Roadside bomb kills 3 Brit soldiers‚ 9 Afghans

LONDON:Three British soldiers have been killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan, Britain's Defence Ministry said on Wednesday, in the deadliest single attack on the British military there in more than a year.

Nine Afghans were also killed in Tuesday's explosion that hit the soldiers' vehicle while it was on a routine patrol in Nahr-e Saraj district in the southern province of Helmand.

Another six British soldiers were wounded in the blast, which occurred two days after the Islamist Taliban movement launched its spring offensive, saying it would target foreign military bases and diplomatic areas.

"We have paid a very high price for the work we're doing in Afghanistan," Prime Minister David Cameron said in a morning interview on ITV television.

"It is important work because it's vital that country doesn't again become a haven for terrorists, terrorists that can threaten us here in the UK."

The three British soldiers were the first to be killed by an attack while travelling in a Mastiff, an armored vehicle designed to withstand roadside bombs and sent to Afghanistan after a debate about whether previous equipment was adequate.

"Their deaths come as a great loss to all those serving in Task Force Helmand," said Major Richard Morgan, a spokesman for the task force. Their families have been informed.

A total of 444 British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan since Britain's military involvement there began in October 2001, including six this year.

British troops are handing over security operations to Afghan forces and are due to end combat operations in Afghanistan by the end of next year.

Yadav to register in EC despite opposing polls

KATHMANDU: Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum Nepal Chairman Upendra Yadav said that he will register his party in the Election Commission (EC) citing that it is routine in a democracy. 

However, the former deputy prime minister insisted that the new purported elections to the Constituent Assembly (CA) are not possible in the present atmosphere. 

Talking with the media at an interaction organised in the Reporters’ Club, leader Yadav charged the four major political parties of deceiving the people by overly touting the November elections which, according to him, are meaningless. 

Even if the polls do happen, they cannot promulgate the new constitution and only haul the nation into further crises, Yadav said. “Any polls to be held bypassing the political conflicts never can pave the way to the nation,” Yadav said. 

Stating that they were not anti-election forces, the Madhesi leader urged to hold the elections only after resolving the conflicts adding “We should not forget that we are holding the CA elections but the periodic one.” 

Yadav charged the UCPN-Maoist chair of not opting for federalism in the country claiming that Nepal would have already been in the Democratic Republic system if the Maoist boss had intentions for the same. 

However, addressing the same function, CPN-Maoist Secretary Dev Gurung made it clear that they would protest the party registration process that has just kicked off from yesterday. 

Gurung warned of the revolt if the elections would be imposed in the present circumstances typifying the elections held during the Panchayat system and former king Gyanendra’s regime. 

He echoed leader Yadav about the upshots of the purported elections and said that the polls further misguide the nation.

Some 33 fringe parties led by the CPN-Maoist have already declared protest schedule including barricading the election preparations throughout the nation. 

Federal expression

As a country, Nepal seems condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past. We need to take to the streets to restore democracy every couple of  decades or so because democrats emulate the demagogues they replace as soon as they get to power. Revolutionaries take the country through a ruinous conflict saying the suffering is a necessary part of attaining utopia, but when they get to rule they behave like oligarchs.

The  Moaist used feudal injustices in Nepali society to fuel their revolution. The argument that the 1990 People’s Movement was unable to take the country forward was a persuasive one at a time when there was widespread disillusionment with the democratic parties. The oppressed had to rise up to overthrow the oppressors, they said, and used the grievances of downtrodden ethnic groups, women, and neglected areas of the country like the far-west to recruit fighters.

Later, they successfully used an overtly ethnic platform to garner votes in the 2008   election. The party’s manifesto carried the promise of autonomy and self-governance for neglected ethnic groups and this translated into the proposal for single-identity federal provinces in the last elections. This was patterned after the Stalin-Mao model of provinces named after ethnicities, but which didn’t really have any power in an over-centralised communist command structure. Today, Janajati leaders have all been disappointed by Maoist Chairman  puspa kamal dahal trying to play both sides and going progressively lukewarm on federalism.

Dahal resorted to usual doublespeak during his trip to Beijing last week where he assuaged Chinese concerns about the possible fragmentation of an ethno-federated Nepal by explaining that he was actually for ‘federal centralism’. His hosts must have been puzzled by this oxymoron and reminded of Mao’s own notion of ‘democratic centralism’.

Geo-strategically, there is concern both in China and some sections in India, that an untested experiment with lism federa could seriously destabilise Nepal. The main reason we failed for four years to write a new constitution was because of the disagreement over the nature and extent of federalism. Even the compromise formula that the political parties had settled for in the afternoon of 28 May last year could have been disastrous because it would have left radicals on all sides dissatisfied. Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai probably did Nepal a favour by dissolving the CA and announcing new elections.

Nearly a year later, we are still planning to have that election. And we are poised to repeat history because the new CA will probably get stuck on the same old issue of federalism. Nothing has really happened in the last 11 months to bridge the gap between the positions of those for and against single-identity federalism. From the statements of politicians and ethnic pressure groups it is clear that the elections will essentially be a referendum on federalism.

Year after year since the last elections, surveys have shown that most Nepalis, including those from various ethnic groups, have misgivings about identity-based federalism. What they really want is development that is hastened by effective decentralisation and autonomy that redresses the historical lack of say of the marginalised in governance. The fear is probably that future provinces named after a single ethnic group may lead to internecine violence.

That needn’t be so. If we can ensure that the names of provinces are only symbolic and no ethnicity will have priority rights within that province, the election could be a way to finally finding a formula for federalism acceptable to all in the next constitution. But for that we need the political parties to abide by an electoral code of conduct not to fan communal flames during the campaign period.

It is because of the sins of our past rulers that we need to address the pent-up grievances of marginalised communities by recognising their identity while devolving political decision-making to the new provinces. It would have been best for development and the economy if the provinces had contiguous Mountain, Hill, and Tarai belts within them. But that may not be politically possible now.

However, we must remember that   federalism in whatever form will guarantee development. We can only hope that history will not repeat itself and keep Nepal poor even after we carve up the country into those eight or so provinces.

Clich?s in the corridor of power

By completely ignoring the 12-point understanding between the Maoists and seven-party alliance the regime probably thought it would just go away. They don't like to listen to what they don't want to hear.

It fell upon that loose canon, Satchit Shumsher to shoot down the prospect of mainstreaming the Maoists. "We didn't start the war so why should we declare a ceasefire," has been the official line. One thing you can say for the general, he doesn't flinch from using clich?s.

Curiously, though, newly appointed royal ministers such as Narayan Singh Pun and Kamal Thapa are making conciliatory noises. The rumour mills have started churning out reports of back channel overtures to the rebels via a team led by Vice- chairman Kirti Nidhi Bista. When the exercise of power is as centralised and murky as it is in Nepal today, there is suspicion, mutual acrimony and self-doubt between the players. Fear and insecurity haunts even the most determined.

Every move in politics has to be made by assuming all possible countermoves by every other player in the game of power. There is a danger that when the power-wielder becomes so obsessed with manipulating others, he will lose sight of why he is doing the manipulation in the first place. Theoretically, it's almost impossible to devise a faultless scheme that takes care of all the shifting permutations of alliances and counter-alliances with enemies of the friends of enemies.

Manipulative rulers know how to play upon the hopes and fears of their opponents by pouncing on them with an element of surprise. Successful players do the next best thing to performing to the script, they play by impulse, pretend to have a plan and let their opponents keep guessing.

So far, King Gyanendra has played his hand exceptionally well. But like in all games of chance, past success is no guarantee of future triumphs. Aware of the risk, the palace is perhaps planning yet another move to confuse its supporters, confound its critics, and keep all others guessing.

In knowledgeable circles (this is a self-defined category of Nepalis whose members pride themselves for being in the know) there is a rumour going around that the chief executive is contemplating appointment of a prime minister. And the buzz is that a negotiating committee, "probably" under Vice-chairman Bista has already been formed to talk to the insurgents.

The strategy seems to sideline the party-rebel agreement with a parallel deal for which the king will get kudos. The palace believes that if it has India's nod the plan will work. After that, parliamentary elections can be preponed, municipal polls postponed thereby placating the international community and exerting pressure on the political parties to reconsider their boycott.

The palace-military establishment has adroitly played its China Card to rattle paranoid sections of the Delhi Darbar and divide Indian policy on Nepal. (General Pyar's Pakistan visit was just to rub it in a little more.) The statement issued at the end of Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran's visit this week seems to confirm that the palace has succeeded in checkmating the Indians at their own game. The official Indian statement consciously avoids using the 'D' word. Democracy is nowhere mentioned amidst the usual homilies to peace and good-neighbourly relations. The statement grandly declares 'the restoration of peace and stability and economic recovery in Nepal is not only in the interest of Nepal but also in India's interest'.

What about democracy, Mr Saran?

To his everlasting credit, Lord Snow recognised the value and utility of convenient clich?s. In explaining why he had used his own familiar phrase as the title for his novel Corridors of Power, he is supposed to have said: "If a man hasn't the right to his own clich?s, who has?"

Rationalism and nationalism

Even as the Indian media mull over why Nepalis could be so annoyed at us-we Indians being such nice guys-it follows fail-safe methods in annoying them. Sure, what happened in Nepal last month was bad. The chain of events sharpened a number of contradictions in that society: a poor showing by an ineffective government, the hills-plains problem, anti-Indianism amongst some Nepalis. In the last decade the gains of Nepal's pro-democracy movement have ebbed. And the ultra-left and far right seem to be ganging up, and in fact helping create that hopelessness where many will welcome strongman rule once again over democracy. 

There's been little analysis of these deeper and real issues in the Indian media. But there has been no hesitation in finding Nepal as a whole guilty of lots of unpleasant things. What if the Indian media applied to its own society even a tenth-a sensible tenth-of the standards it has judged Nepal by? The results would be interesting. From what sort of platform do the media in India apply their moral loftiness? The planks are many. Let's look at just four: 

WHY ARE THEY BEING SO IRRATIONAL? India's injured innocence is a bit misplaced. The irrationality of the rioters in Kathmandu was very real. So was the damage and loss of life it led to. It still in no way surpasses the many wonderful things we do here in India-only we do them more often. After MF Hussain has paid a thousand times for his supposed sins against the gods, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad-Bajrang Dal still attacks his film in Ahmedabad, smashes theatres and intimidates audiences. It then proudly proclaims its "defence of Indian culture", and says it will persist no matter what apologies Hussain may tender for crimes he has never committed. I couldn't spot any editorials in the papers that focused mainly on the irrationality of the VHP's attack on the film. Those that mentioned it editorially at all took care to distance the whole thing from the Vajpayees, Advanis and Murali Manohar Joshis-all very rational people. The last is a professor of physics who believes there were flying chariots and nuclear weapons in the time of Lord Ram. 

The loss of five lives in Kathmandu was a major tragedy, and the circumstances quite unprecedented for Nepal. But Advani's rath yatra in this country left many more hundreds dead in its insane trail. Vicious outbursts by the Thackerays and Singhals too, have led to far more loss of life than anything that ever happened in Nepal. But that's only politics. What's with these Nepalis, anyway? No irrationality, please. We're Indians. 

NEPAL AS A DEN OF THE ISI 
The 'den' image has cropped up in countless reports since the hijacking of the Indian Airlines plane last year. Remember how the Indian media went to town then? The ISI may well be active in Nepal. But the Indian government tells its people the ISI hasn't been dormant in India either. They've even been active recently inside Delhi's Red Fort. And if we go by the Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh's (RSS) view of things, the ISI is entrenched in every city and town in this country. So if Nepal is their den, what does that make India? 

That the Delhi government is specially gifted in ISI-spotting is beyond dispute. One of its intelligence agencies puts out a note calling Dr JK Jain an ISI agent. If true, this confirms the ISI has successfully penetrated the National Executive of the ruling BJP. Jain is a former BJP MP, a Sangh media baron and among the most faithful of saffron souls the parivar has ever known. That the Sangh parivar itself has historically so often served the cause of India's adversaries is indisputable. However, it turns out the allegations spring from a petty property dispute the man has had with a BJP minister. That's frightening. If this is how rationally they deal with their best friends, one of their own pack, imagine what they would be willing to do to their political opponents. 

THE RISE OF ANTI-INDIANISM 
Nepal has long been known for its tolerance and friendliness. What's occurred is an alarming break with that tradition. It might help, though, to try and understand why it's been happening. It isn't so many years ago that India blocked all transit points but one on its border with Nepal. Delhi then decided to make us look worse by arguing that it had upheld its "international obligations" by keeping open that single transit point. This was not only a technical stand, but also a very stupid one. We were talking about a country we claimed to have "deep and friendly relations" with. If anything, it's surprising the anti-Indianism provoked by that act didn't burst into the open then as it did this time over a foolish, possibly planted story. 

The situation on the border changed when the Gujral government was in power. A trade treaty was signed, bilateral trade thrived and things improved. Sadly, all that is threatened as New Delhi refused to look at the piling up of anti-Indian grievances in Nepal. Our water disputes with Kathmandu have hardly been handled with great delicacy. And along the border are dams and other structures that could one day cause mega-deaths on both sides. We built most of them. The Nepalis have protested against these in the past. Indian media audiences know nothing about them. 

And take what young students could be learning from Uttar Pradesh's textbooks: that Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal, for instance, were and should be part of a Greater India. The anti-Indian rioters in Nepal's streets haven't latched on to that one yet, it's a matter of time before they do. After all, some of them seem to have drawn much inspiration from the politics of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. And in case there's any chance of their missing the point, there's KR Malkani to set that right. He laments India's failure to acquire Nepal when it had a chance to do so, thereby forfeiting prime real estate in the hills. Malkani says out loud what the top bosses of the parivar deeply believe but won't openly admit. Not just 
yet, anyway. 

Take the bans on New Year revelry, birthday cakes and honeymoons in Uttar Pradesh. These were indeed attacked as irrational hogwash. But again, what the BJP and ABVP did on the ground was never connected to the paragons of rationality in government. But with Nepal, a whole society can be stereotyped on the actions of a few. The RSS has really got its knickers in a twist over Nepal-remember all the stuff about The Last Hindu Kingdom? The only Hindu ruling monarch? The Sangh crowd was always against the pro-democracy movement in that country. At the same time, Nepal is, ah well, Hindu. How do you bad mouth it and support it at the same time? It's not easy. 

Many Nepalis were angered by Indian coverage of the IC814 hijack last year. Security at Indian airports has hardly been exemplary. And yet the kind of "we-penetrated-Kathmandu airport-security" stories could also have been done at a dozen terminals in India. Besides, the stereotyping of Nepal and the Nepalis that was a by-product of the accompanying hysteria did not make India too many friends in Nepal. 

NEPAL AS UNDERWORLD HAVEN 
This much repeated charge is not without truth. It might help, though, to point out that a large part of that underworld is, er. Indian. Within that, the mafias of Mumbai and UP have a big share. The Chotta Rajans, Dawoods and Babloo Srivastavs have all had bases and links. It's clear the unfortunate young actor, Hrithik Roshan, never said the ridiculous things attributed to him. There's more than one way, though, that the false idea that he did could have caught on. Bollywood and mafia links are not Nepal's problem. But it is the Indian media's. Many in it have no incentive to probe deeply the ties that bind Bollywood to bad money. Such an investigation could prove highly embarrassing. The Indian media are just covering police action. Not one independent investigation has come from them. Surely odd, for a media that prides itself on its knowledge and coverage of Bollywood. From the Indian media, let's have less instigation and more investigation.