Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Ignoring Democracy in Nepal

By Reese Erlich, AlterNet. Posted April 20, 2006.


The people of Nepal have taken to the streets in an unprecedented call for democracy. So why has the U.S. turned a blind eye to the uprising?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Reese Erlich

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

For the past two weeks, the streets of Nepal have filled with militant demonstrators demanding democracy. A transportation stoppage halted most passenger traffic and deliveries into the capital of Kathmandu. Food and other basics are in short supply.

Travel agents and employees even held a rally in the tourist district of Kathmandu to protest the King's policies and the wrecking of the tourism industry. The government periodically shuts down all cell phone service in an effort to disrupt the planning of demonstrations.

The anger at King Gyanendra's dictatorship runs so deep, it is surprising even top opposition leaders. In numerous interviews, those leaders condemned the king's policies but few thought he could be toppled anytime soon.

Chakra Bastola, a top leader of the Nepali Congress Party who was interviewed before the general strike began, said the king will likely stay in power for a while. The king "could always be tempted to be harsher and stay put," he said.

But the general strike that has mobilized so many may just prove that Bastola and other leaders are being too pessimistic.

The general strike and transport stoppage was supported jointly by the seven major parliamentary parties and the Maoist guerrillas. The guerrillas even called a military ceasefire in the Kathmandu area so as not to give the government an excuse to shoot unarmed demonstrators by claiming they were "guerrilla infiltrators."

That didn't stop the police and army from firing on demonstrators, killing many, injuring hundreds and jailing over 3,000. For several days, the government clamped a total daytime curfew on Kathmandu. The streets were eerily empty, with military and police checkpoints posted throughout the city. Yet, at the appointed time, thousands of demonstrators came out of their homes. For the moment, all the opposition forces are united in calling for the king to give up power -- a radical shift considering that, for the past two centuries, the kings of Nepal have been considered gods. The call constitutes a major policy shift for mainstream political parties, but it is pressure from ordinary Nepalis that is fueling the movement.

"A lot of youth are for a republic," said Sujata Koirala, another top leader of the Nepali Congress, the largest parliamentary party. The interview took place inside a police station because she had just been arrested for leading a nonviolent demonstration. "If the king goes on like this, I think there will be no king in Nepal."

Nepal's kings haven't been acting very godly lately. In June 2001, according to official accounts, Crown Prince Dipendra murdered 11 members of the royal family, including the king. The crown prince then committed suicide. The murdered king's brother, Gyanendra, then took power.

Five months later King Gyanendra got rid of the parliament and appointed a cabinet. People had become disgusted with the corrupt and power-hungry parliamentary parties, so the king had some popular backing for his dissolution of parliament. But in February 2005, King Gyanendra arrested some of his handpicked ministers and seized absolute power in alliance with the military.

The government banned all news from FM radio stations, the most popular and progressive media in the country. Uniformed military officers sat in every print and broadcast newsroom to censor the news. While the officers left the newsroom after a few months, the official censorship decree remains on the books, and journalists engage in substantial self-censorship.

Ian Martin, head of the U.N. High Commission for Human Rights in Nepal, says human rights abuses are widespread. Political detainees and common criminals are regularly tortured. "I'm afraid torture is systematic, routine and widespread," he told me in an interview.

I scheduled an interview with one of Nepal's leading journalists, Kanak Dixit. When I arrived at the offices of his Himal South Asia magazine, his secretary told me he had been unavoidably detained. I was incensed but soon discovered that Dixit had a legitimate excuse. He had indeed been detained -- by the police, so I went to a downtown police station.

About 20 of Nepal's top journalists had been arrested for holding a nonviolent rally to protest the arrest of other journalists earlier that day. This is akin to having Katie Couric, Tom Brokaw and Seymour Hersh all detained in the same police courtyard.


Digg!

Reese Erlich is a freelance foreign correspondent who recently returned from Nepal.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Why the silence?
Posted by: Fang-Face Dreamweaver on Apr 20, 2006 2:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Personally, I think the Bush regime is ignoring the human rights violations in Nepal simply because the Bush regime has no respect for human rights or human beings. After all, there is no financial profit in human rights that are easily discernable. And the Bush regime is busy sucking up to China and saying nothing about its human rights violations in an effort to get an economic advantage.

My prejudices encourage me to believe that the government silence about Nepal is because, 1) there is no oil or uranium to invade it for; 2) Bush couldn't find his ass with both hands and a map, must less a small country in the middle of "no where"; 3) if asked about Nepal, Bush is most likely to answer: Isn't that that -- you know -- that ice cream with several colors in it?, or possibly: Laura and I have always loved Italy, I hope to go there someday and tour the canals in a bandolier.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I hear the Congress party in India refuses to tackle this issue
Posted by: maxpayne on Apr 20, 2006 5:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All this despite Nepal being next to India. After being given a description, I hate to say this but the so-called "Congress Party" is nothing like the Latin Left. Think of it as an Indian version of the "centrist" DLC !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It might be...
Posted by: Jesse on Apr 20, 2006 6:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The relative silence on the issues in Nepal from the Administration is likely for several reasons:

First, Nepal is pretty out of the way and there really isn't much there that anybody wants. It's biggest exports seem to be things like carpets, grain and jute--not a lot of money there. The metal deposits are so small that it hasn't been worth invading by India or China. So it doesn't rate as high strategic importance. (This in no way justifies things the Bush administration may or may not do).

Second, Nepal isn't that important to most Americans. While some go there, not all that many do (most of the trade is from Europe and Japan). So news from Nepal doesn't exactly make the front page. After all, who heard much about Nepal before the Maoists got violent?

Third, it is by no stretch clear what the locals will think of the US or China or India once the dust settles. Given where it is located it's ina strategic spot, but it happens to also be between two countries that have had touchy relations for the last thirty years. Messing about there is a dangerous and delicate business with relatively little strategic payoff and the potential for a lot of grief. While I don't credit the administration with a lot of historical perspective, I do think they know enough to try and see to their own political survival. Going after the Nepalese right now is something even Karl Rove would cast as a Bad Idea.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It might be... Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: It might be... Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: It might be... Posted by: aussidawg
Its all about oil
Posted by: feduphoosier on Apr 20, 2006 7:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No oil? Then Bush isn't interested.

Come on - what did we really expect when we elected two oil men to the White House? We should have expected exactly what we got - oil-centric politics.

Human rights? Democracy? Just words. They’re quite useful for getting Americans all riled up and waving flags when Bush and Cheney want to invade someone, but its not like anyone really means it. That’s just politics in Bushworld. It’s all a cover, as usual, for the ongoing oil-grab in the Middle East. I imagine, left unchecked, Bush will soon turn his eyes to Venezuela.

George’s first concern is that every country kiss up to U.S. interests, so he will support any U.S.-friendly regime, no matter how bloody. Remember - we used to support Saddam Hussein, and even gave him WMDs when he was torturing his own people.

If a nation without oil wants a democracy, they are on their own. And if the current King of Nepal is friendly to U.S interests? Bush will undoubtedly condemn any attempt at 'regime change.' The only good regime change is a U.S. controlled regime change - preferably where there is oil to be plundered.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just some observations.
Posted by: schister on Apr 20, 2006 9:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am not a supporter of our current administration, however, everything I have read concerning the situation in Nepal is focused on it not becoming another arm of communist China. Do any of you really know anything at all about the jailed journalist and other "autrocities" that appear to be flying in the face of democracy? Which would you rather have Maoist or Buddists occupying Nepal? If Nepal is so great why is the Dalai Lama still living in exile in the United States? It appears the King is acting unlawful, but it seems the biggest threat in that country has, and continues to be China.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just some observations. Posted by: alkrauss
Oh, Golly!
Posted by: chasaturn on Apr 20, 2006 10:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obviously, it's not yet widely understood that US imposed "democracy" can only exist atop huge oil reserves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Democracy?
Posted by: Steven Wanzell on Apr 20, 2006 5:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's the FURTHEST thing from the minds of those who "represent" America. This article is pertinent, but I think it presumes we're all naive. But then again, most Americans still are. That's precisely the problem, and why the nation still sleeps through this absolute traversty of democracy, called "America". To some, it might better be named "Ameriduhhh".

Steven Wanzell,
artist/activist/ex-American
www.wanzellarts.com.ar

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Re: "Just some observations", plus some info
Posted by: Ullern on Apr 20, 2006 7:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"...the Dalai Lama still living in exile in the United States..."?

That's a hoot. - The Dalai Lama lives in Dharamsala, India, near to Tibet. Tibet is currently occupied (since 1950), and called a province of China.

Nepal, on the other - western - side of the Himalayas, is the world's only officially Hindu country (although Siddhartha Gautama the Buddha was a prince born in Nepal). King Gyanendra is a brutal dictator. He probably orchestrated the bloody palace coup massacre of his 11 royal family members in 2001. He receives weapon-support from the USA. Nepal's nearly 30 million people are among the poorest and least "developed" in the world. But until modern global politics started seeping in for real some 10-15 years ago, people were still fairly happy in their humble ways.

The capital Kathmandu is famous for being a main stop on the "Hippie trail" in the 1970ies. Nepal is popular for trekking tourism.

At core a very spiritual country, Nepal's best hope now lies in establishing a functioning democracy in any which way (a form of administration the traditionally crony-corruptocratic country has scant tradition for) and steering clear of big power politics. The last is actually possible, as Nepal is too poor in resources and development to catch much interest from the big powers. The exception is the US, seeing Nepal as fencing in China. But even that is low key (apart from running the odd CIA-mission into Tibet from Nepal), due to the forbidding high altitude of the border. The Himalayas are the world's highest fence in themselves.

Ole Ullern

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]