Some postings from a discussion at Nepal Democracy Forum (nepaldemocracy google group) with the subject titled " Possible nomination for Nobel Peace Prize for GPK"
Mine is pretty long. If you want to know just the major points, here are the highlights:
â— GPK is not qualified for Nobel peace prize not because of his personal and political weaknesses but because of LACK of any SPECIFIC prize-worthy work/contribution made by him to what the prize stands for.
â— Kantipur's Ameet Dhakal is the only person I came across giving specific reasons in favor of the prize to GPK. Unfortunately his reasons are MISREPRESENTATION of GPK's actual roles in recent historical developments in Nepal. (Lanka taarne Hanuman, Jas paaune Dhedu, of sort).
â— GPK has always been and remained an ANTAGONIST force to antagonize/decelarate/delay the progressive movement of Nepal towards democracy and peace. And the overall progress of Nepal towards democracy and peace has been the result of the progressive forces (Maoists, civil society and the lower level cadres of political parties including GPK's) being able to overcome/overtake/overwhelm GPK's antagonistic movement.
Nepe
**** **** **** **** **** **** ****
----- Original Message -----
From: Deepak Khadka
To: nepaldemocracy@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 9:44 PM
Subject: [ND] Re: Possible nomination for Nobel Peace Prize for GPK
Friends,
If you ask me, I'll say GPK is not qualified for Nobel peace prize. However, if he gets it anyway, I will celebrate it anyway. I hope you got my point. If not, please read the concluding para of this posting.
Before I put my views regarding why GPK is not qualified for the prize, I would like to share my dissatisfaction (or satisfaction, if I have to be honest ;-) ) to pretty poor arguments put forward by those who are recommending GPK for the prize.
In fact, except for one person (Ameet Dhakal), all people, from this forum as well as from elsewhere, I have chance to read have even not bothered to present a case with GPK's SPECIFIC work/contribution for his qualification for the prize.
If you fail to make a case by failing to present SPECIFIC evidences but still insist on the case, then you reduce yourself to, sorry to pronounce this word, a CHAKARIBAJ (sycophant).
Now to my own arguments against GPK's qualificaion for the prize. What I want to make clear right away is that I am not disqualifying GPK for his personal and political weaknesses. Not at all. I am disqualifying GPK for LACK of any SPECIFIC prize-worthy work/contribution made by GPK to what the prize stands for. Simple as that.
I will discuss about Ameet Dhakal's three reasons for GPK's qualification for the prize shortly and will show how they misrepresent GPK's actual roles in recent historical developments in Nepal. (Lanka taarne Hanuman, Jas paaune Dhedu, of sort).
Before that, I would like to bring up a perspective that I think is helpful to make a fair judgment. In Nepal, peace and democracy have unique definitions and the causes of democracy and peace are fully and uniquely connected. And this uniqueness has not been fully understood/recognized by conservative forces- international community, conservative domestic forces and conservative diaspora elites- to be specific. No wonder the international community and the conservative diaspora elites are often seen reducing Nepal's conflict resolution to simple disarmament of the rebel and reconciliation. GPK's candidacy for Nobel peace prize also derives in part from this simplicity. However, it will be too complicated to unravel the complexity. So I will not go there for now.
However, I will say this much regarding GPK's role in placing Nepal in the track of democracy and peace as defined and experienced in Nepal's unique historical condition. GPK has always been and remained an ANTAGONIST force to antagonize/decelarate/delay the progressive movement of Nepal towards democracy and peace. And the overall progress of Nepal towards democracy and peace has been the result of the progressive forces (Maoists, civil society and the lower level cadres of political parties including GPK's) being able to overcome/overtake/overwhelm GPK's antagonistic movement.
An argument in favor of GPK's antagonistic/conservative position, at least for argument's sake, could be that such position might or might have "moderated" extreme/radical position (real or perceived) of the rebel. Unfortunately, or whatever, the Maoists have never ever placed any unacceptably radical/extremist agenda/demand/proposal on the table. From the 40 point demands with which they started the rebellion to the proposal of "Constituent Assembly" placed on the table during various talks with the government, the Maoist have always maintained a non-extreme progressive position in the negotiation with the establishment. The extreme position of the Maoists that we "know" comes actually from the random rhetoric of the Maoists and, this one is really unfortunate, the propaganda from the state (many members of this forum being willing or unwilling agents of such propaganda) facilitated by such rhetorics.
So the victims of GPK's antagonism was the progressive agendas of republic democracy and permanent peace through just restructuring of the state initiated by the rebel and slowly understood, accepted and owned by the progressive forces (civil society and lower level cadres of political parties).
GPK opposed the idea of Constituent Assembly as long as he could. It is only when King Gyanendra literally kicked all parliamentary parties, GPK run to the Maoists and accepted the proposal of CA. The speed with which GPK reached to meet Prachanda came from the force of Gyanendra kick and nothing else. If GPK is deserving the Nobel peace prize for reaching out to Prachanda, we are probably celebrating Gyanendra's kick, not the cause of peace.
GPK tried to de-republicanize the Jana-Andolan as much as he could. But he failed. Jana-andolan moved towards the goal of republicanism. And it is the CREDIBILITY of Jana-Andolan's desire for republicanism that brought the King to his knees. Had it not been for a CREDIBLE THREAT of republicanism, the King would never had surrendered giving up all powers, much more than what GPK was demanding. The credit for how far the Jana-andolan went goes to the force that OVERTOOK GPK, not GPK.
After the andolan, GPK did everything possible to re-establish the monarchy to it's old glory and role. It is the relentless struggle of the Maoist, pro-republican civil society and political cadres against GPK's maneuver that failed him. GPK only succeeded to buy time which might or might not save monarchy. If his work in this phase is being recommended for Nobel prize, I'd say he deserves "Nobel prize for Monarchy", not peace.
As for peace, as it stands now, Constituent Assembly seems to be the magical formula that has brought/is bringing it. Who discovered CA as a formula for peace and peaceful resolution of the conflict ? The Maoists, not GPA. Just follow the proposal of CA by the Maoists and GPK's dismissal of it for so many years while the war going in full swing, you will spit at not reward GPK.
Okay, bygone is bygone. But even in recent time, the Maoists always have been first to propose, take initiative and bring creative ideas to resolve the conflict for good. And we are basically using their ideas and I would even claim that we are essentially following their roadmap to reach to peace and democracy in Nepal.
Prachanda had already worked out the plan for permanent peace, democracy and national unity in Nepal when GPK met him in the autumn of 2003.
Prachanda's greeting sentence to GPK was, "You accept republic, we accept multiparty, the conflict is resolved. With this we can also unite all Nepali people."
A simple 'yes' on part of GPK on that day or any day since would have brought permanent peace and democracy in Nepal. GPK had other idea, but he did not have idea that history is set for what Prachanda said to come true eventually. He still does not get it. But in coming June-July, GPK is going to understand that Prachanda grasped the time better than he ever could.
Why did GPK not want peace at a simple price of monarchy ? Why GPK keeps refusing Maoists proposal to disarm completely at the guarantee of republic even at time when republic appears inevitable and acceptable to the people and also a completely disarmed Maoists is what people want to see ASAP.
Fear of monarch's rebellion does not explain it to me. Political game appears stronger explanation. For GPK, It makes sense to preserve a negative image (of an armed force) of the Maoists. That might explain GPK's refusal to [commitment to] republicanism (in case he is mentally prepared to say goodbye to monarchy) as a means to keep Maoists violent image intact.
Completely disarmed Maoists is what people want to see ASAP and also what the Maoists themselves proposed with a condition (of SPA committing to republicanism). GPK's refusal shows GPK is up for a game and peace is not a numero uno thing in his bag.
Some people are presenting GPK's willingness to include the Maoists in the government as GPK's bold step or whatever for peace and something that qualifies GPK for Nobel peace prize. First off, if you follow the events, you will see that it is not GPK's wisdom but Gyanendra's kick which brought him close to the Maoists and the events followed. Then after the Jana-andolan, GPK needed the Maoists most for the legitimacy of his government. Without Maoists in it or it's support, GPK's government will not be fully legitimate. So this thing is not happening out of greatness, it is happening simply out of necessity. So it's good but not worthy of Nobel peace prize. Let's not make Nobel prize so cheap.
Now I'd like to get to Ameet Dhakal's arguments in favor of GPK's qualification for the prize.
- http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=92395
Ameet's three reasons:
1. First, hardly any other surviving leader in the world has fought for democracy for so long and so persistently. GPK has remained in the frontline of the Nepali people's democratic struggle for the last 60 years. It's however not just a question of how long he has stayed in the political battlefield but also how intensely he has fought and how much of a difference he has made. He has played a leadership role during all the three big political movements of Nepal (1950, 1990 and 2006) which forced despots to concede power to the people. He was also the undeclared commander of the peaceful April Uprising. His life is truly an unending hurricane of political activism.
My take: Among those 60 years, the resume of first 57 years hardly qualifies him for the Nobel prize. Then, the commander of 1990 movement was Ganesh Man Singh, not GPK, and let me also add a significant fact that Ganseh Man Singh was not only a formal commander of the coalition of the political parties, but also of common people who loved him, trusted him and got inspiration from him, the quality completely lacking in GPK's leadership of 2006 movement.
In 2006, GPK was the commander of the political leaders only. He was not the commander of the common people who came to the street in the magnitude that defined the movement. The fact about 2006 movement is that it became people's movement only after and only by crossing the political boundary set by GPK. If GPK had said what he had been saying (anti-republic rhetoric) in wrong place in any time during the andolan, the people would have put a garland of shoes around his neck and paraded him in the town. I did not intend to insult GPK, but what I said was certain. GPK's health and perhaps his advisor's advice saved him. Even today, at the height of his glory, it can happen. Imagine a huge rally, GPK addressing and repeating any of those anti-republic statements he has expressed when the mass is not around. Remember 1990's victory rally and people's hooting against GPK ? Remember 2006' victory (?) rally and Shushil Koirala getting stoned ? When we talk about quality of GPK's leadership to common people, there is nothing to be proud of. GPK is a mediocre leader who never could connect to and inspire people. For whole three years since 2003 to 2006 before Maoists joined SPA, GPK could hardly bring several dozens demonstrator to capture Ratnapark ! Without Maoists joining supporting/joining the movement, GPK and his height was of a liliput leader. We saw it everyday for damn three years, didn't we ?
Ameet's second reason:
Second, it was GPK who took the bold and far-reaching step in the autumn of 2003 of reaching out to the Maoist leadership. If he hadn't gone to Delhi to meet Prachanda and Dr Bhattarai and urged them to join hands with the mainstream parties in multiparty politics, Nepal's political landscape would have been different today. He also persuaded the Maoists to halt violence and support the peaceful uprising of the people. If the Maoists hadn't announced a ceasefire in Kathmandu Valley during the April Uprising, the royal regime would have used it as a pretext for a violent crackdown. From the Delhi meeting to the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement on November 21, Koirala has played a key role in bringing the Maoists to mainstream politics.
I have already commented on this earlier. GPK chose gun over unconditional negotiation with the Maoists when he was in power. It was only when the King took over throwing the parties out, GPK went to see Prachanda. Nobel prize for this ? That will be a joke. As for mainstreaming, it is not Koirala who is mainstreaming the Maoists, it is the Maoists who is bringing Koirala to a new mainstream the Maoists and the progressive forces of Nepal are creating. Let's keep the fact straight.
Ameet's third reason:
Third, there is hardly an example in modern history where almost one-fourth of a country's population came out onto the streets demanding peace and democracy. If the leader of that successful uprising doesn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, who does? A Nobel Prize for GPK will be a recognition of the courage and determination of the Nepali people and their unwavering faith in peace and democracy.
So, Ameet-jee wants SOMEBODY/ANYBODY to represent Nepali people if they are going to be honored and recognized for their bold and peaceful movement for democracy ? Fine. But wouldn't it be great if the prize is given to "Nepali the people" directly (like it is given to an organization instead of the chief of the organization) instead of through GPK who hardly represents the sentiment (of republic) the demonstrator of April Uprising ultimately demonstrated ?
Ameet-jee further writes:
(Some people argue that if GPK doesn't get the Nobel despite his nomination, it could diminish him and hurt our national pride. A person who truly deserved the Nobel Peace Prize more than any one else in the entire history of the Nobel Prize itself never got one. And yet Mahatma Gandhi continues to shine as the apostle of peace and non-violent resistence and will continue to inspire millions around the world for many more years. GPK has nothing to lose by not winning his Nobel)
These remarks are funny at best. Yet there is an element I can identify with. As an ordinary Nepali with stronger sentiment for Nepal than for objectivity, I sure will feel pride if any Nepali gets an honor as big as Nobel prize. That was my point for the opening para in this posting
In any case, I am sure new Nepal will see leaders who will truly deserve huge honor and recognition. We will not need falseness, fakehood and sycophancy to claim honor to them.
So to new Nepal,
Deepak Khadka
**** **** **** **** **** ***** ****
----- Original Message -----
From: ...
To:
nepaldemocracy@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:32 PM
Subject: [ND] Re: Possible nomination for Nobel Peace Prize for GPK
Dear ... jee, ... jee, ... jee, ... jee, ... jee, ... jee, ... jee and other friends:
I am writing a few paragraphs to close this loop, as I posted the first thread on this topic.
Politicians anywhere are subject of great controversy, at least when they are alive. In developing countries, and particularly in Nepal as I see, they are even despised. Hence, it is only natural that people feel differently once we highlight any politician.
I said particularly in Nepal, because in my observation, we have less of a culture of appreciation and of respect for politicians even compared to India. I can not think of any living politico which commands respect from a wide section of the Nepali society. It is perhaps our culture of diminishing other people's standings that is so prevalent in Nepal.
I posted the thread with full realization that it will generate controversy, and rightfully so. All politicians are human and they have to make so many major decisions that many people will remain unhappy no matter what they do. When passions run high such as in Nepal days, no individual can have a high standing that is universally recognized. Further, Nepali society being culturally close knit; everyone knows all the details about everyone else. Hence, it is doubly hard to rise above the crowd in Nepali politics. Just wait until Prachanda, Mahara and Bhattarai become normalized, and Nepalis will begin to know their families, private life and what they eat and wear - then the charismatic enigma of their personalities will be bared.
With all his faults, I personally respect GPK for his contribution to the Nepali democracy. I have seen him since my childhood days, and know very well that he is man of principle, sacrifice, conviction and vision. He is sincere, lives a simple life, and has given his life time to public service. I know he has many faults and weaknesses, like any real individual has. It is only a democratic right of people to disagree with him, or criticize him - as he is a public figure. We can never have God as a politician, they are all human.
I also realize the Prachanda, BRB, MKN and many others have done good works in the immediate past. In due course, they and others will also be recognized. For example, if Prachanda genuinely changes, and maintains a consistent service to the Nepali people and support their freedom for another 20-30 years, he will also be worthy of a Nobel or similar recognition, but not now. His hands are still stained with blood, and he has not been tested in any controversy. That said, I do admire his transformation into a normal politician for now, and hope his transformation is for real.
The Nobel peace prize is the ultimate recognition of an individual’s achievements, proving one's world class status while helping the peaceful transition of a nation or society. I fully believe GPK is a strong candidate for it. I also think it is a high-potential case for Nepal to have the very first Nobel
The Nobel nomination process is quite simple as outlined below, but the support from the people, international community, scholars and politicians is what may convince the 5-memebr Norwegian Committee to pick the winning individual. I hope that happens this time for GPK and Nepal
The deadline for nomination is February 1, 2007.
I rest my case, and thank you all for your comments.
... ...
Qualified Nominators – The Nobel Peace Prize
The right to submit proposals for the Nobel Peace Prize, based on the principle of competence and universality, shall by statute be enjoyed by:
1. Members o governments of states;
2. Members of international courts;
3. University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes;
4. Persons who have been awarded t Prize;
5. Board members of organizations who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
6. Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (proposals by members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after February 1) and
7.
The Nobel Peace Prize may also be awarded to institutions and associations.
**** **** **** **** **** **** ****
... ... <... ...@gmail.com> wrote:
If you look at GPK's recent achievements, I think he deserves the recognition. One NC leader told me a when they went back to villages for party activities, Maoists would come forward and ask for GPKs health. They were concerned about GPKs health because if anything happened to him, there was a danger of peace accord not materializing. This demonstrates how popular he has become.
If you've not read it already, I find the following opinion piece by Ameet Dhakal pretty convincing.
http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=92395
Nobel Prize to GPK?
By AMEET DHAKAL
This email is very reasonable, for, it invites people to show him if he was wrong. But there are others who scoff at the very idea of nominating GPK for the Nobel as if it was the most ridiculous suggestion they have ever come across. There are two reasons behind such cynicism.
First, whenever we think of the Nobel Peace Prize the images that hit our radar are of saintly figures like Mother Teresa and Henry Dunant; statesmen like Nelson Mandela; and human rights warriors like Martin Luther King Jr. True, compared to these greats of all time even our tall GPK appears dwarfish.
Second, when people think of the highest accolade for GPK they are simultaneously confronted by his not-so-dazzling past. The Lauda Air controversy, his failure to institutionalize intra-party democracy, the unhealthy rivalry with senior colleagues, and his lackluster performance as head of government-- all these cloud his image. Then come to the public's memory the faces of Govinda Raj Joshi, Khum Bahadur Khadka, Bijaya Gachchhedar and Sujata Koirala, taking a further toll on the GPK image.
Needless to say, probity and honesty are a must in public life and their absence has cost Nepali democracy dear. But let's also accept that the Nobel Peace Prize is less about probity and individual character and more about a person's contribution to democracy, to civil rights and liberty and peace.
Since the founding of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1901, a total of 94 personalities and 19 organizations have received it. Without underestimating the contributions of past Nobel laureates, it's a safe bet to argue that GPK stands as tall as, if not taller than, many of them. Strict comparisons of their respective contributions would be unfair and uncalled for since Nobel Peace laureates come from different backgrounds and with different histories. Still, if you read the bio of David Trimble, MP, leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, and John Hume, MP, leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party, who jointly bagged the 1998 Peace Nobel for their role in the Northern Ireland peace process, the bio of Shrin Ebadi, Iranian human rights lawyer (Nobel 2003) or the bios of Kim Dae-jung, former Korean president (Nobel 2000), Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Simon Perez (Nobel 1994) and many other laureates, you will realize that GPK fully deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007.
One fair comparison can be made between GPK and Aung San Suu Ki since both of them come from political backgrounds and have fought for democracy and people's rights. Suu Ki spent most of her adult life outside Burma, studying, working and living in different countries, accompanying her husband Michael Aris. She was assistant secretary at the UN during U Thant's tenure, worked at the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Bhutan and wrote books on Nepal, Bhutan and Burma while residing in the UK.
She returned to Burma only in 1988 at the age of 43 after her mother suffered a severe stroke, the cause of her eventual death. Her first significant political move came that year in July when Burma's longest serving military dictator, General Ne Win, resigned following a conflict within the military junta. She sent an open letter to the government asking for the formation of an independent consultative committee to prepare for multiparty elections. She bagged a landslide victory in the 1990 elections only to find herself in jail. In 1991, at the age of 46, and just three years into active politics, she won the Nobel Peace Prize. Let's not forget that GPK is in his 60th year of relentless struggle for democracy.
GPK deserves the Noble for three reasons.
First, hardly any other surviving leader in the world has fought for democracy for so long and so persistently. GPK has remained in the frontline of the Nepali people's democratic struggle for the last 60 years. It's however not just a question of how long he has stayed in the political battlefield but also how intensely he has fought and how much of a difference he has made. He has played a leadership role during all the three big political movements of Nepal (1950, 1990 and 2006) which forced despots to concede power to the people. He was also the undeclared commander of the peaceful April Uprising. His life is truly an unending hurricane of political activism.
Second, it was GPK who took the bold and far-reaching step in the autumn of 2003 of reaching out to the Maoist leadership. If he hadn't gone to Delhi to meet Prachanda and Dr Bhattarai and urged them to join hands with the mainstream parties in multiparty politics, Nepal's political landscape would have been different today. He also persuaded the Maoists to halt violence and support the peaceful uprising of the people. If the Maoists hadn't announced a ceasefire in Kathmandu Valley during the April Uprising, the royal regime would have used it as a pretext for a violent crackdown. From the Delhi meeting to the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement on November 21, Koirala has played a key role in bringing the Maoists to mainstream politics.
Third, there is hardly an example in modern history where almost one-fourth of a country's population came out onto the streets demanding peace and democracy. If the leader of that successful uprising doesn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, who does? A Nobel Prize for GPK will be a recognition of the courage and determination of the Nepali people and their unwavering faith in peace and democracy.
Some people argue that if GPK doesn't get the Nobel despite his nomination, it could diminish him and hurt our national pride. A person who truly deserved the Nobel Peace Prize more than any one else in the entire history of the Nobel Prize itself never got one. And yet Mahatma Gandhi continues to shine as the apostle of peace and non-violent resistence and will continue to inspire millions around the world for many more years. GPK has nothing to lose by not winning his Nobel.
ameet@kantipur.com.np **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
----- Original Message -----
From: ...
To:
nepaldemocracy@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 10:17 AM
Subject: [ND] Re: Possibloe nomination for Nobel Peace Prize for GPK
This subject will no doubt make all Nepalis argue to the kilt. One point is worth remembering though: Yasser Arafat, Yitzak Rabin and Simon Perez (the 1994 Nobel Peace Laureates) hardly had Gautam Buddha's past. How many Gandhis and Mandelas will Nobel find in this world.
Personally, I would wish they would tell Prachanda/Girija that they would qualify if they could hold full peace for at least another year.
My two cents.
... ...
**** **** **** **** ***** **** ****
----- Original Message -----
From: ... ...
To:
nepaldemocracy@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 2:14 PM
Subject: [ND] Re: Possibloe nomination for Nobel Peace Prize for GPK
Girija Kiorala was part of the reason for Nepal's tragic departure from stable and result-yielding democracy and into the couldron of insurgency. The other major reason was the maoists' and Prachanda's infatuation with violence and "peoples' war". Both have now made amends with the Nepali people and have made great strides in righting past mistakes. This is cause for great joy, relief and contementment for Nepalis.... to have two erring leaders find the right path for the nation. But as of yet it is not enough for a Nobel Peace Prize imho. As far as I am concerned, they owed this to the nation. And you should not get specially rewarded for doing something that you owed.... just a honorable mention is fine.
Peace, stable democracy and prosperity is not assured in Nepal, and I think we should stop prentending that it is a fait accompli now! Many countries that stood at the same cross roads as Nepal does today saw a renewal of violence and/or a deferrment of the peace and democracy dividend for decades. It all depends on how the leadership acts individually and collectively from this point forward. In the next two years if Girija Koirala follows up on this major achievement by putting into place the political structures that ensure a smooth transition to stable and result-yielding democracy in Nepal, and remains above partisan family-based politics in the process, then he will certainly be a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Nothing would be more tragic and ironic than to nominate Koirala for the peace prize now, and to see the nation languish for another decade in instability and chaos. Let him be the leader who provides Nepal the means to overcome this unresolved crisis more conclusively and there will be no other leader in the world more deserving of the Peace Prize than Koirala, the Sujatas of Nepal nothwithstanding!
also, if Prachanda shephards his armed followers into the house of democracy, and keeps them there as content unarmed democratic party cadre in victory or loss, then he could be a candidate for a peace prize of some sorts too! maybe a joint nobel to the noblemen of Nepal.....when the time and achievements are right and ripe !
best,
....
***** **** ***** ***** ***** *****
