By P. Kharel pkharel1Sheer craving for power is what ails politics in Nepal. In retrospect, there were early warnings of bad omen at each major political turn since 1951. Burying of principles for power has, therefore, eaten into the vitals of the prospects of a vibrant democracy. Examples reconfirming this trauma for the people are far too many to call for detail. Take the March 21, 2007 clash between supporters of the CPN (M) and the Madeshi Janaadhikar Forum (MJF) at Gaur in Rautahat, in which 27 persons lost their lives. The incident took place after an uprising in the Terai in the wake of the killing of a CPN (M) cadre of a Madhesi protestor in Lahan two months earlier. The situation was brought under control after a highly traumatic uncertainty triggered by government decision to declare all those killed martyrs and to offer financial compensation to the family of the deceased. No wonder then that the terai-based leader Upendra Yadav was quoted in New Spotlight (December 3, 2010): “The problem with our local leaders, including Maoists, is that they don’t see their national interest but what they care more is personal interest. If Maoists can make alliance with other parties, no one can stop them from forming the government.” BELLING THE CAT: A year later, when inducted in the government as a deputy prime minister looking after the foreign ministry, Upendra Yadav (Nepal Samacharpatra, July 31, 2011), said that the 1950 Treaty with India could not be changed, and suggested that no government was able to raise the issue of revision when confronted by Indian leaders face to face. Yadav, at least, confessed that raising the 1950 treaty issue was a popular move but difficult because of New Delhi’s atttiude, though he forgets that Manmohan Adhikary did press the raise the issue when he paid an official visit in 1995 as the prime minister of South Asia’s first democratically elected communist government. That Adhikary’s party, CPN (UML), chose to forget it for more than 20 years is another matter. Nepali Congress never dared to either defend the humiliating treaty or even defending it. If confronted by an unavoidable situation of having to make a comment, its leaders said that Nepal “must first be clear about what it wants”. This is a language scripted by New Delhi for the last three decades, and cheered by its proxies, whether professors, political scientists, civil society leaders, “scholars” or foreign policy “experts”. Time will take care of it in appropriate measure. Posterity will condemn the right and absolve the “demons” derided presently by proxies in the pay of foreign agencies. Saner minds in saner times will inevitably ensure that. In other words, unalloyed history will assess who betrayed whom. Extortion, threats and violence, accompanied by impunity, are the order of the existing disorder. Imbecile leaders attribute the dismal state of governance to the undefined “transition period”. Four “major” political groups are the actual sources of uncertainty, far removed from the promises of prosperity, stability and democratic quality. Poor public security, naturalisation of violence as political tool, and the inability of watchdog institutions to monitor honestly and effectively the failure of the government to take legal action have all contributed to growing impunity. An idea can be drawn from the fact that most of the recommendations of the National Human Rights Commission have not been investigated and followed up, especially those that had resulted in loss of lives. ROOT CAUSE: The crux of the existing state of affairs can be traced to the May 2002 when a duly elected government headed by Sher Bahadur Deuba dissolved the House of Representatives but the publicly vowed to fresh elections was sought to be postponed indefinitely undemocratically with risks of doing so indefinitely. This was entirely in contravention of the letter and spirit of the 1991 Constitution that was hailed by political leaders as “the world’s best”. The 1991 Constitution is considered by a wide spectrum of the Nepali political spectrum as the most important contribution of Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, who is hailed as a “sage leader” by leaders who have since the 1990s remained at the helm of the state affairs. Today, Nepalis’ battle for peace and stability in the sixth year of the Dark Age in what the rest of the world and our leaders describe as “modern day”. Most NGOs and self-styled “civil society leaders” function as extensions of INGOs and foreign missions, particularly those with rich cash bags. The three estates of the political structure in the country presently cover political leaders, their cronies and the rest of party members. The rest of the 28 million do not merit in these parties’ list of priorities, dismissed as they are as serfs and eyesore except as necessary evil as voters. They monopolise power and belong to the exclusive club for public posts and pelf at the expense of the vastly larger sections of society.