SACW | June 13-14, 2008 / Media freedom in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, India / Afghanistan / New republic of Nepal / Freedom of expression and right to information

Sat Jun 14 00:40:44 CDT 2008

South Asia Citizens Wire | June 13-14 , 2008 | 
Dispatch No. 2524 - Year 10 running

[1] Press freedom in Sri Lanka continues to deteriorate (CPJ)
[2] Pakistan: Media Censorship
   (i)  IFJ Demands UAE Overturn Ban on Pakistan TV Programs
   (ii) Editorial: GEO shouldn't be exiled from Dubai!
  (iii) Dubai orders Geo TV out
[3] Afghanistan / India: So Many Miles To Go (Aunohita Mojumdar)
[4] New republic of Nepal (Marie Lecomte-Tilouine)
[5] Pakistan stands at a fork in history (Praful Bidwai)
[6] India: The media will not be silenced (Antara Dev Sen)
[7] India: Gujarat's sedition case against Times 
of India and Ashis Nandy: Press Release after 
Protest in Delhi
[8] India: Attacking The Right To Ask (Aruna Roy and Nikhil Dey)
[9] India: Sabarimala temple's fraudulent miracle exposed  (KA Shaji)
[10] Notice Board:
Upcoming Events:
(i) Gujarat State-Level Conference On  Freedom Of 
Expression (Ahmedabad, 22 June 2008)
(ii) Silent Tsunami?- Global Food Price Crisis 
and Sri Lanka (Colombo, 26 June 2008)
(iii) Publication announcement:
"A New Hope: India, the United Nations, and the 
Making of the Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights," by Manu Bhagavan

______

[1]

PRESS FREEDOM IN SRI LANKA CONTINUES TO DETERIORATE

June 13, 2008

President Mahinda Rajapaksa
President of Sri Lanka,
Minister of Defense, Public Security, Law and Order
Presidential Secretariat
Colombo 1
Sri Lanka

Via facsimile: +94 11 2430 590

Dear President Rajapaksa:

The Committee to Protect Journalists is alarmed 
by your government's policies toward journalists 
who write critically about the conflict between 
Sri Lanka's military forces and Tamil 
secessionists. We have seen an increase in 
harassment, intimidation, and detention of 
reporters, many of whom are columnists in senior 
positions with well-established careers. Police 
have failed to investigate threats to journalists 
who cover elections or expose alleged corruption 
or misdeeds. They have also never investigated 
the death of a television journalist.

Those who wish to harass, harm, or even kill 
journalists can operate with relative impunity in 
Sri Lanka. Your government, particularly the 
Ministry of Defense, has done nothing, even as 
violence escalates in many parts of the country.

Based on our research, we have concluded that 
your government is stifling news reporting that 
it finds inconvenient precisely because those 
reports attempt to accurately reflect the ebb and 
flow of such a war. Suppressing journalists will 
neither alter the course of the conflict nor 
generate more public support for it.

Of particular concern is the fact that the 
Defense Ministry has repeatedly used its Web site 
to denounce and even condemn journalists, often 
individually by name and at other times as a 
group, for their reporting on the conflict and 
the activities of the ministry and the armed 
forces. In recent weeks it has accused eight 
media outlets of traitorous behavior-an 
incredibly strong term to use during a time of 
such intense conflict, and one clearly meant to 
intimidate, given that no charges have been 
brought against any of the organizations. The 
eight named on the ministry's Web site were 
Sirasa TV, The Sunday Leader, The Morning Leader, 
Irudina (the Sinhala-language Sunday weekly of 
The Sunday Leader group), the Daily Mirror, The 
Sunday Times, and the Web sites  Lanka Dissent 
and Lanka e-news.

The ministry's May 31 posting was exceptionally 
chilling. It clearly implies that anyone 
reporting negative news about the military or the 
ministry's activities is guilty of treachery or 
worse:

"Whoever attempts to reduce the public support to 
the military by making false allegations and 
directing baseless criticism at armed forces 
personnel is supporting the terrorist 
organization that continuously murder citizens of 
Sri Lanka. The Ministry will continue to expose 
these traitors and their sinister motives and 
does not consider such exposure as a threat to 
media freedom. Those who commit such treachery 
should identify themselves with the LTTE rather 
than showing themselves as crusaders of Media 
Freedom."

Our concerns grew deeper after a front-page story 
ran in the June 3 issue of the Daily Mirror. The 
story quoted Defense spokesman Keheliya 
Rambukwella, who said the views expressed on the 
Web site were the ministry's own and did not 
reflect the view of the government. Certainly, 
your government ministries answer to you, and 
their official statements reflect your 
government's policies. Mr. Rambukwella's 
statement is even more disconcerting given that 
Defense Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa is your 
brother. And as minister of Defense, Public 
Security, Law and Order, you must also bear 
responsibility for such statements.

Beyond these overt attacks from the Defense 
Ministry, there are many recent incidents that 
have caused such great concern for us:

* After 90 days in detention, senior journalist 
J.S. Tissainayagam was detained for another three 
months without charges, on June 6. Mr. 
Tissainayagam writes political opinion, 
particularly on matters relating to the Tamil 
ethnic minority, for the mainstream Sunday Times 
and ran a Web site, Outreach, which your 
government has claimed is maintained "with the 
financial backing of the LTTE"-the Liberation 
Tigers of Tamil Eelam. He has been held since 
March 7 by the Terrorist Investigation Division 
under the Emergency Regulations of 2005. To date 
he has not been charged with a crime. Several Sri 
Lankan media reports say he is being held in 
solitary confinement.

* The killing of popular Sirasa Television 
reporter Paranirupasingam Devakumar has gone 
unexplained. Mr. Devakumar was gunned down in the 
Jaffna peninsula in the Northern Province on May 
15, 2008, in an area that is under military 
control. The unprosecuted and, as far as we can 
determine, apparently uninvestigated death of one 
of the few independent reporters still working in 
that area of conflict has left a bitter scar not 
only in the journalists' community but in Sri 
Lanka as a whole.

* The overnight abduction on May 22-23 and 
vicious beating of Keith Noyahr, a deputy editor 
at the English-language weekly The Nation, 
remains largely uninvestigated, according to 
several of our Sri Lankan colleagues. We have not 
been able to communicate with Mr. Noyahr since 
the incident, but suspect that he was so severely 
abused because of his writing on military 
matters. Our colleagues in Sri Lanka tell us they 
fear he was attacked because of a piece he wrote 
on irregularities in national awards in the army.

* We are also greatly concerned by the ongoing 
threats directed toward Iqbal Athas, the 
consultant editor/defense correspondent of The 
Sunday Times, who has stopped writing his weekly 
defense column as a result. He has told CPJ that 
a pro-government radio station has-on an almost 
daily basis-broadcast slanderous and vituperative 
statements against him, in addition to attacks on 
the Defense Ministry's Web site. Mr. Athas is the 
1994 winner of CPJ's International Press Freedom 
Award, and has been a longtime CPJ associate. For 
such a widely respected figure to cease his work 
in journalism because of threats is a travesty. 
The personal security detail provided to Mr. 
Athas by the government was withdrawn last 
August. He tells us he continues to be followed 
by people unknown to him, and is greatly 
concerned that on June 3, on both the state-run 
Rupavahini national television network and the 
state-owned Independent Television Network, 
Defense Secretary Rajapaksa singled out Mr. Athas 
by name for his reporting for The Sunday Times.

* Also of concern to CPJ are the attacks on 
Muslim journalists covering elections in the 
Eastern province, as far as we have been able to 
determine, have gone uninvestigated by local 
police. According to Sri Lankan media reports, 
the most recent attack came on June 5 against 
M.A.C. Jalees, who was assaulted by supporters of 
the ruling political party who took away his 
camera. Journalists T.L.M. Joufer Khan, M.S.M. 
Noordeen, and Moulavi S.M.M. Musthapha, were 
either threatened or assaulted in the same area.

President Rajapaksa, we recognize that your 
government is involved in an ongoing conflict 
with Tamil secessionists. But the security of the 
nation will not be enhanced by policies that 
curtail one of the most basic rights guaranteed 
in Article 14 of Sri Lanka's Constitution-the 
right to freedom of expression. We call on you to 
reverse the direction in which your government 
has turned, and restore to journalists throughout 
the country the right to freely report without 
fear or intimidation.

We eagerly await your reply.

Sincerely,

Joel Simon
Executive Director

______

[2]  Pakistan:

(i)

  IFJ Demands UAE Overturn Ban on Pakistan TV Programs
Friday, 13 June 2008

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) 
is extremely concerned that two popular talk 
programs transmitted to Pakistan from Dubai-based 
GEO TV have been taken off air at the request of 
the Government of United Arab Emirates (UAE).

The IFJ calls on the UAE Government to explain 
why, and on whose authority, it asked the 
independent Pakistan television broadcaster to 
cancel the programs.

The Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ), 
an affiliate of the IFJ, said the owner of GEO 
and the Jang group of newspapers, Mir Shakeelur 
Rehman, confirmed that UAE authorities had asked 
GEO to discontinue broadcasting Capital Talk, 
hosted by Islamabad-based Hamid Mir, and Meray 
Mutabek, hosted by Dubai-based Shahid Masood.

UAE authorities reportedly told GEO management 
that they did not want anything transmitted from 
Dubai to disturb UAE's relationship with friendly 
countries.

Pakistan's Information Minister, Sherry Rehman, 
reportedly said that Pakistan's new civilian 
government had not asked UAE to act against GEO.

It is the second time in six months that UAE has 
blocked GEO programming. On November 17, 2007, 
the broadcaster's Dubai office was shut down by a 
phone call from the UAE Government under pressure 
from Pakistan, which at that time was under 
emergency rule imposed by President Pervez 
Musharraf. Dubai-based Pakistan broadcaster 
ARY-One suffered the same fate.

Mir told the IFJ today that he had received 
messages in recent weeks that President Musharraf 
was displeased with his program.

Mir was informed this morning, as he prepared for 
his regular Thursday program, that the closure of 
both shows came into force at midnight on June 11.

Capital Talk had only returned to air in early 
March 2008 after being banned during the November 
state of emergency.

Today, the PFUJ was informed that the new bans 
would be debated when Pakistan's Parliament next 
meets on June 14.

The IFJ joins the PFUJ in calling for a prompt 
parliamentary resolution for Pakistan's 
Government to request that UAE authorities not 
intervene in the affairs of independent 
broadcasters and that the ban be overturned and 
the programs returned to air.

"The new Dubai bans against GEO TV continue a 
disturbing censorship pact that emerged in 
November 2007 when Pakistan pressured UAE to act 
against independent broadcasters," said IFJ 
Asia-Pacific.

"The IFJ calls on the UAE Government to step back 
from its interference in independent and critical 
programming, which are essential components of a 
free media and open society anywhere in the 
world."

For further information contact IFJ Asia-Pacific on +612 9333 0919
The IFJ represents over 600,000 journalists in 120 countries

o o o

Daily Times
June 14, 2008

Editorial: GEO SHOULDN'T BE EXILED FROM DUBAI!

Whoever - President Pervez Musharraf or the PPP 
government - is behind Dubai's latest order to 
GEO TV to cease its transmission of programmes 
and leave, it is clear that the ban is not going 
to make any difference. The "offending 
programmes" will resume even more energetically 
from London or elsewhere in Asia if the channel 
is banned in Dubai. GEO in Dubai was served such 
notices last year and then again this year, and 
each time the Dubai authorities sheepishly 
pleaded helplessness in the face of pressure from 
"a friendly country". This is understandable 
because Dubai is still to have its own code of 
freedom of expression and doesn't have to defend 
any values in this regard.

The reaction has come in the wake of the 
interviews that GEO TV has recently aired showing 
three ex-generals bad-mouthing President 
Musharraf after having served under him after 
retirement. The two highly paid anchors on whose 
programmes the three gentlemen appeared are not 
too obsessed with balancing the transmission 
through cross-questioning. Indeed, there has been 
only some very faint criticism of how the anchors 
tend to take their job as a campaign to save 
democracy and get rid of President Musharraf, but 
the fact is that professionalism requires a clear 
projection of the anchor as an impartial presence 
in the programme. But as yet there is no 
mechanism set up by the media themselves to keep 
an eye on the conduct of the programmes. That 
said, GEO TV should not be treated in this ham 
fisted way. Such moves proved to be 
counter-productive in the past and will not be 
useful this time too. *

o o o

Daily Times
June 13, 2008

Dubai orders Geo TV out

DUBAI: Geo Television has been ordered to quit 
Dubai within 48 hours, according to United Arab 
Emirates (UAE) sources. The UAE authorities have 
cancelled all the visas of Geo TV staffers and 
ordered them to leave within 48 hours. Geo 
Television President Imran Aslam told Reporters 
Without Borders that the Dubai authorities had 
informed him that the station would lose its 
licence if "Capital Talk," a show hosted by Hamid 
Mir, and "Meray Mutabek," hosted by Dr Shahid 
Masood, were not taken off the air. "The order is 
inexplicable," said Geo sources. Officials at 
Dubai Media City, where the Geo TV group is 
based, said these programmes threatened UAE's 
relations with a friendly country. Pakistan's 
Information Minister Sherry Rehman said her 
government was not involved in the decision. 
Reporters Without Borders and the International 
Federation of Journalists called on the 
governments of Pakistan and UAE to explain how 
Geo News was forced to drop two very popular talk 
shows under threat of losing its licence to 
operate in Dubai. staff report

______

[3]

Khaleej Times
14 June 2008

Messy but truly democratic

by Praful Bidwai (India Vision)

Pakistan stands at a fork in history. It could 
either decisively shift to wholesome 
democratisation, or lapse into military-dominated 
half-civilian government. Long-term social and 
political trends favour democratisation. But the 
actual outcome will depend upon how the main 
actors - President Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan 
People's Party (PPP) co-chair Asif Ali Zardari, 
and Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) chief Nawaz 
Sharif - play their cards.

Secondarily, the result will depend on how the 
United States prosecutes its war against Al 
Qaeda-Taleban along Pakistan's Western border. 
India too could help by accelerating the peace 
process with Pakistan.

One can be modestly, not exuberantly, optimistic 
that Pakistan's toxic tryst with the "Three A's" 
(Army, Allah and America) will come to a 
much-needed end, and that India-Pakistan 
reconciliation will become genuinely sustainable.

That's the conclusion from my Pakistan trip last 
week, during which I met political analysts, 
social scientists, former diplomats and social 
activists.

To start with, four months after national 
elections, Pakistan lacks a stable government; 
most of the PPP-PML(N)'s promises remain 
unfulfilled; and the PML(N) isn't about to return 
to the Cabinet which it quit in protest over the 
PPP's refusal to quickly reinstate judges 
dismissed by Musharraf.

The two parties continue their alliance, but are 
drifting apart. This wasn't unexpected given 
their disparate bases, leadership backgrounds and 
priorities. The central question is whether they 
can hold together until Musharraf makes his 
long-overdue exit and the army's role is weakened 
enough for a robustly constitutional-democratic 
government to emerge.

That prospect now seems uncertain - not because 
Musharraf retains the support of an army eager to 
defend him, but because Zardari lacks the courage 
to confront him and is under US pressure to let 
him continue. Washington is convinced, against 
sober counsel, that Musharraf remains its best 
ally against the Taleban Al-Qaeda-although his 
record is patchy.

Zardari is probably too tainted by corruption to 
want to risk reopening the National 
Reconciliation Ordinance, which indemnified him 
against prosecution. Many analysts believe the 
NRO will be reopened if Chief Justice Iftikhar 
Chaudhry is reinstated. Zardari has simply 
appropriated the PPP, but has no independent 
standing and is vulnerable to pressure.

To counter growing unpopularity, Zardari has now 
called on Musharraf to step down "for Pakistan's 
sake", or face Parliament. How firm he remains is 
open to question.

Sharif is adamant, perhaps obsessively so, that 
"Musharraf the usurper" must go at once. He has 
revived old controversies, e.g. Kargil, which pit 
him against Musharraf. His clear anti-Musharraf, 
pro-judiciary stand, coupled with the public's 
disenchantment with military rule-and not just 
with an individual, as was the case with Ayub 
Khan, Yahya Khan or Zia-ul-Haq-has brought Sharif 
a groundswell of backing from traditional PPP 
supporters, including the Left-liberal 
intelligentsia.

Sharif's stand corresponds to the prevalent mood, 
which is against hierarchy and authoritarianism, 
and favours openness and democratisation. The 
tenacious lawyers' movement both expresses this 
phenomenon and has infused energy into it.

This is in keeping with recent social trends: a 
media explosion with free, robust debate - more 
vigorous and political than in India -, spread of 
education, and the burgeoning of self-confident 
urban and rural middle-income strata, which have 
broken some shackles of the old feudal order and 
are looking for self-expression.

These strata instinctively distrust the army for 
its economic mismanagement and corruption, and 
demand accountability. Pakistan's electricity 
supply situation is even worse than India's, with 
load-shedding for four to eight hours a day. A 
major reason for this is that the military regime 
didn't add a single megawatt to generation in 8 
years. This highlights governance issues.

These social trends are related to a generational 
shift-from an India-obsessed 
military-bureaucratic and political elite, to one 
which was born and grew up after Independence. 
The old elite's consciousness was shaped by 
opposition between "Hindu India" and "Muslim 
Pakistan", "a clash of cultures" defined by 
religion, and bitter memories of Partition.

The new generation which has matured over the 
past decade isn't India-centric. It's influenced 
by its discovery of the common roots of South 
Asian culture since the Indus Valley 
civilisation, and is unburdened by the uniquely 
violent past linked to the mass killings of 1947.

It doesn't equate Pakistan's survival with 
hostility towards India through a Pakistani 
National Security State, to which democracy is 
alien and military rule natural.

All this spells a much stronger 
pro-democratisation momentum than earlier. But 
Pakistan's squabbling leaders can make myopic 
moves. Pakistan's parties too have very little 
experience of, or success in, fighting 
dictatorships or external pressures.

These pressures are huge. The US doesn't quite 
have a Pakistan policy, only a Musharraf 
policy-of keeping him in power because he's loyal 
and useful in fighting anti-US jehadis.

Musharraf willingly handed over 600 extremist 
"suspects" to the US in return for millions of 
dollars, and connived at their detention in 
Guantánamo Bay. He also sacrificed over 1,000 
Pakistani troops in the US "war on terror". It's 
another matter that he diverted most of the $10 
billion-plus "anti-terrorism" aid to buying 
long-range weaponry for the Eastern border, and 
cut dubious deals with pro-Taleban chiefs in the 
tribal areas.

Journalist Ahmed Rashid has just revealed that 
Musharraf allowed a secret CIA base to be 
established to enable anti-militant missile 
strikes. On Tuesday, at least 11 Pakistani troops 
were killed by US-led forces.

With this, relations between the US and Pakistani 
militaries have reached their lowest point since 
9/11. The Pakistani army is being forced to fight 
America's war and has witnessed desertions. Its 
Frontier Corps is refusing to fight. Recently, 
250 of its troops were captured by the Taleban, 
without a shot being fired. All this, hopefully, 
might change Washington's attitude towards 
Musharraf.

This is the right moment for India to make 
generous gestures towards Pakistan to support 
democratisation and demilitarisation. India can 
earn tremendous goodwill among Pakistanis if it 
unilaterally allows duty-free imports of 
Pakistani goods while liberalising visas.

India should offer to discuss gradual 
demilitarisation of the border to give practical 
shape to the "grand reconciliation" idea. That's 
the way to the future.

Praful Bidwai is a veteran Indian journalist and commentator.

______

[4]

The Times of India
12 June 2008

SO MANY MILES TO GO

by Aunohita Mojumdar

KABUL: A new blueprint for the development and 
reconstruction of Afghanistan is expected to be 
finalised at the international conference in 
Paris today, a meeting between the inter-national 
donor community and the Afghan government.

The Afghan government will unveil its Afghanistan 
National Developments Strategy (ANDS), the 
equivalent of a five-year plan, and seek to raise 
$50 billion in donor commitment, more than three 
times the amount that has been disbursed by 
donors in Afghanistan since 2001.

Paris will certainly raise more money. However, 
will it answer critical questions on aid delivery 
and effectiveness?
Nearly seven years into the reconstruction of the 
country and $15 billion later, there is 
increasing criticism of the approach of the 
international community over the priorities of 
the aid regime. Though donor aid is inevitably 
tied to the interests of donor nations, it must 
also reflect the priorities of the recipient 
country. In Afghanistan, however, the pursuance 
of donor politics has often come at the cost of 
the welfare of Afghan citizens, something that 
long-term aid workers and organisations are 
increasingly articulating.

Consider the facts. While the enrolment in 
schools (six million children), increase of 
medical services, return of refugees and 
rebuilding of roads have been put forward as 
major achievements, the quality of life for the 
majority of Afghans has not improved to an extent 
commensurate with hopes, promises and expenditure.

The most recent National Human Development Report 
showed that literacy (23.5 per cent) and life 
expectancy (43.1 years) of Afghans were lower 
than what had been estimated at the time that the 
reconstruction was begun.

The country's current ranking in the Human 
Development Index remains one of the lowest 
anywhere in the world with an estimated ranking 
of 174, only above four other African nations.

The Human Poverty Index places it lowest while 
the Gender Development Index places it only above 
Niger. Estimates show that the amount of money 
spent in Afghanistan per capita has been a 
fraction of what was spent in rebuilding Kosovo 
and Timor, as the international community tried 
to do Afghanistan on the cheap even though the 
decimation of human and physical infrastructure 
here was much more devastating.

However, the 'cut-price' reconstruction has not 
been just about money. International efforts have 
been found lacking in terms of time and attention.

With an eye on taxpayers back home, donors have 
tended to focus on short-term projects with quick 
delivery and visible impact.

At best these projects are economically 
unsustainable while at worst the quick execution 
is often shoddy, lasting only long enough to give 
project implementers and donors their mandatory 
photo-op.

A critical example is the agriculture sector. In 
the past six and a half years, the sector has 
received only an estimated $400-500 million in 
donor funding.

This, despite the fact that an estimated 70 per 
cent of the country's population is dependant on 
agriculture for a livelihood and that development 
of 'alternative livelihoods' has been identified 
as a key to weaning the country's farmers off 
poppy cultivation.
The result is that poppy production in 
Afghanistan has increased each year. On the other 
hand, basic food security has deteriorated and 
recent estimates reveal that the percentage of 
population below minimum dietary requirements has 
increased from 30 to 35.

The reason for the international donor 
community's unwillingness to spend on economic 
sustainability is not entirely a result of 
attention deficiency.

The post-conflict economy, which sees large 
amounts of aid money, low accountability and low 
local capacity for absorption provides rich 
pickings for profiteers.

An estimated 40 per cent of the donor money goes 
back to donor countries through tied aid that 
insists on sourcing goods and services from the 
donor country.

Around 70 per cent of the international aid is 
routed outside the government budget, hampering 
attempts to build the government's legitimacy and 
authority.

The Indian government, though not a traditional 
donor, is currently administering a $850 million 
aid package in Afghanistan making it the sixth 
largest bilateral donor.

India's record of disbursement has been 
relatively good at 54 per cent; higher than most 
others while its multi-year strategy makes 
long-term planning easier.

Initially investing heavily in infrastructure 
building - of roads, dams and an electric grid - 
and technical training assistance, Indian aid is 
now diversifying into smaller community-based 
projects.

However, despite the enormous goodwill for India 
and Indians, the Indian government has not been 
able to leverage this. Relying on historical ties 
and its equation with the Northern Alliance, 
India's mandarins have failed to recognise the 
quick-changing political realities and the 
dynamics of international interests in the region.

While every western embassy has steadily 
increased its representation in the past several 
years in terms of number of personnel as well as 
seniority, South Block is marching to a different 
tune.

Not only has there been no attempt to keep pace 
with the needs, but the substantive aid programme 
administered now by a joint secretary and the 
deputy chief of mission will, after his 
departure, be downgraded to the level of an 
undersecretary.

Hardly worthy of the regional player that India espouses to be.

(The writer is a freelance journalist.)

_______

[4]

Le Monde Diplomatique
June 2008

CAN THE MAOISTS RESPECT BOTH DEMOCRACY AND DIVERSITY?
NEW REPUBLIC OF NEPAL

Nepal became the world's newest republic on 28 
May. The former Maoist rebels, the main winners 
of April's elections, lead the coalition 
government which has abolished the monarchy.

by Marie Lecomte-Tilouine

Nepal's election of a constituent assembly on 10 
April, with the former Maoist rebels as the main 
winners, was a major historical event. Political 
parties had demanded an election unsuccessfully 
in 1951; last year elections were cancelled 
twice. So this was an essential step towards the 
democracy most Nepalis desire. The heavy turnout 
- 60% - spoke for itself. That the election took 
place at all is a positive sign, demonstrating 
the shared wish of all parties to emerge from a 
lengthy stalemate.

The assembly's 601 members, 220 of them Maoists 
of the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-M), 
have a heavy responsibility for the next two 
years of interim government. As well as their 
parliamentary obligations, they have to draft a 
new constitution. The provisional version, 
promulgated on 15 January 2007, embodies two 
problematic principles: the first, expected to be 
broached in the assembly's initial session (three 
weeks after definitive election results have been 
announced), is the fate of the monarchy; the 
second is the creation of a federal system that 
divides Nepal into self-governing states.

The 28 million Nepalis belong to 100 ethnic 
groups speaking 60 languages. Nepal embraces more 
than 50 former independent kingdoms annexed 
between 1769 and 1815 by the Shah lineage from 
the small Gurkha kingdom in central Nepal, whose 
descendant remained on the throne until recently. 
Nepal has few natural resources other than 
waterpower; whole regions lack such basic 
infrastructure as roads and electricity. National 
unity is fragile and it is partly embodied in the 
sovereign. Dividing the country could present 
insoluble problems: the viability of future 
federated states will not be easy to assure.

Reconciliation

But most politicians seem ready to accept 
reconciliation as a way to resolve the hiatus of 
many years. Nepal has undergone a troubled period 
since the introduction of a multi-party system in 
November 1990 after three decades of non-party 
government. Political violence flourished as 
governments came and went ever more rapidly.

In this context the small Maoist CPN-M began a 
"people's war" on 13 February 1996. Forming an 
army which grew in power by the day, it acquired 
more sophisticated arms on the strength of its 
successes against the police and the armed 
forces. The assassination of King Birendra, Queen 
Aishwarya and six other members of the royal 
family by Crown Prince Dipendra in June 2001 (1) 
and the mobilisation of the army that autumn 
drove Nepal into civil war.

Apart from urban centres and the fertile Terai 
plain in the south, the government lost control 
to the CPN-M, which established ruling councils 
at village and district level, beginning a 
cultural revolution and putting the economy on a 
war footing. Because it was no longer possible to 
organise elections, the mandate of 
parliamentarians elected in 1999 was extended. 
Nepal went through extreme instability, and King 
Gyanendra unilaterally assumed absolute power on 
1 February 2005.

At a time when everybody was working towards 
emancipation, the king suspended rights of 
association and expression. Local elections, 
staged without consulting the parties, were 
boycotted. This brought the major political 
groupings together around the need to revive 
democracy. The Nepal Congress (NC), the Communist 
Party of Nepal Unified Marxist Leninists (UML) - 
a centre-left social democrat party - along with 
the Maoists, formed the Alliance of Seven Parties 
(ASP) in December 2005. The PLA increased action 
during the winter of 2006. Then an unprecedented 
popular uprising, organised by the parties, 
including the Maoists, persuaded the king to hand 
over power, which he did in a television 
broadcast just before midnight on 24 April 2006.
End to civil war

On 18 May 2006 parliament formally stripped the 
king of his powers and proclaimed Nepal a 
democratic secular state. The peace accord signed 
that November ended 10 years of civil war 
estimated to have caused 13,000 deaths, with 
thousands wounded, displaced and missing. The 
United Nations monitored the PLA's soldiers and 
weaponry, a provisional constitution was drafted 
and elections for a constituent assembly 
organised.

But from the start the parties were unable to 
agree on a voting system or on how electoral 
boundaries would be drawn up. Elections set for 
June and then for November 2007 were aborted when 
campaigns were already under way. In the end a 
mixed voting system was adopted, with 240 
deputies elected on a first-past-the-post 
majority, 335 by proportional representation and 
26 nominated by the council of ministers.

This April some 90,000 Nepali observers, along 
with 1,000 from the international community, were 
deployed and the frontier with India was closed 
for three days to prevent violence from splinter 
groups based in Bihar. The authorities were 
prepared to call out the army but 135,000 police 
kept the peace at 9,821 voting stations where 
17.6 million people could cast their votes for 
9,648 candidates. The high level of participation 
was important and few incidents were reported 
except at a handful of stations where polling had 
been suspended.

Forecasting the outcome of the election was all 
but impossible: the Maoists stood for the first 
time and many parties had been formed 
specifically - the electoral commission 
registered 54. Early results were a shock, 
followed by a long silence from the media and the 
world. Against all expectations, the former rebel 
Maoists from the CPN-M took 120 out of 240 of 
first-past-the-post deputies and 100 of the 335 
decided by proportional representation. They were 
way ahead of the NC (110 seats altogether) and 
the UML (103 seats). The Madhesi Janadhikar Forum 
won 52 seats, while the remaining 116 seats went 
to smaller parties and nominated individuals.

The Maoist party will be the major force in the 
constituent assembly while the NC and the UML, 
major players in the previous coalition 
government, were defeated. The Maoist success is 
put down to a general desire for change; the 
other two parties had failed to better the 
economic situation when in power in the 1990s.

Common ground

Considerable common ground between the three 
major parties will help in the constituent 
assembly. All are committed to a multi-party 
state already enshrined in the provisional 
constitution, to a bicameral legislative system 
and to a federal government which respects 
specific ethnic and regional differences. Points 
of divergence include a presidential system 
(embraced only by the CPN-M) as well as the fate 
of 20,000 former combat troops from the PLA. The 
PML favours merging them with Nepal's standing 
army while the PNC-M believes that the two forces 
should co-exist as separate entities. The NC's 
views on the matter were not clear.

Although the ASP had already proclaimed Nepal a 
republic, a segment of the population remained 
attached to the concept of monarchy. The king, 
who had kept a low profile since renouncing power 
in April 2006, made known his belief that a 
decision to ratify the new constitution should be 
taken by the people. However, all the main 
parties were in agreement that the king should 
step down, and on 28 May the constituent assembly 
overwhelmingly voted to end royal rule and 
proclaim a republic.

The main challenge for the republic is in 
building a successful federation. The three major 
parties broadly agree on the principle, but the 
way future state boundaries are drawn will be 
controversial; many ethnic (see "Nepal's main 
ethnic groups"), religious and regional 
organisations will demand a say. Given the mosaic 
of Nepal, no one area or grouping can claim an 
outright majority. The numerous indigenous 
peoples, who represent 33% of the total 
population, separately claim restitution of what 
they consider to be ancestral land.

The most crucial debate involves the future of 
the rich Terai plain where more than half of 
Nepalis now live after 50 years of migration from 
the northern mountains and the Indian states of 
Bihar and Uttar Pradesh to the south. The 
Madhesis, the original plain dwellers who are 
also 33% of population, have long been seen as 
second-class citizens, "savages" to westerners 
and "cowards" to mountain people.
A single state

Recently, the Madhesis have wanted to organise 
themselves politically to protect their rights as 
well as their preference for violent methods. 
They demand a single state covering the whole 
Terai plain, hard to create without unbalancing 
the federation. The leading force behind this 
movement, the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum, will use 
its new elected strength to further its case. 
Political strife, transferred from the mountains 
to the plain, might well increase there.

Nepal's genuine desire for peace was shown by the 
conduct of the elections, but new threats emerged 
with the Maoists' strong showing. First the 
leader of the UML resigned, then party 
representatives declared they would not take up 
their seats in the assembly because of their poor 
showing; intermediaries intervened to deal with 
the problem. The NC revealed its belief that the 
results were heavily influenced by an 
intimidation campaign by the Maoists. Even so, 
momentum since the election has been 
reconciliatory and there is every indication that 
the other major parties will participate in a 
coalition led by the Maoists. In bilateral 
discussions, the NC and the UML agreed on an 
equal share of power.

The financial community is worried about 
developments. The PCN-M made abolition of 
"unfair" treaties with India a main theme of its 
campaign (2), but after the elections its leaders 
visited India while the Indian ambassador in 
Kathmandu, Rakesh Sood, said the countries have 
drawn closer.

Although the United States still has the Maoists 
on its list of proscribed terrorist 
organisations, US Ambassador Nancy Powell had 
constructive talks with the powerbrokers before 
being recalled to Washington in May.

The PCN-M's two leaders (Pushpa Dahal, known as 
Prachanda the Terrible, and Baburam Bhattarai) 
have done everything possible to reassure people 
by declaring that they are ready to work with 
other groupings to establish democracy. They 
stress their commitment to create an economic 
revolution along modern capitalist lines and to 
handle the king's departure with respect. At 
least until it demonstrates a radical change of 
ideology, fears remain that the majority party 
will practise "de-Maocracy" and that the rights 
of those groups it previously considered class 
enemies will be denied.

Translated by Robert Waterhouse

Marie Lecomte-Tilouine is an anthropologist at 
France's National Scientific Research Centre and 
coordinator of the national research agency 
programme, The People's War in Nepal

(1) Dipendra was mortally wounded. Prince 
Gyanendra, the king's brother, who was not at the 
royal palace in Kathmandu during the attack, was 
proclaimed the new king by the Royal Council.
(2) Notably the peace and friendship treaty of 
1950, along with the Mahakali treaty of 1966 
which forced Nepal to sell to India part of the 
energy produced by this river.

_______

[5] Pakistan:

Khaleej Times
14 June 2008

MESSY BUT TRULY DEMOCRATIC

by Praful Bidwai (India Vision)