Jump to content
Cherry Poppin' Daddy

Nepal Goes All Absolutist On Our Asses

Recommended Posts

Nepal’s King, the only Hindu Monarch in the world seized power, broke out of the gilded cage that limited his powers under the democratic constitution and armed Nepali troops surrounded the homes of leading politicians putting them under house arrests.

 

Nepal's nine-year-old conflict between the state and Maoist rebels is Asia's deadliest: around 11,000 people have been killed, including 800 last December. The country has among the world's highest rates of unexplained disappearances.

 

India, US, UK and other countries have for a long time urged Nepal to maintain the Moarchy under the realm of the constitutional democracy.

 

The elected officials in Nepal for a long time have shown incompetence and corruption. As a result the country has very little law and order with Maoists mostly in control of the vast countryside.

 

India is up in the arms with King’s action. The Government of India urged King Gyanendra to restore democracy under the established Nepali constitution and release all political leaders.

 

According to sources in Nepal, King is upset with the politician’s inability to negotiate and control the Maoist insurgency. The law and order has reached such a low point that Maoists are announcing the date and place where they will cause disruption and they are doing so.

 

While democracy is always desired, according to the King, political leaders have to think for the people, the country and solve the Maoist problem. King Gyanendra finally decided to take the matter in his own hand, negotiate with Maoists and may be bring in United Nations if needed.

 

It is a gamble by the King and definitely defiance against India to save Nepal from the Maoists. No one knows what will happen. The Maoists have fanned nationalist rumors that Indian military intervention is imminent.

 

King Gyanendra plans to negotiate with the Maoists, bring them from terror camp to the Nepali mainstream and let all compete together in constitutional democracy. He may also let the Maoists know if they do not take this opportunity to discard terror, he will use brutal force as well as take help of international agencies like the UN to defeat the Maoists.

 

While King’s action is deplorable only because he threw a democratically elected Nepali Government under the constitution out. But he may not have had a choice under the current circumstances. His point may be – at any cost, by any means he has to stop Nepal from getting destroyed by the leftists and Maoists.

 

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/02-02-05.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, I know where Nepal is, I was playing stupid person who watches Entertainment Tonight for their news.

 

And I'm sure this story isn't hard to find, but when people say it's not covered here, they mean by the main media sources and it's not considered a big story. Obviously if you look through the news it's there, but not everyone has a chance to do that everyday.

 

But thank you for supplying us with it. Very interesting times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never trust an Indian Media source to provide an objective view on the Nepalese Civil/People's War.

 

India, US, UK and other countries have for a long time urged Nepal to maintain the Moarchy under the realm of the constitutional democracy.

 

Of course this constitutional democracy grants the King the power to overturn and decisions and plans made by the government, and unlike the British Queen, uses this power to his advantage.

 

The Maoists have fanned nationalist rumors that Indian military intervention is imminent.

 

Indian (and for that matter, British and American) intervention has already been happening for a number of years now through military Aid. And this Aid is the reason why the King still has any power in Nepal and the Maoists/rebels haven't taken complete control.

 

 

King Gyanendra plans to negotiate with the Maoists, bring them from terror camp to the Nepali mainstream and let all compete together in constitutional democracy. He may also let the Maoists know if they do not take this opportunity to discard terror, he will use brutal force

 

This is really just another ploy that the King has used numerous times before to gain legitimacy. He allows the Maoist's party to take part in the constitutional democracy, the Maoists demand that the King's powers be removed for good, the King kicks them out, and the Maoists resume the fighting. Oh, and the Maoists ARE mainstream in Nepal, when they hold general strikes, EVERYONE takes part. Some because they are afraid of being targetted if they don't, most because they believe in the strike.

 

Not to mention the King himself rarely negotiations with the Maoists, he always sends out other people to do such things for him. And when the Maoists leaders demand to talk to him in person and not to a henchmen that always give them vague and useless answers, the King refuses and continues the fighting.

While King’s action is deplorable only because he threw a democratically elected Nepali Government under the constitution out. But he may not have had a choice under the current circumstances. His point may be – at any cost, by any means he has to stop Nepal from getting destroyed by the leftists and Maoists.

 

Save Nepal from being destroyed by the so-called Maoists? You mean the Nepal that is already 60% under Maoist control? And has been for the last 6 and some years?

 

There's a thing you should know about these Maoists, alot of them really aren't Maoists, just anti-monarchists. The main reason why they have come to be known as Maoists throughout the media is generally the way they model their revolution methods after Mao and Peru's Shinning Path by taking the countryside and mobilizing the peasants. Granted most of the intellects and the leaders of the Maoists see Maoism in a good light, the only demand that the Maoists refuse to back down on and compromise is the complete removal of the King from power. Other than that, they have shown great interest taking part in a democracy, considering they could proplay pull of a majority vote.

 

So if the King truely wants democracy and to stop the fighting, all he has to do is strike a deal with the Maoists that involves him stepping down.

 

 

 

 

 

So yeah, find yourself another source other than Indian Daily to understand the depth and complex stitiuation of Nepal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3573402.stm

 

Seems to me the rebels are nothing more than terrorists.

 

"Only a few weeks ago, the rebels abducted hundreds of school children for a week long "re-education" course on Maoist ideology right under the noses of the security forces on the outskirts of Kathmandu."

 

Yummy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3573402.stm

 

Seems to me the rebels are nothing more than terrorists.

 

"Only a few weeks ago, the rebels abducted hundreds of school children for a week long "re-education" course on Maoist ideology right under the noses of the security forces on the outskirts of Kathmandu."

 

Yummy!

So when exactly was the last time Usama kidnapped kids, treated them nicely, and returned them to their parents a week later?

 

Those senseless murderers...

 

 

Also, I'm going to use your link to back one of my earlier statements

 

"In fact the only area where they have stayed consistent is in their demand for an end to Nepal's constitutional monarchy."

 

Nothing wrong with wanting change, just don't target innocent civilians.

 

For the most part, they try not to. Most of their (fatal) attacks are on police forces. This also why we aren't see any major assaults on Kathmundu, because too many civilians would be hurt. Instead the Maoists use mainly general strikes and siege methods on Kathmundu meanwhile pick off the odd police patrol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes the ends justify the means. In Cuba's case, Che's cause did something unprecedented for the entire world. The term terrorist can't be used in such a black/white way. Im sure some people might even consider Gandhi a terrorist.

 

Of course human rights abuses are equally condemnable no matter who commits them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes the ends justify the means. In Cuba's case, Che's cause did something unprecedented for the entire world. The term terrorist can't be used in such a black/white way. Im sure some people might even consider Gandhi a terrorist.

 

Of course human rights abuses are equally condemnable no matter who commits them.

It's not terrorism if you agree with the cause?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.