The Washington Post today ran an editorial titled "The Himalayan Mistake".

It has suggested the US government to warn the King Gyanendra and his Generals of blocking Nepal's lifeline of support from the outside world.

Full text:

Editorial
The Washington Post
Monday, February 14, 2005; Page A16

A Himalayan Mistake


A RULER besieged by Maoist guerrillas has forcibly dissolved his civilian government, arrested scores of opponents, declared martial law and suspended personal freedoms. Democratic governments face an unpalatable choice: either swallow this coup or suspend military and economic support in an attempt to reverse it. Either way, the Maoists may get a boost. If this sounds like an anachronistic policy conundrum, it is; nevertheless, the United States faces an urgent dilemma in Nepal, a desperately poor country of 24 million wedged between India and China. A three-sided struggle is underway between a king who would return to absolute monarchy, insurgents inspired by the China of the 1950s and a democratic civil society that suddenly has been driven underground. The risk is of a new failed state in Asia, or a repeat of the brutal totalitarianism that once devastated China and Cambodia.

The troubles of Nepal, revered by trekkers as the home of Mount Everest, have been steadily growing since 1996, when the Maoists launched their war against an elected democratic government and the then-constitutional monarch. When the king was murdered in 2001, he was succeeded by his brother, who had opposed the transition to democratic rule a decade earlier. As the Maoist insurgency grew worse, King Gyanendra dissolved the parliament in 2002; for most of the time since then a multiparty appointed government has led the country while conducting on-and-off peace talks with the Maoists. This month the king deployed troops in the capital, Katmandu, placed the civilian political leadership under arrest, and suspended freedom of the press and of assembly. According to Human Rights Watch, more than 150 political leaders and student activists have been detained or confined to their homes, including every prime minister since 1990. The media have been banned from any critical reporting on the military. Many journalists, human rights activists and civilian politicians have been forced into hiding.

The king's crackdown was greeted with universal condemnation by the governments that supply Nepal with most of its military and economic aid -- including India, the United States and Britain. But the king has shown no sign of reversing course: He has appointed a new, non-party cabinet and issued statements denouncing the civilian political class as inept and corrupt. He has the Nepalese military on his side, and he appears to believe that he will win over the country and its donors if he can make progress against the Maoists, who control large parts of the countryside and are renowned for their brutality.

Such thinking is delusional. More likely, the king's folly will bring about the demise of the monarchy along with democratic government and worsen bloodshed that has already cost more than 10,000 lives. The Bush administration should join with India, Britain and other concerned governments in making the king and his generals an offer they can't refuse: Restore the multiparty system and democratic freedoms, or lose Nepal's lifeline of support from the outside world.

I agree with high fly. Whenever I read articles and editorials around the websites I am dismayed at the attitude displayed by the leading Newspapers and its neo-conservative people. Without quite knowing that the views they differ from, also could be the best alternative. I mean, what would they know about the situation in Nepal without quite being there and understanding the needs and desires of the general population?

Pretty much every Nepalese that I have talked to wants the King to be in power, atleast he may shine while the corrupted leaders have done nothing for the people for more than a decade now while they have been in total control. And this neo-cons have a very different view. They want to see democracy at any cost and for that they may use military might for a possible invasion.

This millenium is about the lesson that we learn. We are working towards globalization and rather than threatening to use force if somebody does not agree with them, I would like to have seen the view point that 'if you donot do good to the public, we will use our military force'. I don't think for most cases it will work, but I believe that the views of public should be the first priority no matter what. The king might have done one of the most grotesque mistake in the modern history of Nepal, but is he going to do good to the public? That I think should be the question that needs to be addressed.

I think the UN should take a broader role for the case in Nepal and see to it that human rights violations does not occur. Dr. Irene Khan is in Nepal to study the situation and that will make a positive effect. Lets all hope that the peace will prevail in Nepal in the coming days.

I join high fly, and all others to write against the editorial.
- Dear writer of this editorial, seems u can write well, but why did u have such a long sleep for 15 years, that we never got a chance to read such an editorial against the corruption, bribery, poverty, and like u r begging developed nations to pressure the king, why didn't you ever BEGGED earlier to the same nations, you r begging today, urging them to help, financially, to restore peace, to increase their contribution in health, education, argiculture, security, technology, and to re-design the whole system of Nepal?????? , I tell you what, those big nations are capable to help Nepal in those sectors, besides to read your editorial which misinterprets the steps of the king, even before the begining of it.
re-think, Please.

Can we stay out of country and suggest what is better and not for Nepal in present situation? We cannot make our judgement based on the information provided by media, can we? Talk with people (not involved in political parties) working in the country and listen to what they have to say or go back in the country and feel it yourself only then I believe your opinion would have some validity.

Actually, if someone living outside of Nepal really not only suggest but aslo dictate what really should happen in Nepal.

Baburam and Prachanda are not in Nepal, yet they are not only suggesting what should happen in Nepal but they are dictating........isnt it funny and embarrassing isnt it ?

Highfly,

I do not relate a poster's anonymity to degree of his/her patriotism. So this does not concern me.

[ However, I will take this opportunity to let arrogant anonymous posters, a lot of them have mushroomed these days, know everybody knows that anonymity is the cheapest way to afford arrogance in the cyberworld. ]

Now back to our topic. I had asserted two things, Highfly.

1. you did not get (understand) the Editorial.
2. The displeasure you displayed towards the editorial was not your pure concern for the common people in Nepal.

First the Editorial.

The Editorial did not, I repeat, it did not call for blocking Nepal's lifeline of foreign support.

It merely called for giving warning of doing so [as a psychological and moral pressure] to the King and his loyal Generals for reversing King's autocratic rule.

See ? They were not calling for making common people's life more miserable by blockade right away.

They were upto making greedy Gyanendra's life miserable my letting him know he is as isolated from the world and unacceptable as Saddam Hussain once was.

Now, see for yourself, how your displeasure to the Washington Post was not your pure concern for the common people of Nepal, but was for yourself being challenged in supporting the Saddamic regime of Gyanendra Maharaj.

Now for your statement implying that you are supporting this Saddamic regime because you believe this is bringing peace and stability, I do not have much to say except that this is no different than to believe that the communist regime of the Maoists will bring peace and stability if they come to power. Very true but only if we don't care about the type of peace and stability.

As someone said -- " We don't need the peace like that of a cemetary" I don't want peace of mutes.

Gyanendra wants Nepalese mouth sealed...

I think Dr. Tulsi Giri reads sajha.com Kurakani.. He said what I said here to BBC:

"Every country has a problem which it is trying to solve," he said, "but then it's not justice that you make comments on how Nepal is dealing with it."

Mr Giri said the government would have no choice but to pursue the guerrillas if they kept rejecting peace talks. "If they co-operate, it's OK. Otherwise, what's the alternative?" he asked.

- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4266767.stm

Nepe ji,
I would like to hear your opinion on following matter if you don't mind,

what were/are the alternatives to kings actions?
or even better,
what would you do if you were in gyanendras shoes?

dariwal

Yo Nepe bro,

Key ho, if somebody do not agree with you, then u gonna take it to personal level. Arrogrant, ok cool man. Whatever? ANy body against your posting is arrogant, illiterate.

Comon bro. I am not the only one asking about alternatives.Enlighten us with your vision.But that should be attainable. Pheri Tara(stars) tepare laidinchhu bhanne hoina ni.

As dariwal said what is the alternative.

Internal Business...everyone should stay out of it....those who call for democracy are people who support anarchy so hey can profit from misery of others....

Grija and his cohorts....

Highfly,

Let's put the matter of general anonymous arrogance aside. Because anonymous cyber arrogance does not count as real arrogance. Because real arrogance comes with a distinct price, but anonymous cyber arrogance is free.

I also don't give importance to anonymous I agree/I disagree type of statements. Because agreement/disagreement does not make sense without identity.

The only thing that does not require real identity to matter is idea- ideas that are shared with good faith.

Although the overwhelming majority of posters and their postings in Sajha, more so these days, belong to the first two categories, there is still a tiny space in Sajha filled by ideas. This is the only thing that has kept me in Sajha. But I disgressed.

Now on ideas, I don't know about Dariwal, but what happened to Highfly who promised to read my ideas, on the sustainable and fair alternative to both the Gyanendraism and the Maoism, which I have explained in a great detail (40,000 words !)

- http://www.sajha.com/sajha/html/column.cfm?extraid=622

some excerpts:

A just and permanent solution to the Maoist problem

There is no doubt that we, the Nepali people, should do everything to stop Maoist from making Nepal a guinea pig of the second communist experiment of our history.

There are only two ways we can do that, either by a forced foreign military intervention or by an honest political sensibility. ???????.

Some people may still be hopeful of Fujimori brand of solution, but the fact that Nepali Shining Path Comrade are not fighting against a bourgeois democracy but against a Monarchy and that Peru's wound is still open makes it very unconvincing option. And let us not forget our security forces already have failed us, well, of course for reasons explainable.

Then, the only option left is an honest political solution.

Now, some people might be feeling very uncomfortable with the adjective 'honest', which is natural, because honesty is an alien culture to us. Our culture is 'might is right'. Our culture is a tolerance to hanky panky of the mighty one. But friends, sometimes we should give up our culture. For our survival's sake. Ke garne ? Banchnai paryo !

So let's do it. Let's go to this.. our first experiment with honesty, this maiden voyage of truth, our pratham sahavaas with our future on an uncorrupted bed of bravery and sincerity.

One of the most popular phrases in the circle of civil society, particularly among those 'conflict management experts', since the first talk between the government and the Maoists took place, has been 'COMPROMISE'. I understand the diplomatic value of this phrase and that that's what happens eventually to the parties of a conflict. However, I feel this phrase is not serving it's purpose in the context of our conflict. As a matter of fact, I think, this phrase is doing the opposite- frightening the parties of the conflict and misleading the people.

A king is a king. He does not compromise. Got that ? He can sacrifice for the good of his subjects. ??..

Maoists are great revolutionaries, for ??
'compromise'. That's a revisionism, that's a bourgeoisie ploy.

Now the ordinary people. When you say compromise.. compromise.. possibly what message goes to them ? That both parties we are talking about have legitimate positions. That they have a minor and solvable, but not a major and unsolvable disagreement. That the parties' slight flexibilities are all what is needed to solve the problem. That the people are supposed to accept them when they make an agreement between themselves. That that is even not a question. That people's huge participation has neither room nor is necessary in the process. And so on.

So I think 'SACRIFICE' is the phrase of the day. It is sexier, more powerful and telling than that dull phrase 'COMPROMISE'.

Now the honest, truthful, fair, fearless, bloodless, peaceful, democratic, economic and permanent solution to the Maoist problem and the answer to the other side of the coin, the question of the Monarchy. ??..

(For more, click the link above)

Nepe bro,

I did not read u r whole column cause its too long and I am kinda busy. But I read this excerpts. Reading it I still could not figure out the possible solution. Its too theoritical and I could not figure out how practical it would be. First of all there are no genuine leaders that can lead that really care about the people (level 5 leaders), if u know what I mean.

"That the parties' slight flexibilities are all what is needed to solve the problem"

For this u got have genuine leader. Not leaders like Girija, Makune, or Sher Bahadur whose sole purpose is getting into power and amash wealth. They will not comprimise cause they do not feel for nation.

Now the King position. He will have to go for constituional monarch sometime. BUt the current desperate situation required a drastic measure, that he took. He will not go for republican no matter what. Just get real. Asking for republican govt is going for long civil war with no results with only Nepalese sufferings.

All u rviews theoratically sounds good and fuzzy but I did not get the practical use.

And bro please could u bullet it out u r solution. Key garne mgmt field ko pare. ANi chha ni lamo column parda central theme bich ma harunchha. THats my bad though.

Peace

Constituent Assembly or Referendum on Monarchy that I argued for in my article are round about ways to reach to our ultimate destiny. So here is a direct one, in response to new and lazy (to read my article) Sajhaites' question about what would I do if I were Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shahdev himself,


If I were Gyanendra, I would agree for the democratic republic of Nepal and launch my own political party. This will not only end more than half a century long struggle of Nepali people for democracy, but also will prove that,

1. Gyanendra's commitment for democracy is genuine, not the fake one,
2. He is not hiding his political ambitions; he is not a hypocrite; he is open and honest,
3. He really believes that he can do better than Girija et al and has courage to do it.

Nepe jeee

Maoist have repeatedly said that they wont give in their weapons if and during the elections to the constituent assembley were held.........it just goes to show their sincerety to negotiations.
Ideally the way to marginalise them for the political parties and militrary(ie king ) to unite and do what the americans did in Iraq......hold elections and have the democratic process move forward.......but these politicians for whom i have voted for in the past, were so incompetent....that they dont realize that not going for elections means handing the maoist a propaganda war and giving the king a reason to take over.......

at least its better in the short run that the king took over, we want peace....hopefully peace and democracy can co exist..... otherwise peace and a maoist republic wont be a bad option either

i really wonder a lot. a lot. how, in god's name, has the king's taking over contributed to peace? how can it?

for a simple reason,.........there are no guaranteees in life......we try to do our best to get things done...we do it right......
for the first time in 15 years....someone has take an initiative and said ok i will bring peace in 3 years........whether he suceeds is another matter altogether.......but someone is atleast trying......not just talking about a negotiated solution etc.....
hope is a strong thing......but if he fails then that means he will probably get deposed and hopefully then we can have peace ....so either way its a good thing

hope is over-rated. when it is baseless. many people have said many times during the last 8-9 years, i will bring peace. its all talking. all talking.

well thats your opinion............but those people didnt have their throne on the line.......gyane has thrown in everything, the stakes are higher for him.....so lets see what he does.........

they had their existence on their line. they've lost it now.

the stakes are the highest for the people. the people. the people.

and "not just talking about negotiated peace" will bring peace? how?