Saturday, January 5, 2008

Democracy and Terrorism

COMMENT: Democracy and terrorism —Rafia Zakaria

Pakistan in 2008 is a nation maimed; its institutions destroyed, its leaders assassinated and its people dejected and ruled by fear. To restore the nation to a whole that can enable democratic governance the cruel and unthinking enemy that has unleashed its wrath must first be tamed

The year 2007 has come to a bloody and traumatic close in Pakistan. Its last days saw the incredible cost borne by those who chose to fight for democracy even amid dark fears and chilling threats. While Benazir Bhutto may have sacrificed her life in the valiant quest for democracy, the question Pakistanis must confront in 2008 is whether our country can truly bear the burden of a democratic system of governance?

In questioning this possibility, I am not asserting that democracy is not a valuable goal or that Pakistanis are in some way ill-suited or unworthy of a government that recognises and reflects the popular will. Far from it. Democracy is undoubtedly a venerable system of governance which could well flourish in Pakistan, if it is not routinely overturned by the military. My concern is based on the circumstantial challenges faced by Pakistan today. Consider.

In the year 2007, nearly a thousand Pakistanis died in suicide bombings. Several hundreds more were injured. Scores of shops were burned by religious extremists and young women and girls leaving their homes were increasingly subjected to acts of religious vigilantism.

In July of this year, two itinerant religious leaders held hundreds of students and a traumatised nation hostage to their particular breed of religious obscurantism while military forces laid siege to their mosque complex in the country’s capital. As I write this, military forces continue their operations in the Waziristan agency of the North West Frontier Province and the Taliban have given them two days to leave their territory. As any Pakistani knows, terror justified in the name of religion has imposed a deep and exacting cost on Pakistanis regardless of their ethnicity or economic status. .

In his book “How Democracies Lose Small Wars?” Gil Merom unravels the logic of democratic governance during wartime. Merom’s thesis is a simple one: strong democracies, where power is divided into sub-branches of government and governance is carried out through consensus and compromise, are often unable to make quick decisions required to win small wars. In other words, the basics of democratic governance such as debate over legislation, the requirement of several branches of government to supervise military spending as well as other safeguards built into the system to prevent unilateral decisions all become obstacles when it comes to quick and effective decision-making during wartime.

Merom’s intent is avowedly not to advocate recourse to military dictatorship in times of war, but rather to emphasise the weaknesses of a democratic system of governance when it is required to achieve limited objectives such as victory against terrorist groups.

Appraising the realities of Pakistan, and the grim conclusions of Merom’s thesis with regard to the capacities of democracy places a unique burden on Pakistanis fighting for democracy.

First, it forces us to consider whether democracy in its quest for consensus can truly be sustained in an environment devoid not simply of institutions that would nurture it, but also beset with an enemy which cannot be defeated roundly during the quest for democratic consensus.

Second, democratic politics with its attendant contestation, opposition and unavoidable chaos cannot be carried out in an environment where participating in any form of public political activity amounts to risking one’s life.

Finally, when the life of one of the most prominent political leaders in the country is unceremoniously extinguished in a blatant act of violence by an unabashed perpetrator, little hope exists for a meaningful expansion of political space that would truly result in representatives of the people being afforded the chance of governing the country.

Given this set of circumstances, and without falling prey to the normative prescriptions such as an independent judiciary, a venerated Constitution etc that we all agree “should” exist but are not in reality found in Pakistan, the time has come to reconsider the ubiquitous quest for democracy as the perfect solution to all our problems. Such an assessment, while it should not in turn justify dictatorship or provide a case for the imposition of martial law, would allow for the achievement of several other immediate goals.

First, it would allow a necessary and smooth transition of power from the current beleaguered executive to a national consensus government that while not democratically elected could achieve the crucial task of developing a strategy that could secure the environment of the country. This suggestion, also proffered in the latest report issued by the International Crisis Group on the current situation in Pakistan would prevent further deterioration of the political situation in Pakistan and allow resources and energies to be focused on dealing with the security threats emerging from military operations being carried out in NWFP and the tribal areas.

Second, it would permit the development of political space in Pakistan such that when elections are held following a stabilisation of the situation, the consequent contenders are not handpicked or “permitted” by executive order but rather truly representative of the population.

Finally, it would deflect national attention from its singular focus on elections and the pro-democracy movement to acknowledging and taking seriously the threat posed to the Pakistani federation by terrorism.

Pakistan in 2008 is a nation maimed; its institutions destroyed, its leaders assassinated and its people dejected and ruled by fear. To restore the nation to a whole that can enable democratic governance the cruel and unthinking enemy that has unleashed its wrath must first be tamed.

The quest for democracy thus must not be a blind and unthinking mantra that does not recognise the imperatives posed by the threat of terror or the necessity of defeating an enemy that has wreaked such havoc on our nation.

Rafia Zakaria is an attorney living in the United States where she teaches courses on Constitutional Law and Political Philosophy. She can be contacted at rafia.zakaria@gmail.com

Source

Rethink the concept of morality

COMMENTARY

Bowden: Rethink the concept of morality

Mark Bowden, SPECIAL TO THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER

Few subjects I have written about provoked such an outpouring of response as a recent column on the waterboarding of al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah.

In a nutshell, I argued that torture in all its forms should be banned, but that in some instances, as with the waterboarding of Zubaydah, it is defensible. The trial and punishment of those who break the law is always subject to the discretion of prosecutors, juries and judges. In rare cases in which a coercive method is employed to prevent a greater wrong, the interrogators involved should not be prosecuted.

Torture isn't always wrong

Many found this outrageous. Most of the responses were polite and thoughtful, and some actually agreed with me. The biggest confusion stemmed from my failure to state my argument clearly; many were outraged by my presumed willingness to "allow" torture. So I will try to approach the same point in a different way.

When researching the topic in 2003 in Tel Aviv, I met Jessica Montell. She led a human-rights organization called B'Tselem, which had successfully sued the Israeli Defense Forces to ban all forms of coercive interrogation.

Here is how Montell framed the point:

"If I as an interrogator feel that the person in front of me has information that can prevent a catastrophe from happening, I imagine I would do what I would have to do in order to prevent that catastrophe from happening. The state's obligation is then to put me on trial for breaking the law. Then I can come and say: 'These are the facts that I had at my disposal. This is what I believed at the time. This is what I thought it was necessary to do.' I can evoke the defense of necessity, and then the court decides whether or not it's reasonable that I broke the law. ... But it has to be that I broke the law. It can't be that there's some prior license for me to abuse people."

I suspect Montell would prefer to see the interrogators of Zubaydah prosecuted, at which point they could raise the defense of necessity. I argued that if official accounts of Zubaydah's history of mass murder, and of his handling during questioning, are true (and various investigations are under way), then his interrogators should not even be charged.

Another school of thought took me to task for placing such a risky burden on interrogators. One former military interrogator wrote that the ban I proposed "would put brave men and women who are charged with protecting us in the untenable situation of breaking the law for doing what's right and necessary."

But placing interrogators in such legal jeopardy is the only way to prevent large-scale abuses. In a perfect world, one where military interrogators were all scrupulously responsible and bright, you could prescribe certain rules governing the use of coercive methods and could feel confident that they would be employed only where appropriate, and only to the extent necessary. We don't live in that world. There are many people with responsibility who will seize upon any opportunity to abuse it. I believe something like this has happened with the Bush administration's effort to authorize "aggressive methods." It had the same effect such efforts always have had: It unleashed the sadists at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

Armies are not perfect engines. Certain rules, no matter how well-considered and intended, are impossible to enforce. In an army where hundreds, if not thousands, of men and women will be interrogating prisoners, there will be those who will abuse their power. Human nature being what it is, there is a natural tendency for abuses to occur when one man has complete authority over another, and when men are at war, dealing with prisoners they dislike or even hate, whose languages and customs are foreign, the abuses will be widespread and severe.

The only practical way to curb abuses in prisons is to for guards and interrogators to have strict, clear, rigorously enforced limits. That's why any interrogator who employs coercive methods ought to be mindful that his actions are crossing a serious line, and that he had better have compelling reasons for doing so.

One of the best arguments against mine did not fault either my reasoning or my blackened soul. It questioned the wisdom of allowing exceptions, even defensible ones, because of the impact on America's moral stature.

There is no question that something important is lost when we as a nation accede to tactics considered reprehensible. One correspondent asked: "What is the harm done to the citizens of the country whose agents have a policy that allows torture?," and argued that we ought to accept impending tragedy in the name of honoring a high-minded policy.

I raised the example of a German police chief who threatened a captured kidnapper with torture because he refused to reveal where he had buried alive his 12-year-old victim. The kidnapper promptly gave the location. The German police chief lost his job for making the threat.

It may well have been more noble on some level for him not to have made the threat, but I prefer a less rigid concept of morality. I would not have fired the police chief, or prosecuted him. I agree with his actions, even though torture is repulsive. The boy's life matters more than my rectitude or peace of mind.

Bowden is the author of 'Black Hawk Down' and 'Guests of the Ayatollah: The First Battle in America's War with Militant Islam.'

Source: statesman

Thursday, January 3, 2008

Federalism & National Integrity in Nepal

Federalism & National Integrity in Nepal
Prakash Bom
Federalism generally implies federation comprising a member of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central "federal" government. However, in the government level the self-governing status of the component states or regions is constitutionally established and no unilateral decision of the central government can alter it. Primarily, state or regional governments must consist of a unit of partially self-governing local governments in which people have constitutional right to govern their own constituencies. It is the partially self-governing local level of governments that play vital role for the stability, prosperity and national integrity of a federal democratic nation.

It is said that Mahatma Gandhi had deeply regretted with the constitutional provision of federal republic Indian because it has excluded the primary structures of federalism that could have set the system for local people to govern their constituencies with their constitutional rights. It was forced by the ruling elites who could not trust people capable of governing their local constituencies. Therefore, Indian federalism gives all power to the state government and to the chief minister to run the whole state affairs. If Nepal without scrutiny adopts Indian model of federalism then Nepali people will be deprived of their constitutional rights for governing their own constituencies.

On the contrary, there is no such a federalism, which has states or regions with full self-governing or full autonomy status. If there is then what is the purpose of institutionalizing federal democratic republic? In that case, such a state if it is rebelling for independent then should become independent nation. Constitutionally, just as central or "federal" government cannot alter the partially self-governing or self-autonomy status of states or regions with even unilateral decision so as the states or regions cannot alter partially self-governing or self-autonomy status of the local units of governments. Constitutional compliance of the central and state or regional governments establishes the right to partial self-governance or self-autonomy of the state and local governments. Therefore, as long as federal democratic republic exists in the nation this constitutional provision cannot be amended.

A parliamentary federal democratic republic nation's federal government consists of the Parliament with both Houses. Therefore, federal Parliament can only make amendments of the constitution. The state and local governments have legislative assembly, which under the provisions of the constitution legislate policies and regulations for their state and local governments. But state and local governments do not have their separate constitution. They must comply with the federal democratic republic constitution of the nation.

For example, under the constitution of the United States if any undocumented human alien has been living in the country the police cannot issue ticket for his or her arrest unless he or she has allegedly committed crime. But under the federal immigration law undocumented are considered illegal immigrants. However, it is up to the state or local governments to implement federal regulation. Therefore, there are many states and local government like New York City, which have given protection to undocumented immigrants. Some mayors of New Jersey local governments have welcomed undocumented immigrants if they comply with the rule and regulations of the local government and pay the taxes. These are the examples of implementing the provisions of the partial self-governance or self-autonomy of state and local governments under the federal constitution.

Under the other provision of the federal democratic republic constitution states and local governments must have electoral institutional establishments for the right to self-governance or self-autonomy. A centrally or stately nominated legislative, executive and judiciary bodies are not legitimate to have right to self-governance. Therefore, members of state legislative, executive and judiciary must be elected from respective constituencies of the state. This means assembly members of the state must be elected. The executive head (governor) must be elected to form the state cabinet. State judges, attorneys, and law enforcement officers also must be elected from among the professionals of the state.

Similarly, local governments are illegitimate without the electoral institutional establishment. The assembly members must be elected; the local government head (mayor) must be elected to form the cabinet; local (district) judges, attorneys and law enforcement officers must be elected. Electoral representation is one the mandate of the constitutional right to self-governance. All feudal political tradition of nominations must be terminated. Therefore, through the electoral competition electorates of all constituencies must have constitutional right to choose their representatives who are capable to oversee bodies (legislative, executive & judiciary) of their governments.

It is very important to understand the rational of the federalism regarding its self-governance provision for units of the governments. Particularly, those political parties and organizations, which are resurrecting federalism with the demand for full self-governance or self-autonomy, must comply with the basic principles of federalism. Similarly, SPA leaderships must respect the fundamentals of federal democratic republic. By just declaring it does not mean it has the structures of governance. Political leaderships and their cadres must have to work hard to create such a new structures that is off of our socio-political mindset. It is therefore unfamiliar and intellectually overwhelming. But if any political leader or professional elite out of his or her own unwillingness calls federalism a wrong governance system for Nepal then it is irresponsible statement. We must not disrespect our own consensus for the federal democratic republic declaration.

We must therefore consider our nations' diverse geographical and diverse ethnicity. Federalism is a national necessity not only for the sake of diverse ethnicities but also for all electorates of Nepal to have their right to self-governance in their constituencies. This means annihilation of the easy and merry-go feudal politics that indulge nominating and appointing tradition of ruling elites. Also, gradual abolition of 'First Past the Post' electoral system is must for the electoral system of the federal democratic republic of Nepal. This is essential to adopt "Proportional Representation" electoral system for the inclusiveness of diverse ethnicity representations for the self-governance participations in all state and local governments.

The federal democratic republic constitution of Nepal thus must establish the rights and duties of its partially self-governing units of the governments. One of the basic 'self-governance' rights of the local governments is to conduct elections to form their bodies of the governments. Local governments under federalism are fully responsible for their local administration, law enforcement, justice, developments, infrastructure maintenance, school management, local tax and revenue regulations and so on. Except for policymaking, funding and overall state infrastructure development the state has no control over the local governments' right to self-governance.

Any state proposal that attempts to disrupt the national integrity must require the political consensus of all local governments in that state under the federal democratic republic constitution of Nepal. Therefore, the self-sustainable self-governing local governments' fundamental constitution right is to protect the national integrity if the state leaderships tried to betray the nation. In a nation like ours', which has diverse geography and ethnicity, it is mandatory to make local governments in the grass-root level self-sustainable with their constitutional right to self-governance. That's the structure in the future Nepal can guarantee and secure the national integrity of the nation.
Source:globalpolitician.com

The Extremists Are Undermining Democracy

By Kamla Sarup
Terrorism is not over. Extremism is not over. The extremists, and terrorists are forging a front to eliminate democracy. One cannot ignore reality. Worry is not a solution. Things cannot go back to what it was. Need innovative thinking to match the new and emerging reality.

"Should be" is not the solution. Focusing on "what can or could be" would be more realistic. The real controversial issue is the retention or ending of violence and extremism. The question of the role of the people is valid only if a decision to retain the violence-free, extremist-free or leftist-free society is made. A sustainable system has to be that which evolves from practice not prescribed in terms of ideology. Here again, the term "should be" should be replaced by "can be".

A culture of impunity exists. we need to give equal attention to such violations and not based on which side or which persons have committed such crimes. All violations and violators need to be brought to justice.

So naturally, the role of the extremists, terrorists, are always decisive. Renouncement of arms is not a terrorist's, or leftist's agenda. They will participate overtly in the capacity of being able to implement their will fully. Like for example they are already participating unofficially in various countries. The difficulty lies in the fact that the total number of arms are not known. Extremists do not have armory. Their weapons are kept in the houses / huts of their supporters, in the caves in the mountains spread out throughout the country and in dug-outs.

The freedom to be rich and the assurance of the safety of one's wealth and property must be guaranteed, to motivate and encourage people towards economic activities, as a precondition.

Fragmented land sizes, ( see data on land size, it has been the major problem) which are not economically viable, need consolidation, by policy to allow the freedom to accumulate and own wealth and land, without policies to restrict the scope of such activities.

Population pressure on Land has to be reduced, by family planning and by encouraging job creation in industrial and service sectors, by tax reductions, removal of restrictive licensing polity of the government, and limitations or control on domestic and foreign trade of the government (local as well as central).

There is a need for checks and balances to be ensured in the system. With specific rights and duties explicitly stated, based on previous experience. It must be based on the needs of the country based on the will of the people.

If the system is bad nobody will be able to take action to provide law and order in the terrorist controlled areas or any where extremists, leftists or Maoists may be involved. If the government is bad a different group will emerge. But the point is things are happening, and there is no force to streamline or guide the unpredictable changes. Looks like things are just falling apart in some African countries and in Nepal. Law and order is getting worse. And, with one type of violence or another, by one group or another, in one place or another, for one cause or another, the nation is being strangled economically. Worse days are coming to the people.

Journalist and Story Writer Kamala Sarup associates and writes for www.mediaforfreedom.com/. She is a regular contributor to United Press International - Asia News. She is specializes in in-depth reporting and writing on peace, anti-war, women, terrorism, democracy, and development. Some of her publications are: Women's Empowerment in South Asia, Nepal (booklets); Prevention of Trafficking in Women Through Media, (book); Efforts to Prevent Trafficking in for Media Activism (media research). She has also written two collections of stories.
Source:theconservativevoice.com

Wednesday, January 2, 2008

राज्य पुनःसंरचनाबारे कांग्रेस घोषणापत्र

राज्य पुनःसंरचनाबारे कांग्रेस घोषणापत्र

नरहरि आचार्य

संविधानसभा निर्वाचनको महत्त्वपर्ूण्ा विषय हो- पार्टर्ीीको घोषणापत्र । मंसिर निर्वाचनका लागि धेरै पार्टर्ीी आफूलाई पर्ूण्ा तयारीसाथ राखेको भने पनि नेपाली कांग्रेसबाहेक कसैले आफ्नो घोषणापत्र र्सार्वजनिक गरेन । सबैभन्दा चुनावका पक्षमा देखिएको एमालेले समेत आफ्नो घोषणापत्र मस्यौदा र्सार्वजनिक गरेको थिएन । धेरै पार्टर्ीी संविधानसभा निर्वाचन सामान्य संसदीय निर्वाचनजस्तो होइन भनेर बारम्बार भने तर पार्टर्ीीेतृत्वको मानसिकता र व्यावहारिक तयारीले संविधानसभालाई अलग ढंगले बुझिरहेको वा ग्रहण गरेको देखिएन । यी दर्ुइ किसिमका निर्वाचनमा देखिने भिन्नताका क्षेत्र मूलरूपमा दर्ुइवटै हुने गर्छ । पहिलो हो, घोषणापत्र र दोस्रो, प्रतिनिधित्व प्रणाली एवं उम्मेदवारी चयनको आधार र प्रक्रिया हो ।

यसपटक कांग्रेसले संसदीय निर्वाचनमा जस्तो केन्द्रीय समितिले घोषणापत्र जारी गरेन । नीतिगत निर्ण्र्ाागर्न महाधिवेशनको अधिकारप्राप्त निकाय महासमितिको बैठक -०६४ असोज ६-९) ले संविधानसभाका लागि कांग्रेसको घोषणापत्रबारे अन्तिम निर्ण्र्ाालिएको हो । यस पटकको कांग्रेस घोषणापत्रमा नेपाल राज्यको आधारभूत चरित्र बदल्ने दर्ुइ मुख्य विषय छन् ः

१. नेपाल राज्यको निर्माण भएदेखि राजाकेन्द्री संरचना अर्थात् अधिराज्ययीय संरचनामा कायम रह“दै आएको मुलुकलाई लोकतान्त्रिक गणराज्यका रूपमा अर्थात् लोकतान्त्रिक मूल्यसहितको गणतन्त्रात्मक राज्यसंरचनामा बदल्ने प्रतिबद्धता ।

२. केन्द्रीकृत र एकात्मक ढा“चामा रहेको शासन प्रणाली र राज्यसंयन्त्रलाई संघीयतामा बदल्ने अठोट ।

त्यसैले राज्य पुनःसंरचनाको मूल कार्यसूची गणतन्त्र र संघीयतै हो । सैद्धान्तिक एवं वैधानिक दृष्टिले यसको अन्तिम टुङ्गो वा पर्ूण्ाता संविधानसभाले गर्नेमा विवाद गर्न मिल्दैन । यसनिम्ति पनि पार्टर्ीी आ-आफ्नातर्फाट यस विषयमा राजनीतिक निर्ण्र्ाागर्नैपर्ने हुन्छ । पार्टर्ीी आ-आफ्ना घोषणापत्र मार्फ कस्तो गणतन्त्र र कस्तो संघीयता भन्ने प्रश्न व्याख्या गर्नुपर्ने हुन्छ । राष्ट्रिय बहसको मूल मुद्दा यही हो ।

गणतन्त्र र संघीयताबारे मुलुकका प्रायः सबै पार्टर्ीीहमत भए पनि कस्तो संघीयता र कस्तो गणतन्त्र भन्ने बहस र मतान्तर पार्टर्ीीच कायम छ । गणतन्त्रकै हकमा पनि लोकतान्त्रिक मूल्यसहितको गणतन्त्र भन्नेबारे सामूहिक औपचारिक दस्तावेजमा कुनै असहमति देखिएको छैन । तैपनि माओवादी लगायत कतिपय कम्युनिष्ट पार्टर्ीी आ-आफ्ना पार्टर्ीीस्तावेजमा सैद्धान्तिक आग्रह र विशेष प्रकारका ढा“चा बोकेकै छन् । तर्सथ राष्ट्रिय बहस कस्तो गणतन्त्र र कस्तो संघीयतामै मूलरूपमा केन्द्रित हुने निश्चित छ ।

यस पृष्ठभूमिमा कांग्रेसको गणतन्त्र कस्तो हुनेछ र संघीयताको कुन ढा“चा अघि सारेको छ भन्ने प्रश्न स्वाभाविक देखिन्छ । यिनै प्रश्नको संक्षिप्त र केही अपर्ूण्ा भए पनि आधारभूत उत्तर दिने प्रयत्न कांग्रेस घोषणापत्र -०६४) ले गरेको छ ।

कस्तो गणतन्त्र -

गणतन्त्रका मूलतः दर्ुइ रूप प्रचलित छन्, लोकतान्त्रिक र अधिनायकवादी । अधिनायकवादी गणतन्त्रका तीन विशेष भेद छन् । त्यसमध्ये एकदलीय गणतन्त्र विशेषगरी बीसौं शताब्दीका कम्युनिष्ट आन्दोलनले प्रयोगमा ल्यायो । यस बाहेक सैनिक गणतन्त्र र धार्मिक गणतन्त्र पनि छन् । गणतन्त्रको मौलिक स्थापना नागरिकको व्यक्तिगत र सामूहिक अधिकारको सुरक्षा हो । कुनै पनि व्यक्ति स्वतन्त्र रहेर वा सामूहिक ढंगले संगठित भएर पनि आ-आफ्ना विचार र कार्यक्रम बढाउन पाउने स्वतन्त्रताको प्रत्याभूति गणतन्त्रको आधारभूत चरित्र हो । माथि उल्लिखित अधिनायकवादी गणतन्त्रका सबै स्वरूपले यस पक्षलाई भत्काउने र बटार्ने काममात्रै गरेका छन् ।

गणतन्त्रको मौलिक स्थापना लोकतान्त्रिक मूल्यसहितको गणतन्त्रै हो । गणतन्त्रको यो ढा“चामा भने संस्थागत बाह्य संरचना र शासन प्रणालीका भिन्नता भए पनि मूल्यपद्धतिमा समानता पाइन्छ । कांग्रेस घोषणापत्रले आफूलाई यही पक्षमा उभ्याउ“दै गणतन्त्रको आधारभूत चरित्रलाई यसरी प्रस्तुत गरेको छ ।

१. जनतामा निहित र्सार्वभौमसत्ता

२. संविधानको सर्वोच्चता एवं स्वतन्त्र, सक्षम र उत्तरदायी न्यायप्रणाली

३. मानवअधिकार, मौलिक हक एवं नागरिक तथा राजनीतिक स्वतन्त्रता

४. सम्पत्तिको हक

५. धर्मनिरपेक्षता र धार्मिक स्वतन्त्रता

६. बालिग मताधिकार, आवधिक निर्वाचन, बहुदलीय प्रतिस्पर्धा र प्रेस स्वतन्त्रतासहितको बहुदलीय पद्धति ।

७. संवैधानिक सन्तुलनसहित स्वतन्त्र संवैधानिक अङ्गहरू

कस्तो संघीयता -

संघीयतालाई लिएर केही भ्रम र केही त्रास हाम्रामाझ छन् । संघीयताले देशलाई विखण्डन गर्ला भन्ने त्रासले सायद हामी आत्तिएका छौं । यथार्थमा संघीयताको आवश्यकता वा प्रयोग दर्ुइ किसिमको परिस्थितिमा हुने गरेको छ । पहिलो, साना तर स्वतन्त्र राज्य मिलेर थप शक्तिशाली बन्ने चाहनाले संघीयताको प्रयोग हुने गरेको छ । दर्ुइ सय वर्षघि बनेको संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका र अहिले बन्ने प्रयत्नमा रहेको युरोपेली संघ यस्तै प्रयोग हो । त्यसैगरी दोस्रो हो, पहिचानको सुरक्षा एवं राज्यमा न्यायपर्ूण्ा सहभागिता र प्रतिनिधित्वको व्यवस्थाका लागि राज्य पुनःसंरचनाद्वारा गरिने संघीयताको व्यवस्था । यसले खण्डित हुनसक्ने परिस्थितिबाट मुलुकलाई जोगाएर पारस्परिक विश्वास र सुविधासाथ एकैठाउ“मा बस्ने व्यवस्था गर्छ । भारत, स्वीट्जरल्यान्ड, अष्ट्रेलिया आदिको संरचनाशैली संघीयताको दोस्रो रूप हो । नेपालमा पनि केन्द्रीकृत ढा“चामा चलिरहेको देशलाई आफ्ना राजनीतिक र अन्य पनि आवश्यकताका कारण हामी संघीय मान्यतामा आधारित प्रादेशिक संरचनामा बदल्दैछौं । यो दोस्रो रूपको संघीयता हो । कांग्रेस घोषणापत्रले स्वायत्त प्रदेश भएको संघीय राज्य बनाउने प्रतिबद्धता प्रकट गरेको छ । विविधतामा राष्ट्रिय एकता देख्ने मान्यता सार्दै मुलुकको स्वतन्त्र एवं अखण्ड व्यक्तित्वलाई कायम राख्न निम्नलिखित आधारमा प्रादेशिक संरचना गरिने मान्यता सारेको छ ः

१. भौगोलिक अवस्थिति र अनुकूलता

२. जनसंख्याको प्रकृति -ऐतिहासिक बसोबास) र घनत्व

३. प्राकृतिक स्रोत र आर्थिक सम्भावना

४. भाषिक, जातीय एवं सांस्कृतिक सघनता

५. प्रदेशहरूको अन्तरसम्बन्ध

६. राजनीतिक/प्रशासनिक सम्भाव्यता

बसोबासको चरित्र र समुदायगत तथा भाषिक विविधताले कुनै एउटै आधारमा मात्र प्रदेशको निर्माण वैज्ञानिक र व्यावहारिक दुवै दृष्टिले सम्भव छैन भन्ने कांग्रेसको अवधारणा हो । यस बाहेक संघीयताको स्वरूपका अवधारणा यसप्रकार छन् ः

१. स्थानीय, प्रादेशिक र तिनीहरूको संघ अर्थात् केन्द्रसमेत मूलतः तीन तहमा राज्यको काम, कर्तव्य र अधिकारको संवैधानिक व्यवस्था गरिने ।

२. केन्द्रले सम्बन्धित प्रदेशस“ग परामर्श गरी अल्पसंख्यक जातीय/ भाषिक समुदायका लागि स्वायत्त क्षेत्रको व्यवस्था गर्न सक्ने । प्रदेश अर्न्तर्गत स्वशासनका अधिकारसहितका गाउ“ र नगरका स्थानीय स्वायत्त सरकार हुने ।

३. केन्द्र -संघ), प्रदेश र स्थानीय सरकारको अधिकार कामर्-कर्तव्य संविधानमै अलग-अलग सूचीबद्ध गर्ने ।

४. परराष्ट्र सम्बन्ध, मुद्रानीति, राष्ट्रिय सुरक्षा -सेना) र प्रदेशबीच समन्वय गर्नुपर्ने विषय संघीय अर्थात् केन्द्रीय सरकारको जिम्मा रहने । प्रादेशिक प्रहरी लगायत बा“की अन्य सबै विषय राजनीतिक, आर्थिक, सामाजिक, सांस्कृतिक अधिकारसाथै कृषि, वन, शिक्षा, स्वास्थ्य, रोजगारी, वातावरण आदि प्रदेश र स्थानीय सरकारका तहमा रहने ।

५. सबै मातृभाषालाई राष्ट्रभाषा मानिने । नेपाली भाषा संघीय सरकारको कामकाज र राष्ट्रिय सर्म्पर्क भाषा हुने । कुन प्रदेशले कुन-कुन राष्ट्रिय भाषालाई प्रादेशिक कामकाजको भाषाका रूपमा प्रयोग गर्ने भन्नेबारे ती-ती प्रदेशका व्यवस्थापिका -संसद) ले निर्ण्र्ाागर्ने ।

६. कर र राजस्वका सबै स्रोत स्पष्ट रूपमा संघीय, प्रादेशिक र स्थानीय सरकारको जिम्मा रहनेगरी वर्गीकरण र बा“डफा“ड गरिने ।

७. प्रादेशिक सरकारलाई ऋण परिचालन गर्ने अधिकार हुने ।

८. केन्द्रमा दर्ुइ सदन र प्रदेशमा एक सदनात्मक संसद -व्यवस्थापिका) रहने । संघीय माथिल्लो सदनमा सबै प्रदेशको समान प्रतिनिधित्व हुने ।

९. राष्ट्रप्रमुखको निर्वाचन केन्द्रीय र प्रादेशिक संसदका सदस्यबाट हुने । संघीय कार्यपालिका प्रमुख प्रधानमन्त्री हुने ।

प्रादेशिक संरचनाको आधार र संघीयताको स्वरूपबारे माथि भनिएका विषयमा अझै पर्ूण्ाता छैन । यी विषय मुलुकसमक्ष कांग्रेसका प्रस्ताव हुन्, निर्ण्र्ााहोइनन् । संघीय संरचनामा मुलुकलाई रूपान्तरण गर्ने काम लामो अन्तरसंवाद, पारस्परिक सहमति र समझदारीबाट मात्रै सम्भव हुन्छ । कांग्रेसको प्रस्तावमा धेरै विषय स्पष्टै भए पनि प्रदेशहरूको नाम र संख्याबारे कुनै उल्लेख छैन । कार्यपालिका प्रमुखका रूपमा प्रधानमन्त्रीको प्रत्यक्ष निर्वाचनबारे व्यापक विचार उठेका छन् । कांग्रेसले अन्तरिम संविधाननिम्ति पार्टर्ीीर्mबाट सुझाव दि“दा विज्ञको एउटा राष्ट्रिय आयोग प्रस्तावित गरेको थियो । अन्तरिम संविधानले यसको व्यवस्था गरे पनि एक वर्षम्म यसको गठन हुन सकेन । त्यसका कारण के हुन् - सरकारको नेतृत्व गरेको र समग्र राजनीतिक प्रक्रियाको संयोजनको जिम्मेवारीसमेत बोकेका कारणले यसबारे जनतालाई जानकारी गराउनुपर्ने मूल जिम्मेवारी कांग्रेसको थियो ।

यही ढिलाइले संघीयताकै विषयलाई प्रमुख मुद्दा बनाएर मधेसमा व्रि्रोह उठ्यो, पहाडमा पनि असन्तोष र आक्रोशका ज्वाला सल्कि“दैछन् । पर्ूवकांग्रेसी नेता महन्थ ठाकुरको नेतृत्वमा तर्राई-मधेस लोकतान्त्रिक पार्टर्ीीे गठनस“गै मधेसमा नया“ राजनीतिक ध्रुवीकरण र आन्दोलनको तयारी हु“दैछ । तर्सथ सबै पार्टर्ीीसमुदाय र क्षेत्रविशेषका संघीयतासम्बन्धी प्रस्ताव र धारणालाई सम्बोधन र संयोजन गरी संविधानसभाका लागि राष्ट्रिय प्रस्ताव तयार गर्ने स्पष्ट म्यान्डेटसाथ विज्ञहरूको राष्ट्रिय पुनःसंरचना आयोग तत्काल गठन गर्नु आवश्यक छ । निश्चयै संघीयताको ढा“चासहित राज्य पुनःसंरचनालाई अन्तिम टुङ्गो दिने मूल जिम्मेवारी संविधानसभाको हो । संविधानसभा निर्वाचनको एकपछि अर्को हु“दै मिति र्सर्दै र स्थगित हु“दै जा“दा संघीयताबारे पार्टर्ीीअन्तरपार्टर्ीीक्रियतासाथ सरकारको जागरुकता अनिवार्य छ । अन्यथा चैतमा पनि संविधानसभा निर्वाचन सहज हुने छैन ।

-लेखक, नेपाली कांग्रेसका केन्द्रीय सदस्य हुन् ।)


Posted on: 2007-12-31 21:12:२९

Source:Ekantipur

Monday, December 31, 2007

Happy New Year

Happy New Year

2008

Please drop your personal greetings and messages in comment section. Thank you

Sunday, December 30, 2007

राजतन्त्र समाप्त भइसकेको छैन – सूर्यबहादुर थापा

राजतन्त्र समाप्त भइसकेको छैनसूर्यबहादुर थापा, अध्यक्ष, राष्ट्रिय जनशक्ति पार्टी



संसद्मा सात दलले गरेको निर्णयलाई कसरी लिनुभएको छ?
जनताको सर्वोच्चता कायम गर्छु भनेर हिँड्ने नेताहरूले जनताको अधिकारमाथि आक्रमण (अतिक्रमण) गरे।
सात दलको अतिक्रमणको विरुद्धमा तपार्ईंहरूले पनि जेहाद छेड्न सक्नु भएन नि?
हामीहरू बोलिरहेका छौं। यहाँभन्दा के बोल्नु?
तपाईले किन त राजतन्त्रको पक्षमा मतदान गर्नुभएन नि?

म जनताको अधिकारको कुरा गरिराखेको छु। अरू केही कुरा गरिरहेको छैन।
तपाईंहरू अझै पनि राजाको पक्षमा लाग्नुभएको छ?
छोड्दिनु–छोड्दिनु बचाउने कुरा बेग्लै अध्यायको कुरा हो। यसमा राजाको कुरा जोड्नै मिल्दैन। जोड्ने भए म कुनै पनि जवाफ दिन्न।
सबै बिगार्ने काम राजाबाटै भइरहेको छ भन्ने कुरा आएको छ नि?
आफू गल्ती गर्ने अनि अरूलाई दोष लगाएर उम्कन पाइन्छ? जनता अब त्यति लाटा छैनन्, सबै कुरा जनताले बुझिसकेका छन्।
नेपालमा राजतन्त्रको अन्त्य भएको होइन र?
राजा छ कि छैन भन्ने कुरा मैले भनिरहनु पर्दैन। अन्तरिम संविधान हेरे नै पुग्छ। राजाले यो यो काम गरेमा उनलाई दुई तिहाईबाट हटाइनेछ भन्ने लेखिसकेपछि उनीहरूले नै भनुन् राजा बाँकी छ कि छैन। संविधान आफैंले बोलिसकेको कुरामा म के बोलिरहुँ?
त्यसो भए राजतन्त्र कायमै छ?
राजतन्त्र छैन भने संविधानमा किन लेखिएको हो त? नेताहरूलाई नै सोध्नुहोस् न।

तपाईंले किन मतदान गर्नुभएन?
मैले कतै पनि मत दिइंन, जनताको अधिकार खोस्ने कुरामा मतियार नबन्नका लागि मैले मतदान बहिष्कार गरेको हुँ। यो कुरा मैले त्यही बेला संसद्मा नै प्रष्टसँग भनिसकेको छु।
अब नेपालबाट राजतन्त्र समाप्त भएको घोषणा गरे हुन्छ त?
यो कुरा गिरिजालाई सोध्नु, प्रचण्डलाई सोध्नु। अरूलाई सोधिरहनु पर्दैन। र, संविधानमा हेर्नु। राजतन्त्र समाप्त भएको हो भने संविधानमा किन राखेको त?
गणतन्त्रको घोषणा गर्दा पनि राजाको पक्षमा त कोही पनि देखिएनन् नि?
कसको पक्षमा को छ भन्ने कुरा समयमा देखिनेछ। अहिले देखाएर देखिने कुरा होइन त्यो।
नेपालको राजनीतिक भविष्य के होला?
नेपाल कसरी अगाडि बढ्दछ भन्ने कुरा चाहिँ सात दलका नेताको जिम्मामा छ।
संविधानसभाको चुनाव चैत्रभित्रै होला?
संविधानसभाको चुनावको लागि वातावरण बनाउनुपर्‍यो।
वातावरण कसरी बनाउने त?
वातावरण बनाउनका लागि कुटपिट गर्ने, तोडफोड गर्ने, अर्कालाई आक्रमण गर्ने, अरूका विचार जनतामा लैजानै नदिने जुन कामको हर्कत गरेको छ। त्यो तत्कालै बन्द गर्नुपर्‍यो। एकले अर्कालाई आदर गर्नुपर्दछ।
यो हर्कत कसले गरिरहेको छ खुलासा गरिदिनुस् न?
यो सबै काम नै सात दलको नेताको हो। जे भइरहेको छ त्यो सबै सात दलका नेताहरूबाट भएको छ। तालाकुदी लिएर सबै गद्दीमा बस्ने अनि आउरेबाउरेलाई चाहिँ दोष लगाएर हुन्छ। त्यसबाट सात दल उम्किन पाउँदैन।
जनता फेरि सात दलका विरुद्ध सडकमा आउनुपर्छ भन्न खोज्नुभएको हो?
मैले भन्ने कुरा भनें। जनता सडकमा आउने–नआउने त्यो जनताले जान्ने कुरा हो। जनतालाई सडकमा ल्याउने कुरा पनि सात दलले नै गर्दछन्। ज्यादती गर्न थालेपछि त निस्कन्छन् नि। जे गर्ने हो सम्पूर्ण कुरा अब सात दलकै नेतामा निर्भर छ।
तपाईंको रणनीति के छ?
मेरो रणनीति के छ भने अहिले गएर राति १० बजे सुत्दछु। बिहान ५ बजे उठेर तयार भएर मर्निङ वाकमा निस्कन्छु।
तपाईंको पार्टी संविधानसभा जान तयार भएको हो?
हामी चुनावमा जाने तम्तयार भएर बसेका छौं। चुनावमा नजाने प्रश्नै छैन। चुनाव ठीक समयमा हुनुपर्छ हामी भाग लिन्छौं।
सात दलको सरकारले गराएको चुनावमा भाग लिनुहुन्छ?
सरकारले चुनाव गरेर देखाए भइहाल्यो नि हामी भाग पनि लिन्छौं। र चुनाव गर्ने निर्णयको स्वागत पनि गर्दछौं। कुरामात्रै गरेर हुँदैन चुनाव गराएर देखाउनुपर्छ।
संसद्बाट राजतन्त्रको अन्त्य र गणतन्त्रको घोषणा भइसक्यो अब चुनावको आवश्यकता छ र?
जनताको अधिकार खोसेको परिणाम त सात दलका नेताहरूले भोग्दछन्। त्यस कारणले चुनाव भनेको समयमा गराएपछि सबैले भाग लिन्छन्।
सात दलका नेताहरूले के अपराध गरेका छन् र परिणाम भोग्नुपर्ने?
यो कुरा म जान्दिनँ, उनीहरूले नै जान्दछन्। त्यो सात दलका नेतालाई गएर सोध्नुहोस्। जनताको अधिकार खोसेपछि तिमीहरूले के भोग्नुपर्दछ भनेर सोधुन्। उनीहरूले नै बताउँलान् मलाई थाहा छैन। मैले कसैको अधिकार खोसेको पनि र भोग्ने कुरा थाहा पनि छैन।
नेपालको राजनीतिलाई सबैभन्दा बढी बुझ्ने त तपाईं नै होइन र?
तपाईंले फुर्क्याएको मात्र हो। म केही पनि बुझ्दिनँ। यसबारे भाङभुरी मलाई केही थाहा छैन।
अब सात दलको औचित्य नै समाप्त भन्न खोज्नुभएको हो?
हेर्नुहोस् यस्ता सस्ता कुरा गर्ने मेरो बानी पनि छैन। सात दल नै अहिले सरकारमा छन्, चुनाव गराउँछौं भनेर उनीहरू हिँडेका छन्। २३ बुँदे सहमति इमानदारीका साथ त्यो लागू गर्नुपर्दछ। कार्यान्वयनलाई व्यवहारमा उतार्नुपर्‍यो र चुनाव समयमा गराउनु पर्‍यो।
गिरिजाप्रसाद कोइरालाले चुनाव गराउन सक्नुहोला?
गिरिजापं्रसाद कोइरालाले त वातावरण बनाउने हो। चुनाव गराउने काम त भोजराज पोखरेलको हो।
गिरिजाप्रसादको कोइरालाको अब विकल्प छैन त?
विकल्प त ईश्वरको पनि हुन्छ। संसारमा विकल्प नभएको कुरै छैन। जसको पनि विकल्प हुन सक्छ।
वर्तमान प्रधानमन्त्रीकै नेतृत्वमा चुनाव हुन्छ त?
त्यो उनीले नै जान्दछन्। यो मैले जान्ने कुरा होइन।
मधेसको समस्या कसरी समाधान होला?
सात दलका नेताहरूले विवेक बुद्धि ख्याउनुपर्‍यो। अर्कालाई हेप्ने काम छोड्नुपर्‍यो।
Source: weeklyneal

लालबुझक्कडका काधमा मधेस

लालबुझक्कडका काधमा मधेस
तर्राई चिनौं / By : चन्द्रकिशोर

द्रुतगतिमा विकसित राष्ट्रिय राजनीतिले लामो आरोह-अवरोहपछि सहमतिको गोरेटो समातेको छ । जनआन्दोलन- ०६२/६३ को एउटा प्रमुख आदेश थियो- सहमतिको राजनीति । पछिल्लो सहमतिको प्रक्रियापछि राष्ट्रिय संकल्पका रूपमा रहेको संविधानसभा निर्वाचनतिर राजनीतिक मूलधार मोडिएको छ । राजनीतिको संस्थापन धारमा रहेका जनताका प्रतिनिधिले नेपाली जनताको पक्षमा मन्दगतिमै सही- आफ्ना तमाम सीमाका बाबजुद अग्रगामी ऐतिहासिक कार्य गरेका छन् ।

अब निर्धारित महिनाभित्र संविधानसभा निर्वाचन होला - संस्थापन पक्षका कोही 'निर्धारित समयभित्र चुनाव हुन नसके बरु हालको व्यवस्थापिका संसद्मै अन्य सरोकारवाला पक्षलाई सामेल गर्राई त्यसैलाई संविधानसभाको स्वरूप दिनुपर्ने' तर्क गरिरहेका छन् त कोही 'संविधानसभा निर्वाचन हुन नसके बरु संसद्कै निर्वाचन ठीक' भनिरहेका छन् । सबै एकढिक्का भएर संविधानसभा निर्वाचनका पक्षमा बोल्न सकेका छैनन्, आफ“ैमा आत्मविश्वासको कमी देखिएको छ । संस्थापन शक्तिबीचको यो अन्तरविरोध निर्वाचन मैत्री वातावरणका लागि ऋणात्मक छ ।

मुलुक युगान्तकारी परिवर्तनको सम्भावनासहित राजनैतिक संक्रमणको विशिष्ट अवस्थाबाट गुज्र“दै छ । ऐतिहासिक जनआन्दोलनको गर्भबाट जन्मिएको यो संक्रमणकालको सुखद् अन्त्यका लागि उत्पन्न चुनौतीको जनआन्दोलनमा प्रकट भएको भावनाअनुरूपको समाधान आधारभूत र्सत हो । नत्र संक्रमणकाल ००७ सालको जस्तो असफल र ०४६ को जस्तो अपांग हुने अवस्था पनि आउन सक्छ । जनआन्दोलन- ०६३ बाट निर्देशित अग्रगामी दिशा र मधेस व्रि्रोहले तय गरेको कार्यसूची हो- संक्रमणकालको अन्त्य र संविधानसभा -स्वतन्त्र, निष्पक्ष, भयरहित तथा व्यापक जनसहभागितासहितको) मार्फ् समावेशी लोकतन्त्र स्थापना ।

सातदलको वर्तमान नेतृत्व जिम्मेवारीपर्ूवक नआउने र आफूले गरेका निर्ण्र्ााकार्यान्वयन नगर्ने, उदासीन हुने एवं सहमति बारम्बार फर्ेर्दै जनतालाई सधै“ झुक्याइरहने स्थिति रह“दा मुलुकमा अनेकौ“ समीकरणको जन्म हुन सक्छ । सातदलभित्रका राजतन्त्रवादी शक्ति एकै ठाउ“मा गएर व्रि्रोह गर्न सक्ने सम्भावना हाल देखि“दैन तर ती तत्त्व स्थिर भएर पनि बस्दैनन् । किनारीकृत समूहहरूको आवाजलाई सम्बोधन गर्न, आश्वस्त पार्न, विश्वासमा लिएर अगाडि बढ्न संस्थापन शक्तिहरू चुकिरहेका छन् ।

नेपाली राजनीतिको सबैभन्दा महत्त्वपर्ूण्ा पक्ष बनेको मधेसमा अहिले सबै ठूला दलले आ“खा गाडिरहेका छन् । मधेसी दल भने संविधानसभा निर्वाचनका पक्षमा खुलेर लागेका छन् । तर्राई-मधेस लोकतान्त्रिक पार्टर्ीी अध्यक्षले प्रस्तुत गरेको आधिकारिक अभिमतमा भनिएको छ- 'संविधानसभाका हामी विरोधी होइनौ“ । सबैको र्सार्थक र न्यायपर्ूण्ा उपस्थितियुक्त, उपलब्धिमूलक संविधानसभा हुने वातावरण हुनुपर्‍यो । सहज र शान्तिपर्ूण्ा तरिकाबाट अभिमत प्रकट गर्ने जनअधिकारको सम्मान गछौर्“ तर बल प्रयोगबाट समाधान खोज्ने मानसिकतासित हाम्रो पर्ूण्ा असहमति छ । र्सवप्रथम मधेसमा शान्तिपर्ूण्ा अवस्था र स्थिति बन्नु आवश्यक छ ।' महन्थ ठाकुरको यस दृष्टिकोणलाई कदापि गैरलोकतान्त्रिक र उक्साहटको अभिव्यक्ति भन्न मिल्दैन । मधेसको बोली यही हो ।

यतिखेर मधेस आन्दोलनउन्मुख देखिएको छ । मधेसी संगठन आ-आफ्ना स्तरमा मधेसी असन्तुष्टिलाई आन्दोलनमार्फ् अभिव्यक्त गर्न गृहकार्यमा छन् । एउटा र्सार्थक र सम्पर्ूण्ा मधेस व्रि्रोह-२ को तयारी भइरहेको छ । यस पर्रि्रेक्ष्यमा सात दलले चैतमा निर्वाचन गर्न मधेसका सशस्त्र समूहलाई मूलधारको राजनीतिमा ल्याउनै पर्ने चुनौती मात्र छैन, शान्तिपर्ूण्ा राजनीतिको दाबी गर्ने दलहरूलाई पक्षमा लिन पनि उत्तिकै अपरिहार्य छ । मधेसका दललाई बेवास्ता गरियो भने यिनीहरू नै संविधानसभाका लागि ठूलो चुनौती बन्नेछन् । मधेसका दलहरूलाई उपेक्षा गरेर चुनाव गराउन सम्भव छैन ।

तर मधेसका दलहरुले पनि संविधानसभापर्ूव राज्यले के-के गर्नुपर्ने हो, साझा सूची प्रस्तुत गर्नुपर्छ । संविधानसभामार्फ् मधेससहित समग्र नेपालको अग्रगामी रूपान्तरणका लागि मधेसका सबै संर्घष्ारत शक्तिबीच संवाद भई न्यूनतम मार्गचित्रमा मोर्चाबन्दी नभए राजनीतिले सकारात्मक दिशा पाउने सम्भावना तुहिन सक्छ । मधेसमा सामाजिक ध्रुवीकरण बढ्दै गएको छ । समाज पहाड र मधेसबीच विभाजित हु“दै गइरहेको छ । सामाजिक अलगाव गर्ने तत्त्वहरू नियोजित रूपमा क्रियाशील छन्, हिंसाको क्रम बढ्दै छ । मधेसबाहिर पनि हिंसाको प्रभाव छरिएर जाओस्जस्ता अभ्रि्रायलक्षित हिंसाचक्र थालिएको छ । आम जनताको मनोभावना एकतिर छ, चलखेल गर्नेहरू अर्कोतिर सक्रिय छन् । यता राज्य केवल बल प्रयोग गरेर निकास खोज्न आतुर छ किन - बुझिसक्नु छैन ।

मधेसको न्यायपर्ूण्ा र जायज मागनिम्ति संर्घष्ारत पक्षको पनि जिम्मेवारी बढेको छ- मधेसलाई कमभन्दा कम क्षति पुर्‍याएर मूलप्रवाहीकरणको प्रक्रियाका निम्ति दबाब-माध्यम बन्ने । मधेसको सामाजिक रिक्तताले समग्रमा मधेसी समुदायको हित गर्दैन । कुनै पनि समाजविशेषको उन्नयनका निम्ति सामाजिक बहुलता चाहिन्छ । एकल समाजको उन्नयन गति मन्द हुन्छ । मधेसभित्र केवल पहाडे मात्र होइन, स्वंय मधेसी समाज पनि विविधतायुक्त रहेको छ । यो नै यस भूगोलको पु“जी हो । मधेसले एउटा भूगोललाई प्रतिनिधित्व गरेपछि यस क्षेत्रमा बसोबास गर्ने सबैको साझा सोच विकसित गर्नु-गराउनु नै बुद्धिमानी हुन्छ । नया“-नया“ शक्ति प्रकट हुनु आफै“मा नराम्रो होइन तर प्रतिरक्षामा संगठित भएका शक्तिले परिस्थितिलाई विकराल नै बनाउ“छन् ।

संविधानसभा हुनर्ुपर्छ, मधेस यसको विरोधमा देखिनुहु“दैन र राज्य पनि मधेसको विरोधमा रहेको देखिनुहुन्न । लोकतन्त्र प्राप्ति र मुलुकको नवनिर्माणका लागि विगतमा मधेसले ठूलो बलिदान दिएको छ । मधेसी जनताले आफूलाई राज्यले 'धोखा' दियो भन्ने भावना राखे भने यसले मुलुकको स्वास्थ्यका लागि हितकर गर्दैन । जिम्मेवारीको भार राज्य र सातदलमाथि त छदैछ, त्यत्तिकै भार मधेसी दलको का“धमाथि पनि छ । दुइटै पक्षले मधेसको कार्यभार बोक्नमा असन्तुलन गर्‍यो भने त्यसपछि ठूलो दुघटना हुन सक्छ । राजनीति गर्नेहरू आफै“ लालबुझक्कड हुन्, अरू नै के भन्नुपर्ला र !
स्रोत: NayaaPatrikaa

FM radios of Nepal

Image FM 97.9

Nepal and Government

Loading...

Nepal On Programs

Loading...

Nepal Video

Loading...

Nepalese festivals

Loading...

United States Institute of Peace

Nepal Regional Video

Loading...

READ INFO SERIES /Nepal