this, not the
uniqueness of Indian democracy? The most powerful person of the biggest
democracy of the world is a pawn and responsible to only one person. Can
this be glorified as a glittering example of democracy or a curse?

The politics and corruption between the two countries cannot be compared in
equal terms, however there are similarities. Without violence and murder
there is no history of any elections conducted in Nepal or in India. How can
an election be free and fair when there is always murder and violence? The
fate of Nepal, the only Hindu kingdom is very gloomy due to prolong Indian
interference. Nepal is never allowed to choose its own path. The first
intervention and naked aggression was from India. When handful of NC men who
supported the theory of greater India, became the tools for aggression and
launched armed conflict in the name of NC in 1950. Since then Nepal drifted
below the poverty line from 27th position to 1st position. NC leaders always
planed armed attacks from 1962 continuously for more than two decades from
India. India wanted to make its first victim Nepal not Sikkim, due to
diplomatic skill of late king Mahendra Nepal was saved, after him 'South
Block' succeeded in its effort to have control on Nepal like Bhutan, through
its henchmen.

The leadership emerged after 1990 revolution was not able to fulfill all the
wishes of their masters even after they were elected many times and were in
majority. That's why our mighty neighbor started supporting this new force.
Time, practice and experience proved it to be correct. Otherwise, why India
supports Kingship in Bhutan and opposes in Nepal, when millions of people
are thrown out of their own country as refugees in India and India pushed
them inside Nepal and fully supports Bhutanese King for his inhuman and
ghastly acts for more than a decade.

For the present precarious condition of Nepal there are many responsible
parties who cannot be excused or exempted from blame. India should think
with a cool head not to disturb its neighbor politically or economically
otherwise the volatile condition of the tiny kingdom would bring disaster
for the region.

I found another article from the same author. I find it interesting. It is a cut-n-paste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nepal : A country in Crisis
BIJAYA MANI DIXIT

Nepal is facing the hardest time in history and its very existence is in danger. Can a country directed towards poverty and bankruptcy by its corrupt and inept leadership be justified as democratic? Leaders like G.P.Koirala and M.K.Nepal by the respective rule and performance of their parties and colleagues for more than a decade have proved that they lack vision, ability and guts to lead the country democratically. During their rule lawlessness, corruption and abuse of power were glorified. Now the country has drifted towards bankruptcy and chaos due to their inept and corrupt leadership.
When Mahakali was sold and there was a vigorous opposition in the parliament, even by the friendly opposition and co-rulers on the opposition bench - CPN UML. Later they collaborated, supported the ruling party and sold the river to India. It does not take a genius to understand what might have happened behind the scenes. This type of opposition that can be bought and sold by the ruling party is unheard of in any democratic world.

After deep observation of years of democratic practice in Nepal B.B.C. in its broadcast few years ago advised Nepal to accept the Indian umbrella. Is this not a glaring example of failure of multiparty system in Nepal? Who is responsible for generating this type of comments? GP Koirala is a liar, who abused the power and lied to the Parliament and the people for few years about Mahakali. He was never convicted nor punished for the scandals that shook the nation from time to time. He was not punished even after his guilt was proved beyond doubt. It shows our understanding of democracy. He should have been and punished sacked for his anti-people and anti-national crimes long ago but he was not only honored but is still leading the five parties in opposition.

Nepali Congress leader Ram Sharan Mahat, ex-finance minister, ex-foreign minister and an eminent economist rejoining to the King's Nepalgunj address has recently asserted in a Nepali weekly that multi party system was not a total failure. According to him during this era of democracy they had built many roads in the country but he ignored the present critical condition of the nation including the bankrupt financial position created by the blatant misuse of national treasury by his government. Huge debt was thrust on the nation. Their corrupt leadership has taken the nation towards the end of its very existence

contd..

The parties who framed the current constitution had claimed that it to be one of the best in the world. They want to change the same constitution when they are out of power. We have seen many governments and many prime ministers in this decade of democracy. And they all totally neglected the interests of the common man. The basis of democracy is to honor the needs of the people but the parties were only interested to fulfill the needs of their leaders. The parties were also unable to change their failed leadership. How can the country survive when there are no replacements for corrupt and incapable leaders? We have also seen how alien forces have been effectively interfering in our internal affairs.

The political parties that ruled Nepal after the restoration of democracy have been led by corrupt, immoral and unscrupulous leaders. There is such a big dearth of good and honest leadership that G.P. Koirala despite his corruption, utter incompetence and many scandals is still enjoying his party's loyalty. Elsewhere he would have been in the limbo long ago.

The history of past few decades post King Mahendra era clearly shows that the country has not been able to take the right course for political stability, betterment of the people and eradication of poverty. However, there was peace in the country. But so many unfortunate things have happened in the nation in this short time of multiparty rule. We have seen how lust for power has impelled democrats to bring down their own party government. We have also seen how the government could not provide security to the then monarch and his whole family was brutally massacred. Prospects in Nepal do not seem to be bright. The poor country with overwhelming illiterate masses is being divided ethnically. And the politicians are encouraging the division to nurse their own selfish interest. But in King Gyanendra, we still have a ray of hope. How liberal and broadminded he is, has been amply demonstrated by his behavior after he became the King. But can we believe in what late Ganesh Man Singh had said about the people of Nepal? To refresh your memory, he had said, "The people of Nepal are like fools. They celebrated when we were taken in and they rejoiced when we were released." Poor Ganesh Man Singh was not far wrong. Anyway, the time has come when Ganesh Man Singh will stand corrected.

Mr. Tick,

Thanks for your effort. I am also delighted to read the article of the person who has similar name. I am very much impressed by the historical facts and the views expressed in these articles. As I know Gandhi and Nehru agreed and had collaborated with British government after British lost the war in Imphal against Azad Hind Army of Netaji Subash Chandra Bosh. After that British were determined to leave India. Muslims did not want them to leave India even the then Congress President Maulana Azad was not happy with the British decision to give even dominion status for India once the war ended.

In Aug 1946 governor general of India invited Nehru to form interim government. Nehru included two Muslims in his cabinet but this did not stop Hind-Muslim riots. Jinnah was very unhappy when British selected Nehru to lead India; there was power struggle among these two. Jinnah called on Muslims to take direct action to get an independent Muslim state. The violence took many lives. After that Hindu fundamentalism was also aroused and Hindu-Muslim riot started and the ultimate result was the partition of India which was immature action of Nehru. Later Nehru thought if all the Muslims leave India there will be no chance for him to rule the country. British were also worried for their subjects - Christian minority who helped them rule and were on first grade citizen status in British India. The concept of secularism was brought by them in the heads of constitution makers of India as well as their henchmen -Nehru to make India a secular country. Indian secularism is nothing but a gesture of gratitude towards their ex-rulers the Muslims and Christians. The minority right has given them the ability to rule over majority.

Nehru's ambition to take Nepal was so great that when ever he visited Nepal he used to say "Himalayas is India's northern border." No one was in a position to oppose him but still then he faced black flag demonstrations. Anti-Indian feeling was his creation from the very beginning when he sent Indian troops in Nepal and they mass raped in Thankot, Tundikhel (now airport) and Patan Tundikhel. The Indian army behaved like an invading army. They destroyed Barud-Khana and the machines of Sundarijal Arsinal to make guns and were virtually in control of Nepal. Indian ambassador used to preside in cabinet meetings, without him no cabinet meeting was possible in those days. Kings private secretary and Indian ICS officers took over the day-to-day administration of our country. This is the true picture of our democracy and history. NC always favored the concept of Greater India.