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

Ashu,

You obviously would know much, much more than I do about the specifics of conflict dynamics in Nepal, be it with regards to the Maoists, their affiliates, or the ethnic minorities' struggle for 'liberation'. Therefore, I am afraid I can only engage in a debate with you on a broader concept of the conflict(s), rather than on specifics.

Having said that, what I understood from your original post in this thread, which obviously lacked the new specifics that you introduced in your subsequent post, was that you were not at all attacking Kochilas' raison d'etre, but their very right to protest the status quo simply because they "...appear to be the most successful -- in terms of educational attainment and higher incomes" than the other Tharus. Once again, it is one thing to express your disgust at who some groups are, or what they stand for, or what methods they use to attain their goals, where I willingly have given you the benefit of the doubt vis-a-vis Kochilas, but it's quite another to attack ANY groups' very right to protest just because they enjoy relatively better standings than other minorities, specially when it's all too clear that blatant discriminations are still prevalent in Nepal, be it against the Kochilas or other Tharus, who, as you probably know very well, don't happen to be a "minority" in Nepal in terms of population to begin with.

On BANDHS, I don't think sympathizing with anyone's right to protest -- specially when one sees a legitimate cause -- while vehemently disagreeing with the way they protest is what you've called "peeing down both legs". RIGHT to protest and the WAY to protest are different issues, albeit subtly.

Finally, on democracy and the need to make compromises, I absolutely agree with you that it (democracy) is about "seeing our opponents win and get what we hoped to have, and of accepting that outcome, knowing fully well that we will have another chance to get what we want." HOWEVER, this notion of democracy applies only to politcal issues; and the issues of basic, fundamental rights of the people -- the rights to RECOGNITON and EQUALITY being two of the aspects pertinent to our discussion -- are far above and beyond politics, and are absolutely uncompromisable whatsoever.

On a similar vein, I have noticed in your other postings that you'd prefer to remain grey with regards to King G's proclamation of the February 1st. Again, Ashu, when it is about uncompromisable, basic, fundamental rights of the people, the issues are raised far above and beyond politics -- they become issues of HUMANITY, not just of politics. Therefore, when it is about uncompromisable rights of the people, there is no grey area -- either you believe in power to the people, or you don't; either you believe in absolutism, or you don't; either you stand for the rights of the people, or you don't. Poltics can be black or white or grey, but fundamentals of humanity are only either black or white.

Once the fundamentals are in their appropriate place, steadily fastened, then, of course, we can begin to talk about the process of negotiations, compromises, and so on.

Ashu,

I lived in Texas. Texans are my friends. Sir, you ain't no Texan.

In jest,

Riten.

Riten,

Agreed, I ain't no Texan.
But here is one source of that expression. :-)

http://bibliocracy.blogspot.com/2004/07/on-writing-well.html

***

Poonte,

I think we have a fundamentally different ways of looking at things.
Let me explain.

In my spare time, I follow economics research (please note: I don't do research
myself, for my job is NOT hard-core academic research-oriented, and that's fine
for someone of limited intelligence like myself.)

What I have noticed in economics is that you don't get brownie points for stating what everyone knows. You get respected for showing how and why the 'standard model' doesn't work under certain conditions, and then formulating hypothesis (that can be verified through data and evidence) to argue your version of what might be the truth.

Similar trends are also found in political science and other social sciences, where reputations are made NOT by repeating what everyone knows but by devising
clever ways of analyzing social-science puzzles, anomalies and perplexities.

Coming to the issue at hand:

OF COURSE, democracy is the greatest thing since sliced bread. OF COURSE, everyone should have equality before the law and a right to live in a discrimination-free society, and that they should have a right to protest and so on and so forth.

These things are so OBVIOUSLY TRUE that, let's have faith, we are all mature enough
to understand that merely repeating them like Radio Nepal news broadcasts does NOT add anything to our particular understanding of Nepal.

Some questions (to which answers can be very complex) could be: In the real world, and in Nepal in particular, why is it that DEMOCRATIC ideals -- which everyone from the Maoists to the Monarchists to the Parties claim to love -- are so very hard to follow and practice for our elected and unelected governments? What would make both kinds of governments more responsive to follow those ideals?

More specifically, another question could be: When there is clear anecdotal evidence that calling for Nepal Bandhs has NOT led to a single change in any policy and that Nepal Bandhs are widely unpopular with the janata, why do political and rebel parties keep on starting them?

These are all "wonder aloud" questions about issues that do not appear to fit the "standard model" of democracy, and I don't claim to have answers to these questions.

But it's disappointing to see someone as educated as you are -- doing your studies in international relations, no less -- to come running to say, in earnest tones, "Well, you know what, democracy is this and democracy is that", as if you were parroting a passage out of a primer on democracy.

Look, we ALL -- unless some of us are anarchists -- agree on the ideals of democracy. What we might not agree are about ways to achieve those ideals . . . and that's where forums like this can play a role. Rushing in to add the usual stock phrases about democracy is something you can well do, but, in the process, unfortunately we learn nothing from your wisdom. And that's sad, because there is much we can learn from you than these platitudes.

More later.

As for your charge that I "prefer to remain grey with regards to King G's proclamation of the February 1st", well, nothing could be further from the truth.

Unlike most Nepalis, I happen to think that Nepal's governance problem -- when
placed in a global context -- is a GENERAL one and NOT a unique one.

That is why, before shooting my mouth off about Nepal about this and that, I prefer
to look around the world and see what's been done where.

As such, I have been -- on my own -- reading up a lot about Africa and Latin America
to see what had happened there, what worked and what didn't, and see whether we
can draw broad lessons for Nepal. I have presented some of these lessons in my
pieces for The Nepali Times.

True, I can't cover the world in that small a space, and that some of the arguments have to be necessarily reductive . . . but, hey, I have learnt that "the Peru model" (Shining Path and Fujimori) wouldn't work in Nepal, the Chile model too (Pinochet
and Chicago Boys) wouldn't do. But possibly the El Salvador model (a negotiated
peace settlement) might just work in Nepal.

But my learning remains incomplete, and it continues.


oohi
ashu

Ashu,

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".

From the UN Declaration of Human Rights: "...the right to personal liberty, justice, freedom from discrimination, freedom of movement, free elections and a free press."
[My personal footer: free press implies freedom of expression (also), and free elections can be considered relative to condusive environment.]

I am glad that we both agree that the affore-mentioned ideals are what we both believe in and stand by. Yes, disagreements can arise when we begin to discuss HOW we go about achieving those principles. More often than not, the problem is, Ashu, some people tend to question those very principles when discussing ideas on how to achieve them -- they seem utterly unable to realize the irony within the concept of achieving democracy through democracy. In democracy, the means and the ends are, and should be, one and the same. So, when people argue that authoritarian means are justified by the possible democratic ends, I cringe, for I believe in my heart that this is a classic case of if means and the ends are not the same, we shall never enjoy the fruition of our dreams.Therefore, all I want from you and others is to leave those democratic principles in an umimpeachable sacred place while discussing how to achieve them. Really, that's all.

As for the notion of "guided democracy," to which I think your arguments on whether Nepal is actually ready for democracy or not are leaning towards, I say, I am fine with it IF, and ONLY IF, PEOPLE are allowed to guide it, not an INDIVIDUAL. Once again, if we supposedly are to let an individual (in the current Nepali context, obviously the King) guide democracy, then we are attacking the sacred ends itself.

Nepal ko example ma...the so-called "guided democracy" during 30 years of Panchayat rule failed us miserably. Not only it failed while it lasted, but it had vast and negative implications well into the post-Panchayat years, hence the problems of weak democracy in the past 15 years or so. The "guidance" of an autocratic ruler, ironically, renders people helpless in terms of having self confidence -- they learn nothing but to RELY on someone else to deliver; leaves them bitterly unprepared to handle independence and freedom. The ONLY way, therefore, to prepare people for responsibilities that freedom should entail is to set them free, so that they can learn form their mistakes and, at least, know what it actually means to be free.

So, what about nuisances such as BANDHS? They have acted as good learning experiences for Nepalis. When they first started, perhaps, fewer people, the likes of you and I, loathed them; now, because of their obvious negative effects, many more wish we could do away with BANDHS altogether. Eventually, as people become better educated through democratic experience, there will come a point when enough people will loathe them that they will have no place in Nepali political process. Same goes for other social ills that plagues our country. For instance, corruption cannot be tackled properly unless there is a pratice of greater transparency, which can only be made possible through an open society; narrow and suppressed conditions, which are inevitable under autocratic rule, only exasperates the problem of less transparency, hence unsovable problem of corruption.

I agree we have had terrible experience with what was a weak and incomplete democracy in Nepal after the fall of Panchayat. However, at least that weak democracy held the basic mantras of freedom as it's principles, albeit some of them in paper only. At least we had a base on which we could argue, vibrantly debate, therefore help people become critical and independent thinkers, all of which is not going to happen under authoritarian rule. Simply put, KingG's move is, or any notion of a "guided democracy" would be, a huge step backwards.

Poltical parties ko dysfunctional process ma, at least if you went and asked an ordinary gaamle what he thought of the situation, he could have answered, "Khai baa, aafulai ta ke? Jun jogi aayeni kaanai chireko!" Ahile ko awastha ma kosaile yo jogi ko kaan chireko bhanos ta! Lagera thundela, pitdela, maardela bhanne dar!

I am sure some of you might be thinking what about "guided democracy" in Singapore, or someplace else. I have written enough for now, and have a lot more to do with regards to other obligations, so I will respond to those questions if and when they are raised.

Poonte bro,

Very well written, very welkl argued, but as always, I beg to differ.

1. You foucs more on political rights, not on subsistence rights. You assuem that political rights include subsistence rights and or both are detachable. I disagree. I believe these two righst can be detached.

2. If political rights were the preconditions for having a healthy, equal society/egalitarian(?) then how do you view singapore's progress?

3.YOu did not include the disagreements among the third world countries with the UN declaration and their own regional agreements that follow more holistic appraoch than the individualistic appraoch of the UN declaratuion and also puts a high emphasis on subsistence rights.

I will greatly benifit from your reply because I have a paper due on this soon.

3.YOu did not include the disagreements among the third world countries with the UN declaration and their own regional agreements that follow more holistic appraoch than the individualistic appraoch of the UN declaratuion and also puts a high emphasis on subsistence rights.

Read this as:

3.You did not include the disagreements among the third world countries with the UN declaration and their own regional agreements [Banjul declaration being the m,ost famous one] that follow more holistic appraoch than the individualistic appraoch of the UN declaratuion, and also put a VERY high emphasis on subsistence rights than political rights.

ISO,

It's 6:20 am now. After a long evening of work, I have been up all night, frantically trying to finish a project -- which I had told you about -- that is due later today. And now my eyelids are stubbornly refusing to stay awake, so I will respond to you later after I wake up, hai? Tyo pani time bhyayo bhane...

In the mean time, during the short breaks that I took from my project, I tried to do quick research on Banjul Declaration, for I obviously was ignorant of it. All I could find was that it was a declaration against female genital mutilation in Africa! I am not sure how that woud relate to our discussion. :s Can you enlighten me on this? Perhaps my sleepy mind wasn't capable of doing extensive research that would have produced different results.

Thanks!

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii...aiya ba baaaaaaaa...narayana! aaja ta thyakkai ulto bhayechha...jhandai jhandai timro sutne time maa ma sutna gai raa chhu. ;)

Poonte bro,

Banjul declaration is not only about female circumcision, it has more to it. It's more about African nations coming together to come up with their own human rights agreement which is a bit different than the UN declaration on human rights. It focuses more on "collective" approach and African identity. Also it focuses more on subsistence rights (second generation rights) than political rights.

I hope this helps.

For more, please see, Globalization of World Politics [ John Baylis and Steve Smith EDs./ OUP] or Human Rights and IR [R J Vincent, RIFA/CUP].

Come on poonte dai, IR grad student saying he doesn't know about banjul agreement is hard to believe k... :-)

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. :)