Was Bhattarai's visit successful?

New York, It was the second time a Maoist Prime Minister from Nepal visited the United States—which still places the party on the watch-list under the title Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons—to make an address at the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Apart from the address, Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai who has been a favorite of many including the non-Maoists delivered a talk on Marxism at the New School University; listened to the issues of Nepali diaspora where black flags also greeted him; and managed to meet his teachers after 30 years.

Concluding his US visit, at the office of the Nepal's Permanent Mission to the United Nations, he said his visit was successful. But what did he mean by 'success'? At the General Assembly, he said he brought "the voice of the voiceless of the world". The United Nations has very well heard the voice of the Nepali people, if by the word 'voiceless', he referred to the citizens of Nepal. It was the UN that supported the Nepali people in getting their leaders come to an agreement to end an era of war and autocracy and create history—especially by writing a new legal document and addressing the issues brought forward by the 10-year war.

When then Prime Minister Prachanda addressed at the UNGA three years ago, he assured the representatives of the world that he would do justice to their votes. He had said: "People have overwhelmingly voted for my party and made us the single largest political party in the Assembly with great hope and expectations." He still had eight months before he resigned from the government but the 'people' (in whose name he had taken his oath) could not see significant change. Yes, they saw the exit of a monarch (which was actually before Prachanda became the prime minister) but they saw most of the time controversies revolving around Pashupati's priests, PLA's number, and later on the Nepal Army issues which led to the fall of their government. The governments formed subsequently couldn't do much either except for extending deadlines.

So, this time Prime Minister Bhattarai did not give many hopes to the international community that they can build peace by themselves, rather 'voiced out' to the UN that it needs to provide "comprehensible package" and a "new Marshall plan" to post-conflict countries such as Nepal. Lip-services and symbolic supports, he warned, are not enough.

Three years on since the first Maoist's address and two years beyond the intended timeline of the interim constitution, the peace process and a new constitution still remain to be completed. But why hasn't this constitution, which the PM Bhattarai claimed at the UN assembly would be 'life-changing for all', been written? Professor Andrew Arato at the New School University, who is also a constitutional expert, says Nepal is "caught up in a situation in which government and constitution-making process are too mixed up with each other" in a way that they are "incapacitated or weakened." He points out at the loopholes in the interim constitution that has allowed the governments to keep on extending the deadlines in such a manner that "the punishment's going to be very grave" and that it could lead to "the rejection of all parties eventually". But does it make it easier for the Maoists to complete the peace process, as claimed by the Maoist leaders, when they're leading the government? Prof Arato says it could've helped well if it was a national government but the present one could help only the former Maoist combatants to have faith in their party for their integration and rehabilitation.

Was the visit successful? Some determinants:
Taking part at the UNGA alone cannot be termed successful as Professor Arato says, "Nothing really happens this way with the big and important powers" which seems true as the US President for instance has met Maoist PMs twice yet the delisting hasn't taken place. Fixing a visit to the big power next door shows some support though. In terms of US, if the delisting happens during PM Bhattarai's tenure, it would be an achievement for the party.

More important to him as a government head is the drafting of the constitution, which if could be completed during this year, if not during his tenure, then whoever would address at the UNGA next year would feel proud and then the real notion of 'setting example and drawing lessons from the Nepali experience' would materialize.

When PM Bhattarai met his former teachers in Connecticut during this US visit, people spoke highly of him. But student leaders belonging to the Maoist party in Nepal oftentimes smear the faces of campus chiefs and deans black. In one of the instances, his own daughter was involved and when this scribe had asked about it, Mr Bhattarai did not deny or denounce the act. Well, the word 'success' could find its connotation if his followers can abstain from conducting such acts and not turn into near criminals from students.

Finally, if the PM was able to get commitments from the Nepali community to invest in Nepal, rather than donating hundreds of dollars, then the visit would have been really productive as he said before heading back to Nepal with the message of 'successful visit'.

A version of this article appeared in the Nepali Times on September 29, 2011.

Prabal, another pride of Nepal

It's definitely not easy to make yourself known to the world. Prabal Gurung has turned that difficulty into a reality and set positive examples not just for the Nepalis but the whole world that a country known for its mountains, poverty, and conflict could also have fashion designers.

I hope a day comes soon when Prabal Gurung's name would be as famous as Calvin Klein.

Watch his interview on CNN

Anuradha Koirala is the CNN Hero 2010

Her work has now been recognized by the world. Read this
I hope more Anuradhas emerge in Nepal.

Let's not make it a meaningless stay

The United States of America! Almost every single person in my country harbors a dream to come here. Many want good higher education, many others want better lives. Some come from rich families, some even sell properties to buy a life here. I was one of the fortunate ones, who despite coming from a middle-class family, came here without spending a paisa.

My experience so far in this country or at least the part of the city where I am living, New York, has shown me different faces of Nepali people. I met someone who had a school in Gokarna, a suburb of the capital, Kathmandu, who came here on a DV (Diversity Visa). He was a principal of that school, and has two houses in Kathmandu, meaning he is rich enough. Here, he works at a subway, a sandwich-making store in other words, 12 hours daily. He is about 50 years' old.

I met another woman who came here 13 years ago, leaving her 7 years' old son with her husband. She had come on a tourist visa but did not want to remain a tourist; she overstayed. She even married an American, hoping for a Green Card. She didn't go back to Nepal, not even once.

Here, it took her years to pay the American guy, who had just done a paper marriage with her, in exchange of a large sum of money. Back home, her relationship with her husband worsened. Her son started living with her parents. Later the parents died and she sent the kid to Kalimpong for his studies. When I asked her what he was studying there, she said, "I don't know". It's not that she is illiterate and did not know, she said, "I have never asked him". Now she wants her son to come and stay with her. I wonder if, after all these years, they would have the natural bond of a mother and a son! She was not the one to raise him. She must have sent money for him but her physical presence was not there.

Then, I heard about some of my friends' stories. Despite coming from well-to-do families, they had made up stories about poverty and displacement in Nepal that wouldn't give them a space to live, therefore the asylum! I felt bad as they bad named our country. Many of the asylum seekers even today, after almost four years since the war ended in Nepal, tell the authorities that the Maoists won't let them go back and live in their homes. They would be pitied and granted asylum here. This means getting an American life, trampling on the dignity of a Nepali citizenship; citizenship of a country that has always been sovereign and never colonized.

These three cases are enough in explaining how people are forgetting their country. They ask a simple-sounding uncomfortable question: What did my country give to me? They fail to see what brought them here. Was it the money alone that they paid at the US Embassy in Nepal and the flight tickets that brought them here? Did their education not count? If they were not educated, would they be here? Their parents who sent them to schools, did they send them to manufacture ready made products for the US? Certainly not.

As a commonplace, I would also say--no job is a low job, however I say it with reservation. The school principal who came here is not doing what he is better skilled at. He did not have the education to make sandwich in a subway. He could have been inspirational in a country where half of the population is still illiterate. The woman who now has a green card doesn't have a job now. She is obese and diabetic, and she herself told me that she wasn't even getting a job to wash the dishes.

Apart from these depressing cases, I have however seen positive faces too. I met a group of people who live here, raise money here but build schools there. They identify villages where school buildings are needed and get the community work for it. They are not just creating jobs for locals but also making use of the natural resources available. For example, they use a mix of mud and cow dung for plaster. They said they want to make use of the locally available resources.

Whenever I introduce myself as a Nepali with foreigners, especially, the Americans, they have one 'as if a ready-made comment' about Nepal--a beautiful country. When I combine these comments and the sad stories, I realize Nepalis are coming here and the Americans are going back to Nepal. John Wood, for example, left his job at Microsoft to build schools and libraries, and he changed his mind to change the world when trekking in Nepal.

One girl from New Jersey who used her savings, when working as a babysitter here, to build a school in Nepal. She was barely 20 when she did that. My country people come here to work as babysitters to live a life here.

I am not sure whether these comparisons are sensible or not, but one thing for sure is we, the Nepalis, must do whatever we can to make our country better. If everyone comes here, with no intention of going back, it might be beneficial to the individual but not for the people who largely live in poverty. Besides, we need to know if we are living a kind of lifestyle that we 'deserve' rather than 'want'. Finally, if we don't want to be known as people of one of the poorest countries in the world, we need to change it. And it's only us who can do that.