MYANMAR ELECTION 2010

The 64 year old elegant lady Aung San Suu kyi has been under house arrest for about fourteen years now. By all appearances it seems that the military Junta has no intention of releasing her in the near future. They know well that if she is released now, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to put her behind the bars again. Given the nature of the military regime it would prolong her detention as much as possible under one pretext or another.

What surprises me is the silence of India and America described as the largest and greatest democracies of the world in the face of the inhuman treatment the military in Myanmar meets out to Suu kyi. Even the UN apart from the accessional lip service, has not been able to do something concrete about it. The various Human rights organizations are so preoccupied with defending the rights of terrorists that they have no time and energy to make the Myanmar military regime see that Suu Kyi deserves better treatment.

Last year as she was about to be released from her house arrest an American national Than Swe by name swam across a lake to meet Suu Kyi. The military court sentenced her to undergo three years imprisonment. However, it was commuted to 18 months imprisonment. The US national was allowed to go home. The whole world knew that the Junta was trying to stop her from contesting the national election.

Recently the Junta introduced new electoral legislations. It does not require any analysis to see that they were enacted to offset the efforts of the opposition to unseat it. As per the new rule a party to be eligible to participate in the election must get itself registered. In case of failure it will be dismantled. And the party should not allow a member who has served a prison term to continue as its member. In other words Suu Kyi cannot be a member of her party. According to the law the NLD has to expel Suu Kyi. A spokesman of NLD, Nyan Win told AFP “I have noticed that we have to expel Daw Suu (Suu Kyi)”. “I did not think it would be so bad”. He added.

The NLD has decided not to register. Nyan Win, Suu Kyi’s lawyer is reported to have said, “If we register it would mean the NLD is everything the Junta asks it to do. The NLD is working for free democracy”.

Aung Din of the ‘US Campaign for Burma’ said, “Now the ball is in the court of the UN , USA and the international community who have repeatedly calling for the regime to make an inclusive, free and fair election”.

Meanwhile Tomas Ojea Quintana, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights is Myanmar has said that the UN Security Council should think about setting up an inquiry committee “with a specific fact-finding mandate to address the question of international crimes”. He has charged the Military regime with gross human rights violation.

As part of its game plan the Junta has allowed the NLD to reopen its regional offices that have remained closed since 2003. Let us hope that the fact that the junta is trying to create an impression of being liberal will not be lost on the world leaders.

IS DEMOCRACY UNSUITABLE FOR NEPAL?

Former Prime Minister of Nepal Krishna Prasad Bhattarai is reported to have said that Nepal is not ripe for federalism and republicanism. He has also reportedly called for a revival of constitutional monarchy which he claims to be the best form of government for Nepal.

According to Bhattarai, one of the founding leaders of the Nepali Congress no form of government can be imposed on a society. He is reported to have said “Federalism, secularism and republican system are imported from outside and are not suitable for Nepal. They have been brought in a hurry and are against Nepal’s genuine identity and need”.

However, Bimalendra Nidhi, the general secretary of the party has disassociating from the comment said that it is not the official view of the party. Saying that “We don’t buy his ideas”, Nidhi said that Bhattarai was not active in politics.

The 1990 Constitution had guaranteed Constitutional Monarchy. The Maoists wanted a new constitution for Nepal. It was removed in 2008 to enable the Maoists to join the political mainstream and contest election. However, the government headed by the Maoist leader Prachanda could not rule Nepal for long as it was on a collision course with the president since its inception. Many of Prachanda’s action as the Prime Minister of Nepal had irked India. Especially his visit to China after assuming office annoyed the Indian policy makers. Traditionally the Nepali Prime Minister used to visit India after being sworn in. There were no takers for his argument that he visited China first to take part in the opening g ceremony of the Olympics.

The question can democracy or any other form of government be transplanted to a country is a much debated one. The Americans have been striving to democratize the world. Earlier the USSR since the time of Lenin and Stalin sought to make all countries in the world Communist. Lenin even believed that three fourths of the world would have been converted to Communism by the end of the 20th century. The break up of the USSR and the collapse of the Berlin Wall in Germany proved it to have been a delusion.

To my mind the argument that democracy does not suit Nepal or any other country for that matter does not make any sense at all. A closer examination revels that all the democratic countries have defects of various kinds. None is perfect. It cannot be. The American, the British and the Indian versions of democracies can be faulted on many counts. Democracy took roots in these countries slowly and gradually. The most important point to be kept in mind is that these countries had great leaders and statesmen with the conviction that democracy was the best option around. All of them knew well that democratic principles could be distorted easily. And it could even ruin a country if the institutions failed to function well.

As I see it, building institutions and ensuring that they function well are very important. Only leaders with vision and conviction can guarantee it. Unfortunately Nepal lacks leaders with vision and conviction. Though the Koiralas, in their fight against the British and the Ranas, were inspired by the Indian struggle for freedom and the leadership of Gandhiji and Nehru, they failed to build and mould democratic institutions in Nepal. The monarchy, the brief spells of democracy and the Maoist rule have made the Nepalese cynical.

Bhattarai says that democracy cannot be imposed on Nepal. True. The very word ‘impose’ itself is against the spirit of democracy. The seeds of democracy are to be sowed first. And the young plants, the democratic institutions, are to be guarded against the attacks of pests of various kinds.

I do not subscribe to his view that democracy does not suit Nepal or any other country for that matter. At present democracy seems to be the best form of government around for us despite its many defects.

TALK WITH THE TALIBAN?

 In Afghanistan and elsewhere all are in a hurry these days. What with the large scale destruction and displacement the people of Afghanistan are desperate and disappointed. Obama is now more anxious to find a way to get out of Afghanistan. Last week in a fit of anger Karzai, the Afghan president said that he would join the Taliban unless the American helped him. Slowly and gradually it has dawned on everyone concerned with Afghanistan that it is not easy if not impossible to defeat the Taliban. Another point that is not to the liking of many is the realization that there cannot be a long lasting settlement without the participation of the Taliban.

The goal of the present military operation in Afghanistan is to strengthen the bargaining power of the of the Karzai government vis a vis the Taliban at the negotiation table and produce what they describe as ‘reasonable outcomes’. All the same no one seems to have a clue about the ‘reasonable outcome” or what could be ‘reasonable’.

Britain also wants the Afghan administration to speed up the political process and reach a settlement as early as possible. The Germans that has had to face the ire of the Afghan people recently for attacks on the civilians want to get out of the quick sand early.

Meanwhile Karzai has planned to convene a meeting of the innumerable tribal leaders. Karzai is a member of the Peshthun ethnic group. Most of the Taliban fighters also belong to this group. No wonder the president addresses the militants as ‘our disenchanted brothers’. The president and the army find it increasingly difficult to carry on the fighting against their ‘brothers’. There are even reports that the government has established contacts with the militants. However, the opposition believes that it is impossible to accommodate the Taliban in the future scheme of things.

The Americans are a worried lot. They are in a double bind. If negotiations with the Taliban would help Karzai to widen his support base and persuade the Taliban to lay down arms they would not oppose it. At the same time they do not trust Karzai much. What if Karzai failed (or refused) to disarm the Taliban?

Many questions pop in the mind of those who observe the developments in Afghanistan. Are the groups of Taliban described as ‘sane’ and ‘good’ are really sane and good? Can they ensure the safety of the people and the region? What if the ‘insane’ and ‘bad’ Taliban overpowered the ‘sane’ and ‘good’?

KANU SANYAL

With the suicide of Kanu Sanyal an era has come to an end.

When Kanu Sanyal, Charu Mazumdar and others founded the Naxal Movement in the late sixties they had a lofty goal. A society sans class and hence a society sans exploitation. A society where honey and milk flowed like water. Marx had said that what he was trying to do was to bring the heaven from the sky down to the earth. He could not do it before he died. The Naxals thought that they were destined to do precisely that.

It was on 23 April 1969 Sanyal, Mazumdar and their close associates formed the CPI (ML) [Communist Party of India- Marxist-Leninist]. It was on1st May 1969 they announced the formation of the party. When the left in Bengal joined hands with the Congress accepting Parliamentary Democracy and rejecting an eternal struggle against it, Sanyal and a handful of loyal friends felt that it was a betrayal of the toiling masses. They thought that the part supposed to liberate the people from the clutches of the capitalist wolves was sacrificing their revolutionary struggle for crumbs of power.

On 2 March 1967 a tribal youth with he permission of the judiciary went to his field. In no time he was stopped by the thugs of the landlord. The tribal also joined hands a fight followed. A policeman was killed. The next day the police retaliated and fired killing many. However the police failed to control the agitated peasants. They forcibly occupied the lands of the landlords who had to flee for their life. It was led by Charu Mazumdar.

It was the armed uprising of the peasants on 25 May 1967 in a small village called Naxalbari in North Bengal that grew into the dreaded Naxal Movement. In the late sixties and late seventies the movement sent shivers the spines of rich and powerful gentry. Wayanad and Palghat in Kerala were also the hot hubs of the Naxal Movement.

Soon differences cropped up between Sanyal and Mazumdar. They were poles apart on the question of use of violence to achieve their goal. Mazumdar believed that there cannot be a revolution till the class enemies are eliminated with force. Mazumdar’s line of thinking did not impress Sanyal much. He felt that killing ordinary policemen accusing them of being the agents of the class enemy would not lead to revolution. Mazumdar was arrested in 1972 and died in police custody just three years after the formation of the movement. Later Sanyal gave up the idea of armed uprising and disassociated from the new generation of leaders.

Later Vinod Misra, Nagbhushan Patnaik and Subrat Dutta gave birth to a liberal CPI (ML) and proclaimed their faith in parliamentary democracy.

THE BLACK WIDOWS

The twin bomb attacks in the Moscow metro railway have once again demonstrated that no part of the world is immune to such attacks.

Although no one has claimed responsibility for the attack immediately, the Federal Security Chief, Alexander Bortnikov, was reported to have said that the circumstantial evidence points to the involvement of the Chechen militant groups. Fragments of two female bodies believed to be that of the suicide bombers have been recovered from the sites..

The Russian female suicide bombers known as the Black Widows come from the North Caucus regions. Many of the women in the Chechen region lost their husbands in the two wars against Russia. The Chechen extremists have posed a severe threat to Russia since 1994. Exploiting their anguish the rebels brainwash the women and train them to be suicide bombers.

Sometimes back the leader of the Chechen extremists Umarov had warned Russia that the blood bath would not be confined to the inlands of Chechnya. Big cities such as Russia and St.Petersburg would also have a taste of it he had added.

The Russian Special Forces had killed a prominent extremist leader in early March. It is believed that the twin attacks were carried out in retaliation.

Appearing on the Russian TV, the Russian President Medvedev said that, “We need to focus our attention on certain aspect of improving legislation aimed at preventing terrorist activities”. The president has been reported to have made several proposals to beef up security and ensure the safety of the transport systems.