Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy On Nepal
in the US Congress
on December 21, 2005

Some interesting points: (mostly verbatim)

� The army continues to see itself as the defender of an anachronistic, corrupt and autocratic monarchy.

� The political parties do not have a record of putting the interests of the nation above their own self interest. They urgently need to reform. Yet they are the real representatives of the Nepali people and there is no substitute for them.

� The international appeal to the King for reconciliation have failed. The Bush Administration should apply whatever pressure it can, including denying U.S. visas to Nepali officials and their families.

� The municipal elections announced by King Gyanendra for early next year, without any consultation with the political parties, are no solution. An attempt to apply a veneer of legitimacy to an otherwise undemocratic process will only prolong and exacerbate this crisis.

� There is a growing possibility that the King�s obstinacy and unpopularity will trigger massive civil unrest, shootings and arrests of many more civilians by soldiers and police, Nepal�s further isolation, and perhaps the end of the monarchy itself.

� 12 point understanding could be the basis for a national dialogue to restore democracy and end the conflict

� The United States should do everything possible including supporting a broadly inclusive political dialogue with or WITHOUT the participation of the palace.


Full speech:
- http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200512/122105f.html
- http://www.blog.com.np/?p=1052#more-1052

"I think it's instructive for you to read some of my PUBLISHED pieces to see where I am coming from to this kura-kani."

Haha. I think that's nonsense. I neither have time nor motivation to research you [the real-life person] or all your "PUBLISHED" work. I critique you based [solely] on the substance of your postings here on sajha, and if you needed me to read something beforehand, you should've included such requirements/references on your postings.

Thanks for the links though. I will read them as/when I have time [and motivation]... You are a good writer.

Good day!

I want to know something, Mr. Ashu. Are you justifying the Royal Coup on the basis of "corrupt and undemocratic" political parties?

My quick remark regarding Ashu's postings.

Reading BETWEEN Ashu's lines, I gather he is trying to find a language to place himself on the side of pro-democracy pole without admitting that he wasn't before.

I think this is a small good step in a right direction for now and if it is indeed true, I for one would welcome Ashu with open arms and wouldn't mind to say 'bygone is bygone'.

Nepe

"..reform is almost impossible in the absence of democracy. In fact, the absence of democracy serves the opposite..."

Excellent point, Echoes-jee.

for me, this sums it all up, so eloquently:

"Reforming political parties is a part of a democratic process, not a prerequisite." - Echoes

Mr. Ashu???

ashuji,

afule afnai article refer garnu bhayechha. hamro nepeji le teso garnuhunchha bhanera tapaile ho kya re katai arop lagaunu bhayeko. je hos, nepe kai bato samatnu bhayo ghumifiri, dhanyabad.

aba arulai afu sanga disagree gardai ma 'third grade scientist' bhanera jhokkine (intolerant) hune etc pani nagarnu hola (kina ki tapai afai pani kaun sa thulo economist ho ra, haina ta. maile afulai genium mathematician thane pani jaba samma annals of mathematicians ma peer review bhayera mera chilla paper niskidainan, maile pani chup lagnu nai bes hunchha bhanne malai ramrari thaha chha.)

tapai democrat hunu hola, thikai chha, tara bani chai tapaiko ali democratic dekhina yi kehi thread haru observe garda. especially man naparne bittikai rakkine, sarapne, ta ko hos ra paji bhanne jasta bani thik haina. akhir tapaile pani Schelling ko original paper wa unko kitab padhnu bhayeko rahenachha kya re.

sabail lai bhalo hos, sabai polite ra arulai respect garne hun. naya barsako yehi shuvakamana.

Ashu,

You asked,
If I, unknown to me, represent -- according to you -- the "narrow interest of Kathmandufs psudo-elite", would it be all right to declare that YOU, in your
infinite wisdom, represent the "broader interest of Kathmandu's REAL elite"?
-----------------
NO. I think the group of REAL elite is yet to emerge in Kathmandu. So, there is no question of representing their interest. Rather I think my economic interest is much closer to that of psudo-elites. And I admit that socio-economic restructuring along with further democratization of Nepali politics certainly hurts my economic interest, at least in the short run.

In my earlier posting, my intention was just to provide an honest feedback about the kind of impression one could get from your postings (since I noticed it often propped as a subject of debate). I thought it is fair to opine on your standing as you are a gpublic figureh (as a Sajha stalwart and also a columnist in a reputed weekly news magazine). I do not mean to call your name in a "name-calling" sense.

I agree what Echoes said about the reform process of political parties. As a management consultant, you (Ashu) may know better that political culture does not come by design, rather takes time to evolve. Girija Koirala is not an institution; he is simply an attitude that is result of our feudal social structure. So, if you loathe Girija attitude so much, and claim to be a problem solver (I agree a legitimate claim!), why are you hesitant to put the solution in a plain language?

Sucharya
------------------------------------

Ashu,

You wrote,
If I, unknown to me, represent -- according to you -- the "narrow interest of Kathmandufs psudo-elite", would it be all right to declare that YOU, in your
infinite wisdom, represent the "broader interest of Kathmandu's REAL elite"?

NO. I think the group of REAL elite is yet to emerge in Kathmandu. So, there is no question of representing their interest. Rather I think my economic interest is much closer to that of psudo-elites. And I admit that socio-economic restructuring along with further democratization of Nepali politics certainly hurts my economic interest, at least in the short run.

In my earlier posting, my intention was just to provide an honest feedback about the kind of impression one could get from your postings (since I noticed it often propped as a subject of debate). I thought it is fair to opine on your standing as you are a gpublic figureh (as a Sajha stalwart and also a columnist in a reputed weekly news magazine). I do not mean to call your name in a "name-calling" sense.

I agree what Echoes said about the reform process of political parties. As a management consultant, you (Ashu) may know better that political culture does not come by design, rather takes time to evolve. Girija Koirala is not an institution; he is simply an attitude that is result of our feudal social structure. So, if you loathe Girija attitude so much, and claim to be a problem solver (I agree a legitimate claim!), why are you hesitant to put the solution in a plain language?

Sucharya
------------------------------------

येसो टेस्žट गरम् कि मै पनि

Sucharya wrote this bit of self-admission:

"I think the group of REAL elite is yet to emerge in Kathmandu. Rather I think my economic interest is much closer to that of psudo-elites. And I admit that socio-economic restructuring along with further democratization of Nepali politics certainly hurts my economic interest, at least in the short run."


So, Sucharya, that's your admission, right?

Just because you yourself claim to being closer to the pseudo-elites (see above), that does NOT mean you have to see all others as reps of so-called pseudo-elites. Let's
make that distinction clear.

If Girija and Company take time to evolve, as you say, why not, as a matter of
NEUTRAL kurakani, let the palace take its time to evolve too?

If some people think that the palace is fixed in its ways, what's the harm in assuming that Girija et al too are fixed in their ways -- and, with both sides fixed and rigid, the only casualty is our collective future in Nepal. Sombody has to move -- to gain some strategic advantage. If the palace doesn't move, the parties have to move to make
the palace and the janata react to their move so that the palace steps back and the janata move forward.

Else, I, for one, sense that all this mindless palace-bashing has simply made all of us jaded, tired, irritated, ideological to the point of ineffectiveness and has taken our focus AWAY from the main task: Ask the parties to start reforming themselves to win the janata's heart and mind.

oohi
ashu

"let the palace take its time to evolve too?" Another 250 years of slavery for all Nepalese? Oh my God! We Bheda-Bokas will never learn!!

मैले पनि माने दरबार प्रतिको यो सहृदयता,के भनम खै यति कुरो बुझे पछि

Shaive,

You are misquoting me.

My point was, in the spirit of a NEUTRAL kura-kani: If Girija ko supporters say that he and his fellow-netas need time to evolve, would the same argument not be seized by those supporting the palace? When that happens, this sort of "we need time for evolution" kura-kani does NOT really add to the debate.

BETTER TO SAY: Look, Girija et al, you guys have had your time. You blew it. Not once. Not twice. But repeatedly. Either you are really stupid or you just don't have faith in others to do your job. If neither, then, step aside now, and let OTHERS do whatever that needs to be done to get the country out of this mess. Let the janata see FRESH and NEW faces with fresh agenda and new energy. Ther's nothing more enrgizing that a fresh beginning. The longer you stay at the helm, the more you drain everyone's enrgy, and the more damaging it is for EVERYONE's democratic aspirations and the easier it will be for the king to do keep on doing what he does.

oohi
ashu

Ashu,

You wrote:
Just because you yourself claim to being closer to the pseudo-elites (see above), that does NOT mean you have to see all others as reps of so-called pseudo-elites. Let's
make that distinction clear.


I also admit, I can not beat you on rhetoric. Yet, in my earlier posting I am not saying gI AM CLOSER to pseudo-elitesh, what I said is gMY ECONOMIC INTEREST IS closer to THAT of pseudo-elitesh. Can you see the difference?

I think, onefs economic interest and political value can be different (unless you precisely fit into the mould of classical Marxist analysis); they should be different especially when the society is at the doorstep of political big-bang.

By forwarding an amusing hypothesis that given enough time, Nepalfs monarchy evolvesc.. you have added more credence to my hypothesis that your view represents narrow interest of Kathmandufs pseudo-elites.

Sucharya
----------------------------------

Sucharya,

We are discussing picayune differences here re: pseudo-elites (an unfortunate and unhelpful term YOU brought here). Let's let it pass.

******

Re: the evolution of monarchy, that is NOT my hypothesis. I could care less about monarchy for it does NOT represent me in any way. It never pretended to represent voters like me. But I do care a lot about the parties because they say that they
represent me, yet have done such a poor job -- repeatedly.

As a democrat, it's my hypothesis that: it helps a lot to think like a pro-palace
person TO SHARPEN one's thoughts and ideas about democracy. Put yourself in
your opponent's shoes, and map out what s/he would do to defeat you, and then
make your plans accordingly. Thinking like this is a way of thinking -- NOT being a
durbar ko bhakta -- why don't you guys understand this simple difference?

True, pro-palace hardliners are evil and khattam, and jhoor. We all know that. By cursing them endlessly -- an easy and relatively uncontroversial thing to do and something that gets an easy wah-wah on Sajha -- we do NOT advance the debate about democracy. Instead, all we become is bitter about the reign of power enjoyed
by Giri, Bista and the like. How long are we going to go on being bitter and reactive? Forever?

Democracy, after all, does NOT come out of bitterness and hatred. It comes out
of idealism.

In that vein, let us first articulate the IDEALS we want in the building blocks of
democracy --i.e. the parties. Let's then push for those ideals, knowing that
doing so is not an easy task. That way, even with STIRRINGS of changes within the parties, the palace-hardliners will have no choice but to change themselves or
prepare to perish altogether. So long as parties themselves are khattam, jhoor
and beyond redemtion, no wonder people like Giri and Bista command all the power
in Nepal.

oohi
ashu

May be a bit offtopic, but last night I had a weird dream. Saw prachanda and his fellas in our houme re damn......phewwwww......scaryyyy..........

I guess I may sound cunningly aggressive by following up on this thread since Ashu has neither responded to nor acknowledged my last responses, but I cannot help but notice a few things on his latest postings that, as a citizen, bother me.

"If Girija and Company take time to evolve, as you say, why not, as a matter of NEUTRAL kurakani, let the palace take its time to evolve too?"

Even if we are to think that you suggested this in good faith for the sake of this debate [I'm becoming increasingly doubtful, btw], your argument is simply flimsy. First of all, for the palace, democracy is not a goal nor has it ever been. So even if Nepalis do allow it to "evolve", it is clear what it will evolve into. The recent Nepali history is evident of this reality.

Secondly, your argument subtly assumes absolute monarchy as an acceptable [by the people] form of governance. This IS NOT TRUE ANYMORE. You need to wake up. Whatever time the Nepali monarch is going to buy with your argument is a completely a function of military oppression, and people are NOT going to like this for an extended period of time. [You claim to be living in Nepal...have you not noticed it yet? Or do you ever leave Kathmandu?].

Therefore, most Nepali people [sorry, I must exclude the types of you, and those who see it in their personal interest to keep an active monarch] are not going to buy this argument you presented. If they were to, things would have been completely [and positively] different since the palace took over.

"If some people think that the palace is fixed in its ways, what's the harm in assuming that Girija et al too are fixed in their."

Haha. I must withdraw my statements in the past that I thought you were intelligent. Now I think you're just a clever writer, that's it.

Your assertion has one very fundamental problem, gentleman: You forget that the real power of the palace indisputably lies in the army, which is paid and trained to serve the king. But "Girija et all", as bad as they are now, must eventually rely on the people. A force that relies on a diverse and voluntary group of people is always dynamic can never be fixed. What are you even thinking?

"In that vein, let us first articulate the IDEALS we want in the building blocks of democracy --i.e. the parties. Let's then push for those ideals, knowing that doing so is not an easy task."

Care to say how that's possible when there's no democracy? Rhetoric aside, you cannot use political parties as building blocks in the sense that they must first be perfect before any democracy can be tried on them... You have to think of democracy as a playing ground for political parties, which will constantly evolve, along with their playing ground. But what you're saying, in essence, is: "I'll take the playing ground away, but you must still continue to play and become perfect if you want to get the playing ground back." What kind of logic is that?

Your thoughts have appeared consistently feeble. You just use heavy words to carry almost nothing.

Who the fug is Senator Leahy(they cannot even resolve things in their own fuggin Senate) to decide what Nepali people need and want. NEPE YOU NEED TO STOP THIS BULLSHIT. Trying to tilt the public in your fuggin favor. You think WE(Nepali people) are blind ? YOU TNIK WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON HERE ? Take you PROPAGANDA SOMEWHERE ELSE. Thanks but no thanks.

Ram Ram Ram, even in US gets envolved then for their own good, they are simply waging a quite war style battle with Nepal as the battleground...guess the rest....

Sneaking Sneaker, shame shame.

Amen...

in=if