A Mechi/Koshi Zonal Bandh has been declared by Kirat National Front, Madhese Liberation Front and Kochila Liberation Front for 31 March 2005 as a build up to the Nepal Bandh from 02 ? 12 April.

****

There are many types of Tharus, and Kochila Tharus make up one type.

Among the Tharus of Nepal, the Kochilas (who live in Eastern/Central Nepal tarai) appear to be the most successful -- in terms of educational attainment and higher incomes.

It's one thing for Dangaura Tharus, or Rajatiya Tharus or Rana Tharus to rise up for 'liberation', for they make up some of the most oppressed Nepalis when you look at their relationships with the State.

But it's hard to understand -- at this point -- what Kochila Tharus are to be
'liberated' from.

oohi
ashu

OUP= Oxford University Press

CUP= Cambridge University Press

RIFA- Royal Institute of Foreign Affairs

Let me just add something. I am tired too, after 7 hrs of class today-

Poonte jyu,

You did not answer my question- how do you view Singapore's success?

Also, if I may suggest [I know you are more qualified than me, so no offense]- Why not challenge the Wilsonian idealism [the root of all HR stuff]? Why not see Wilsonian idealism/HR and other liberal thinking that we have to study whether we are in Asia or Nortth America, in a more broader American Foreign Policy agenda?

For more on this-

For a more liberal opinion, Micheal Mandelbaum's The Ideas That Conquered The World

For a more radical opinion- The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, William Appleman Williams

Also, if I may suggest [I know you are more qualified than me, so no offense]- Why not challenge the Wilsonian idealism [the root of all HR stuff]? Why not see Wilsonian idealism/HR and other liberal thinking that we have to study whether we are in Asia or Nortth America, in a more broader American Foreign Policy agenda?

sarai thakyo yaar aaja-

anyway, read this as-
Also, if I may suggest [I know you are more qualified than me, so no offense]- Why not challenge the Wilsonian idealism [the root of all HR stuff]? Why not see Wilsonian idealism/HR and other liberal thinking that we have to study whether we are in Asia or Nortth America, in a more broader framework of American Foreign Policy agenda especially the "open door policy" ?

Okie, ISo...balla ali fursad bhayo...kammar kassera basna! ;)

On Singapore...

I have heard aplenty some people's argument that Singapore is a perfect example of authoritarian rule doing good for the people. Thereby, upon your own suggestion few months back, I have been reading "From Third World to First, The Singapore Story: 1965-2000." Since it is one of few books that I am indulging in simultaneously at the moment, it's taking time to finish it. However, from what I have read so far, I can derive the following...

First of all, even before we talk about Singapore's success, we have to draw a clear line of facts: NEPAL IS NOT SINGAPORE, AND KING G IS NOT LEE KUAN YEW. Nepal obviously lacks strategic geographic advantages that Singapore enjoys; and let's face it, King G is not even close to Lee in terms of being an extremely altruistic, visionary leader.

Analyzing Singapore's remarkable success, I still firmly believe that it had a lot more to do with it's strategic geography that with what kind of government it had. Located at the heart of booming trade between the US and Asia -- with open and wide access to the sea, Singapore could not have helped but be swayed by the benefits of this unique trend. Furthermore, Singapore's smallness, both in terms of land and population, also must have played a key role in overwhelming the population with huge flow of cash from ANY trade initiatives.

Nepal, on the other hand, which is obviously at a disadvantage not only with mountaineous land-locked geogrpahy, but with a huge population which is ethnically very diverse, has it's own unique set of tremendous difficulties that Singapore didn't have to worry about. And again, Nepal has already experienced it's fair share of authoritarian rule -- from the Ranas to the Panchayat -- which failed us miserably. So, knowing the fact that authoritarianism has not worked well with Nepal as it did for Singapore, isn't it about time we tried other methods? Here, you and others may argue we tried democracy for 14 years. I say, the problem of the past 14 yrs was that it tried WEAK democracy, which obviously needed to be strenthened, and revering back to authoritarianism is NOT AT ALL helpful to the process of strenthening democracy. ISO, you and I both know effects of social and political process cannot be expected in a short time -- potical and social progresses taek AT LEAST a generation to bear fruits. Nepal democratic process wa snto even given a generation's time.

Back to Singapore. Again, form whatever I have read from the book, I can further argue that Lee Kuan Yew was NOT a total authoritarian either. Yes, he suppressed the communists, but he did not suppress all opposition. And he did not ban the press -- he only made the press pay very heavily if they diseminated wrong information. I can perfectly live with that. Yet again, I have yet to finish the book and learn more. of course, it must be noted here, though, that Lee's self description of his success in Singapore cannot be without his personal biases either.

one more thing on singapore before I indulge on toher questions posed by you:

Given that Lee Kuan Yew was quasi-authoritarian, when doing case studies, it is also very important to look at the numbers. For ONE success of an authoritarian rule, of which there are extremely few, how many more examples can you look at that has had similar, if not bette,r success through democracy? Given this fact, I still would bet my last dime on democracy than autocracy.

Now, a brief note on Wilsonian idealism.

Not only Wilson, ISO, I questioned and challenged hard the concepts of Monroe Doctrine (which can be considered a basis for Wilson's 14 points) as well when I was at an early stages of studying international affairs. Coming to study in the US from a third world country, carrying a jest of rebellious nationalism with me, I challenged hard the basis of US foreign policy, which I saw as neo-imperialism. I still do question US motives overseas -- you might have noticed my stance on Iraq and elsewhere -- and vehemently oppose some of Western policies around the world. However, there is a difference between what some of profound doctrines stand for, and what they are USED as. Therefore, I have come to realize that Monrovian/Wilsonian concepts, as it stands free and pure of US governments' motives, cannot be challenegd. At least in words they are so genuine and they are so powerfuly pertinent, that I would be axing the very chords of ideology that I believe in so dearly -- democracy and the freeedom -- if I began to question their very existence.

On Banjul Declaration, well, I must admit no matter how much I learn, there are always surprises awaiting at every corner in terms of new things to learn. Thanks to you, I have now heard of Banjul, and I am studying the documents now. It's implications vis-a-vis subsistence rights vs. political rights are questions that cannot be answered easily. I have been formulating a theory in my mind, and will post a well-articulated response to you a bit later, perhaps after the weekend.

Poonte wrote:

"When the very basic tenets of democracy are either questioned (Nepali pariprekchhya maa maattra bhayeni) by you on this forum, or threatened by KingG's supporters, or traunced by him, I, as someone who steadfastly believes them, would obviously try to counter by repeating the same very basics, regardless of whether they may seem obvious and/or redundant to some. Sometimes perhaps redundancy is the best instrument to make people believe in basic and fundamental rights of the people. Claiming that you believe in the basic democratic principles while questioning them is (NOW) what you referred to as "peeing down both legs"."


Poonte,

Sorry I was away from the computer for the past few days; anyway, given your background in International Relations, I was hoping to read the basis of your arguments.

Instead, I see that you have grandly chosen to play the role of a "martyr" (as though those who question/debate about and argue about democracy were somehow undemocratic elements), and have supplied the usual stock phrases about democracy.

Fine.

Meantime, I'll stick to reading these articles from Journal of Democracy -- reading
which assures me that whatever democracy is, one's understanding of it can only
get better and deeper through debates, kura-kani, discussions, counter-evidence
and counter-arguments and NOT by bandying about truisms.

To paraphrase someone famous: The price of democracy is eternal vigilance!!

In that spirit,

oohi
ashu


And, no, I do NOT support the Kochilas attempt to make so many others (innocent Nepalis) suffer so that they get to call Nepal Bandhs.

Poonte wrote:

"When the very basic tenets of democracy are either questioned (Nepali pariprekchhya maa maattra bhayeni) by you on this forum, or threatened by KingG's supporters, or traunced by him . . ."


No.

Why are you this insecure about democracy?

Didn't you read The Nepali Times which had a report of a poll (conducted by ID Analysts and AC Nielsen pre-Feb 2005) that concluded that:

*Three-quarters of Nepalis believe in democracy

Source: http://www.nepalitimes.com/issue239/headline.htm

The basic tenets of democracy, Poonte, as the poll results too verify, have never
been questioned as such. Let's not have this "chicken little" syndrome, shall we?

The fundamental question is: How do we make our democracy work for us so that it better reflects the hopes and the aspirations of ALL Nepalis?

Obviously, chanting the stock phrases just to be some sort of martyr will not do us
any good, I am afraid.

But thinking hard about what we want out of our democracy and how we can legally achieve what we want (with incentives, competitions and representations in place)
is going to require a lot of debates, kura-kani, pnethy of looking at counter-examples and trade-offs and trials-and-errors and so on.

oohi
ashu

Poonte bro,

Very well thought counter-points from Lee Kuan Yew's book. But as always, I have my own counter-points and questions regarding some of the points you made on your post-

"First of all, even before we talk about Singapore's success, we have to draw a clear line of facts: NEPAL IS NOT SINGAPORE, AND KING G IS NOT LEE KUAN YEW. Nepal obviously lacks strategic geographic advantages that Singapore enjoys; and let's face it, King G is not even close to Lee in terms of being an extremely altruistic, visionary leader. "

Nepal is not Singapore and the King is not Lee. Agreed. However, going by the same argument/reasoning, Nepal is not England or the US either! So, if you think the Singaporean model is not a good fix for Nepal, the the American or any other model is not a good fix either. Maybe we should invent our own system based on our own cultural-religious-social structure/system. Afterall, Lee did the same thing. He came up with his own East-Asian-Confucian value based system. If you take household-kinship (social strtcutre) as a basis for governmnet, then Lee was not wide off the mark. Given the close-knit structure of the Chinese, Indian and Malay communities' social structure that focuses more on holistic/collective approach than the Western "individualistic" approach, Lee based his PAP's policies, and from the founding of the country to this day, PAP has been winning elections.


"Analyzing Singapore's remarkable success, I still firmly believe that it had a lot more to do with it's strategic geography that with what kind of government it had. Located at the heart of booming trade between the US and Asia -- with open and wide access to the sea, Singapore could not have helped but be swayed by the benefits of this unique trend. Furthermore, Singapore's smallness, both in terms of land and population, also must have played a key role in overwhelming the population with huge flow of cash from ANY trade initiatives. "

I disagree on this. Based on my understanding of the book, I see it more as

i) He capitalized on the American/western fear of communism. He became an important ally of the west in its campaign to restrict communist expansion in the East/South East Asia.

ii) He ruled with an iron fist. He could implement his policies without any opposition whatsoever. Of course, all of his policies were good and there was no need for any opposition, but if you look at it carefully, it was a one man show. He had the final word on everything- from choosing the President to developing housing projects.

iii) Singapore just didn't benifit from the trade, he had to make Singapore benifit from it. he had to perduade the US and other governmnets and companies for investment. he had to create the conditions necessary for the foreign investors to invest in Singapore, and he did it by changing the laws and interestingly enough, by planting trees! [Its in the book]

"Nepal, on the other hand, which is obviously at a disadvantage not only with mountaineous land-locked geogrpahy, but with a huge population which is ethnically very diverse, has it's own unique set of tremendous difficulties that Singapore didn't have to worry about.'

Although Singapore is small, it too has diversity. It has Chinese, Indian and Malay communities, and after the founding of the city state, the Malay community and the Chinese community fought with each other. Also, all these communities were living in their respective ghettos and were not dealing with each other. It was Lee who forcefully evicted them from their respective ghettos and had them move to the govt. hosuing projects, in whcih they were forced to live alongside the others. he created unity, it did not come with the independence "package".


"Back to Singapore. Again, form whatever I have read from the book, I can further argue that Lee Kuan Yew was NOT a total authoritarian either. Yes, he suppressed the communists, but he did not suppress all opposition. And he did not ban the press -- he only made the press pay very heavily if they diseminated wrong information. I can perfectly live with that. Yet again, I have yet to finish the book and learn more. of course, it must be noted here, though, that Lee's self description of his success in Singapore cannot be without his personal biases either. "

Well, we both can read the same book but arrive at different conclusions. My understanding of the book is quite different. I see him more as a mild-authritarian leader or a benevolent dictator. He didn't allow dissent, and he really cared about the people. At times he employed rather harsh measures such as limiting the circulation of Time and the Wall Street Journal because they called him a dictator/authritarian ruler. Other times he had people sent out of the country for disagreeing with him. He and he alone had the total control and executive power of the state. Everybody else had to play along. He didn'yt leave them with any other option.

Even today the Strait Times, Singapore's largest selling newspaper (although I am not quite sure, but my guess is its the only daily there) is not free to publish wahtever it wants. It has to go through censorship. Last eyar there were talks to allow teh Strait Times and other media some freedom but nothing constructive has happened in this regard. The media is still tightly controlled by the government.

"Given that Lee Kuan Yew was quasi-authoritarian, when doing case studies, it is also very important to look at the numbers. For ONE success of an authoritarian rule, of which there are extremely few, how many more examples can you look at that has had similar, if not bette,r success through democracy? Given this fact, I still would bet my last dime on democracy than autocracy. "

This is avalid point, and I have no counter point for this except that all the Asian Tigers leaders were Authoritarian at one point or the other and that explains their economic success stories. Some scholars credit Pincohet's rule in which Chile went through economic liberalization and decveloped the institutions necessary for the rule of law, for it's remarkably successful transition to democracy. But of course, these are few isolated incidents and we should not be taking these examples to be "brahma-bakya". There have been examples of democracy and development going together (India and many other countries) and there are places where dictatorship and development going together (Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan and Korea till the 80s, etc.). Of course, I respect your views, but in politics one has to take side. You have chosen allign yourself with democracy and development side, I have chosen to allign myself with authritarian or strong govt- developmnet side. Once the preconditions necessary to sutain democracy are there because of economic developmnet, then the nation whteher it be Congo or North Korea or Nepal, they will have to ebcome democracies.

"Now, a brief note on Wilsonian idealism. "

Not only Wilson, ISO, I questioned and challenged hard the concepts of Monroe Doctrine (which can be considered a basis for Wilson's 14 points) as well when I was at an early stages of studying international affairs. Coming to study in the US from a third world country, carrying a jest of rebellious nationalism with me, I challenged hard the basis of US foreign policy, which I saw as neo-imperialism. I still do question US motives overseas -- you might have noticed my stance on Iraq and elsewhere -- and vehemently oppose some of Western policies around the world. However, there is a difference between what some of profound doctrines stand for, and what they are USED as. Therefore, I have come to realize that Monrovian/Wilsonian concepts, as it stands free and pure of US governments' motives, cannot be challenegd. At least in words they are so genuine and they are so powerfuly pertinent, that I would be axing the very chords of ideology that I believe in so dearly -- democracy and the freeedom -- if I began to question their very existence.

maybe I am young so I am questioning these. But Wilsonian idealism I see as a way to :

i) stop revolutions- With the Communist/socialist movements gaining momentum in many parts of the world then, the US needed to come up with a policy to counter the spread of communism/socialism. Revolutions were seen as having negative eefect on the "US -Open door policy, i.e., market expansionism". And how do you oppose that- You cnnot just tell the people to tolerate their corrupt, ineffecient leaders nor could you tell them to embrace communism.. so idealism. Self determination and democracy. Self determination was self determinationa s long as it did nhot interfare with teh US policies. Even Wilson was confused regarding the very principles he proposed.. also, a point to note will be- even his secretary of state disliked the principles. Not to mention his successors too were bit unsure about how to use those ideals. So they just got sidelined till 1945.. and again, when the world was more polarized at the ebginning of teh Cold War, the idealism found its place in the US foreign policy, because it would serve the purpose of thwarting the revolutions in third world or other countries. [Karl Meyer (sp?) mentions this in his book, The Dust of Empire- The Race for Mastery in Asian Haertland.. and the distinguished American historian, William Appleman Williams gives you a detailed acount of the whole idealism/economics etc in American foreign policy in, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy.].

On Banjul Declaration, well, I must admit no matter how much I learn, there are always surprises awaiting at every corner in terms of new things to learn. Thanks to you, I have now heard of Banjul, and I am studying the documents now. It's implications vis-a-vis subsistence rights vs. political rights are questions that cannot be answered easily. I have been formulating a theory in my mind, and will post a well-articulated response to you a bit later, perhaps after the weekend.


Aiya, finally the last part!!!

The problem with the UN declaration and other UN led HR conventions and declarations is- They do not take into the economic reality of underdeveloped nations. They value the first generation rights (equality, freedom and liberty) more than subsistence rights because the conventional western thinking is: subsistence rights and political rights are the same. This line of thinking is flawed because subsistence rights and political rights are tow different things. Also in many third world countries, many human rights violations result not from the lack of political freedom but because the people are poor. Transition to democracy and FREEDOM of speech is not going to take care of their problems. People will continue to be poor, starved and the crime rates due to poverty or illiteracy will not just decline. Before people can exercise their rights to speak freely, they need to be fed well, so that they don't just bark and howl. Only a well fed, educated, sheltered and well-dressed (not meaning suited booted like hindi filim ko hero.. but someone whose subsistence rights have been taken care of) can make rational judgement. Hungry, starved and naked people don't necessarily make rational chocies and judgements. This is the third world countries point of view. Of course, they are saying this to legitimize their own dictatorial regimes, but if you think carefully, it does make sense (at least to me). Banjul is thus an attempt to come up with the rights that applies to the African nations. For example, it focuses more on culture and African identity, hoslitics rather than indvidulaistic appraoch of the UN declaration.. and more emphasis on subsitence than political rights.

Also regarding the political conflicts in third world countries after 1990, be it Nepal or Peru or Bolivia or African countries, they ahve more to do with poverty and subsistence rights than political freedom. I forgot who exactly, but an Americvan scholar has done a study on "mountain conflicts".. and he sees the povert as the root cause for these violent insurgencies.. karl meyer's book, The Dust of Empire..towards the end quotes from this study.. I found this rather fascinating. I have not read the study myslef, but been searching for it.. will let you know the name and the title as soon as I am able to move around :-)...

[Thanks for your concerns and suggestions.. my movemnet is getting less and less restricted now].

Aiya, ahile k k lekhyo thaha chaina.. laamo bhayecha.. plus due to some health problem, I was sleeping all day and these smelly ointments and bitter medicines might have clouded my judgement.. so please feel free to disagree, question and ask for clarification/explanation regarding my views/points and counter-points.

They do not take into the economic reality of underdeveloped nations.= they do not take into consideration the economic reality...

hey bahgwan, there's too many typos/spelling grammar errors... afai sachyayara padhnu hola..

Ashu,

Not much to disagree on your latest post. Agreed democracy also entails debates on what kind of democracy shall we have. However, those debates are not at all feasible, let alone meaningful, unless they happen in a DEMOCRATIC FRAMEWORK, which is obviously missing in the current Nepali context. I believe all of us believers in democracy, including yourself, should fight for the very basic rights first -- to be given the basic framework to have healthy, constructive debates -- so that the likes of you and I, for instance, can go on debating till the eternity gives up, on what, where, how and when aspects of specific policies to ensure the enforcement of democratic principles. Democratic values and principles, once again, which are uncompromisable and non-negotiable, are subtly different from democratic policies, on which we can debate endlessly.

On Kochilas, once again, and for the final time: For me, the issue is not about whether one supports the idea of BANDHS or not, but about ANYBODY's right to protest. RIGHT TO PROTEST is, again, subtly, but very meaningfully, different from METHODS OF PROTESTS.

ISO,

On singapore, we can mostly agree to disagree. I only have couple of more points to add to our discussion:

1. Having 3 different national/ethnic groups out of about 2 milion (Singapore's population at independence) makes governance far more easier and simpler from having nearly 30 different enthnic groups in a populaiton of 26 million.

2. I am not advocating Nepal emulate democracies of the Western countries. (You have mentioned UK and the US) There is huge differences with deep implications on the terms DEMOCRATIZATION, CAPITALIZATION and/or WESTERNIZATION.

My arguments on this (proposition #2) will also touch on one of the other authors that you've mentioned above (Williams of "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy") -- I am afraid I havn't read the other -- and one other book with the similar theme that I have read: "Imperial Hubris" by Anonymous.

More on this and Banjul Charter perhaps on Tuesday -- I am busy tomorrow. For now, allow me to enjoy the rest of my Sunday. :)