Over the top

By Erik Wilson

Wen Jiabao drops in to Kathmandu

Lathi charge on Tibetan protest in Kathmandu. Image by Flickr user Buddha's Breakfast.

Saturday’s visit by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao came as a surprise to many in the Kathmandu Valley. The Nepali Government announced the visit only an hour before the Premier landed at Tribhuvan International Airport, and Kathmandu woke up to increased security measures, particularly in the Tibetan areas of the city. The subsequent meetings with Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai lasted just over 4 hours and resulted in the Chinese pledging more than US $140 million of assistance for everything from finalising the peace process and improving the police forces to assistance for a new international airport in Pokhara and 3 large hydropower projects. US $20 million is to be given immediately for the peace process, with a further US $120 million over the next 3 years.

By now, discussions of China’s increasing influence in Nepal and the inherent interplay and conflict with Indian interests are well hashed out. So are the acknowledgments that much of Chinese policy towards Nepal is contingent on the Nepalese Government taking an unwaveringly pro-China stance on the issue of Tibetan refugees. Indeed, Premier Jiabao was originally scheduled for a 3-day visit to Nepal in December that was cancelled in no small part because of the threat of protests and the potential for self-immolation by Tibetan activists. It has also been noted that Saturday’s whirlwind visit just so happened to coincide with the Buddhist Kaalachakra initiations being given by the Dalai Lama in Bodhgaya. Many Tibetans travelled to India for the event, and upwards of 200 of them were detained on the return trip. This is in addition to the many Tibetans that were detained around the valley on Saturday. These events come as no surprise as the Nepalese Government has been anxiously awaiting the Premier’s visit – and the promise of financial support – since December. So with all of this in mind, what new insights can we take away from the Premier’s trip and China’s monetary pledges?

Let’s start with the numbers. China’s Ministry of Commerce lists the value of China’s overseas non-bond investments in 2010 at USD $57.9 billion (the numbers have yet to be published for 2011). China’s pledge of USD $140 million to Nepal represents a mere one-quarter of one percent of China’s overall foreign investment in 2010. The point here is not that China should be investing more in Nepal, but that distinct consideration should be given to the amount of influence China is able to wield for such a relatively small sum of money. Nepal definitely needs investment, especially if it is to become a successful bridge between India and China, but the societal cost of that investment should be weighed carefully.

Nepal has suffered under the specter of poor security and volatile foreign investment since 1996. The country is finally starting to emerge from this shadow (as evidenced by the recent lifting of the US travel warning and the return of the Peace Corps).  What Nepal cannot afford right now is renewed insecurity. A definite catalyst for conflict has been and continues to be ethnic marginalization. Aggravating Tibetan communities will only stir the pot, not to mention drawing unnecessary attention from countries in the West where many hold a romantic view of Tibetan culture.

Saturday’s events and the actions of the Nepalese Government suggest that crackdowns and arbitrary arrests are likely to continue. Investments like those made by China will help Nepal provide for its citizens, make essential improvements and push the boundaries of development, but citizens must also trust their government. The Government of Nepal therefore must walk a fine line between creating the conditions for a cohesive society and meeting the demands of donors, a process that could have, but unfortunately did not, begin on Saturday.

By Erik Wilson

Image by flickr user izahorsky, under Creative Commons license

On Monday 9 January the two-week UCPN-M (Unified Communist Party of Nepal – Maoist) central committee meeting ended and brought yet another sudden shift in Nepal’s peace process. For 5 years the peace process has been plagued by sudden and radical shifts including numerous changes in government leadership and repeated deadline extensions for introducing a new constitution. Herein lies the danger; as radical shifts occur more frequently, people pay them less attention. Without consistent progress on the peace process the potential for cynicism and unrest among the general populace will rise. Five such years have all but ensured it. And yet, 2012 is here, the ultimate constitution deadline this May is approaching, and the status quo remains. In this context, three products of the central committee meeting deserve a second look.

The Maoist central committee meeting saw an important realignment of factions. Party Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal, better known as Prachanda, moved to support Mohan Baidya and the party hardliners so as to avert a party split. In the process Prachanda agreed to stand firm on party issues that Baidya and his followers see as non-negotiable, namely the preference for a directly elected presidential executive, federal states divided along ethnic lines and the right of Maoist cadres to keep those lands seized during the conflict. Prachanda and Baidya reached a consensus, staved off a split in the party, and ultimately asserted their preference for the peace process over a new revolt.

Also not to be overlooked is the coalition that developed to pressure the UCPN-M in favor of finalising the peace process. The NC (Nepali Congress), CPN-UML (Communist Party of Nepal – United Marxist Leninist) and 16 other parties presented a united front to the Maoists in favour of continuing the peace process. In response, Prachanda and Baidya agreed to consider a ‘mass mobilization’ of their cadres to rally support for the constitution. This commitment was vague, but when considered alongside the 16 party coalition and hard-line stance of the Baidya faction it would seem to be a recipe for further political gridlock.

Finally, Prachanda, in what was hardly a surprising move, stated on 10 January that he would be willing to take over the prime ministership from Baburam Bhattarai to keep the Baidya faction satisfied. Bhattarai has been viewed as an unsuitable leader by the Baidya faction in light of key capitulations made since his appointment in late August. Shortly after his election, Bhattarai handed over the keys to Maoist arms caches across the country. Seen by many as an important step in the peace process, this compromise was unacceptable for the Baidya faction. Prachanda retracted the statement early on 11 January with the various factions indicating support for a national unity government under Bhattarai’s leadership. Ultimately, the question will be whether those in the Baidya camp are satisfied with this compromise.

Prachanda’s statements and actions increasingly resemble those of a pendulum as he assumes the role of middleman between the various party factions in an effort to keep the peace both internally and externally. As such it is uncertain whether the Maoists can resolve their party conflicts in time to present a unified front in the continuing peace process and constitutional debates. If they hope to preserve some of their agenda they will have to set aside their differences and also accept that the peace achieved in May will not be a singular vision of any one party, but a compromise of all those concerned.

These issues are key, and indicative of deeper party strife that could likely imperil the peace process as spring progresses. The potential for discontent and distrust among the citizenry should be taken seriously and these products of the central committee meeting should be seen as a backdrop to coming events.

By Surabhi Pudasaini

The idea of organic conversations and collaborations across Southasian borders is a warm and fuzzy one. The reality, however, is far colder, with such exchanges uncommon. (more…)

In today’s Nepali Times, Rabi Thapa wrote:

From 1950 to 1990, 13 countries in Latin America, Africa and the former Soviet Union moved their capitals. Even the Indian capital moved from Calcutta to Delhi in 1911. Why not Nepal?”

I have been a big critic (like many) of the highly-centralized governance in Nepal. The result? We aren’t any better than we should have been, and the problems are plenty. The levels of disconnect and disparity between Kathmandu and the rest of the country are so high that they are like two different countries in themselves. People talk of marginalization of the Madheshi, of the Sherpas, of the Dalits, and so on. In my opinion, Nepal’s problems are not as much on ethnic grounds, as they are on regional differences. The Human Development Index (published by the UNDP) of Kathmandu district is comparable to that of South Africa, while that of Far-Western Nepal is comparable to that of Sierra-Leone. You call this class-difference or whatever, but a century of wrongs by the Bahuns and Chhetris in Kathmandu should not be the reason for the Bahuns or Chhetris in Jajarkot to be wronged for another century. Ask a Madheshi and an uneducated Chhetri from outside Kathmandu- the level of discrimination and the treatment of second-grade citizen offered by the residents of Kathmandu are more or less similar for both of them.

Level of disparity in Nepal (click for larger picture). source: Nepal Human Development Report 1998.

The fact that Kathmandu is the most developed city in Nepal is both both the cause and effect of the city being the capital of Nepal. Hence, blaming outsiders for the disorder in Kathmandu and not thanking them for the development of the city at the the cost of their own native cities and villages is a very uncivilized thing to do.

Some in today’s meeting of high level Maoist leadership have proposed Chitwan as the new capital of the country. Many think such talks by leaders are more related to influencing the land-prices than addressing real problems. Despite that, I support the proposal. Many years ago, (in the 50s or the 60s) somebody had proposed (in Nepal’s parliament) moving the capital to Pokhara. That was an idea whose time had come. Rapidly decentralizing Nepal has no substitute, especially if we keep talking of democracy and inclusiveness.

In today’s Maoist meeting itself, some leaders reportedly opposed the choice of Chitwan because of it being a district near to India. Now, can there be a comment more naive than that? Will Nepal be able to defend the supposed Indian attack if it ever takes place? And has India been unable to do so because of Kathmandu being surrounding by hills and a little (some 40-50 km air distance from Chitwan) far off from India ?

Or have we not been able to accelerate our development because of that highly-protective and defensive mentality (read inferior-complex) of ours? I think Nepal owes that mentality to the city of Kathmandu. It’s time for us to get rid of that.

After I covered the declaration of Momoland and Tuppiwan last week, I got an email from one particular ‘entity‘ inside present-day Nepal who called himself (or herself) Robot. He claimed to be the spokesperson of a separatist movement “Buttoms Liberation.” He informed me that they were making preparations to declare an independent nation of “Andoland.” After some exchanges, I was interested enough to ask him for an online-interview. I am publishing the interview in two parts. This post is part two of the series. (Click here for part one).

Excerpts:

This is getting very uncomfortable and illogical.

No wonder. We are so a*holes that even when I am giving this interview, I fear of revealing my true identity. While we are declaring a new country, we fear of laying claim on any territories, while we are declaring independence, we fear of coming out in the open and make a public announcement. In fact, our community is inherently the most inclusive, democratic of all communities. Lips envy each other at their pout-ability and kiss-ability. Eyes, brains, hands, muscles, noses, breasts, genitals, buttocks, legs- all of them compare, fight, conspire against, and envy each other. All of them are un-inclusive, unequal, and disproportionate by their very natures. We a*holes are a very inclusive, progressive and democratic society. All of us are similar in shape, size, color, kind and function. There’s no comparison, envy, none among us is more beautiful, privileged or stronger than the others. We are very humble, dutiful and industrious beings. I don’t think you have to feel uncomfortable because of us.

So, is this a country for some pieces of flesh, and not actual people?

Let me be clear here. We aren’t a group of certain professionals, ethnicities, language, caste, sex or so on. We are very diverse, of all groups and walks in life. But we don’t care about what gum you are going to chew for the bus-ride or what dress you are going to wear for that bath. Of course we have our opinions and perspectives too, but we think it is for the better prepared and specialized ones to deal with that. We deal with our work, things we are better prepared and specialized for. We want to be able to do what we are good at, and without any sorts of disturbance in the name of all your nation-building. You can chew your gum, but let me walk to my office for work. You can choose your dress for bath, but give me a place to go when I am chased by thugs.

Unfortunately, this was asking for too much. So, we chose to take the tough way.

What is the name of your country?

We have proposed the name Andoland. But it will be decided after the first election takes place. Same with the flag.

What territories?

We are in a publicity (प्रचारात्मक) campaign right now. We haven’t laid claims on any territory. And we don’t think we will be successful in getting the international recognition for our borders right now. So, we have decided to run our government on exile and on the internet. We will keep fighting for a physical territory for ourselves, but in the meantime, we aren’t going to stop for the lack of it. There are many new countries in the world whose borders are not recognized by the international community.

A government on the Internet? That sounds ridiculous !

As I told you, we are the most democratic and inclusive lot. Currently, we don’t have a government, just a few founding fathers and a “binders” body. The basic principles laid down by them for the founding of the country will be our guidelines. People agreeing with these principles are welcome to be the citizens of our glorious nation. A constitution will be written based on these principles, and an election for the government will be held later. The government will have very powers just enough for monitoring and regulating the system. All the citizens will be the members of our parliament on the internet. Discussions on legislation, voting, legal disputes, all will be done on the internet. This will make our governance very participatory and inclusive. There will be regular referendums on all major issues, and the government will only have the powers to enact the motions approved by the parliament. The principles laid down by the founding fathers include free internet access to all, equal influence of all citizens in governance and guarantee of all natural rights to all citizens. For more details, you’ll have to wait before we release a draft of our first constitution in our parliament for review.

Are you serious? This all sounds very dreamy.

Yes, it does. But we are very serious. As I told you, these values like inclusion, solidarity, freedom and democracy are our inherent values, we don’t need to try to adapt to them. In fact, in the long future, we hope that a*holes from all over the world, declare independence from their own countries and work towards forming a global federation of a*holes’ countries. As the first independent a*holes, we will use our influence and strength to support the rebellion of a*holes in other parts of the world. Call it an a*hole empire if you like but who knows, in the future that you and I won’t live to see, these a*holes may succeed in establishing a global unified state (or non-state) that will be an ideal of democracy, freedom, solidarity and prosperity. I have a firm belief that if all the a*holes all around the world unite for this dream, then we will soon achieve this new height of civilization. We have nothing to loose.

Mr. Robot, It was very nice talking to you. I look forward to talking to you in the future about this interesting phenomenon. If my readers happen to be interested in your ideas, I will come again for an interview. Before ending, could you please tell my readers how one gets to be a citizen of your country?

The pleasure is all mine Shoonya. Thanks for giving us this opportunity. Well, everybody who agrees with, and commits himself to the founding principles of our country can be a citizen.

We welcome all like-thinking people to revolt from their countries, and join our glorious country.

Readers with questions for Robot: please send it as comment below, or send me a mail at shoonya3 at gmail.com and I’ll forward them to him/her.