Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

Tele-conference: Liberal Democracy Nepal Policy Council (LDN Policy Council)

Attendants: Ambika Adhikari, Girija Gautam, Arun Sharma, Pramod Mishra, Anup Pahari, Vijaya Sharma, Gaury Adhikary, Puru Subedi, Shyam Karki, Naresh Koirala, Bed Giri, Alok Bohara

Ambika Adhikari welcomed everyone and encouraged everyone to speak their mind on LDN achievement so far, any critique of its works and future course of action. He also highlighted accomplishments of the LDN within a short time period: created and adopted LDN policy charter, obtained articles from policy makers from Nepal, produced the first issue of LDN Bulletin, and organized an important NDI/LDN sponsored workshop involving seven parties from Nepal, and Nepali human rights activist and produced 8-point recommendations.

Anup Pahari began with the management insights about the DC workshop focusing on how the collaboration with the NDI began, how it was accomplished, and what lessons can be learned from it. Many were aware of the Carter Center’s interest in Nepali crisis, and there was some rumor that they would sponsor a visit by a group of Nepali politicians. During a visit with Senator Daschle Anup Pahari met with a NDI officer and floated the idea of a possible NDI/LDN collaboration. Upon receiving positive response from the NDI, Anup Pahari asked Girija Gautam to explore with the Nepali delegation a possibility of an interaction with the LDN. Through his personal contact, Girija Gautam began exploring some collaborative possibility with Dr. Minendra Rijal NC (D). Girija Gautam was cautioned by Dr. Rijal not to publicize the news of the visit for the reasons of sensitivity. Anup Pahari began to move the conversation with NDI very cautiously, but got somewhat cold response. After approaching American officials in Kathmandu through the State department, Anup Pahari began to receive positive response from NDI. The initial communication about the LDN/NDI workshop thus was a bit discrete, but was published as soon as things were cleared by NDI, Nepali delegates and the Carter Center.

Ambika Adhikari asked Puru Subedi as a member of the DC coordination committee (DCCC), to shed some light on the DC event organization. Puru Subedi opined that the NDI seemed firm in their insistence to make the event low key and that they did not want much disclosure and publicity. This is typical NDI modus operandi.

NDI had even asked the DC Committee to not allow any media at the venue. Anup Pahari said that the DC Coordination Committee (e.g., Puru Subedi, Sugandha Tuladhar and others) did request NDI to relax the constraints. Finally, NDI did give DCCC permission to allow telephone interview to the local Nepali media with Dr. Mahat and Mr. Tuladhar during the lunch time provided that there would be no mention of NDI’s name and the location of the seminar venue. The point is that there were constraints on publicity.

Puru Subedi: After our meeting with the NDI, we had to work within a parameter. We tried our best, and we indeed announced the program one week in advance. It could have been done earlier, but had to work within the constraint.

Pramod Mishra: We need to think about the essence of the LDN structure. Is it different from NAC? We need to let it settle in first for at least two years, and then think about the future.

Girija Gautam: It is important to hear the impression of those who were not at the DC workshop.

Arun Sharma: I talked to Aditya and he seemed very happy about the program. I talked to Alok Ji and he thought his expectations were exceeded. I spoke with some NC senior leader, and they said that the Diaspora in North America is just like us in Nepal – divided. I heard from DC people that they thought that they were being left out. From Jhala Nath I heard that his UML cadres were left out of the program.

Bed Giri: Now the clarity is coming through these conversations, and a better picture is emerging. Without the motivation and initiative of a few individuals this event would not have been possible and the outcome is very commendable. We are 26 of us in the LDN policy council and we should make sure that major decisions are initiated at this level. That’s how the ownership starts. After February 1st, we have begun to get into activism as well in addition to the prime mission which remains academic. The new scenario in Nepal has divided polity into two paths:

LDN should stay away from taking a side, and should remain open about these debates.

Naresh Koirala: I don’t see LDN as an ideological entity. It is a platform for ideas, and is more like a think tank. The middle ground paper that many of us worked on is not an ideological paper. If we start to act on the ideological ground, we can’t operate effectively.

Arun Sharma: There were close to 32 owners who worked on the middle ground paper, and Naresh ji and Anup ji put in a lot of effort. Some went to left, and some may have gone to right, and many are still in the middle. The middle ground was great at that time. On inclusiveness, a town hall meeting in DC would have attracted more people than in Baltimore.

Vijaya Sharma: Organizers faced constraints and we should understand that, but at the same time we need to pay attention to the sensitivity of inclusiveness issue. We need to have a regular meeting to start a sense of ownership. Furthermore, LDN should not take stand on particular issues such as CA versus no CA, because situation in Nepal is changing every day. LDN should be able to offer insights on the repercussion of different line of actions.

Shyam Karki: There is a feeling among some in the DC area that those who did not believe in the middle ground were excluded from the LDN DC event. That may not be true, but that is the perception.

Alok Bohara: LDN does not believe in any ground. It provides forums for different ideas. It even invited Deepak Khadka, a staunch republican to submit a paper on republicanism. LDN showcased articles from Dr. Devendra Panday and Narahari Acharya strong republican advocates in Nepal, and many others with diverse views.

Girija Gautam: I am not sure if the DC town hall would have attracted more people; when Gagan Thapa was here the DC crowd was around 40 only. We were more focused on the program itself. Baltimore wanted to be involved, and either way both are Nepalis.

Naresh Koirala: We need to talk about the policy level issues.

Arun Sharma: If LDN wants to pull away from activism completely it should be very clear, and I would have no problem with that.

Gaury Adhikary: We both (Gaury Adhikary and Shyam Karki) have had experience with organizations (NAC and ANA). I have been telling Alok that we need to connect to the Nepali Diaspora (America and Canada), and he always agreed with that. I fully agree with its academic mission, and it should also have some flexibility. Shyam ji and I also talked about having representatives from NAC and NRN on the LDN council.

Shyam Karki: We need to attend ANA and other organizations to spread the news about LDN. We need to prepare brochures and spread its works through various organizational newsletters.

Anup Pahari: Shiva and I had a long talk. Shiva had a few points to share:

Politics in Nepal is so fluid that Girija Koirala even called people like Narahari and Gagan royal stooges. So, it’s just not our problem that we call each other names. But, it is important to define our vision, and deter from name calling I agree with Bedji that we need to stay away from taking sides and have an open mind. The 8-point declaration was the outcome of the political parties’ deliberations and discussions. It is comprehensive, and it gives common points of agreements and principles towards Nepali democracy. So, the talk of LDN being in the middle only is not true.

Girija Gautam: We are concerned about peace, democracy and prosperity. LDN may conduct academic work but its work will have public implications. We should be mindful of that. Perception cannot be ignored.

Bed Giri: Sometimes it is hard to draw a line between activism and academic activity. The DC workshop may fall in that category. Thus we nee to take this issue n an event-by-event basis. Plus, every time, we speak of grassroots, it becomes a political vocabulary.

Arun Sharma: Bed Ji is saying the right thing. The Dc workshop has blurred the line between academics and activism.

Alok Bohara: During the time of Pinochet of Chile, the Note Dame University used to invite dissident figures and conduct round table workshops. Thus, not all such workshops fall under the category of activism.

Naresh Koirala: I agree with Alok ji.

Ambika Adhikari: Every group uses its own comparative advantage and participates to make a difference in helping Nepali democracy, and that’s the way it should be. LDN’s comparative advantage is academic resources, and diverse minds. We should respect that. Let us also remember that LDN resides at Nepal Study Center which is a part of University of New Mexico. This relationship also demands some sensitivity.

Alok Bohara: Running events require resources, and people like Aditya’s financial contribution should be appreciated. We need to start thinking about our resource strategy.

Shyam Karki: Ownership, inclusiveness, and transparency are all related. Democracy is messy, but we need to widen the group ownership. We should not be negative for the sake of being negative, and we should focus n constructive comments.

Puru Subedi: LDN is defined in the charter, and it should be followed. Or if you have a problem, we need to refine it.

Girija Gautam: We need to do such conference once a month.

Arun Sharma: I agree, and maybe we nee to do another one in mid-December.

Shyam Karki: We should prepare a short info background.

Bed Giri: We are 26 of us in the council, and major events should be discussed. Maybe, a meeting every other month would be better.

Anup Pahari: The work like the workshop conducted in DC by LDN/NDI is what defines us; it is out bread and butter. Yes, we need to work on our decision-making modus operandi, but we need to be pretty firm on our tasks.

Girija Gautam: We need to look at issues on a case-by-case basis. But, we also need to trust each other. Friends should assume that if some work is being done in a certain fashion, it is so for a reason, and we are all trying for the same thing democracy in Nepal. Finally, transparency is important.

Alok Bohara: The 26-member council is a vital organ, and should be made more active. Everyone should be willing to lend helping hands however. LDN should not take sides and should keep an open mind about issues (e.g., polity).

Ambika Adhikari: We covered many topics today. We expressed our opinions on various issues related to LDN’s objectives, strength, charter and its management. Many issues can be deliberated in depth by e-mail, but conversations are important. We can try a monthly tele-conference, but a conference every two months might be more practical.

Thank you everyone for participating.