Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Budget will be brought by new govt, says Bhattarai
Senior Maoist leader Dr Baburam Bhattarai has said the annual budget will be presented by the new government and that his party is pushing for an amendment in the constitution to incorporate a provision that will allow the government to bring budget programme after the start of the fiscal year.
"Full-fledged budget should be brought by the new government. For now, a general outline of income and expenditure can be presented," Bhattarai said talking to reporters at the Maoist party office in Buddhanagar on Wednesday.
The Maoist leader also argued that the current caretaker government had no right to prepare the annual budget.
According to him, the detailed budget programme could be brought a couple of months after a provisional budget is presented at the end of this Nepali month (mid-July).
Bhattarai also said the interim constitution would be amended to include such a provision
"Full-fledged budget should be brought by the new government. For now, a general outline of income and expenditure can be presented," Bhattarai said talking to reporters at the Maoist party office in Buddhanagar on Wednesday.
The Maoist leader also argued that the current caretaker government had no right to prepare the annual budget.
According to him, the detailed budget programme could be brought a couple of months after a provisional budget is presented at the end of this Nepali month (mid-July).
Bhattarai also said the interim constitution would be amended to include such a provision
Important book on 20th Congress of CPSU
Here is an important book that readers should know about.This book even though it is not yet available in English - the Russian version can be downloaded from Grover Furrs site.
Like the Mobo Gao book on China this book is doing battle with the falsification of the past which is vital both to an understanding of the present as well as the future.
Like the Mobo Gao book on China this book is doing battle with the falsification of the past which is vital both to an understanding of the present as well as the future.
"The Sixty-One Untruths of Nikita Khrushchev"
"The Sixty-One Untruths of Nikita Khrushchev"
Interview with Professor Grover Furr, author of "Anti-Stalinist Villainy".
One of the most unusual new non-fiction books to appear recently is the Russian translation of the book by historian Grover Furr, professor at Montclair State University, titled "Anti-Stalinist Villainy" (Antistalinskaia Podlost'), Moscow: Algoritm publishers, 2007), in which the famous report to the 20th Party Congress of the CPSU by Nikita Khrushchev is dissected in detail.
Thousands of readers have become acquainted with it in the short time since its publication. It has received both curses and praise in the reactions of its first reader-critics, and has succeded in becoming a bibliographical rarity even in our market-oriented time.
For this reason we believed it would be instructive to turn to Professor Furr himself, to get to know the author himself better and ask his opinions, as they say, at first hand.
Q- Professor, please tell us how and why you, a Princeton University Ph.D. whose doctoral dissertation was devoted to the French Middle Ages, became interested in Soviet history of the Stalin era?
A - My first field of specialization is medieval studies. I don’t have any formal certificate that would "qualify" me to do research on the history of the Soviet Union during Stalin’s time.
But as a medievalist I have been trained to do deeply historical research. For instance, to use primary sources in languages other than English. Never to rely on "received knowledge" or "received opinion." Not to trust the opinions of "recognized authorities." To check everything for myself.
As a graduate student from 1965-69 I opposed the US war in Vietnam. At one point somebody told me that the Vietnamese communists could not be the "good guys", because they were all "Stalinists", and "Stalin had killed millions of innocent people."
I remembered this remark. It was probably the reason that in the early 1970s I read the first edition of Robert Conquest’s book The Great Terror when it was published. I was shaken by what I read!
I should add that I could read the Russian language since I had already been studying Russian literature since High School. So I studied Conquest’s book very carefully. Apparently no one else had ever done this!
I discovered Conquest was dishonest in his use of sources. His footnotes did not support his anti-Stalin conclusions! Basically, he used any source that was hostile to Stalin, regardless of whether it was reliable or not.
Eventually I decided to write something about the so-called "Terror." It took a long time, but in 1988 I finally published "New Light On Old Stories About Marshal Tukhachevskii: Some Documents Reconsidered" ... During this time I studied the research being done by the new school of historians on the Soviet Union that included Arch Getty, Robert Thurston, Roberta Manning, Sheila Fitzpatrick, Jerry Hough, Lewis Siegelbaum, Lynne Viola, and others.
Q - These names will, I think, mean little to a Russian reader. It is hard to imagine that after Conquest representatives of any new Western "school" could contribute anything different to the conception of the history of the Soviet Union...
A - In fact it is just the contrary. The school of which I speak arose as the antithesis to Conquest and to the totalitarian conception of Sovietology of the Cold War period.
By carefully studying the evidence already available, and – most important – by trying hard to be objective – the researchers of this new school were already showing that all the Cold-War, Trotskyist, Khrushchevite, and later the Gorbachev-Eltsin "history" was fatally compromised by political bias. These had managed to so compromise their work by their political prejudices that their books should be viewed not as history but examples of propaganda.
In the world of scientific history the book The Origins of the Great Purges by J. Arch Getty, one of the founders of the new school, became a genuine sensation. In it Getty successfully disproved a large number of falsehoods that had been accepted as true. This included, among others, the notion that the repressions of the 1930s had been actions planned in advance by Stalin.
It was this scholar’s misfortune that his work was published in the USA during the years of "perestroika". During this time, under the false cover of "glasnost’" or "opennness", only the works of Getty’s opponents, the Cold Warriors, were published, and those in huge editions. How could Russian readers find out about Getty’s pioneering works if not a single one of his books on Russian history has as yet been published in Russia itself?
The same situation holds in the case of most of the historians whose names I mentioned above. But fortunately there are also more encouraging examples. A few months ago a Ukrainian internet magazine published one of the excellent works by Professor Mark Tauger of the University of West Virginia. Tauger’s work utterly disproves the Nazi-inspired myth that the famine of 1932-3 was a "Holodomor", or "man-made famine" carried out by Soviet leaders.
Q - How and why did you become interested in Khrushchev’s Report to the 20th Party Congress?
A - The "closed" or, as it is called in the West, the "secret" report of Khrushchev’s is without exaggeration one of the most influential speeches of the 20th century. No matter how or by whom the report is evaluated, with "plus" or "minus" sign, it fundamentally changed the path of Soviet and Russian history. It’s significant that precisely this speech has become one of the pillars of the political conception of "anti-Stalinism", the foundational source for what can be called "the paradigm of the 20th Congress."
In short, no one interested in the history of the Soviet Union can ignore a document of such importance.
Q - But that is why this topic is a rather well-trodden path. How do you explain all the interest in your book "Anti-Stalinist Villainy" (in Russian: Antistalinskaia podlost’)?
A - It’s hard for me to say. Let the readers judge for themselves... I can only speak about what struck me as a researcher.
When I was forming a conception of this work my goal was modest. I wanted to place the "revelations" in the report alongside the historical sources that have been made public thanks to the declassification of some documents from the former Soviet archives. This kind of research could be done by a Russian historian or, for that matter, a Chinese historian, for during the past 10-15 years a large number of new sources have been made available to scholars that make possible an objective evaluation of one or another statement in Khrushchev’s speech.
And at this point a curious picture began to emerge. For as it turned out, out of all the "revelations" affirmed in the report that I could verify, not one of them turned out to be true. Not a single one!
A few of Khrushchev’s falsehoods were, of course, known earlier. For example, during the secret session itself a few of the delegates to the Congress evidently noted that some of Khrushchev’s "revelations", such as his absurd declaration that Stalin "planned military operations on a globe", were to say the least far from the truth. But that the entire speech was made up of "revelations" like this one – that was astonishing.
Q - Aren’t you exaggerating? It is very hard to believe that the speech consists of nothing but falsehoods. You must be simply defending Stalin, and so with that goal in mind you are denigrating Khrushchev and his epoch-making report.
A - I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I am not "defending" Stalin or anyone else. As a researcher and a scholar I deal with facts and evidence. If the object of my research had been a speech of Khrushchev’s on, let us say, space, maize, or the program of the CPSU, I’d have to study the sources related to these areas of concern. In fact, though, the topic of my research became that of the report that supposedly "uncovered" crimes of Stalin and Beria.
I isolated sixty-one "revelations" or accusatory assertions. I researched each one of them in light of the historical sources. The end result was that in Khrushchev’s "Secret Speech" not a single one of such "revelations" turned out to be true. There is no question here of "defending Stalin". The burden of proof always rests with the accuser’s side – Khrushchev’s, in this case. And not one of the "revelatory" assertions of the "Secret Speech" can withstand a confrontation with the evidence.
A word about the question of "belief." No serious researcher has the right to accept or reject any statement as true on the strength of his own convictions or preconceived ideas. Like it or not, in view of the historical evidence presented in "Anti-Stalinist Villainy" it is impossible to view the history of the Soviet Union in the funhouse mirror of the "Secret Speech" any longer.
Q - By the way, "Antistalinist Villainy" – that’s not a very appropriate title for a work of scientific research, is it?
A - The book was published with bibliographical and name indexes, footnotes, and documentary appendices – in a word, in full conformity with all the requirements of any solid academic edition. And, in fact, it was published in a larger edition. Can any author reasonably expect more?
Of course, when I was working on the manuscript I had a different working title. I also had an original chapter in which I organized the work in a narrative way to reflect the essential points of the work I had done. But for reasons of length, I assume, or for some other reasons it was not included in the final published volume.
The publisher suggested a different title as well, as often happens. After all, it is up to the publisher to organize the editorial, artistic, and other forces in order to produce a work that will be successful in the marketplace.
Q - There’s still something that doesn’t add up here. On the one hand, as you have written, Khrushchev’s speech is a tissue of lies, while on the other hand not a single person in the leadership of the USSR ever pointed out the falsity of any of these revelations.
A - I’d go even farther and say that by their silence every single one of them showed complete solidarity with Khrushchev. And here we encounter one of the most intriguing questions.
Despite the widespread impression to the contrary, the main target of the "Secret Speech" was not Stalin himself but the political course, a certain direction of development, that was associated with his name. The Russian historian Yuri Zhukov has stated it clearly: Khrushchev’s goal was to put an end to the democratic reforms begun but far from completed during Stalin’s lifetime.
Today – and, it must be said, under the influence of Khrushchev’s Speech – "Stalin" and "democracy" are antipodal concepts in the minds of most people, conceptions that denote two incompatible extremes, phenomena that are polar opposites. But this view is in error. Stalin shared Lenin’s views on representative democracy and strove to root its principles in the building of the Soviet state.
It was Stalin himself who stood at the head of the fight for democratizing Soviet society, a struggle which was at the very heart of the political processes that took place in the USSR during the 1930s to 1950s. The essence of this program was as follows: the role of the Communist Party in the governing of the state would be reduced to normal limits, like those in other countries, and the political leadership of the state would be chosen not according to party lists but on the basis of democratic procedures.
Not only Khrushchev but, evidently, other Soviet leaders too disagreed with the course of such reforms. In any case Malenkov, Molotov and Kaganovich, the major political figures associated with Stalin, accepted, even if unwillingly, the secret subtext of the "Secret Speech" and assented to it. Khrushchev was able to come to power, deliver his potentially explosive "Secret Speech," and establish his own ideas only because he was able to win the Soviet Party elite to his side.
Let me take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Yuri Zhukov (Russia) and John Arch Getty (USA), two historians whose works inspired me in my own work on the "Secret Speech", who uncovered the fact, deeply hidden since Khrushchev’s time, of Stalin’s dedication to the principles of democracy.
Internet interview by S. Khartsizov
THERE IS A LINK TO THE GROVER FURR SITE AT THE TOP OF FRIENDS AND COMRADES ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THIS PAGE.
Interview with Professor Grover Furr, author of "Anti-Stalinist Villainy".
One of the most unusual new non-fiction books to appear recently is the Russian translation of the book by historian Grover Furr, professor at Montclair State University, titled "Anti-Stalinist Villainy" (Antistalinskaia Podlost'), Moscow: Algoritm publishers, 2007), in which the famous report to the 20th Party Congress of the CPSU by Nikita Khrushchev is dissected in detail.
Thousands of readers have become acquainted with it in the short time since its publication. It has received both curses and praise in the reactions of its first reader-critics, and has succeded in becoming a bibliographical rarity even in our market-oriented time.
For this reason we believed it would be instructive to turn to Professor Furr himself, to get to know the author himself better and ask his opinions, as they say, at first hand.
Q- Professor, please tell us how and why you, a Princeton University Ph.D. whose doctoral dissertation was devoted to the French Middle Ages, became interested in Soviet history of the Stalin era?
A - My first field of specialization is medieval studies. I don’t have any formal certificate that would "qualify" me to do research on the history of the Soviet Union during Stalin’s time.
But as a medievalist I have been trained to do deeply historical research. For instance, to use primary sources in languages other than English. Never to rely on "received knowledge" or "received opinion." Not to trust the opinions of "recognized authorities." To check everything for myself.
As a graduate student from 1965-69 I opposed the US war in Vietnam. At one point somebody told me that the Vietnamese communists could not be the "good guys", because they were all "Stalinists", and "Stalin had killed millions of innocent people."
I remembered this remark. It was probably the reason that in the early 1970s I read the first edition of Robert Conquest’s book The Great Terror when it was published. I was shaken by what I read!
I should add that I could read the Russian language since I had already been studying Russian literature since High School. So I studied Conquest’s book very carefully. Apparently no one else had ever done this!
I discovered Conquest was dishonest in his use of sources. His footnotes did not support his anti-Stalin conclusions! Basically, he used any source that was hostile to Stalin, regardless of whether it was reliable or not.
Eventually I decided to write something about the so-called "Terror." It took a long time, but in 1988 I finally published "New Light On Old Stories About Marshal Tukhachevskii: Some Documents Reconsidered" ... During this time I studied the research being done by the new school of historians on the Soviet Union that included Arch Getty, Robert Thurston, Roberta Manning, Sheila Fitzpatrick, Jerry Hough, Lewis Siegelbaum, Lynne Viola, and others.
Q - These names will, I think, mean little to a Russian reader. It is hard to imagine that after Conquest representatives of any new Western "school" could contribute anything different to the conception of the history of the Soviet Union...
A - In fact it is just the contrary. The school of which I speak arose as the antithesis to Conquest and to the totalitarian conception of Sovietology of the Cold War period.
By carefully studying the evidence already available, and – most important – by trying hard to be objective – the researchers of this new school were already showing that all the Cold-War, Trotskyist, Khrushchevite, and later the Gorbachev-Eltsin "history" was fatally compromised by political bias. These had managed to so compromise their work by their political prejudices that their books should be viewed not as history but examples of propaganda.
In the world of scientific history the book The Origins of the Great Purges by J. Arch Getty, one of the founders of the new school, became a genuine sensation. In it Getty successfully disproved a large number of falsehoods that had been accepted as true. This included, among others, the notion that the repressions of the 1930s had been actions planned in advance by Stalin.
It was this scholar’s misfortune that his work was published in the USA during the years of "perestroika". During this time, under the false cover of "glasnost’" or "opennness", only the works of Getty’s opponents, the Cold Warriors, were published, and those in huge editions. How could Russian readers find out about Getty’s pioneering works if not a single one of his books on Russian history has as yet been published in Russia itself?
The same situation holds in the case of most of the historians whose names I mentioned above. But fortunately there are also more encouraging examples. A few months ago a Ukrainian internet magazine published one of the excellent works by Professor Mark Tauger of the University of West Virginia. Tauger’s work utterly disproves the Nazi-inspired myth that the famine of 1932-3 was a "Holodomor", or "man-made famine" carried out by Soviet leaders.
Q - How and why did you become interested in Khrushchev’s Report to the 20th Party Congress?
A - The "closed" or, as it is called in the West, the "secret" report of Khrushchev’s is without exaggeration one of the most influential speeches of the 20th century. No matter how or by whom the report is evaluated, with "plus" or "minus" sign, it fundamentally changed the path of Soviet and Russian history. It’s significant that precisely this speech has become one of the pillars of the political conception of "anti-Stalinism", the foundational source for what can be called "the paradigm of the 20th Congress."
In short, no one interested in the history of the Soviet Union can ignore a document of such importance.
Q - But that is why this topic is a rather well-trodden path. How do you explain all the interest in your book "Anti-Stalinist Villainy" (in Russian: Antistalinskaia podlost’)?
A - It’s hard for me to say. Let the readers judge for themselves... I can only speak about what struck me as a researcher.
When I was forming a conception of this work my goal was modest. I wanted to place the "revelations" in the report alongside the historical sources that have been made public thanks to the declassification of some documents from the former Soviet archives. This kind of research could be done by a Russian historian or, for that matter, a Chinese historian, for during the past 10-15 years a large number of new sources have been made available to scholars that make possible an objective evaluation of one or another statement in Khrushchev’s speech.
And at this point a curious picture began to emerge. For as it turned out, out of all the "revelations" affirmed in the report that I could verify, not one of them turned out to be true. Not a single one!
A few of Khrushchev’s falsehoods were, of course, known earlier. For example, during the secret session itself a few of the delegates to the Congress evidently noted that some of Khrushchev’s "revelations", such as his absurd declaration that Stalin "planned military operations on a globe", were to say the least far from the truth. But that the entire speech was made up of "revelations" like this one – that was astonishing.
Q - Aren’t you exaggerating? It is very hard to believe that the speech consists of nothing but falsehoods. You must be simply defending Stalin, and so with that goal in mind you are denigrating Khrushchev and his epoch-making report.
A - I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I am not "defending" Stalin or anyone else. As a researcher and a scholar I deal with facts and evidence. If the object of my research had been a speech of Khrushchev’s on, let us say, space, maize, or the program of the CPSU, I’d have to study the sources related to these areas of concern. In fact, though, the topic of my research became that of the report that supposedly "uncovered" crimes of Stalin and Beria.
I isolated sixty-one "revelations" or accusatory assertions. I researched each one of them in light of the historical sources. The end result was that in Khrushchev’s "Secret Speech" not a single one of such "revelations" turned out to be true. There is no question here of "defending Stalin". The burden of proof always rests with the accuser’s side – Khrushchev’s, in this case. And not one of the "revelatory" assertions of the "Secret Speech" can withstand a confrontation with the evidence.
A word about the question of "belief." No serious researcher has the right to accept or reject any statement as true on the strength of his own convictions or preconceived ideas. Like it or not, in view of the historical evidence presented in "Anti-Stalinist Villainy" it is impossible to view the history of the Soviet Union in the funhouse mirror of the "Secret Speech" any longer.
Q - By the way, "Antistalinist Villainy" – that’s not a very appropriate title for a work of scientific research, is it?
A - The book was published with bibliographical and name indexes, footnotes, and documentary appendices – in a word, in full conformity with all the requirements of any solid academic edition. And, in fact, it was published in a larger edition. Can any author reasonably expect more?
Of course, when I was working on the manuscript I had a different working title. I also had an original chapter in which I organized the work in a narrative way to reflect the essential points of the work I had done. But for reasons of length, I assume, or for some other reasons it was not included in the final published volume.
The publisher suggested a different title as well, as often happens. After all, it is up to the publisher to organize the editorial, artistic, and other forces in order to produce a work that will be successful in the marketplace.
Q - There’s still something that doesn’t add up here. On the one hand, as you have written, Khrushchev’s speech is a tissue of lies, while on the other hand not a single person in the leadership of the USSR ever pointed out the falsity of any of these revelations.
A - I’d go even farther and say that by their silence every single one of them showed complete solidarity with Khrushchev. And here we encounter one of the most intriguing questions.
Despite the widespread impression to the contrary, the main target of the "Secret Speech" was not Stalin himself but the political course, a certain direction of development, that was associated with his name. The Russian historian Yuri Zhukov has stated it clearly: Khrushchev’s goal was to put an end to the democratic reforms begun but far from completed during Stalin’s lifetime.
Today – and, it must be said, under the influence of Khrushchev’s Speech – "Stalin" and "democracy" are antipodal concepts in the minds of most people, conceptions that denote two incompatible extremes, phenomena that are polar opposites. But this view is in error. Stalin shared Lenin’s views on representative democracy and strove to root its principles in the building of the Soviet state.
It was Stalin himself who stood at the head of the fight for democratizing Soviet society, a struggle which was at the very heart of the political processes that took place in the USSR during the 1930s to 1950s. The essence of this program was as follows: the role of the Communist Party in the governing of the state would be reduced to normal limits, like those in other countries, and the political leadership of the state would be chosen not according to party lists but on the basis of democratic procedures.
Not only Khrushchev but, evidently, other Soviet leaders too disagreed with the course of such reforms. In any case Malenkov, Molotov and Kaganovich, the major political figures associated with Stalin, accepted, even if unwillingly, the secret subtext of the "Secret Speech" and assented to it. Khrushchev was able to come to power, deliver his potentially explosive "Secret Speech," and establish his own ideas only because he was able to win the Soviet Party elite to his side.
Let me take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Yuri Zhukov (Russia) and John Arch Getty (USA), two historians whose works inspired me in my own work on the "Secret Speech", who uncovered the fact, deeply hidden since Khrushchev’s time, of Stalin’s dedication to the principles of democracy.
Internet interview by S. Khartsizov
THERE IS A LINK TO THE GROVER FURR SITE AT THE TOP OF FRIENDS AND COMRADES ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THIS PAGE.
Tharus enraged over 'Madhesisation' of Terai, announce protest programmes
Expressing serious concern over attempts being made to invent "a non-existent Madhes" in Terai parts of Nepal by resorting to "political blackmailing", ethnic Tharus have issued a strong warning against conspiracies to downplay their identity and existence. They also said that Constituent Assembly (CA) has been turned a "rubber stamp" to endorse such attempts
Thirteen different organisations working for the welfare of the Tharu community including the Tharu Welfare Assembly (TWA) issued a joint statement on Wednesday in protest of efforts being made to turn the entire "Tharuhat Terai region" into Madhes province through 'political blackmailing'. They said they would wage a movement against the deliberate attempt of what they called Madhesisation of Terai and also announced a number of protest programmes.
"It is not very hard to understand that the main aim of this political blackmailing is to downplay the identity and existence of the indigenous communities living in Terai and turn them into Madhesis," the statement said, adding that the closed door meetings (between seven parties and terai based parties) including political bargaining are all exercises to end the identity of the Tharus in their own land.
Stating that the big parties are being compelled to meet the "One Madhesh" demand - of declaring the whole of Terai (from Mechi to Mahakali) as a autonomous Madhes state - through threats and warnings, the Tharu organisations have said they would enforce a one-hour long transportation strike in Terai on June 4 and picket the CA venue on June 5.
In the statement signed by general secretary of TWA Raj Kumar Lekhi, an appeal has also been made to the civil society and general people to help stop "Madhesisation of Terai".
Major political parties like CPN (Maoist) and CPN (UML) have already raised their objection to the "One Madhes province" demand of Terai-based parties, describing it as a threat to national integrity. However, Nepali Congress (NC) has maintained that the demand of Terai-based parties (Madhesi parties) should be met, but haven't come clear on whether they support their demand for "One Madhes province".
On the other hand, demanding constitutional guarantee of 'autonomous Madhes province', Terai-based parties have already obstructed the Constituent Assembly (CA) meeting for the fifth time in a row. They are all set to not let its proceeding go on smoothly today too as the taskforce of the three aforementioned parties who are also largest parties in CA failed to prepare the draft of a supplementary constitution amendment bill yesterday following difference over the defination of a "Madhes autonomous aprovince" and "group entry" of certain communities into Neal Army.
Madhesi leaders have also threatened a nationwide stir if the government turned down their demand for a single Madhes province.
Chairman of Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) Upendra Yadav said on Monday that big political parties are trying to repress Madhesi demands by bringing in the Tharu community.
Yadav, who was speaking at a programme in Birgunj, claimed that "all Tharus are also Madhesi as they reside in terai region like other Madhesi communities", and said that Madhesi struggle will continue until the establishment of separate Madhesi state.
He also said that Madhesi movement is not targeted against any other community but is meant to establish the rights of both Madhesi and people of hilly origin in the terai region.
However, Tharu Welfare Assembly says that the "One Madhes" demand has been made to convert their land - Tharuhat - into Madhes. Similarly, Chure Bhawar Ekata Party (CBEP) which represents the people of hilly origin in Terai, has also raised objections against the demands for one Madhes province, saying that it would sow the seed of 'national disintegration'
Thirteen different organisations working for the welfare of the Tharu community including the Tharu Welfare Assembly (TWA) issued a joint statement on Wednesday in protest of efforts being made to turn the entire "Tharuhat Terai region" into Madhes province through 'political blackmailing'. They said they would wage a movement against the deliberate attempt of what they called Madhesisation of Terai and also announced a number of protest programmes.
"It is not very hard to understand that the main aim of this political blackmailing is to downplay the identity and existence of the indigenous communities living in Terai and turn them into Madhesis," the statement said, adding that the closed door meetings (between seven parties and terai based parties) including political bargaining are all exercises to end the identity of the Tharus in their own land.
Stating that the big parties are being compelled to meet the "One Madhesh" demand - of declaring the whole of Terai (from Mechi to Mahakali) as a autonomous Madhes state - through threats and warnings, the Tharu organisations have said they would enforce a one-hour long transportation strike in Terai on June 4 and picket the CA venue on June 5.
In the statement signed by general secretary of TWA Raj Kumar Lekhi, an appeal has also been made to the civil society and general people to help stop "Madhesisation of Terai".
Major political parties like CPN (Maoist) and CPN (UML) have already raised their objection to the "One Madhes province" demand of Terai-based parties, describing it as a threat to national integrity. However, Nepali Congress (NC) has maintained that the demand of Terai-based parties (Madhesi parties) should be met, but haven't come clear on whether they support their demand for "One Madhes province".
On the other hand, demanding constitutional guarantee of 'autonomous Madhes province', Terai-based parties have already obstructed the Constituent Assembly (CA) meeting for the fifth time in a row. They are all set to not let its proceeding go on smoothly today too as the taskforce of the three aforementioned parties who are also largest parties in CA failed to prepare the draft of a supplementary constitution amendment bill yesterday following difference over the defination of a "Madhes autonomous aprovince" and "group entry" of certain communities into Neal Army.
Madhesi leaders have also threatened a nationwide stir if the government turned down their demand for a single Madhes province.
Chairman of Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) Upendra Yadav said on Monday that big political parties are trying to repress Madhesi demands by bringing in the Tharu community.
Yadav, who was speaking at a programme in Birgunj, claimed that "all Tharus are also Madhesi as they reside in terai region like other Madhesi communities", and said that Madhesi struggle will continue until the establishment of separate Madhesi state.
He also said that Madhesi movement is not targeted against any other community but is meant to establish the rights of both Madhesi and people of hilly origin in the terai region.
However, Tharu Welfare Assembly says that the "One Madhes" demand has been made to convert their land - Tharuhat - into Madhes. Similarly, Chure Bhawar Ekata Party (CBEP) which represents the people of hilly origin in Terai, has also raised objections against the demands for one Madhes province, saying that it would sow the seed of 'national disintegration'
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Public Meeting:Nepal Becomes A Republic! A Crucial Juncture In The Nepalese Revolution
Comrade Gaurav is no longer able to speak at the 4th July Meeting. Instead there will be a speaker with first hand experience of the April 2006 People's Movement in Nepal. Other speakers will be announced.
Friday 4th July, 7pm Venue: Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, Holborn, London(Holborn underground) It is important that all supporters and interested parties attend this meeting. The creation of the republic and the resignation of the Prime Minister create a very significant development for the revolution in Nepal.
Let's meet and discuss how the revolution in Nepal can advance.
Friday 4th July, 7pm Venue: Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, Holborn, London(Holborn underground) It is important that all supporters and interested parties attend this meeting. The creation of the republic and the resignation of the Prime Minister create a very significant development for the revolution in Nepal.
Let's meet and discuss how the revolution in Nepal can advance.
Six parties agree to introduce supplementary amendment bill to resolve CA deadlock
Six parties agree to introduce supplementary amendment bill to resolve CA deadlock
The six parties have agreed to introduce a supplementary amendment bill along with the fifth amendment bill to resolve the deadlock at the Constituent Assembly (CA).
The meeting of the six parties including three parties from the ruling alliance – Nepali Congress (NC), Unified Marxist Leninist (UML) and Maoists – and the three Madhesi parties – Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF), Terai Madhes Loktantrik Party (TMLP) and Nepal Sadbhavana Party (NSP) – had reached the decision on Tuesday morning.
The supplementary bill will address the demands of the Madhesi parties who have been obstructing the CA meeting asking for the incorporation of Madhes autonomous province, among others, in the constitution amendment bill.
Talking to Nepal FM after the meeting held at Singhdurbar, Rajendra Mahato, chief of NSP, said, "They (three parties) have agreed to bring a supplementary bill to address all our demands. They have formed a team to draft such bill. The team includes Bimalendra Nidhi, Dev Gurung and Bhim Rawal."
Mahato said Madhesi parties will allow resumption of CA meeting if such supplementary bill is introduced. "They might take some time in drafting the bill so the CA meeting could be delayed a bit. But they have agreed to finalise the bill today itself," he said.
The CA meeting has been scheduled to take place at 2 pm, Tuesday.
Mahato claimed that the supplementary bill will address all of their demands
The six parties have agreed to introduce a supplementary amendment bill along with the fifth amendment bill to resolve the deadlock at the Constituent Assembly (CA).
The meeting of the six parties including three parties from the ruling alliance – Nepali Congress (NC), Unified Marxist Leninist (UML) and Maoists – and the three Madhesi parties – Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF), Terai Madhes Loktantrik Party (TMLP) and Nepal Sadbhavana Party (NSP) – had reached the decision on Tuesday morning.
The supplementary bill will address the demands of the Madhesi parties who have been obstructing the CA meeting asking for the incorporation of Madhes autonomous province, among others, in the constitution amendment bill.
Talking to Nepal FM after the meeting held at Singhdurbar, Rajendra Mahato, chief of NSP, said, "They (three parties) have agreed to bring a supplementary bill to address all our demands. They have formed a team to draft such bill. The team includes Bimalendra Nidhi, Dev Gurung and Bhim Rawal."
Mahato said Madhesi parties will allow resumption of CA meeting if such supplementary bill is introduced. "They might take some time in drafting the bill so the CA meeting could be delayed a bit. But they have agreed to finalise the bill today itself," he said.
The CA meeting has been scheduled to take place at 2 pm, Tuesday.
Mahato claimed that the supplementary bill will address all of their demands
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)