http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2008/may/may13/news03.php
Former prime minister and only living founding leader of the Nepali Congress, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, has asked the parties not to abolish the institution of monarchy in haste.
In a statement issued on Monday, Bhattarai said abolition of monarchy could plunge the country further into grave crisis.
"The institution of monarchy can still play a role to unify nation's culture and civilisation and protect national integrity and ethnic and geographical diversity of the nation," said Bhattarai.
The statement further said, "Since no party has an absolute majority in the Constituent Assembly, only politics of consensus can bail the country out of the current crisis and that failure to work on consensus would endanger the existence of the nation."
Similarly, home minister of the royal cabinet and chairman of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal Kamal Thapa asked the parties not to abolish the monarchy until a new constitution is promulgated.
Speaking at a function on Monday, Thapa claimed the CA should not take a decision to abolish monarchy in haste which can then invite political disaster.
Thapa, who met the king recently, said he found him confident and not desperate. nepalnews.com ia May 13 08
Related News
Sunday, May 25, 2008
RPP-N Chair Thapa warns dire consequences if King ousted hastily
http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=146743
Kantipur Report
KATHMANDU, May 12 - Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal (RPP-N) Chairman Kamal Thapa Monday warned that attempts to put an end to the monarchy in haste without drafting a new constitution might invite a serious repercussion.
Urging not to rush into any decision regarding the king, Thapa warned that the country will face serious consequences if attempts were made to oust the king.
Speaking at a programme organised in the capital today, Thapa, who is also regarded as a close aide of King Gyanendra, said, “The country might plunge into another big crisis if the King is ousted even before writing a first letter of the new constitution.”
Thapa also said that he had already met and suggested CPN-Maoist chairman Prachanda and leaders of other political parties not to take decisions regarding the king’s ouster in haste.
He added that he has not consulted the monarchy’s exit with anybody.
Thapa claimed that the political leaders, in personal meetings with him, accepted the menace after the removal of the King.
He informed that the king himself had claimed that he will not leave the country under any circumstance.
Stating that the new government should be formed on the basis of people’s mandate, Thapa remarked that the country is on the verge of thrusting into ultra-leftist danger.
Thapa, who was also the Home Minister during King Gyanendra’s direct rule, said that he was of the opinion that king’s glory should be maintained though he was not a spokesperson of the monarch.
Posted on: 2008-05-12 04:01:49 (Server Time)
Kantipur Report
KATHMANDU, May 12 - Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal (RPP-N) Chairman Kamal Thapa Monday warned that attempts to put an end to the monarchy in haste without drafting a new constitution might invite a serious repercussion.
Urging not to rush into any decision regarding the king, Thapa warned that the country will face serious consequences if attempts were made to oust the king.
Speaking at a programme organised in the capital today, Thapa, who is also regarded as a close aide of King Gyanendra, said, “The country might plunge into another big crisis if the King is ousted even before writing a first letter of the new constitution.”
Thapa also said that he had already met and suggested CPN-Maoist chairman Prachanda and leaders of other political parties not to take decisions regarding the king’s ouster in haste.
He added that he has not consulted the monarchy’s exit with anybody.
Thapa claimed that the political leaders, in personal meetings with him, accepted the menace after the removal of the King.
He informed that the king himself had claimed that he will not leave the country under any circumstance.
Stating that the new government should be formed on the basis of people’s mandate, Thapa remarked that the country is on the verge of thrusting into ultra-leftist danger.
Thapa, who was also the Home Minister during King Gyanendra’s direct rule, said that he was of the opinion that king’s glory should be maintained though he was not a spokesperson of the monarch.
Posted on: 2008-05-12 04:01:49 (Server Time)
Monday, May 19, 2008
King Gyanendra to quit prior to CA first meet
King Gyanendra to quit prior to CA first meet
http://telegraphnepal.com/news_det.php?news_id=3439
TGW A report published in the Sanghu vernacular weekly dated May 19, 2008, states that Nepal’s embattled monarch Gyanendra in a formal letter forwarded to the Maoists’ Party has said that the “he will leave the Narayan Hiti Royal Palace before May 26, 2008”.
Nepal’s newly elected Constituent Assembly is all set to decide the fate of 240 years old institution of Monarchy founded by King Prithivi Narayan Shah, on May 28, 2008.
All the major political parties have already arrived at a consensus to declare the country a republic awaiting only the first meet of the CA to take a formal legal decision to end the monarchy in Nepal for good.
The Sanghu Weekly quoting sources close to the Royal palace further states that King Gyanendra might make a public statement as early as May 26, asking the Nepali leadership to decide the fate of Monarchy only through a referendum.
However, King Gyanendra before leaving the royal palace is preparing through his channels a meeting with Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, US ambassador Ms. Nancy J. Powell and Indian Ambassador to Nepal, Mr. Rakesh Sood.
“I have remained quiet as of now only because the PM has told me to do so…now it’s time I should talk to him”, King Gyanendra is quoted as saying while meeting his close aides.
However, the report says further that King Gyanendra’s close aides have been still trying hard to save the institution.
Prabhakar Sumsher Rana, King Gyanendra’s close friend and a relative, is in regular contact with Bijaya Kumar Gacchedhar, a leader of the Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum (MJF) to use the MJF as the last resort to save Monarchy in Nepal.2008-05-19 08:09:35
http://telegraphnepal.com/news_det.php?news_id=3439
TGW A report published in the Sanghu vernacular weekly dated May 19, 2008, states that Nepal’s embattled monarch Gyanendra in a formal letter forwarded to the Maoists’ Party has said that the “he will leave the Narayan Hiti Royal Palace before May 26, 2008”.
Nepal’s newly elected Constituent Assembly is all set to decide the fate of 240 years old institution of Monarchy founded by King Prithivi Narayan Shah, on May 28, 2008.
All the major political parties have already arrived at a consensus to declare the country a republic awaiting only the first meet of the CA to take a formal legal decision to end the monarchy in Nepal for good.
The Sanghu Weekly quoting sources close to the Royal palace further states that King Gyanendra might make a public statement as early as May 26, asking the Nepali leadership to decide the fate of Monarchy only through a referendum.
However, King Gyanendra before leaving the royal palace is preparing through his channels a meeting with Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, US ambassador Ms. Nancy J. Powell and Indian Ambassador to Nepal, Mr. Rakesh Sood.
“I have remained quiet as of now only because the PM has told me to do so…now it’s time I should talk to him”, King Gyanendra is quoted as saying while meeting his close aides.
However, the report says further that King Gyanendra’s close aides have been still trying hard to save the institution.
Prabhakar Sumsher Rana, King Gyanendra’s close friend and a relative, is in regular contact with Bijaya Kumar Gacchedhar, a leader of the Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum (MJF) to use the MJF as the last resort to save Monarchy in Nepal.2008-05-19 08:09:35
A Nation’s Pain That Resonates In The Region
Book Review :The Raj Lives- India In Nepal
Thursday April 10 2008 15:08:21 PM BDT
Reviewed By Mohammed Ashraf, USA
As Nepal embarks on its first real quest for renewal since emerging as a nation-state two and half centuries ago, it continues to draw massive international attention. The global media’s propensity for running with neat story lines, however, stands in the way of a substantive analysis of the Himalayan nation’s entrenched complexities. More relevant for South Asia, perhaps, is a less-known narrative: the overwhelming role and influence of India in almost all domains of Nepalese life.
A new book, “The Raj Lives”, illuminates this aspect of the Nepalese experience in ways that carry resonance in the wider neighborhood. The author, Sanjay Upadhya, is a prominent Nepalese journalist who has closely observed and analyzed India-Nepal relations for more than two decades.
Upadhya starts with a basic paradox. Historically, Nepal has remained an independent and sovereign country since Prithvi Narayan Shah conquered dozens of principalities into a unitary state under the Shah dynasty. Yet Nepal remains locked in what Upadhya calls an “embrace of estrangement” with India.
Half a century after coming into existence, Nepal was forced to cede a third of its territory to the British Indian rulers after a two-year war. The 1816 Sugauli Treaty, by, among other things, stationing a British resident in Kathmandu against the wishes of the rulers, turned Nepal into a virtual protectorate of British India.
Upadhya does not dwell in too much detail on why the British did not bring Nepal formally under the Raj. Still, he shows how Nepal stifled under it. By patronizing the Rana oligarchy and pitting it against the monarchy – represented by a succession of minors – the British succeeded in creating a buffer against Tibet and China. In doing so, they avoided the political, administrative and military costs of subduing the harsh mountainous terrain. By recruiting young Gurkhas into the British Indian army, London succeeded in emaciating Nepal’s earlier military prowess and cushioning the Ranas, to a great extent, against internal opposition.
Time continued its forward march. The independence of India in 1947 had a major bearing on Nepal’s domestic politics. The Ranas faced growing opposition from younger Nepalese educated in India. The new leaders in New Delhi shared close ties with prominent Nepalese democracy activists, many of whom took part in India’s independence struggle.
In 1950, New Delhi enticed the Ranas into signing a Peace and Friendship Treaty in perpetuity in exchange for continued support. Six months later, having flawlessly extricated the king from his palace and brought him to Delhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and his associates forced the Ranas to share power with the monarchy – from whom they had usurped power a century earlier – as well as the democrats.
In one of the poignant ironies that Upadhya evokes, the “dawn of democracy” in Nepal essentially saw the same Rana prime minister keep his job, this time as a commoner. After the so-called “Delhi Compromise” – which Nepalese communists, in particular, branded a sell-out – New Delhi systematically strengthened the king against the political parties. Upadhya explains, with compelling confirmation, the principal premise of the book: How India virtually adopted British colonial policies on Nepal.
After King Mahendra ended Nepal’s brief interlude with multiparty politics in 1960 by dismissing Prime Minister B.P. Koirala’s elected government, Nehru offered token criticism of what he called a “setback to democracy”. The Indian government provided refuge to Nepalese exiles and supported their armed insurgency. But New Delhi never really extended enough political support to the Nepali Congress to enable it to mount a serious challenge to monarchical rule.
India’s defeat in the 1962 war with China prompted Nehru to engage with the palace, which had steadily sought – and received – assurances of Chinese support. Upadhya narrates how India used the exiles to wrest concessions from the palace-led Panchayat regime. The situation discouraged B.P. Koirala – who had gone into exile in India after being released from prison in 1968 – to the point where he returned to Nepal to mount a peaceful campaign for change from within.
A major instance of Indian maneuvering came in the form of the 1989 trade and transit dispute. Rajiv Gandhi’s government was infuriated by Nepal’s decision to purchase a small consignment of weapons from China. The 1950 treaty also contained an exchange of letters that was kept secret for nine years. India was using those to pressure successive Nepalese governments – democratic and autocratic alike – to bring the country in its sphere of influence.
At the height of the trade and transit dispute, the Indian media revealed the existence of a secret agreement under which it claimed Kathmandu had explicitly pledged to buy arms from India alone. Disputing that interpretation, Kathmandu insisted that the Chinese had offered the weapons at bargain prices. Citing disagreements over the extension of the trade and transit treaties, India imposed a virtual embargo on Nepal. Meanwhile, it encouraged the banned political parties to rise up against the king.
It soon emerged that India was pressuring King Birendra to sign a comprehensive treaty that would have brought Nepal into a Bhutan-like arrangement in exchange for continued support for palace rule. Perhaps mindful of the Ranas’ fate, the king refused. Growing popular protests ultimately forced him to restore multiparty democracy. India proudly claimed it had been behind the parties all along. Privately, Upadhya explains, New Delhi presented the democratic government with the same restrictive treaty.
The Nepali Congress government refused to sign that treaty, but India nevertheless won favorable terms on the sharing water resources, something the palace-led government had consistently refused. This time, it used the communists to ensure the ratification of the Mahakali Treaty in 1996. New Delhi secured prior rights on water, while Kathmandu is still waiting for the detailed project report, which was to have been ready in six months.
The 1950 treaty also provided for an open international border and the freedom of movement, residence, property, business and other benefits for each other’s citizens on a reciprocal basis. But India, given the asymmetries, has been the beneficiary. Upadhya describes how India has been using its “special relations” with Nepal to prevent it from developing ties with Pakistan and Bangladesh. With the latter, Nepal is separated by 18 kilometers of Indian territory. New Delhi has rejected Kathmandu’s pleas for transit access primarily on security grounds. Upadhya explains that for most Nepalis, the 1950 Treaty lives as the preeminent symbol of the perpetuation of the Raj.
The book suggests that India had encouraged King Gyanendra to take a more assertive role to combat the Maoist insurgency, while New Delhi provided refuge to key Maoist leaders. Although he makes no definitive assertion, Upadhya suggests that India might have tacitly supported King Gyanendra’s seizure of absolute powers, only to oppose him when he named himself head of government instead of an India-friendly politician. In any case, Upadhya shows how New Delhi continued to engage with the palace over the succeeding months.
It was only when King Gyanendra led a successful effort to tie Afghanistan’s membership of SAARC with the induction of China as an observer that New Delhi took a hard line. Days after the summit in Dhaka, New Delhi forged an alliance between the Nepalese opposition parties and the Maoist rebels against the palace.
“The Raj Lives” vividly portrays Nepal’s geopolitical compulsions. Since the collapse of the royal regime in 2006, China has emerged as an even more assertive external player in Nepal, precisely what New Delhi had sought to prevent. Beijing expects Kathmandu to respect its security sensitivities, especially concerning Tibet, and has made its wishes known explicitly in public. The recent Tibetan protests underscored Nepal’s vulnerability vis-à-vis its two giant neighbors. More and more Nepalese feel that India’s response to China’s influence would determine their country’s future irrespective of whether it remains a monarchy or becomes a republic after this month’s election.If Nepal were the only country in the region struggling to ward off Big Brother, it could have been brushed aside as an aberration. “The Raj Lives” comes as a powerful reminder of how easily other South Asian nations can share Nepal’s sentiments.
The Raj Lives: India In NepalAuthor: Sanjay UpadhyaNew Delhi: Vitasta, 2008 Pages: 350; Hardbound EditionPrice: Indian Rs.645
Mohammed Ashraf is a freelance writer . Mr Asraf is of Pakistani heritage currently living in the United States and who has also lived in Nepal, E Mail : mohammed-ashraf@excite.co
Thursday April 10 2008 15:08:21 PM BDT
Reviewed By Mohammed Ashraf, USA
As Nepal embarks on its first real quest for renewal since emerging as a nation-state two and half centuries ago, it continues to draw massive international attention. The global media’s propensity for running with neat story lines, however, stands in the way of a substantive analysis of the Himalayan nation’s entrenched complexities. More relevant for South Asia, perhaps, is a less-known narrative: the overwhelming role and influence of India in almost all domains of Nepalese life.
A new book, “The Raj Lives”, illuminates this aspect of the Nepalese experience in ways that carry resonance in the wider neighborhood. The author, Sanjay Upadhya, is a prominent Nepalese journalist who has closely observed and analyzed India-Nepal relations for more than two decades.
Upadhya starts with a basic paradox. Historically, Nepal has remained an independent and sovereign country since Prithvi Narayan Shah conquered dozens of principalities into a unitary state under the Shah dynasty. Yet Nepal remains locked in what Upadhya calls an “embrace of estrangement” with India.
Half a century after coming into existence, Nepal was forced to cede a third of its territory to the British Indian rulers after a two-year war. The 1816 Sugauli Treaty, by, among other things, stationing a British resident in Kathmandu against the wishes of the rulers, turned Nepal into a virtual protectorate of British India.
Upadhya does not dwell in too much detail on why the British did not bring Nepal formally under the Raj. Still, he shows how Nepal stifled under it. By patronizing the Rana oligarchy and pitting it against the monarchy – represented by a succession of minors – the British succeeded in creating a buffer against Tibet and China. In doing so, they avoided the political, administrative and military costs of subduing the harsh mountainous terrain. By recruiting young Gurkhas into the British Indian army, London succeeded in emaciating Nepal’s earlier military prowess and cushioning the Ranas, to a great extent, against internal opposition.
Time continued its forward march. The independence of India in 1947 had a major bearing on Nepal’s domestic politics. The Ranas faced growing opposition from younger Nepalese educated in India. The new leaders in New Delhi shared close ties with prominent Nepalese democracy activists, many of whom took part in India’s independence struggle.
In 1950, New Delhi enticed the Ranas into signing a Peace and Friendship Treaty in perpetuity in exchange for continued support. Six months later, having flawlessly extricated the king from his palace and brought him to Delhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and his associates forced the Ranas to share power with the monarchy – from whom they had usurped power a century earlier – as well as the democrats.
In one of the poignant ironies that Upadhya evokes, the “dawn of democracy” in Nepal essentially saw the same Rana prime minister keep his job, this time as a commoner. After the so-called “Delhi Compromise” – which Nepalese communists, in particular, branded a sell-out – New Delhi systematically strengthened the king against the political parties. Upadhya explains, with compelling confirmation, the principal premise of the book: How India virtually adopted British colonial policies on Nepal.
After King Mahendra ended Nepal’s brief interlude with multiparty politics in 1960 by dismissing Prime Minister B.P. Koirala’s elected government, Nehru offered token criticism of what he called a “setback to democracy”. The Indian government provided refuge to Nepalese exiles and supported their armed insurgency. But New Delhi never really extended enough political support to the Nepali Congress to enable it to mount a serious challenge to monarchical rule.
India’s defeat in the 1962 war with China prompted Nehru to engage with the palace, which had steadily sought – and received – assurances of Chinese support. Upadhya narrates how India used the exiles to wrest concessions from the palace-led Panchayat regime. The situation discouraged B.P. Koirala – who had gone into exile in India after being released from prison in 1968 – to the point where he returned to Nepal to mount a peaceful campaign for change from within.
A major instance of Indian maneuvering came in the form of the 1989 trade and transit dispute. Rajiv Gandhi’s government was infuriated by Nepal’s decision to purchase a small consignment of weapons from China. The 1950 treaty also contained an exchange of letters that was kept secret for nine years. India was using those to pressure successive Nepalese governments – democratic and autocratic alike – to bring the country in its sphere of influence.
At the height of the trade and transit dispute, the Indian media revealed the existence of a secret agreement under which it claimed Kathmandu had explicitly pledged to buy arms from India alone. Disputing that interpretation, Kathmandu insisted that the Chinese had offered the weapons at bargain prices. Citing disagreements over the extension of the trade and transit treaties, India imposed a virtual embargo on Nepal. Meanwhile, it encouraged the banned political parties to rise up against the king.
It soon emerged that India was pressuring King Birendra to sign a comprehensive treaty that would have brought Nepal into a Bhutan-like arrangement in exchange for continued support for palace rule. Perhaps mindful of the Ranas’ fate, the king refused. Growing popular protests ultimately forced him to restore multiparty democracy. India proudly claimed it had been behind the parties all along. Privately, Upadhya explains, New Delhi presented the democratic government with the same restrictive treaty.
The Nepali Congress government refused to sign that treaty, but India nevertheless won favorable terms on the sharing water resources, something the palace-led government had consistently refused. This time, it used the communists to ensure the ratification of the Mahakali Treaty in 1996. New Delhi secured prior rights on water, while Kathmandu is still waiting for the detailed project report, which was to have been ready in six months.
The 1950 treaty also provided for an open international border and the freedom of movement, residence, property, business and other benefits for each other’s citizens on a reciprocal basis. But India, given the asymmetries, has been the beneficiary. Upadhya describes how India has been using its “special relations” with Nepal to prevent it from developing ties with Pakistan and Bangladesh. With the latter, Nepal is separated by 18 kilometers of Indian territory. New Delhi has rejected Kathmandu’s pleas for transit access primarily on security grounds. Upadhya explains that for most Nepalis, the 1950 Treaty lives as the preeminent symbol of the perpetuation of the Raj.
The book suggests that India had encouraged King Gyanendra to take a more assertive role to combat the Maoist insurgency, while New Delhi provided refuge to key Maoist leaders. Although he makes no definitive assertion, Upadhya suggests that India might have tacitly supported King Gyanendra’s seizure of absolute powers, only to oppose him when he named himself head of government instead of an India-friendly politician. In any case, Upadhya shows how New Delhi continued to engage with the palace over the succeeding months.
It was only when King Gyanendra led a successful effort to tie Afghanistan’s membership of SAARC with the induction of China as an observer that New Delhi took a hard line. Days after the summit in Dhaka, New Delhi forged an alliance between the Nepalese opposition parties and the Maoist rebels against the palace.
“The Raj Lives” vividly portrays Nepal’s geopolitical compulsions. Since the collapse of the royal regime in 2006, China has emerged as an even more assertive external player in Nepal, precisely what New Delhi had sought to prevent. Beijing expects Kathmandu to respect its security sensitivities, especially concerning Tibet, and has made its wishes known explicitly in public. The recent Tibetan protests underscored Nepal’s vulnerability vis-à-vis its two giant neighbors. More and more Nepalese feel that India’s response to China’s influence would determine their country’s future irrespective of whether it remains a monarchy or becomes a republic after this month’s election.If Nepal were the only country in the region struggling to ward off Big Brother, it could have been brushed aside as an aberration. “The Raj Lives” comes as a powerful reminder of how easily other South Asian nations can share Nepal’s sentiments.
The Raj Lives: India In NepalAuthor: Sanjay UpadhyaNew Delhi: Vitasta, 2008 Pages: 350; Hardbound EditionPrice: Indian Rs.645
Mohammed Ashraf is a freelance writer . Mr Asraf is of Pakistani heritage currently living in the United States and who has also lived in Nepal, E Mail : mohammed-ashraf@excite.co
Monday, May 12, 2008
Chinese envoy sees 'foreign hand' behind Tibetans' protest
http://www.nepalnews.com.np/archive/2008/may/may12/news14.php
Chinese ambassador to Nepal Zheng Xianglin has claimed that Tibetans have been carrying out their protests in Kathmandu with backing from 'foreigners' and some human rights groups.
Speaking at the Reporters Club Monday, ambassador Xianglin said that the "separatists" are funded by anti-China foreign elements and that their objective would never be fulfilled.
"Disintegration of China is impossible," the visibly agitated ambassador stated.
The ambassador claimed that some UN agencies and local human rights groups had been persuading the Tibetans to continue their agitations, but he didn't name any organisation.
Describing the ongoing agitations of Tibetans as a drama, Xianglin emphasised that the Nepal government should apply strict measures against the "anarchists", complaining that the action against the protesters, especially the quick release of those apprehended, is insufficient. He, however, said China appreciates Nepal's policy to restrict anti-China activists on her soil.
Responding to a query on China's position over the future Maoist-led government, Xianglin said Chinese government will continue its support to Nepal irrespective of the change in the government here.
Saying that the China supports Nepali people's verdict, the Chinese envoy said that the Nepali political parties need to forge consensus for peace and stability. nepalews.com May 12 08
Chinese ambassador to Nepal Zheng Xianglin has claimed that Tibetans have been carrying out their protests in Kathmandu with backing from 'foreigners' and some human rights groups.
Speaking at the Reporters Club Monday, ambassador Xianglin said that the "separatists" are funded by anti-China foreign elements and that their objective would never be fulfilled.
"Disintegration of China is impossible," the visibly agitated ambassador stated.
The ambassador claimed that some UN agencies and local human rights groups had been persuading the Tibetans to continue their agitations, but he didn't name any organisation.
Describing the ongoing agitations of Tibetans as a drama, Xianglin emphasised that the Nepal government should apply strict measures against the "anarchists", complaining that the action against the protesters, especially the quick release of those apprehended, is insufficient. He, however, said China appreciates Nepal's policy to restrict anti-China activists on her soil.
Responding to a query on China's position over the future Maoist-led government, Xianglin said Chinese government will continue its support to Nepal irrespective of the change in the government here.
Saying that the China supports Nepali people's verdict, the Chinese envoy said that the Nepali political parties need to forge consensus for peace and stability. nepalews.com May 12 08
Thapa meets Maoist leadership to convey King Gyanendra's tidings
http://www.nepalnews.com.np/archive/2008/may/may12/news09.php
As the countdown for declaring Nepal a republic begins with only weeks left for the first sitting of the Constituent Assembly to take place, King Gyanendra has reportedly said that he just wishes for a "respectable status" even though that means according him cultural and religious rights only.
This was conveyed by Rastriya Prajatantra Party (Nepal) chairman Kamal Thapa to CPN-Maoist Chairman Prachanda during their meeting at the latter's Nayabazaar residence, second in as many weeks.
During the nearly hour long meeting in which, another senior Maoist leader Dr Baburam Bhattarai was also present, Thapa, who is nowadays seen in his new avatar of palace's unofficial emissary, tried to learn about the Maoist leadership's proposal of affording "honorable exit" to the monarch. Thapa also told the Maoist leadership that King Gyanendra wanted the Maoist leadership to uphold the April 11, 2006 agreement between royal palace and the political parties, which effectively ended King Gyanendra's royal regime and led to the formation of the seven party government and jump started the peace process.
Although the details of the secretive agreement between the king and the political parties held on the mediation of Indian special envoy Karan Singh, who is himself the erstwhile Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir has not been made public, Thapa told Prachanda that both parties had agreed to end only "dictatorial monarchy" but not the entire institution of monarchy and that during his many meetings with various political parties King Gyanendra was assured that some form of monarchy would be retained.
Thapa told Prachanda that the king wants the Maoist leadership to abide by this understanding and also conveyed to Prachanda that the king intends to remain as the "symbolic" king having "cultural and religious rights".
In the earlier meeting with Thapa Prachanda had proposed that if the king voluntarily abdicated then he would be accorded a respectful place and could even be allowed to be active in politics. Dr Baburam Bhattarai had also said that if the king voluntarily gives up his throne then he would be given "cultural rights". The Maoist party later clarified that giving cultural rights to the King didn't mean that he would remain as a cultural king.
According to sources, Prachanda told Thapa the people are not in favour of retaining any form of monarchy and that the king should leave his throne by respecting the sentiment of the people. The Maoist chairman also warned that if he didn't do that then a difficult situation would arise.
Top Maoist leaders have stepped up their rhetoric against the king in recent days, saying that if he doesn't voluntarily leave his throne then they might even consider overthrowing him out of the palace by using force.
nepalnews.com ag May 12 08
As the countdown for declaring Nepal a republic begins with only weeks left for the first sitting of the Constituent Assembly to take place, King Gyanendra has reportedly said that he just wishes for a "respectable status" even though that means according him cultural and religious rights only.
This was conveyed by Rastriya Prajatantra Party (Nepal) chairman Kamal Thapa to CPN-Maoist Chairman Prachanda during their meeting at the latter's Nayabazaar residence, second in as many weeks.
During the nearly hour long meeting in which, another senior Maoist leader Dr Baburam Bhattarai was also present, Thapa, who is nowadays seen in his new avatar of palace's unofficial emissary, tried to learn about the Maoist leadership's proposal of affording "honorable exit" to the monarch. Thapa also told the Maoist leadership that King Gyanendra wanted the Maoist leadership to uphold the April 11, 2006 agreement between royal palace and the political parties, which effectively ended King Gyanendra's royal regime and led to the formation of the seven party government and jump started the peace process.
Although the details of the secretive agreement between the king and the political parties held on the mediation of Indian special envoy Karan Singh, who is himself the erstwhile Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir has not been made public, Thapa told Prachanda that both parties had agreed to end only "dictatorial monarchy" but not the entire institution of monarchy and that during his many meetings with various political parties King Gyanendra was assured that some form of monarchy would be retained.
Thapa told Prachanda that the king wants the Maoist leadership to abide by this understanding and also conveyed to Prachanda that the king intends to remain as the "symbolic" king having "cultural and religious rights".
In the earlier meeting with Thapa Prachanda had proposed that if the king voluntarily abdicated then he would be accorded a respectful place and could even be allowed to be active in politics. Dr Baburam Bhattarai had also said that if the king voluntarily gives up his throne then he would be given "cultural rights". The Maoist party later clarified that giving cultural rights to the King didn't mean that he would remain as a cultural king.
According to sources, Prachanda told Thapa the people are not in favour of retaining any form of monarchy and that the king should leave his throne by respecting the sentiment of the people. The Maoist chairman also warned that if he didn't do that then a difficult situation would arise.
Top Maoist leaders have stepped up their rhetoric against the king in recent days, saying that if he doesn't voluntarily leave his throne then they might even consider overthrowing him out of the palace by using force.
nepalnews.com ag May 12 08
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Implications of a hung CA
By DR BIPIN ADHIKARI
http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=146272
The Kathmandu Post, May 8, 2008
The Interim Constitution of Nepal 2007, which pledged a Constituent Assembly (CA) to the people, has done so without enumerating its constituent powers whatsoever.
All that this constitution provides for is a guarantee of the basic rights of the Nepali people to participate in a free and impartial election to the CA and frame a constitution for themselves through this organ. The Interim Constitution does not guarantee that the sovereign house will have no limitations in its constituent powers or that it will not be constrained by the decisions of the interim legislature or the interim government on the basis of this constitution or by any executive agreement that it has signed with rebellious groups in the pre-election period.
As such, the guarantee of the basic rights of the Nepali people to frame a new constitution does not imply the unencumbered sovereign capacity of the CA to draft a new constitution of its choice without any limitations on its powers.
The assembly is intended to operate within two concrete a priori formulations. Article 159 declares that (a) Nepal shall be a federal state and (b) a country with a democratic republican setup. The first formulation concerns sharing of sovereign powers between political units, which do not exist till now in the Nepali consciousness, and the second concerns dispensing with the monarchy, which allegedly lost its credibility in the fight against the Maoists.
As to these preconditions, while the nature of the federal state is something still to be worked on, Article 159 requires that the transition to a republic be made at the first meeting of the CA. To give effect to this formulation, the parties in the alliance even dropped the clause requiring a simple parliamentary majority by the third amendment to the Constitution.
It is just by chance that the operation of this provision is tied to Article 75 which ensures that all questions submitted for a decision to the CA, except as otherwise provided in Part 7 of the constitution, must be decided by a majority vote of the members present and voting. Accordingly, the alleged first meeting must also pass a motion to this effect by a working majority in the House in order to abolish the monarchy.
Similarly, the constitutional declaration that Nepal shall be a federal state comes ahead of its due date. Ordinarily, it is the elected delegates of the CA, who have the responsibility of deciding what form of government is best for Nepal, who should make the decision. With this clause inserted into the constitution, the debate has now been carefully shifted to the issue of autonomy, which had not been the demand of the natives of this country so far.
This shows the enormity of the contradictions that the CA finds itself in. A genuine CA by definition can only be convoked under conditions of full democratic liberties of the delegates, permitting the participation of all the parties concerned, and without any external or internal limitations on its constitution making powers.
A CA is not a legislature that is supposed to be governed under express or implied limitations on its constituent powers. It is a self-sufficient source of power from which all specifics of a state are to be derived. As a corollary, it should be able to exert paramount control over the constitution while making the frame of the government and its administration. While the Interim Constitution might have given birth to the CA in the normal course of political development, the assembly can chart out its future ways without any guidance from the parent document and forge ahead with its own terms and conditions. Otherwise, there is no difference between a normal legislature and a CA intending to give a fresh start.
However, the faulty Interim Constitution has outsmarted its architects in two very surprising ways. First, as far as the general rule of the constitution is concerned, the members of the CA must vote on each and every article of the draft constitution in order to pass it; and failing unanimous passage of the motion, at least two-thirds of the total members of the CA must give it a unanimous exit to turn it into the new constitution.
So, even if the first meeting of the assembly, for example, were to abolish the monarchy and establish a republican state by a simple majority, the move cannot in anyway pre-empt the power of the CA members to reintroduce a new motion restoring the monarchy in due time and pass it by a two-thirds majority. There is nothing in the constitution which can restrain this motion; and as long as there are people in the House to table such a motion and to support it by a required strength, the monarch is here to stay. This means that, contrary to popular belief, the king's fate will remain undecided until the new constitution is promulgated. Same with the declaration of a federal state.
Secondly, the faulty system of proportional representation that the architects of the Interim Constitution introduced with little knowledge of the ensuing structure has already generated a mixed political lot in the assembly. As no party has an outright majority, what we have is a hung CA, and there are many parties in the House which do not share the political platform of the Seven-Party Alliance (which had monopolized the process of drafting the Interim Constitution). The House is compelled to work with these uneasy political partners.
As the constitution does not provide for the dissolution of the assembly on any ground, except when the objective has been accomplished, a hung assembly is bound to work out either a coalition government or a minority government with the support of these backbenchers. The requirement of a two-thirds majority in the constitution making process will force the ruling elite to redefine issues like federalism and monarchy in the overall context of the state's restructuring. The smaller parties in power will make a lot of difference when major constitutional policies are sorted out in the House.
There are some who have already started an exercise (in futility) to help produce a national government eliminating the prospect of any opposition in the constitution making process. The Seven-Party Alliance is almost an exercise of this type, which has already served its purpose.
But it is inconceivable that it can continue any longer in the new scenario. In any case, such a national government has a very poor reputation historically. Whether it is the national government of GP Koirala (2006-08) or of British Prime Ministers Ramsay MacDonald, Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain (which held office from 1931 until 1940), all have been a liability to the nation. Fortunately, a loyal opposition is going to be prominent in Nepal for the next two years. This opposition is going to make sure that the nation is in safe hands.
Additionally, a coalition government led by a party which has lost its credibility before the majority of the people can be equally destructive to the cause of the nation. Nepal is surely familiar with the hung parliament after 1995. It is perhaps not out of place to mention that even in the 1974 general election in the UK, sitting Prime Minister Edward Heath had refused to resign at first, attempting to build a coalition government despite winning fewer seats than the then opposition Labour Party. So if Prime Minister Koirala is still trying to hang on to his post, it should come as no surprise. But the House itself is going to take offence against such ambitions.
The structural limits on the power of the CA and unauthorized normative or inspirational impositions are going to grow fainter due to the operation of the hung CA. This is good for the country.
lawyers_inc_nepal@yahoo.com
Posted on: 2008-05-07 20:01:25 (Server Time)
http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=146272
The Kathmandu Post, May 8, 2008
The Interim Constitution of Nepal 2007, which pledged a Constituent Assembly (CA) to the people, has done so without enumerating its constituent powers whatsoever.
All that this constitution provides for is a guarantee of the basic rights of the Nepali people to participate in a free and impartial election to the CA and frame a constitution for themselves through this organ. The Interim Constitution does not guarantee that the sovereign house will have no limitations in its constituent powers or that it will not be constrained by the decisions of the interim legislature or the interim government on the basis of this constitution or by any executive agreement that it has signed with rebellious groups in the pre-election period.
As such, the guarantee of the basic rights of the Nepali people to frame a new constitution does not imply the unencumbered sovereign capacity of the CA to draft a new constitution of its choice without any limitations on its powers.
The assembly is intended to operate within two concrete a priori formulations. Article 159 declares that (a) Nepal shall be a federal state and (b) a country with a democratic republican setup. The first formulation concerns sharing of sovereign powers between political units, which do not exist till now in the Nepali consciousness, and the second concerns dispensing with the monarchy, which allegedly lost its credibility in the fight against the Maoists.
As to these preconditions, while the nature of the federal state is something still to be worked on, Article 159 requires that the transition to a republic be made at the first meeting of the CA. To give effect to this formulation, the parties in the alliance even dropped the clause requiring a simple parliamentary majority by the third amendment to the Constitution.
It is just by chance that the operation of this provision is tied to Article 75 which ensures that all questions submitted for a decision to the CA, except as otherwise provided in Part 7 of the constitution, must be decided by a majority vote of the members present and voting. Accordingly, the alleged first meeting must also pass a motion to this effect by a working majority in the House in order to abolish the monarchy.
Similarly, the constitutional declaration that Nepal shall be a federal state comes ahead of its due date. Ordinarily, it is the elected delegates of the CA, who have the responsibility of deciding what form of government is best for Nepal, who should make the decision. With this clause inserted into the constitution, the debate has now been carefully shifted to the issue of autonomy, which had not been the demand of the natives of this country so far.
This shows the enormity of the contradictions that the CA finds itself in. A genuine CA by definition can only be convoked under conditions of full democratic liberties of the delegates, permitting the participation of all the parties concerned, and without any external or internal limitations on its constitution making powers.
A CA is not a legislature that is supposed to be governed under express or implied limitations on its constituent powers. It is a self-sufficient source of power from which all specifics of a state are to be derived. As a corollary, it should be able to exert paramount control over the constitution while making the frame of the government and its administration. While the Interim Constitution might have given birth to the CA in the normal course of political development, the assembly can chart out its future ways without any guidance from the parent document and forge ahead with its own terms and conditions. Otherwise, there is no difference between a normal legislature and a CA intending to give a fresh start.
However, the faulty Interim Constitution has outsmarted its architects in two very surprising ways. First, as far as the general rule of the constitution is concerned, the members of the CA must vote on each and every article of the draft constitution in order to pass it; and failing unanimous passage of the motion, at least two-thirds of the total members of the CA must give it a unanimous exit to turn it into the new constitution.
So, even if the first meeting of the assembly, for example, were to abolish the monarchy and establish a republican state by a simple majority, the move cannot in anyway pre-empt the power of the CA members to reintroduce a new motion restoring the monarchy in due time and pass it by a two-thirds majority. There is nothing in the constitution which can restrain this motion; and as long as there are people in the House to table such a motion and to support it by a required strength, the monarch is here to stay. This means that, contrary to popular belief, the king's fate will remain undecided until the new constitution is promulgated. Same with the declaration of a federal state.
Secondly, the faulty system of proportional representation that the architects of the Interim Constitution introduced with little knowledge of the ensuing structure has already generated a mixed political lot in the assembly. As no party has an outright majority, what we have is a hung CA, and there are many parties in the House which do not share the political platform of the Seven-Party Alliance (which had monopolized the process of drafting the Interim Constitution). The House is compelled to work with these uneasy political partners.
As the constitution does not provide for the dissolution of the assembly on any ground, except when the objective has been accomplished, a hung assembly is bound to work out either a coalition government or a minority government with the support of these backbenchers. The requirement of a two-thirds majority in the constitution making process will force the ruling elite to redefine issues like federalism and monarchy in the overall context of the state's restructuring. The smaller parties in power will make a lot of difference when major constitutional policies are sorted out in the House.
There are some who have already started an exercise (in futility) to help produce a national government eliminating the prospect of any opposition in the constitution making process. The Seven-Party Alliance is almost an exercise of this type, which has already served its purpose.
But it is inconceivable that it can continue any longer in the new scenario. In any case, such a national government has a very poor reputation historically. Whether it is the national government of GP Koirala (2006-08) or of British Prime Ministers Ramsay MacDonald, Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain (which held office from 1931 until 1940), all have been a liability to the nation. Fortunately, a loyal opposition is going to be prominent in Nepal for the next two years. This opposition is going to make sure that the nation is in safe hands.
Additionally, a coalition government led by a party which has lost its credibility before the majority of the people can be equally destructive to the cause of the nation. Nepal is surely familiar with the hung parliament after 1995. It is perhaps not out of place to mention that even in the 1974 general election in the UK, sitting Prime Minister Edward Heath had refused to resign at first, attempting to build a coalition government despite winning fewer seats than the then opposition Labour Party. So if Prime Minister Koirala is still trying to hang on to his post, it should come as no surprise. But the House itself is going to take offence against such ambitions.
The structural limits on the power of the CA and unauthorized normative or inspirational impositions are going to grow fainter due to the operation of the hung CA. This is good for the country.
lawyers_inc_nepal@yahoo.com
Posted on: 2008-05-07 20:01:25 (Server Time)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)