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

In=if

hareeee.....

Echoes wrote:

""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?


It's a perfectly valid logic -- turning a weakness into a strength. Mandela did that in South Africa, when he did NOT have any access to the playing ground. Gandhi did
that in India, when he too did not have any access to the playing ground.

My point is simple: The parties in their present avatars are spent forces -- morally, intellectually, logistically and inspirationally.

Sure, they may gather a few hundred people here and there. But that's about it. They are like senile boxers, unable to inspire any confidence even when they punch. The
palace knows them inside out to predict their moves far ahead in advance and to
keep them reactive to the palace's dictates.

I, for one, am tired of Girija et al.
Let them retire; and let there be fresh faces in their places.
Let the country have a new deal, with a fresh sets of cards.
Unless that happens, sorry, the cause of democacy is simply NOT served by these
netas.

oohi
ashu

And one more thing:

As a voter and a democrat, I'll take my chances with untested but enthusiastic fresh faces now than to continue to depend on certified repeat failures that out present
netas are.

The palace, after all, needs adversaries it cannot ignore for its own survival and for wider democracy. The present netas, it knows, can SAFELY be ignored.

oohi
ashu

"Sure, they may gather a few hundred people here and there. But that's about it. They are like senile boxers, unable to inspire any confidence even when they punch. The
palace knows them inside out to predict their moves far ahead in advance and to
keep them reactive to the palace's dictates.

I, for one, am tired of Girija et al.
Let them retire; and let there be fresh faces in their places.
Let the country have a new deal, with a fresh sets of cards.
Unless that happens, sorry, the cause of democacy is simply NOT served by these
netas. " Ashu

Well said..


I think to bring the democracy first of all we need the fresh new leaders with clean records.

I think its really absurd to believe that current leadership can generate mass movement that can over-throw the monarchy.

peace out

INDISGUISE= ASHUTOSH TIWARI
NEPE= DEEPAK KHADKA

As if they MATTER

HAHAHA. Hey man, click on the username and check the profile. You will get your answer. Do not try to prove your stupidity.

Airight.

peace out

I almost thought I had failed to provoke Ashu despite my repeated attempts ;-).

Anyways. Ashu, you said:

"It's a perfectly valid logic -- turning a weakness into a strength. Mandela did that in South Africa, when he did NOT have any access to the playing ground. Gandhi did that in India, when he too did not have any access to the playing ground"

Your analogies are inappropriate, and I know you know it.

First of all, neither Mandela nor Gandhi was fighting for a political system, as such. Their cause was purely of a human suffering (rather than a political one) inflicted on one race by another, which resonated soundly with the suffered class. It was not a fight for an abstract system that they were trying to put in place to replace the British or the whites.
The result of their success was indeed democracy, and particularly, in India's case, then came the political parties, which are still not perfect even today despite 50+ years of work.

Secondly, your analogy completely discredits the 10+ years of democracy we had. Neither South Africa nor India had their democracy taken away. You are saying, Nepalis ought to start from scratch, as though 1990 never happened.

For your analogy to work, we have to wait until the King truly becomes comparable to the colonial British, or the elites in Kathmandu start building physical fences to keep the rest out of their Ratna Parks.

The sense I get is that you're so frustrated with Girija et al that you are willing to wait until that happens. Show me where am I wrong?

INDISGUISE= ASHUTOSH TIWARI
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARE PRAVU, atleast learn to guess.....

Also, I think that I can further support my argument that Ashu's assertion that Girija et al are fixed in their stands is flawed:

If you care to study the recent history (just take the last couple years) you will notice that all major parties have changed their positions over time and have become more flexible. Even the Maoists have, as recently a month or so ago. The ONLY quarter that has NOT changed its stand is the palace.

So what is it that Ashu finds fixed on the part of the parties? That they are not willing to completely give in?

Again, a political force that depends on the people can never be fixed. It must ultimately heed to its source of power, i.e. the people. Contrast this with a force that derives its power from an armed, paid and 'trained to serve' army.

Nepal was about to see a major breakthrough toward strengthening democracy. The king's move, if anything, has blocked that prospect, and has helped Girija Prasads retain their grip. Does Ashu not agree with this?

Even the dissenting voices within the political parties don't see [and rightly so] Girija Prasads as as big a problem as the lack of democracy in the country. This is a very sad thing for democracy but perfectly understandable. When something like this happens, who is supposed to tame Girija Prasads?

We need democracy in place to be able to replace Girija Prasads.

So this senator from where?? Vermont?? this dude is representing a state with population of less than half a million people, where most are pig and chicken farmers. How the did he come to such conclusion about a complicated country like Nepal with population close to 30 million. Heck if I move to Vermont, become a muslim, marry about 10 wives and have about 100 children, I could probably win the election in a state like Vermont. So, I do not consider this Leahy fella credible enough to tell what should country like Nepal do and not do.

Like someone above pointed out, it has almost become a political fashion trend in america these days for politicians to seek interest outside of the USA for world peace and greater good for everyone around the world. Leahy probably thought coming from Vermont, Nepal was with in his ballpark, since senators from big state are taking on bigger issues in bigger countries where americans have bigger interest. Leahy's is in Nepal and Nepalese issue for his OWN political agendas. If he is not, when else in the history have we heard anything from this guy say a word or express any concern for Nepal and Nepalese? Did his genuine concern for Nepal fell from the sky and landed on his head?? gimme a break!!!!

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

And about Ashu critics / haters in here, one point should be noted: Ashu lives and works in Nepal unlike his opposite. Just that fact is enough to make his point of view more credible when talking ground realities with in Nepal and talking about realistic outlet to current situation. Democracy in paper is a wonderful idea but democracy in Nepal was a total disaster. Not because there is a flaw in the idea itself, but because of the persons responsible for running it.

Therefore, reforming political parties is a good beginning, because there is no way we should let our country be led by same gang of corrupt politicians who are responsible for brining the country to this point. And obviously there is no way you want inhumane prachanda and his gang to be leading our nation.

Democracy should be build and nurtured. Democracy in Nepal will not survive by bringing it at the cost of monarchy or maoism. Democratic reform with in the political parties, with in monarchy, and even with in the maoists is the only way of building fully democratic Nepal.

So, folks stop listening to what people like Leahy who have no background nor any sense of realities inside Nepal...instead think about what people like Ashu are saying, since their livelihood and lives are much closer to these issues.

Thank you all very much.

Echoes,

Its Deuba who handed power to the king in the first place. I do not think anybody is denying the fact that we need democracy. But look at the facts. How can we achieve democracy?

We need a leadership that can pose a threat to the monarchy. Girja and etal cannot generate pressure required for the king to step down.

peace out

"We need democracy in place to be able to replace Girija Prasads. "
Echoes.

Echoes, here the question is to end the autocracy. Again, I am saying there is no second doubt we need democracy (TRUE ONE). I think we need to get rid of Girija Prasads first so that we can pose a threat to monarchy. Look at the power equation. Parties are the weakest. First of all we need to strengthen parties to put presure on the king.

My 2 piasa

peace out

"Again, I am saying there is no second doubt we need democracy (TRUE ONE)"

Sure. But a "TRUE ONE" (though it can be argued what it really means!) can only be achieved through a long [perhaps generations] of democratic exercises. This is the truth. Look at any democracy in the world...how has it evolved? I was listening to a program on NPR the other day... apparently, some congressmen in the US history used to carry guns with them into the Congress and even point the weapons at each other during the debates! We don't see that now. Doesn't that tell us anything about how democratic systems can evolve? Again, democracy is a process, and a long one, with frequent tests and challenges that it must go through.

"I think we need to get rid of Girija Prasads first so that we can pose a threat to monarchy"

I wish we could. But we cannot. When there is no democracy, if it helps anybody, it's the Girija Prasads. No further explanation should be necessary... Just look at how the power structures have changed within the political parties since the king took over. Mr. Koirala has had a major win within the party...and so has every other leader who was on verge of being scrutinized and held accountable had the king let democracy play out. Wouldn't you agree?

And if you think that it was Mr. Deuba who surrendered democracy to the king, then you don't really know who was in charge.

"
If you care to study the recent history (just take the last couple years) you will notice that all major parties have changed their positions over time and have become more flexible. Even the Maoists have, as recently a month or so ago. The ONLY quarter that has NOT changed its stand is the palace. "

Exactly. It would have been a different story if palace was flexible enough to incorporate the larger population. It's unfortunate for palace, maoist are in that path.

" I think we need to get rid of Girija Prasads first so that we can pose a threat to monarchy. Look at the power equation. Parties are the weakest. First of all we need to strengthen parties to put presure on the king."

For the time being power equation has changed. Democratic parties are no longer a different entity, they are a part of a much powerful force.

I have found Ashu being convinced that KG is indeed in the wrong direction and that democratic movement will prevail. Even big jyotishi le bhaneko kura ta fail khanchha bhane he is just like all of us and no wonder his argument some one year ago has proved to be a flaw. We should be glad that the likes of him are finally coming our way. :) Now, as he has realized his idea gone badly wrong, lets see if he can stick to his present analysis for long. :) It's nice to see a young prospect of some strength change his initial position on this matter. Better late than never. It's better for the supporters of democracy to have him, I expect more to change themselves and concur with the majority of us in favour of progressive democracy.

welcome oohi and alike.... :)

"For the time being power equation has changed. Democratic parties are no longer a different entity, they are a part of a much powerful force. " SunnyDev

I am little confused about this statement. Do you mean powerful force in the sense mao-parties alliance. If so, I fear the worse. They might just be paving the path for the Red State.

Echoes,

About Deuba, he is the one who dismissed the parliament.

We need democracy. But to bring democracy, we need to presurize the king. These so called leaders can easily change flanks. I would not be even surprised to see Makune or Girija as other VCs under king.

Lets put the equation in this way.

Goal: Democracy ( Let me put it again true one)

Barriers:

Main: Autocratic king

sub: Visionless leaders and maoists insurgency

The maoists might come in to power because of these visionless leaders. We need a powerful force to pose threat to king. I say it again cause in any mission you do not want anybody that can japordize the whole mission. Current leaders are the one who can jepordize the whole movement.

"
If you care to study the recent history (just take the last couple years) you will notice that all major parties have changed their positions over time and have become more flexible. Even the Maoists have, as recently a month or so ago. The ONLY quarter that has NOT changed its stand is the palace. "

Here the maoists need to sign the accord in writtten. I cannot take a risk of trusting maoists who have never kept their words and still running around with gross HR violations.

peace out

I agree with ASS-U-TOSS(jest kiddin') on this one. These old FARTS need to go. They are trying to hold on to their KURSII like its their daddys. And the ones that got outsted are crying like a bitch(not that they are any better). In order for the country to do better the old fugs need to realize that THEIR TIME IS DONE...ITS TIME TO PASS THE BATON. ITS OBVIOUS THEY COULDN'T HANDLE THE SHIT. And when people like Ashu come to ask questions they gang up on them like a fuggin wolf-pack. And the population is soo fuggin divided in this issue that they don't know their head from their ass...like NEPE trying to sell his ideals here. LET me be the judge of whats what. Nepali people are not dumb.... we know whats going on.

I wanna add some more things to it. The democratic force first needs to work on the framework on how to operate before going to the movement. This should include from corruption control to transparency to status of the king. Bring everybody on the board, then work on it.

Nothing could be achieved by taking all four different direction.

peace out

"And when people like Ashu come to ask questions they gang up on them like a fuggin wolf-pack." BC

I cannot agree more with BC with this one. Its so obsecure to see well educated folks playing blame game just because someone did not agree their opinion. You provide logic to counter the valid question. You do not accuse. Thats the cheap way.

peace out

"I am little confused about this statement. Do you mean powerful force in the sense mao-parties alliance. If so, I fear the worse. They might just be paving the path for the Red State. "

Yes, you got the idea. But get rid of that fear. Nepal would never be a Red State. Maoist have long before accepted constitunal assembly. And Nepalese are not backward and desparate to accept the Maoism. If I know the nepalese people little well, ( better than Leahy ) they would settle for current constitution with a little modification on royal stature and his Army. King took a hugh risk trying to play hero. he would pay for that. I feel sorry to him that his businesss management skill didn't work in politics.

Political leaders without vision are not barriers in our current goal. But their lifespan relies largely on how they improve themselves. That would be the next purification process toward "True democracy".