It is very hard to get the ground reality from this far away and it is very easy to get distracted by the partial picture that we see from here. One good thing about being this far, though is that we don't get distracted by the tiny details of ground reality, and helps focus on the big picture.

Geographical terrain, ethnic heterogeneity, lingual variety, cultural prejudices make study of Nepal a very complex task. I have travelled from Kakarbhitta in East to Mahendranagar in West over the course of my life. I have covered very little of Northern stretch of Nepal. Krishna dai told once that there were parts in Darchula where people did not even know the existence of Nepali government and regarded themselves under the Indian government. Chandani and Dodhara, only Nepali vilages on the other side of Mahakali river, have constantly been facing Indian encroachment. There are other places where the Nepali national identity that we always talk about, doesn't exist.

I don't mind people being oblivious of the existence of national government. That's ok. When some plans are being hatched that makes use of the resources those people have traditionally been using, then they have to be involved. They have to be involved and their opinions have to be counted when we want to find out the statistics about what kind of polity Nepalese people want.

I recently heard a news on TV about proposal to have two version of American anthem, one in English and another in Spanish. It is still hot and is making huge on mainstream media. I thought what it would be like in Nepal. Every other culture has its own set of festivals, traditions, and language. How many versions of national anthem will we need?

In computer science, we have this concept called object-oriented programming paradigm. In this paradigm, a big problem is described in terms of smaller and manageable objects and interactions among those objects. If we use this concept, then we can regard a single person as an object. We can describe its interactions with other person within a boundary in one way. That boundary can be family, circle of friends, boundary defined by geography or culture, or others. Family, village, city, district, and other bigger political entities can then be described in terms of the interactions among the persons. There will be many such political entities. By means of code of conduct, law, or constitution, we can then define the means of interaction among those entities. This is called the protocol of communication.

Lets take two districts as the two political entities. Within that district there can be many different people, family, villages, or cities. Even then district is very distinct from these entities in terms of how it influences the big picture. Now, flow of merchandise in between those districts, flow of people, boundary demarcation, conflict resolution in case of conflicts, are then the means of interactions between those districts. Depending upon the political structure we want, we may allow free-flow of people but some tax on the flow of merchandise, we may set a rule that whenever there is conflict about the geographical boundary, national government has to settle the issue. This also applicable to two municipalities, or one municipality and one village, etc.

In case of a district, there can be many municipalities, many villages, and many people. People may actually have to follow the rule of the national government as well as that of the local district and also of municipality or village. What they can do can become very restricted. But in reality people follow the law promulgated by the national government and that of the autonomous state, in case the nation is federal. Then municipalitiy and village also have to interact with the district. These methods of interactions may be different to different districts. Methods of interactions among the villages and municipalities also varies.

Once protocols like this are set for every possible interactions and also a mechanism for addition of new interactions if such case arose without de-establishing the already existing political structure, then the nation has a rule of law. I want this to happen in Nepal. Everybody want that.

We identified the goal. How to achieve it? Where does the complexity lie?

Twenty-six million is a huge number. The policy has to be such that huge majority among that many people move toward more 'prosperous' and 'happy' state. I put 'prosperous' and 'happy' in quotes because their definition tend to be very subjective. I will not venture to define. Let the readers define it themselves.

Very unjust and inequitable society are the main problem in achieving our goal of a nation with rule of law. Culturally dominating class always had an upper-hand, even if they were economically inferior than the culturally dominated class. Nepal has always been a Hindu kingdom. Notice the word 'kingdom' here. The word 'kingdom' is defined as 'the land ruled by a king or a queen' in The American Heritage dictionary (this is the only dictionary I have with me right now). So, concept of kingdom itself epitomises the concept of centralized ownership and control. Everything flowed outward from the king. Everything belonged to the king.

Muluki Ain was promulgated in 1854 during the time of Jung Bahadur Rana. The ain had so many clauses that cut across various economical and cultural issues, many people felt threatened by it. Edifice of domination based on sex and caste would have been dismantled. That was even against the interest of ruling class at that time. It is always against the interests of the privileged set of people to try to change the status quo. From that perspective, Muluki Ain is still too radical for today's privileged few. There has been many amendments in the Ain. Latest one states that a daughter is also equal partner in the inheritence. The Ain is a vivid example that promulgation of a law and implementation of that law are two different things. Even one and half century later, we are fighting for the things that were in the Ain: equality.

Demagogues and Democrats
-------------------------

In the first paper in 'The Federalist Papers', Alexander Hamilton wrote:

"... a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants."

How many of the readers agree to this I don't know. But this made me think. Made me rethink about all the speeches and interviews Maoists' leaders are giving in recent days. In all of those speeches, only point they try to make is that they are fighting for the people. Whenever asked about their existing local governing bodies all over Nepal and whether they would be willing to dismantle them once they join the government, they never gave a clear cut answer.

We cannot handle two governments. Maoists' local governing bodies are still functioning even during the ceasefire. They are still abducting people without any explanations. This has to stop. Most of us agree, we need to restructure the political, economic, and adminstrative structure. That doesnot mean Maoists' can imose their will upon us over the strength of their gun. National restructuring is a big issue. It warrants an active national debate. Whatever they think is good, they have to provide justification for that. We should be allowed to rebuke them if we feel like they are wrong. Social issues are very complex for a small group of people to decide. Actually, that was the one of the main reasons hardcore communism failed everywhere in the world. They failed to account for the inherent inequality among humans. If they try to impose their will upon us, they are bound to fail this time again.

I have been thinking a lot about what can happen. Most of the time I am very positive and optimistic about the future. I believe 'Naya Nepal Sambhav Chha.' I believe that Maoists' leadership is sincere in the things they are saying. I don't see any reason to doubt them. But sometimes I get really scared. Violence is a culture. Once you are into it, it becomes a part of you. Both the armies we have are violent. Both of them have history of various Human Rights as well as Geneva Convention violations. Couple of weeks ago, RNA personnel abducted Sapna Gurung from her house, raped her and killed her by shooting at a point-blank range. Next day they killed five more people who went to protest Sapana's murder. On the other side, during the ceasefire, PA is involved in various abduction cases without any explanations.

Discussions about arms management are going on for some time among us. Mostly the thrust of the discussions is how to bring RNA under civil leadership. Occasionally, people bring out issues about Maoists' People's Army, its leadership, and its loyalty. RNA is trained to be loyal to royal family. PA is trained to be loyal to the party. My question is, how can we trust one over another? Not only before the Constituent Assembly Election, even after the election of Contituent Assembly. And even after the integration of both the armies, if that happened, how can we be sure that there won't be armed uprising to topple to democratically elected government.

If Maoists' leadership doesn't change its chant of 'People's War' to the chant of good governance and democracy, we have to be wary of them. We have to be wary of their intentions. It is very easy to get misled when we are in trouble and somebody talks really nice with us. Maoists' are doing exactly the same thing.

Saying all this, I appreciate the CPN-M for bringing out the issues that were hidden for centuries and making it the topic of public discussion. I appreciate them for giving these issues a loud voice so that even those unwilling to hear are made to hear. But I unequivocally oppose their totalitarian and intolerant agenda they have been pursuing so far.