Protesters march against Nepal's king in Kathmandu, demanding democracy

[struggle4progress]

May 1, 2005 - 13:17

KATHMANDU, Nepal (AP) - Thousands of protesters marched through Nepal's capital on Sunday to demand the restoration of democracy in one of the biggest shows of opposition strength since King Gyanendra seized absolute power three months ago.

In two union-organized rallies that also were intended to commemorate the May Day workers' holiday, demonstrators carried placards calling for an end to the king's direct rule.

Gyanendra on Saturday lifted a state of emergency that had given police unlimited power, but he retained direct rule.

The demonstrators, carrying red flags and chanting "We want democracy, down with autocracy," stayed away from restricted areas around the king's palace and government offices. <snip>

http://www.680news.com/news/international/article.jsp?content=w050133A

[David__77]

1. The fascist "king" must fall.

The Nepalese republic will surely be born.

[American in Asia]

2. Careful with that "republic" word...

That's what the Maoists want to bring - a People's Republic - which all sounds real nice until you realize that their way of doing it is to kill, torture, or maim anyone who doesn't agree with them - from 75 year old farmers to 12 year old kids. Scary folks. This falls under the "be careful what you wish for" category..

[paulk]

3. the poster you are responding to

wants the Maoists to prevail

fyi

[American in Asia]

4. One can only wonder why???

I can think of lots of reasons why not. Let's see...

1) Rule by terror and intolerance of dissent.
2) An economic program that would destroy the country.
3) A promotion of Nepal as a safe haven for terrorist groups from any country (so stated openly in their literature)
4) Absolutely no intention of allowing any democratic or participatory role for any of the people of the country.
5) The small detail that the Nepali people themselves vehemently do NOT want this. Or do we no longer care what the people of a country want?

Just asking..

[paulk]

5. the "idea" of revolution is attractive to a lot of people

... especially when it is happening to someone else.

Not that the monarchy in Nepal is a good thing - the protestors are right, democracy needs to be restored - but the Maoists gaining control is the worst thing that could happen.


ps - where are you in Asia?

[Matilda]

6. Communists have never been able to seize power

in any country where the people have good government, and are able
to earn a fair wage for their work. In Nepal, they have neither.

The Nepalese Maoists seem to be cast in the mold of the 20th century
idealogues like Lenin, Stalin and Mao Zedung. They use extortion
and kidnap to gain recruits, and have killed thousands of innocent
civilians in their attempt to gain power.

But the army and police have also been accused by the civilian
population of "disappearing" people whom they suspect of being
allied to the Maoists, rightly or wrongly, and King Gyanendra - never
liked or trusted by the people since the slaughter of the rest of
the royal family a couple of years ago - now has absolute power,
having dismissed the government. What reason do the people have to
put their faith in him?

With no government at all, the struggle is now between the Maoists
and Gyanendra with no middle ground at all. The Nepalese don't have
much to look forward to no matter what the outcome.

[American in Asia]

8. No argument from me...

It's a sad but valid assessment of the current situation. My only comments would be that first, Nepal has had a "democracy" for the past 15 years, though it has failed dismally to represent the people's interest. Perhaps some thought needs to be given to how to reform the political system overall to rectify the sense that politians are all corrupt and power-hungry, with little concern for the well-being of the Nepalese people themselves.

And, my cynical mind still turns over the question as to whether economic growth brings democracy or democracy brings economic growth. Nepal is a very poor country. Off the top of my head I can't think of a similarly poor country that has succeeded in introducing democracy (at least on its first try) without having put in place some other elements. Education is a problem, access (roads, electricity, news media etc.) is a problem, as is a lack of experience with accountability or rule of law.

I'm not saying democracy isn't needed here. I'm just questioning whether what happened is all that surprising, and whether the road ahead is as easy as some would like to think. It's a tragic situation for the Nepali people, without a doubt.

[AP]

7. I'm not sure if that's a fair discription of what these Maoists have...

...been doing.

They're not exactly angels, but their focus does seem to be economic sabotage (blowing up the occassional coca cola plant) and kidnapping people, lecturing them on the cause, and then sending them back to their villages to advocate for the Maoists.

They also try not to jeopardize the tourist industry.

I may be way off on this, but that's the impression I get from casually keeping track of events in Nepal.

Anyway, if these Maoists were butchers, we'd hear about it constantly.

[American in Asia]

9. I think it's fair...

and you do hear about it constantly. It seems to me that things fundamentally shifted around 2001. Before the Maoists did primarily target the wealthy, and economic interests, and did try to paint themselves as concerned about bettering the lives of the poor. Since things escalated in 2001, I don't think that is the case. Everyone I talk to is simply afraid. The number of children who have been killed by socket bombs left lying around is horrifying. That they would steal food supplies from villagers in districts where only 6 months supply of food can be grown at the best of times is certainly cruel. And that they call blockades (constantly) to stop the access of food, medicine, or even passage of ambulances (including burning ambulances and buses, whether there are people on board or not) is simply barbaric.

Popular local level politicians are simply executed. The number of men who have simply fled to India, or taken their families to cities because they are unsafe, has led to a massive number of displaced people and even greater poverty. If the family has even a little money, the children are being sent to India because schools are closed, or their parents are fearful of them being forcibly recruited. If the family doesn't, the children don't go to school. The vast majority of people are afraid, and know the government is powerless to protect them. Consent in this case does not mean commitment so much as coercion. They are trapped in the middle, and want someone, anyone, to make it stop. Just my impression, however.

[AP]

10. Yeah, I just did some googling, and apparently in areas where they have

popular support, they behave. In areas where they don't, the get in shoot-outs with the police and they try to destabilize local power structures so they can fill the vacuum.

However, one site I found said that their popular support is probably growing in the territorities into which they're expaning and that the government is extremely unpopular.

[American in Asia]

11. Unclear - possibly though..

I did see today a news report that they blew up a hostel for a school in one district, destroyed all the school buses and motorcycles, and forced the closure of the school. Apparently the school had just re-opened based on the Maoists finally (under pressure) withdrawing their forced closure of schools. It's really hard to see why the Maoists would oppose education, force children to dig trenches around the schools, refuse to allow in some districts the provision of Vitamin A drops for kids, or various other things of this nature if they're so concerned about the people. They will not even allow humanitarian or development activities to take place unless the donor agencies (NGOs, or governments such as Switzerland or the UN) agree to "donate" 10% or so (accounts differ) to the Maoists off the top. Not very indicative to me of putting the people first - the Maoists claim it's just because winning the war is most important and they will shape up once they do.

As an example of tolerance - a year ago or so, they assassinated, in broad daylight on the streets of Kathmandu - the young father who was the head of the Maoist Victims Association - a group trying to get compensation for people who were hurt by the Maoists. A friend of mine's brother was killed, brutally and gruesomely hacked to pieces in front of his family and village, because he was a schoolteacher who opposed forced donations to the Maoists. I hear too much from her and other Nepali friends to be so sanguine about their intentions. So, I'm cynical - though for the sake of the Nepalese people, I hope it either never comes to that, or I'm wrong.

[MetaTrope]

12. The difference between Saddam Hussein and Gyanendra

is that Saddam didn't have to kill his brother to get into power.

[dryan]

13. Maybe I missed....

something, but I thought the Nepal Royal family was wiped out in a tragic murder-suicide a few years ago. Where did this guy come from?

[American in Asia]

14. He is the younger brother

Of the king that was killed in 2001 and assumed the throne when the previous King and his sons were all killed.

[dryan]

15. Thanks for the info!

[American in Asia]

16. no problem!

:hi:

[MetaTrope]

18. The "tragic murder-suicide" made great press

but you do know what shape the press is in, don't you?

There's a widespread belief among Nepalis that Gyanendra has close ties to the CIA (perhaps it's just a coincidence that the local CIA station was located in the mansion next to Gyanendra's home?), and his son Paras, now the crown prince (and one of three survivors in the room where 11 royals were assassinated with automatic weapons), is regarded with roughly the same love which Iraqis accorded Uday and Qusay Hussein.

[Matilda]

19. There's also a widespread belief that it was no mere coincidence

that Gyanendra wasn't present at the family gathering that night, or
that Paras survived.

That's the tragedy for Nepal - the power struggle is polarized
between Gyanendra and the Maoists, neither of whom have popular
support. To save his own skin, Gyanendra would have done better
to build up a strong government to support a constitutional monarchy,
but it seems he wants absolute power and is prepared to risk the
outcome.

[American in Asia]

20. There is among many

a belief that the story is not the way it has been claimed. There are SOME (very few - and this is a Maoist claim for the record) that believe the CIA was involved. No one credible I know really believes this. Among the conspiracy theories the most popular seems to be that the new King was behind it, not the CIA. There are many others who put the rumors down to the unfortunate poor way in which the palace handled the initial news, since the prince who reportedly did the shooting survived for many hours, and was, on the death of his father, the king, making blaming him very difficult. Plus they just stink at information sharing and all was in total chaos and confusion.

I'm not saying there couldn't have been more to it than the official and independent commission determined - just saying that the CIA rumor is really not credible nor what more than a very few Nepalese believe. Maoist propaganda, I'm afraid (well, they tried to blame India too, and the new King, and, and, and....consistency in heated rhetoric is not their strong suit)

[paulk]

24. just to back up what AiA is saying -

I've been to Nepal twice since the regicide, and although I've heard the "CIA involved" theory, I've never heard it from anyone I would consider credible.

There's just no motive for CIA involvement.

Most Nepalis I talked to there believe it was a straight palace coup, likely engineered by the new crown prince, Paras.

Who, as you say, is a thug and a murderer.

[dArKeR]

17. Nepalese protesters 10,000 strong

About ten thousand people marched through Nepal's capital yesterday, demanding the restoration of democracy in the biggest show of opposition strength since King Gyanendra seized absolute power three months ago.
In two rallies organized by unions to commemorate May Day, demonstrators carried placards calling for an end to the king's direct rule. Gyanendra on Saturday lifted a state of emergency that had given police unlimited powers, but retained direct rule. The demonstrators stayed away from restricted areas around the king's palace and government offices, and police did not interfere with the protests.

In the biggest show of strength since Gyanendra seized power in February, nearly 2,000 people participated in the first rally and another 8,000 in the second march through the streets of Katmandu, watched by people from homes and rooftops.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/05/02/2003252833

[American in Asia]

21. Interesting...

And significant that despite the ban on protests this was allowed to occur (others have been broken up before getting started). Now when the protests are made up of taxi drivers, shopkeepers, farmers, and laborers, and not just fairly well off politicians and student unions associated with political parties (often paid by the day, plus for the number of tires they burn or bricks they throw by the parties themselves - a common tactic in South Asia, I'm afraid), Nepal will have a "voice of the people" protest. Not just yet. See this report from BBC, which I thought was fairly balanced:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4502455.stm


Edit- lousy spelling

[dArKeR]

22. Thanks for the post but Rabindra Mishra doesn't explain

what the civil war is about. Are these people trying to stop Gyanendra from taking children and selling them to Gov. gangs for child prostitution? Is Gyanendra stealing their land? Is Exxon raping their lands and making the land unsuitable for living?

I have the feeling the Gyanendra family is nothing more than a Royalized Marcos/Musharraf family.

[American in Asia]

23. It's far too complicated to explain here

The links off this BBC site give a fairly accurate summary. The Maoist party split off from another party that was above ground and competing in elections. They didn't like the constitution agreed when democracy was established. They thought the whole system had to be trashed, land redistributed (small problem being there really isn't much arable land to redistribute), industries nationalized, etc. In short - to put in place a People's Republic based on Maoist principles. While they've spent several years railing against the King, the Americans, the Indians, and any other "imperialists" they can think of, their real beef has been with the political parties that had been in power since 1990 -- including the most recent PM who declared a state of emergency in 2001, mobilized the army (in addition to the armed police) after which the conflict really heated up.

Painting this as a civil war between royalists and the common people is just not accurate though many keep trying to do so.


Edited because I forgot the dang link - tired...

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