Review-Theorising Gender and Feminism - Stevie Jackson

Gender and sexuality are among feminism’s most central concepts, yet there is no consensus on how to define them or how to theorize their interrelationship. The term gender has been used since the early 1970s to denote culturally constructed femininity and masculinity as opposed to biological sex differences. The author has clearly mentioned the focus of the article – the first step is to separate out the three terms sex, gender and sexuality in order to explore how they are interrelated. Distinguishing ‘sex’ from ‘gender’ not only serves to emphasize the social and cultural origins of differences between women and men, but can help to resolve the ambiguity of the word ‘sex’. The author also mentioned that he/she would also focus on the development of  feminist thinking on gender and its interrelationship with have emerged. Although the concept of gender did not become current among feminists until the 1970s, the idea that it encapsulates that differences between men and women are not wholly determined by biology- has a longer history. The author has interestingly mentioned in the article that “one is not born a woman but becomes one’.  The contention that women are made rather that born has been central to the development of theories of gender. Another and crucial feature of feminist perspectives is that gender is conceptualized as hierarchical.

Ann Oakley (1972) was among the first to make the distinction between the sex we are born with the gender we acquire. Masculinity and femininity are defined not by biology but by social, cultural and psychological attributes which are acquired through becoming a man or woman in a particular society at a particular time..  Whereas Oakley distinguished gender from biological sex, Rubin related gender to reproductive sexuality. According to Rubin, every society ‘has a sex/gender system- a set of arrangements by which the biological raw material of human sex and procreation is shaped by human, social interventions.  Moreover, what it means to be a woman or a man also varies within any given society at one time, reflecting differences which cut across those of gender such as class or race.  I tend to agree with this point as there are so many diverse cultures and religions all over the world and our character and traits are very much influenced by our roots/ upbringing. In most cultures, the woman are seen as the non dominating role where they are expected to perform the passive role whereas the male are seen to be more active and dominating character who makes most of the decisions in the family or even at work. But now time is changing and woman are becoming more outspoken and have a larger role to play in the family and also workforce. They are now in positions at work where they are decision makers and even men have to report to them as subordinates.

For some time feminists have argued, from a variety of perspectives, that the opposition between sex and gender should be questioned. Some have argued that it is not the interests of feminism to replicate and perpetuate the dualism between culture and nature which pervades our culture. For example, Moira Gatens (1983) points to the origin of the term outside feminism and questions whether this distinction can actually serve feminists in understanding women’s embodied experience. The implications of treating ‘men’ and ‘women’ as social categories were outlined in the editorial to the first issue of Questions Feminists, in which the collective’s critique of naturalistic explanations of sexual difference was established as a basic tenet of their  radical feminist stance. They opposed the ideas of ‘sexual difference’ feminists, arguing the idea of feminine’ difference’ derives from patriarchal reasoning  and has served to justify and conceal our exploitation. In order to counter this ideology, they argue, radical feminism must refuse any notion of ‘woman’ that is unrelated to social context. But are the above statements justifiable and fair to woman?  Just as class struggle seeks to do away with classes, so feminists struggle should aim to do away with sex differences.

For Butler, both gender and sex are fictive in the sense that they are constructed through discursive and non-discursive practices. In conceptualizing gender as performative. Butler is not saying that gender is something you ‘put in the morning and discard at will. I personally feel that one gender has to compliment the other, both the male and female constantly face challenges but of different kind with regards to their gender. Male and female gender is unique in its own way. As mentioned in this article that it is the culture and roots that mould a person’s character and behavior. Who we are today depends very much on that. The article goes on to emphasize on gender and sexuality. As mentioned in the article that, it is commonly assumed that sexual differences between women and men are directly explicable by reproductive biology. Moreover, sexuality validates gender: ‘femininity’ equates with attractiveness to men; sexual conquest of women confirms masculinity. Human sexual relations are social relations and hence meaningful to participants and shaped by the social contexts in which they occur. Hence, feminists have an interest in challenging essentialist ideas on sexuality, as well as naturalistic accounts of differences between men and women.

Gagnon and Simon (1974) and Foucault (1981) suggest that the interrelationship between gender and sexuality is not predetermined but is a product of particular historical and social contexts. Most feminists would accept the need for an analytical distinction between gender and sexuality, without which we cannot explore their intersections.  Whatever perspective feminists take, most are aware that the boundaries of ‘proper’ gender identifications and of heterosexuality are policed in a variety of ways that those who step outside these boundaries are usually stigmatized and often punished.

Conclusion

Feminism certainly cannot afford to leave the body untheorised as simply the inert matter on which gender is inscribed. The entire article is interesting and has given me a better insight and understanding on Feminism. Feminism is a broad topic that needs to be understood. The theorists in this article have all developed and elaborated their concept on the three terms sex, gender and sexuality.  The explanations provided by the theorists are interesting citing various differences between male and female and also talk about cultural differences and how this impact feminism. Overall, this has been a challenging and new experience for me.

(Global Asia Feminism-MAINS, 2010)


Vivek Pandey 

Struggle for Democracy during Panchayat System (1960-1990) in Nepal

Introduction

The government of Nepal was run by numbers of interrelated aristocratic families for centuries. Between 1846 and 1951, the Kingdom of Nepal was ruled by Rana regime– an extended family of hereditary prime ministers. This period was even regarded as Dark Night in the history of Nepal. During their rule, they reduced the monarch to a figurehead and implemented the highly centralized autocracy and isolated Nepal from external influences. Fortunately, they were not able to isolate Nepal and its people from the worldwide wave of freedom fighting specially in India and national movement in China. The Nepalese were immensely inspired by the India and China freedom fighter’s struggle and these also inspired the Nepalese to start thinking for their own rights. Rana regime tried its level best to suppress such social awakening by using naked force but they failed to do so.  The revolution took concrete shape in 1950-1951, which was beyond the control of Ranas. Finally, Nepalese had succeeded to end the 104 year long autocratic Rana Regime from Nepal and then established the constructional monarchy and parliamentary democracy.

However, Nepalese were not able to experience the democracy; it was short-lived brought by difficulty for long time. The King whom people regarded as living god displayed unhappiness towards the Nepalese people who were then rejoicing in democratic environment. As a result, on 16th December 1960, Nepal’s King Mahendra- ninth Shah Dynasty ruler of Nepal- abolished the country’s elected government by a royal coup and forced Nepalese to live in darkness. He arrested representatives of the elected government accusing them as corrupted and unsuccessful to provide national leadership or to maintain law and order and 'banned all political parties and curtailed essential freedom' (Pyakuryal & Suvedi, 2000: 45). Furthermore, he promulgated the constitution of Nepal, 1962 in his favor. The newly promulgated regulated king's direct rule as an absolute monarchy and established the Panchayat System [1] which remained in operations in the Kingdom of Nepal for about three decades.

Strategies adopted by King to Sustain Panchayat System

'At the time of initiation of Panchyat System, it was said that the arrangement was "experimental". But later, by the first amendment to the constitution of Nepal, 1962, the Panchayat System was declared "partyless" and a system to which there was no alternative' (Hachhethu 1990: 184). King Mahendra didn't allow the political parties to function giving the mere reason that they were faction oriented elements which creates obstacle for the overall development of the nation. He even replaced the Government of Nepal with His Majesty's Government of Nepal, and added royal to the names of the state agencies and organizations. The Panchyat System gave the King absolute power at the national level. The King was able to appoint and dismiss Supreme Court judges and could change any judicial decision. He was the military commander in chief and was even able to amend the constitution anytime. Following the path of his father, King Birendra, the son and successor of King Mahendra moved further to make the Panchayat System more rigid by:

…the second amendment to constitution, the Back to Village National Campaign was made extremely powerful in all respects: from recruitment to retirement of the rank and file of panchas. The Panchayat System, then onwards began to function as a totalitarian one party system gradually eliminating the room for systematic opposition. The role of the banned political parties became very unpredictable.

(Hachhethu 1990: 184)

King Mahendra was political philosopher of Panchayat System. He successfully projected his nationalist image by expanding Nepal's contacts and relations with a number of major world powers. Therefore, his 'political innovations were highly impressive and influential for some at that moment' (Hoftun, Raeper & Whelpton, 1999: 81). Likewise, he focused on the economic development and gave Nepal a much-needed economic boost. 'He encountered tourism and built roads and hydroelectric power stations. He also initiated land and legal reforms. Public health programs wiped out malaria (a deadly disease spread by mosquitoes) in Terai, making this region more suitable for settlement and farming'(Walske, 2009: 31).

Steps towards the 1990 People's Movement

Hijacking of democracy and limitation of fundamental rights was not acceptable for the contemporary political parties and civil societies. As a result of dissatisfaction Nepali Congress[2] lunched a mild violent movement against the authoritarian Panchayat System from late autumn, 1961. Congress prepared their own guerilla army and started attacking against government installations. Over the country as a whole congress forces numbering around 3000 didn't manage to establish control of any area, but kept up continuous pressure against the 9000 strong royal Nepalese army. Indian co-operation was a vital element in the congress strategy. According to a government statement in September 1962, a total of 205 incidents, 180 launched from across the border, had cost the lives of 77 congress insurgents, 31 members of security forces and 22 civilians (Baral, 1997: 72-83).

Due to the tough stance of congress leaders over the newly adopted system, negotiation between Palace and Congress was going on, but the situation changed dramatically in may 1968 when Subarna Sumser[3] without consent of B.P. Koirala[4] and other Congress leaders issued a statement in Calcutta offering “full cooperation” to the King Mahendra and agreed to accept the Panchayat constitution in the earnest hope of its further development under the guidance and leadership of the King. B.P. Koirala was unwilling to directly endorse this formula as he believed that negotiations would have lead to something loss of a complete surrender than was Subrna's statement.

After being convinced that B.P. Koirala and Ganesh Man Singh[5] would not openly repudiate Subarna, King ordered for the release of these two stalwart of Nepali Congress. But B. P. Koirala 'after his release renewed the line of confrontation with the unequivocal statement that an army revolution is only the way to topple the Panchayat System and thereby restore the democracy'(Hachhethu 1990: 184).  In Feb. 1969, after a warning from Prime Minister Surya Bahadur Thapa that his statements were putting him in danger of re-arrest, B.P. went into self-exile in India.

Despite several tactics applied by the regime, anti-Panchayat activities went on increasing. There started appearing division even among the Panchas[6]. Though, the majority were in favor, some started opposing the system. Surya Bahadur Thapa, the front liner and other most beneficiaries went up to criticize the system as "Dual Polity". Even the hard-core supporters' of Panchayat System were unable to implement and fulfill the wishes and dreams of the King and engaged themselves in-group politics and fulfilling their selfish ends. Nepotism and Favoritism was the basis for government job but merit was avoided. The near and dears of the palace and Panchas ruled but others had to accept the exploitation and extortions. The King tried to make cabinet balanced and inclusive by appointing some ministers from different castes, regions, religions and languages, but was not successful due to obstacles from sidelined democrats and the liberals from the mainstream politics.

Despite the intermittent challenges, the king remained firmly in control. He initiated some genuine works for the country but they were not sufficient enough to overshadow his unlawful acts. His some noteworthy innovative programs were Back to Village National Campaign and Muluki Ain (Civil Code) of 1963. Likewise, the Land Reform Act, 1964 intended to promote more quartile agrarian system was highly appreciated by general public.

King Mahendra died in February 1972 and his son Birendra aged twenty-six ascended the throne. It was hoped by many that the Eton and Harvard educated Monarch would favor a more liberal line than his father. But unfortunately, King Birendra made it clear by both words and deeds that 'he did not want to make substantial changes to his father's constitutions' (Chatterji, 1980: 53). Majority of the people were not satisfied with the King's decision and started supporting the violent action against the Panchayat System.

At that very moment, 'a section of young communist who were inspired by the Cultural Revolution in China and the Naxatile movement in India also followed the path of violence in the liquidation of the class enemy' (Hachhethu 1990: 184).  King was determined to suppress the anti-Panchayat movements whether lunched by the Nepali Congress or the Communists.

The declaration of emergency in India initially enabled King Birendra to take a harder line against Nepalese dissidents which is considered as a substantial event to increase the chain of events against Panchayat System. 'Ultimately B.P. Koirala and his colleagues returned to Nepal from exile in India in 1975 with a national reconciliation policy, arguing that the Nepali Congress had a twofold responsibility of safeguarding democracy and nationalism' (Hachhethu 1990: 184). Unfortunately, Koirala was arrested on his arrival at Tribhuwan Airport. Due to considerable pressure from the international community Government of Nepal changed its stance against B.P. Koirala and released from prison. He was even allowed to travel to the USA for medical treatment but was arrested again on his return from New York in late 1977.[7]

Moreover, clash between police and students in 1979 during the students' demonstration against the hanging of former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan brought further trouble for the Panchayat System. After this event, Nepali Congress along with other political parties started demanding national reform, but the King neglected their demand and continued suppressing them which lead to the nationwide demonstration against Panchayat System. Due to pressure from every corner, King Birendra announced the National Referendum through national broadcast on May 24, 1979 which was considered as a crucial step towards the restoration of democracy in Nepal and was welcomed by majority of the political leaders and ordinary people, but some especially the Communist groups were still skeptical.

Despite mix reactions from all quarters, the National Referendum was conducted in 1980, giving clear cut victory for the reformed Panchayat, against the multiparty system. 'The government used all possible tactics like rigging, extortion and irregularities in the process. There was large-scale use of muscle, money, men and machine against the democracy' (Shah, 1993: 51).

The result of the referendum came as a keen disappointment to the party politicians and to the more politicized sections of the population who had generally opposed the Panchayat System. It was hoped that the results would open the eyes of the Panchas, but they become even more extreme and started taking very wrong direction. Rather than uniting the country, the referendum and the third amendment created the environment of even greater disenchantment and cynicism. The opportunist's elites and the reactionaries swarmed round the King and tried their level best to create fraction between the political parties. Despite, obstacles from the palace and the Panchas, political parties were able to develop new strategy to cope with the new political environment and to reorganize themselves which was biggest challenge to the palace. Likewise, there was fraction within the Panchas themselves which gave further headache to the palace.

Unexpected death of B.P. Koirala in 1982 shocked all the political parties fighting against the Panchayat System. After the death of their leader, Nepali Congress adopted the Troika system of leadership lead by Grija Prasad Koirala, Ganesh Man Singh and Krishna Prasad Bhattarai and lunched Satyagraha[8] against the ban on political parties in 1985. The communist, also launched their own programme but the series of bomb explosion in the capital around the palace, by Ram Raja Prasad Singh's Nepal Janabadi Morcha[9] forced the leaders of Nepali Congress to call off their Satyagraha. Singh's step though criticized by many, undoubtedly gave a new gravity to the political situation in Nepal. 

The palace tried its level best to take control over the situation. It kept changing the leadership of government in a desperate bid to survive. Series of corruptions scandals shook the government, rumors flew around the country about the involvement of the palace in the smuggling and lavish distribution of country's resources to the relatives of the palace, extortion and killing become common. The notorious persons like Bharat Gurung (A.D.C to prince Dhirendra) and his gangs supported by the palace were found involved in many illegal offences like smuggling drugs which gave good opportunity to the political parties to criticize palace and revolt against Panchayat System.

Towards the end of the 1980 the political struggle in Nepal intensified. The banned political parties increased their activities rapidly. The government also continued its crackdown further to suppress the anti-Panchayat activities. International community's attention was fixed on human rights offences in Nepal. As a result, Rishikesh Shah[10] founded the Human Rights Organisation of Nepal (HURON), which in a few months became one of the largest organizations opposing government policies. 'Although opposition grew strong towards the government during the late eighties, the 1990 revolution might never have taken place had India not play a positive role. What weakened the Panchayat government more than anything else and strengthened the opposition was India's trade embargo imposed in March 1989' (Shah, 1993: 107). 'At first, the crisis seemed to strengthen the Panchayat government. All the Nepalese were called to unite to fight the national crisis and to resist the foreign aggressor but as the crisis deepened and the scarcity with price hike arose. The altitudes began to harden against the regime. The people lost their patience and started showing discontent' (Adhikary, 1998: 2).

The time was perfect to topple the Panchayat System. Realizing it, Nepali Congress and other left parties started organizing more and more rallies by the end of 1989 A.D. to channelize the energy and sentiment of Nepalese for the restoration of democracy and to free country from miserable condition. Nepali Congress and United Left Front -a joint front of Nepalese communist parties- took a historical decision to launch a united people's movement. The political leaders of all quarters & ideology declared that they will forget their petty differences and accept the commandership of Ganesh Man Singh to fight against the Panchayat System (Sharma, 1998: 10).

In 18 January 1990, under the command of supreme leader Ganesh Man Singh, National Conference of Nepali Congress called for a decisive movement for the restoration of democracy, welcoming other political groups to join if they desire to do so. This conference was attended by 3000 delegates from all the major communist parties of Nepal and the figure like ex-premier Marich Man Singh of the Panchayat System, Chandra Sekhar (ex-premier of India and prominent leader of Janata Dal), Harkishan Singh Surjeet (senior communist politician from Punjab, India) and other Indian prominent political figures Subramaiyam Swami, M.J. Akbar, Dr. Farukhi, etc.

1990 People's Movement

The new democratic movement known as People's Movement was launched formally on February 18, 1990 (the same day when democracy had been proclaimed in Nepal for the first time) under the command of supreme leader of Nepali Congress Ganesh Man Singh. 'The outlawed parties demanded mainly four things: The end of the Panchayat system, the establishment of a multi-party democracy, the formation of a national government, and general elections on a multi-party basis under the same government' (Pant, 2001).

Within no day or time the protest went on spreading and becoming more popular. Government, right from the beginning tried its best to suppress of the movement but didn't succeed. Talking about the government's suppression during People's Movement, Hachhethu (1990: 180-81) states that:

[w]ithin the first three days of the movement, a dozen freedom fighters lost their lives...Thousands of people both party activist and commoners were put in detention under very inhuman conditions. The opposition demonstrations augmented especially by unemployed youths and campus student's against the government's suppression had given a real spark to the popular agitation…As the movement gained momentum and spread far and wide, the panchayat regime's repressive measures also became harsher and more brutal. Consequently, many people were shot and thousands were put behind bars...The brutal suppression but the government aroused indignation among the people and also aroused concern in the international community.

Government's naked use of power and the loss of lives of unarmed demonstrators encouraged more and more people to fight for their rights. As a result, massive demonstrations were organized in all the districts of the Nepal. Thousands of people from all spheres including intellectuals, professors, legal practitioners, businessmen, tradesmen, professionals, human rights defenders, journalists and common people attended the demonstrations carrying Nepali Congress's and Communist's flags despite strict official vigilance. The movement rapidly gained a revolutionary character. The government tried to overshadow the opposition movement by organizing rallies in favor of the Panchayat System, which even fueled the movement. This incident sparked the entire nation to start chanting for democracy and human rights. Realizing that the movement was out of control, the government called political leaders for the negotiations but was refused.

The refusal of political leaders for the negotiation made the government more aggressive. The government started mobilizing heavily equipped armed forces to save the last breathe of Panchayat System. Security forces started shooting ordinary unarmed demonstrators without any hesitation and killed of six demonstrators in Patan and Kritipur. In reaction to the barbaric act of the security force, 'the people from each household in these cities [Patan and Kritipur] including even housewives and children took to regular marching on the streets brandishing various kitchen utensils and agriculture tools. In the final phase corporation staffs and civil servants also took part in the struggle against in the Panchayat System' (Hachhethu, 1990: 181).

When all the strategies designed to suppress the popular movement failed, the king designed new strategy to save the Panchayat System by announcing that he was going to form a Constitution Reform Committee and an Inquiry Committee on 6 April, 1990. He even changed the Prime Minister from Marich Man to Lokendra Bahadur Chand and publicized that the new ministry will consult people holding different political views, but it was already too late. None of the political leaders as well as Nepalese was willing to negotiate with the King without achieving their goal. They were adamant and kept their peaceful demonstrations going on. 

The regime in a last of the desperation once again ordered security forces to fire on the peaceful demonstrators and took life of eleven people in Butwal. Likewise, '…the King's regime bared its fangs in Kathmandu resulting in a street massacre on the Darbur Marg around the statue of the late King Mahendra, the architect of the Panchayat System'(Hachhethu, 1990: 182) where 'at least fifty had died as a result of police firing' (Brown, 1996: 148). The exact number of the civilians killed by the state force while suppressing the movement is still unknown though 'the government was able to establish the names of only 63 persons who were killed during the whole course of the Movement' (Brown, 1996: 148). However, the lives of the innocent people forced the authoritarian Panchayat regime to kneel down in front of the people give back their rights.

The negotiation initiated by newly appointed P.M. Lokendra Chand resulted in the direct talks between the monarch and the people's leaders. On 8 April 1990 the political leaders call off the movement following compromise with the palace that 'partylessness' would be deleted from the constitution and the lifting of the ban on the political parties. This brought a sudden turnaround in Nepali politics. The fifty days long pro-democratic movement that started on the historic day of 7th Falgun (February 18, 1990) forced the 30 years long deep-rooted Panchayat System to accept the sovereignty of the people

---

[1] The Panchayat System is a South Asian political system mainly in India, Pakistan, and Nepal. Panchayat" literally means assembly of five wise and respected elders chosen and accepted by the village community. Traditionally, this assembly was responsible to settle disputes between individuals and villages, but the Panchayat System mention in this paper indicates the authoritarian partyless system which constitutionalized the absolute power of the monarchy and kept the King as head of state with sole authority over all governmental institutions, including the Cabinet (Council of Ministers) and the Parliament.

[2] The Nepali Congress is a reform-oriented centrist party and has been in continuous operation since it was founded as the Nepali National Congress in 1947. It was major political party which secured overwhelming majority to form the government in the first democratic election of Nepal, 1959. After tremendous victory Nepali Congress Party government sought to liberalize society through a democratic process. The palace coup of 1960 led to the imprisonment of the powerful Nepali Congress Party leader, B.P. Koirala, and other party stalwarts; many other members sought sanctuary in exile in India.

[3] One of the founding members of the Nepali Congress.

[4] Founder of Nepali Congress and the first elected prime minister of Nepal (1959-1960).

[5] Ganesh Man Singh (1915-1997) was the commander of Nepalese democratic movement of 1990 AD. He was the first Asian to receive United Nations Human Rights Award. He is one of the most revered politicians of Nepal. He is the only person ever in the History of Nepal to refuse to become the Prime Minister when requested by the King and supported by the people and is known as the Father of Democracy in Nepal.

[6] Supporters of Panchayat System were called Panchas.

[7] Source: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/B._P._Koirala_of_Nepal

[8] Satyagraha is the non-violent Civil Disobedience Movement developed and conceived by Mohan Das Karamchand Gandhi during the British rule in India. May 23, 1985, Nepali Congress organized a nationwide Satyagraha against the Panchayat System in which more than 12000 party workers and sympathizers voluntarily went to jail for several months.

[9] Nepal Janabadi Morcha (Nepal Democratic Front) is a leftwing political movement in Nepal. The group was founded in 1976, and worked clandestinely during the Panchayat System.

[10] Rishikesh Shah (1925-2002), was Nepal's very first permanent representative to the United Nations. He was also Nepal's Ambassador to the US for a short time, in 1961, he was elected by the UN General Assembly as chairman of the international commission to probe into the death of the UN General Secretary.

.

 References:

Books and Journals:

Adhikari, S.M. (1998). Nepalma Prajatantrik Andolanko Itihas. New Delhi: Nirala Publication

Baral, U. (1977). Nepal Rajnitik Dwanda Ra Yesko Byawasthapan, Journal of Political Science, Vol. 5, No. 6,  pp. 72-83. 

Brown, T. L. (1996). The Challenge to Democracy in Nepal: A Political History. London: Routledge.

Chatterji, B. (1980). People, Palace and Politics: Nepal in Perspective. Delhi: Ankur.

Hachhethu, K. (1990). Mass Movement 1990. Contributions to Nepalese Studies, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 176-201.

Hoftun, M., Raeper, W. and Whelpton, J. (1999). People, Politics and Ideology: Democracy and Social Change in Nepal. Kathmandu: Mandala Book Point.

Pant, S. (2001). One Step Toward a Brighter Future: The pro-Democracy Movement in Nepal 1990-91. Asmita, Vol. III, No. 8. Available at: http://www.asmita.org.np/Women_Subject_Category/social_movement.htm

Pyakuryal, K., and Suvedi, M. (2000). Understanding Nepal’s Development. Available at: https://www.msu.edu/~suvedi/Pages/PDF%20files/Nepal%20Book.pdf

Shah, R. (1993). Politics in Nepal: 1980-1991. New Delhi: Manohar.

Sharma, J. (1998). Democracy without Roots. Delhi: Book Faith India.

Walske, C.Z. (2009). Nepal in Pictures, Minneapolis, USA: Lerner Publishing Group.

Web Source:

http://nepalicongress.org

http://www.jamesrmaclean.com/mw/index.php/Rana_Dynasty_(Nepal)

http://countrystudies.us/nepal/19.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nepal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_People's_Movement

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0804/S00298.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahendra_of_Nepal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishweshwar_Prasad_Koirala

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birendra_of_Nepal

http://responsibleadventures.com/details.php?id=1010

(Note: I wrote this paper as a part of assignment for Modern Korean History and Past-Dealing Process-MAINS 2010. I hope you enjoyed reading this paper.)

Thank You

Vivek Pandey 

MAINS,2010

International Workshop for Peace and Disarmament in the Asia-Pacific Region: for Civilian Control of the Security Sector

The workshop was jointly organized by People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy. The Center for peace and Law of the Institute of Legal Studies of Inha University, Pacific Freeze, Peace Network, and Civil Peace Forum on 17th November 2010. The purpose of organizing this workshop is to set grounds for launching a new civil movement for peace and disarmament in the Asia-Pacific Region beyond the borders. The workshop was separated into two sessions for the better understanding of the participants attending it. The first session was presented by presenters from the U.S., Japan, South Korea and China. This was an interesting session as the presenters discussed about the cases from their respected countries on Security Policies and Civil Priorities in the Asia- Pacific Region. The second session consisted of presenters delivering the session based on their personal opinions on Creating Civil Solidarity for NWF Disarmament and Prevention of Armed Conflict in Asia-Pacific Region. Amongst the two sessions that I attended, I personally found that the first session of the workshop is an area that I would like to embark on.

First speaker, John Feffer from Institute for Policy Studies, U.S. presented his opinion about the U.S military policy and its military strategy in Asia which in fact was very much informative for those people who are not familiar with the U.S military doctrine. He mentioned that recently the Obama administration has decided to cut on the U.S military budget and one third of all overseas the U.S military bases which in a sense looks good, but the hidden agenda behind it is that the U.S is trying to compel its allies like South Korea and Japan to spend more on military spending or make them buy the U.S military weapons. He also mentioned that the U.S. still wants to extend its allies for two major reasons: counter terrorism and to prepare for war that could happen in future with the emerging military power like China. He kept on criticizing the U.S. foreign policy stating that a truly progressive foreign policy is not in the cards for the United States any time soon. He concluded his presentation stating that the U.S. economic crisis is a great opportunity for civil societies of the countries that were involved in the Six Party Talks to give pressure for the reduction on military spending and to give pressure to utilize that money to address major global issues like climate change, nuclear weapon threat, etc.

Second speaker, Akira Kawasaki from Peace Boat, Japan focused on Japan's recent Defense White Paper and Prime Minister's Advisory Plan Report. He mentioned that White Paper stresses the vital role played by the U.S. military forces stationed in Japan in protecting the nation, and elaborated the defense situation over the southwest archipelago as well as the situation on the Korean Peninsula. He also mentioned that Prime Minister's Advisory Plan Report is more aggressive as it calls for changing Japan from a passive peace-loving nation to a proactive peace-loving nation. He concluded his presentation stressing that innovative civil society approaches should be developed and implemented to contribute to non-traditional security, relating to such issues as crime, piracy, disasters and climate change without relying on national military force. 

Third speaker, Taeho Lee from the PSPD, South Korea expressed his concern regarding the South Korea's military strategy. He mentioned that in recent years South Korea's military strategy has gone from defense-oriented to increasingly offensive. It is developing its cruise missiles, planning a high-speed military communications network, building bigger warships, boosting its space exploration program and  is planning to export solid and cheap weapons to any conflict zones in the world accordingly to local needs and to send troops to a foreign country when needed for arms sales or military support. He also mentioned that overall military situation in Northeast Asia now resembles the Cold War Period. He concluded his presentation by suggesting that Pacific Freeze should initiate a campaign; urgently and directly requesting that South Korea, Japan and U.S. should start disarmament without mentioning North Korean Nukes. He mentioned that for success of the Pacific Freeze campaign, they should regularize their efforts to present alternative interpretation on contemporary situations and peace strategies as challenging that state threat interpretation and security policies.

Fourth speaker, Hua Han from Beijing University mentioned that China is not necessarily a threat to its neighbors. The core threat and security challenges of China are more internal than external, so it has taken a defensive and cooperative approach in making and implementing its security policy. China has always been taking steps to develop to defuse tension and crisis before they escalate into a conflict. She also added that China is not facing any imminent threat of invasion across its long land border and has resolved most border disputes with neighbors. She concluded stating that China has emphasized on navy buildup in last two decades, but Navy buildup is driven by economic ambition rather than expansionist agenda.

My Personal Reflection on the First Session of the Workshop

The entire programme was a challenging and new experience for me as I had the opportunity to learn about the current power struggle between highly equipped Northeast Asian nations. All four presenters highlighted that in recent years, security environment especially in Northeast Asia is in critical condition due to the clash of opposing strategic interests of China with the United States. The United States continues to strategically, politically and militarily dominate Northeast Asia which is unacceptable for the economically and militarily powerful country like China. Increased tension between these powerful countries has drastically increase military spending in East Asia. Traditional U.S. allies like South Korea and Japan are drastically increasing their budget to introduce more high-tech military weaponry with the United States support. Likewise, China itself has embarked on an accelerated comprehensive military buildup and modernization with particular emphasis on buildup of naval and air force assets. It is even indirectly encouraging North Korea's nuclear strategy by providing them with economic aid. Power struggle between China, Russia and North Korea on the one hand and the U.S., Japan and South Korea on the other hand has massively increased their budget on military spending which has in fact has increased chances of conflict or new cold war in this region rather than brining peace and stability.

I personally agree with Mr. Feffer presentation, as it is evident that the USA makes efforts in controlling clashes between nations for the purpose of peace making, but that purpose is controversial with reality because the U.S. is the top weapon producer and exporter. According to the various internet sources, the U.S. military budget makes up almost half of the entire world's defense spending. The base budget for the Department of Defense in 2010 was more than $500 billion US Dollars (USD), not counting overseas expenditures and emergency spending. The U.S. Army gets the biggest percentage of that money, about $250 billion USD a year, followed by the Navy and the Air Force. Despite this, the combined total military budgets of the six next highest spenders from China, France, Russia, Germany, United Kingdom and Japan still don't add up to the U.S. military budget. When we analyze the figure closely, it is very easy for us to doubt the claim of the U.S. regarding peace. On the other hand, presenters Mr. Lee from South Korea and Mr. Kawasaki from Japan highlighted the fact regarding their countries eagerness to produce and spend more on modern high-tech military equipments giving the reasons of self defense. They also mentioned that their countries involvement in producing modern high-tech weapon with the support of the U.S. is profit oriented and power driven rather than for self defense. I am not in favor of Mrs. Han presentation as she only focused most of her presentations in favor of China's military activities relating it with the self defense. But on the other hand, the recent Chinese military activities demonstrate that it wants to dominate the region economically and militarily by replacing the U.S.

War is always initiated by the state for their vested interest, but innocent people are the ones who suffer the consequences of war.  People are always in search of peace and are seen to strongly oppose the bloodshed activities initiated by the governments in the name of self defense and power. They have never been able to appreciate the production of weapons whether it is done for profit gain or for self defense purpose as they know that ultimately the weapons would eventually be used mainly for destruction. Therefore, civil societies around the world are always raising the issue of disarmament, but it is generally neglected by the states. All four presenters were highly concerned about this issue and stressed on the importance of civil societies of Asia Pacific region to organize various innovative programs to give pressure to these governments to reduce their military spending and draw their attention to address more important global issues like poverty, economic crisis, unemployment, climate change, nuclear weapon threat, etc.

Finally, the information provided by all the presenters was just right, easy to understand and relevant for the needs of the participant. It would have been good if there were usage of power point slides and pictures to clearly understand the presentation as most people are visual learners including myself. However, such workshops are really beneficial and should be organized more often to ensure that people are alerted and prepared. I am glad that I was provided with this opportunity by my lecturer to attend the workshop and be able to grasps the knowledge and experience of the presenters.

Thank You !

Vivek Pandey

MA in Inter Asia NGO Studies

SungKongHoe University

Note: I wrote this paper as a part of assignment for Understanding and Experience Korean Society-MAINS 2010.