Nepal Is A Republic
May 29 2008 00:33
Quote:
Nepal votes to abolish monarchyThousands of Nepalis cheered the declaration of the republic
The Himalayan nation of Nepal has become the world's newest republic, ending 240 years of monarchy.A constituent assembly meeting in the capital, Kathmandu, overwhelmingly voted to abolish royal rule.
The Maoists, the largest party after laying down arms and standing in last month's elections, were committed to ousting King Gyanendra.
People celebrated wildly in the streets of the capital after news of the assembly vote.
The approved proposal states that Nepal is "an independent, indivisible, sovereign, secular and an inclusive democratic republic nation".
Only four members of the 601-seat assembly opposed the change.
This is the most important day of my life
Rajesh Subedil,
student in KathmanduHead to head: Nepal's monarchy
In pictures: End to royal ruleRoyal privileges "will automatically come to an end", the declaration says.
It also states that the king's main palace must be vacated within a fortnight, to be transformed into a museum.
"I am overjoyed," student Rajesh Subedi, 21, told AFP news agency as Kathmandu celebrated.
"This is the most important day of my life."
The BBC's Charles Haviland in Kathmandu says it is not clear how soon King Gyanendra will leave.
The Maoists and other politicians are being conciliatory about the monarch now being ousted and say he should live on in Nepal as a private citizen.
Attacks
In the run-up to the vote, suspected royalists threw three small bombs in the capital.
One exploded at an open-air theatre in Kathmandu on Wednesday evening, injuring one person. Another went off outside the assembly venue but no-one was hurt.
People celebrating and marching on streets of Kathmandu
On Tuesday, another two explosive devices were left in a park, but police said only one exploded, slightly injuring two people.
Some militant pro-Hindu and pro-royal factions are campaigning violently against Nepal's shedding of its royal - and its officially Hindu - status.
The assembly was given the initial task of rubber-stamping the abolition of the monarchy.
But the vote was delayed by 12 hours, while the Maoists and the other main parties settled differences about distribution of power between the president and the prime minister in an interim period.
The government of the new Nepalese republic is expected to be led by the Maoists, who only entered politics in 2006 after signing a peace agreement that ended a decade-long insurgency.
The assembly has two years to come up with permanent arrangements for a new constitution.
The monarchy's fall from grace has come swiftly and was heralded by the 2001 massacre in which the then-Crown Prince Dipendra killed his family and several other royals, our correspondent says.
How do you say "The King is dead, long live the King!" in Nepalese?
May 29 2008 20:51
#2
What was their beef with their royal family?
May 29 2008 20:54
#3
they aren't good.
May 29 2008 21:46
#4
one of them was. some cousin of the (former) king gunned down his whole family with an M-16 or something.
May 30 2008 00:49
#5
Khawaga wrote:
one of them was. some cousin of the (former) king gunned down his whole family with an M-16 or something.
Behaviour that should be encouraged in royals. Hypothetical question if a member of the british royals was to go postal and waste their family who would it be? My vote would be for prince phillip, I woudn't put anything past that old bastard.
May 30 2008 09:37
#6
Replace Monarchy with a Stalinist chic Populist.
Mmmm great changes there.
May 30 2008 15:33
#7
but i thought they were maoists.
May 30 2008 15:41
#8
Ah, seriously lads. I'm all for a bit of anarchy but don't have a go off the maoists. Its just sectarian.
May 31 2008 10:55
#9
Khawaga wrote:
one of them was. some cousin of the (former) king gunned down his whole family with an M-16 or something.
has anyone heard about this:
http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=148454
king gyanendra is out?
May 31 2008 15:15
#10
ftony wrote:
but i thought they were maoists.
Either way, the shit is fucked.
May 31 2008 18:06
#11
What I wonder about is the influence of royalist Hindu's, and their connections, if any, to the various reactionary Hindu groups in India.
Jun 1 2008 00:35
#12
in case anyone cares today is the anniversaryof the palace slaughter.
Jun 1 2008 14:49
#13
the maoists it is often said are the best chance nepal has got for altering the social order, but surely the whole point of a revolutionary take over is to ensure that the working classes are freed from oppression, this takes a lot of foresight and political agenda of which the maoists have none. As such hoards of money have gone straight to the maoists from the working class peasants themselves by bypassing taxes to the govenment- ie. in the rural areas in particular. those who give taxes tot he government are seen as traitors - other ways in which the maoists negatively destroy the peasants' life in the coutnry is by kidnapping children, and recruiting them into their army - they are forced to fight with guns - this has forced many peasants to become refugees and Kathmandu has seen an influx of peasants who desparately need work. The maoists are often violent, and will kill those seen as traitors. the problem probably lies in the lack of education the peasants receive in the country - the lack of job opportunities means that uneducated males join the maoists and have a childlike idea of the situation, they want to bring down the government, however they do not have any agendas for what they would like as an alternative, many cannot even read or write. This is not to say I necessarily support the democratic parties, who it could be argued also have a similar lack of agenda, however there are many political activists who work undercover -many are students or former students hoping for substantial changes socially and politically. many are stuck in political prisons as a result of king gyanendra and his repression of free speech early this decade.
Jun 1 2008 16:57
#14
ein auslander wrote:
the shit is fucked
Yeah, basically. 
Jun 1 2008 17:18
#15
ein auslander wrote:
the maoists it is often said are the best chance nepal has got for altering the social order, but surely the whole point of a revolutionary take over is to ensure that the working classes are freed from oppression, this takes a lot of foresight and political agenda of which the maoists have none. As such hoards of money have gone straight to the maoists from the working class peasants themselves by bypassing taxes to the govenment- ie. in the rural areas in particular. those who give taxes tot he government are seen as traitors - other ways in which the maoists negatively destroy the peasants' life in the coutnry is by kidnapping children, and recruiting them into their army - they are forced to fight with guns - this has forced many peasants to become refugees and Kathmandu has seen an influx of peasants who desparately need work. The maoists are often violent, and will kill those seen as traitors. the problem probably lies in the lack of education the peasants receive in the country - the lack of job opportunities means that uneducated males join the maoists and have a childlike idea of the situation, they want to bring down the government, however they do not have any agendas for what they would like as an alternative, many cannot even read or write. This is not to say I necessarily support the democratic parties, who it could be argued also have a similar lack of agenda, however there are many political activists who work undercover -many are students or former students hoping for substantial changes socially and politically. many are stuck in political prisons as a result of king gyanendra and his repression of free speech early this decade.
I have no doubt most of this is true, however even the Maoists are considered fair targets for right wing media slurs and untruths. The accusations of rural racketeering I've only seen come from sources who I wouldn't trust in their coverage of what I would consider even a liberal/left-leaning movement. I'd also say that in a place like rural Nepal, it's probably pretty hard to circumvent those kinda activities and perhaps the Maoists thought it was easier to just recruit the local gangsters...not that that's a valid defense, just some kinda context I guess.
Jun 2 2008 15:09
#16
One bourgeois fraction has replaced another. The new ruling elite is still officially designated a "terrorist organisation" by the USA.
The main context here of concern to the working class is the consequences for inter-imperialist rivalries. While there are ideological differences between these maoists and the Chinese bourgeoisie (and between Indian and Nepali maoists), there is no doubt that this represents a potential step forward for Chinese imperialism and a potential blow to the imperialist appetites of India (backed by the USA).
I don't think Phillip is the favourite for wasting the rest of his family. It must be Charlie boy (the drug and drink fuelled assassin was his mate apparantly).
Jun 4 2008 20:07
#17
Alan wrote:
ein auslander wrote:
the maoists it is often said are the best chance nepal has got for altering the social order, but surely the whole point of a revolutionary take over is to ensure that the working classes are freed from oppression, this takes a lot of foresight and political agenda of which the maoists have none. As such hoards of money have gone straight to the maoists from the working class peasants themselves by bypassing taxes to the govenment- ie. in the rural areas in particular. those who give taxes tot he government are seen as traitors - other ways in which the maoists negatively destroy the peasants' life in the coutnry is by kidnapping children, and recruiting them into their army - they are forced to fight with guns - this has forced many peasants to become refugees and Kathmandu has seen an influx of peasants who desparately need work. The maoists are often violent, and will kill those seen as traitors. the problem probably lies in the lack of education the peasants receive in the country - the lack of job opportunities means that uneducated males join the maoists and have a childlike idea of the situation, they want to bring down the government, however they do not have any agendas for what they would like as an alternative, many cannot even read or write. This is not to say I necessarily support the democratic parties, who it could be argued also have a similar lack of agenda, however there are many political activists who work undercover -many are students or former students hoping for substantial changes socially and politically. many are stuck in political prisons as a result of king gyanendra and his repression of free speech early this decade.I have no doubt most of this is true, however even the Maoists are considered fair targets for right wing media slurs and untruths. The accusations of rural racketeering I've only seen come from sources who I wouldn't trust in their coverage of what I would consider even a liberal/left-leaning movement. I'd also say that in a place like rural Nepal, it's probably pretty hard to circumvent those kinda activities and perhaps the Maoists thought it was easier to just recruit the local gangsters...not that that's a valid defense, just some kinda context I guess.
you could almost say they don't recruit gangsters - they become them - the maoists are the poor - they come from poor backgrounds - they are given guns, some from early ages. Also there are lots of women in their ranks - unmarried women are the lowest of the low (above dalits, and below married women) they see the maoist movement as their only way of breaking out and changing their situation in life. Although i find some of the methods used by the maoists outdated ie. the bans on trade which only affects the poor not the rich and so is completely illogical i do think that women need to do something radical in that country.
malai thana chaina.