Nepal: Two months after deadly violence, pro-monarchy group to hold 'peaceful' protests tomorrow
Rastriya Prajatantra Party Chairman Rajendra Lingden has asserted that the street protests and demonstrations will focus on civil disobedience and Satyagraha (non-violent resistance) and will remain "peaceful."
Addressing journalists on Tuesday, Lingden said the event will be held at Ratnapark in Kathmandu even if the administration does not permit them.
"Our protest will not be violent. It will be completely under our control, and won't be held outside the Ring Road. Even if the administration denies permission, we will hold it at Ratnapark," Lingden said.
Lingden alleged that Nepal's Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli is trying to create disruptions during his party's protest programme.
Oli, who also chairs the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist), during a party function, warned that from 11 am to 2 pm on May 29, Kathmandu should be under the control of his ruling party, the leading Nepalese newspaper, The Kathmandu Post, reported.
"The prime minister is trying to provoke unrest on Thursday. Prime Minister Oli made such an inappropriate statement that he either has to correct it or he should resign. We announced a programme at Ratnapark, and the prime minister's party is summoning its cadres nearby to create a clash. Journalists need to report on this matter impartially," Lingden added.
Reports suggest that an alliance of pro-royalist and pro-Hindu groups, demanding the restoration of the Hindu state and monarchy, will join hands in the unified protest.
Prime Minister Oli reportedly instructed UML cadres to organise and take charge of the Kathmandu streets in light of the upcoming protest.
Meanwhile, Kamal Thapa, chairman of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal (RPP-N), announced that monarchists, who had been fragmented and inactive, have come together to push their common agenda.
"We have moved from a state of complete stagnation to a united front among monarchists. There is now a realisation that this is the most suitable time to push for the abolition of republicanism, federalism, and secularism," said Thapa
Thapa accused the major political parties in Nepal of trying to undermine the ideological existence of monarchists.
He stated that if the monarchy abolished by the Constituent Assembly of 2008 is revived, then Hridayendra Shah, grandson of former king Gyanendra Shah, could be made the king if there is a national consensus.
"If there is a national consensus, let's make Hridayendra Shah the king. If people think Gyanendra Shah is too old, then we must be ready to consider an alternative -- based on consensus. If there is consensus on Hridayendra, then Gyanendra must also accept it. Monarchy is not about an individual -- it is an ideology. We believe that the successor should be a descendant of Prithvi Narayan Shah. Who that should be is not the main issue," Thapa added.
Earlier, tension ran high in the Tinkune area of Kathmandu on March 28 during the pro-monarchy protests when two people died, and hundreds were injured in the violent clashes between security personnel and pro-monarchy protesters.
The violence also caused estimated damages worth Nepalese Rs 460 million.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
15 minutes ago
- NDTV
Trump Confirms Special Envoy Steve Witkoff's Russia Visit Ahead Of Sanctions Deadline
President Donald Trump confirmed Sunday his special envoy Steve Witkoff will visit Russia in the coming week, ahead of a looming US sanctions deadline and escalating tensions with Moscow. Speaking to reporters, Trump also said that two nuclear submarines he deployed following an online row with former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev were now "in the region." Trump has not said whether he meant nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed submarines. He also did not elaborate on the exact deployment locations, which are kept secret by the US military. The nuclear saber-rattling came against the backdrop of a deadline set by Trump at the end of next week for Russia to take steps towards ending the Ukraine war or face unspecified new sanctions. The Republican leader said Witkoff would visit "I think next week, Wednesday or Thursday." Russian President Vladimir Putin has already met Witkoff multiple times in Moscow, before Trump's efforts to mend ties with the Kremlin came to a grinding halt. When reporters asked what Witkoff's message would be to Moscow, and if there was anything Russia could do to avoid the sanctions, Trump replied: "Yeah, get a deal where people stop getting killed." Trump has previously threatened that new measures could mean "secondary tariffs" targeting Russia's remaining trade partners, such as China and India. This would further stifle Russia, but would risk significant international disruption. Despite the pressure from Washington, Russia's onslaught against its pro-Western neighbor continues to unfold. Putin, who has consistently rejected calls for a ceasefire, said Friday that he wants peace but that his demands for ending his nearly three-and-a-half year invasion were "unchanged." "We need a lasting and stable peace on solid foundations that would satisfy both Russia and Ukraine, and would ensure the security of both countries," Putin told reporters. But he added that "the conditions (from the Russian side) certainly remain the same." Russia has frequently called on Ukraine to effectively cede control of four regions Moscow claims to have annexed, a demand Kyiv has called unacceptable. Putin also seeks Ukraine to drop its ambitions to join NATO. Ukraine issued on Sunday a drone attack which sparked a fire at an oil depot in Sochi, the host city of the 2014 Winter Olympics. Kyiv has said it will intensify its air strikes against Russia in response to an increase in Russian attacks on its territory in recent weeks, which have killed dozens of civilians. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky also said Sunday that the two sides were preparing a prisoner exchange that would see 1,200 Ukrainian troops return home, following talks with Russia in Istanbul in July. Trump began his second term with his own rosy predictions that the war in Ukraine -- raging since Russia invaded its neighbor in February 2022 -- would soon end. In recent weeks, Trump has increasingly voiced frustration with Putin over Moscow's unrelenting offensive.
Time of India
29 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Would you worship Bhagwa terrorist?': Shankaracharya Avimukteshwaranand says 'don't link terrorism with colour'; questions failure to find Malegaon blast culprits
Shankaracharya Swami Avimukteshwaranand NEW DELHI: The debate over the use of the term 'Saffron Terror', that resumed after the July 31 verdict in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, has refused to die down. Commenting on the term, Shankaracharya Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati Maharaj said that colour should not be linked with terrorism. He said those who associate a colour with terrorism are supporting terrorism. The Shankaracharya said, "A terrorist is a does colour mean with the word terrorism? Terrorism is terrorism, and a zero-tolerance policy should be adopted against it... The Malegaon blast happened, but you could not find the person who committed who look for colours in terrorism are supporters of terrorism." The term 'Bhagwa Aatank' or 'saffron terrorism' was first used after the 2002 Gujarat riots, as per a report by the news agency ANI. It was later used again after the 2008 Malegaon blasts. Some political leaders and parties used the term in their statements. The term was also mentioned by then home minister P Chidambaram in an official meeting with police officials. Congress leader Digvijay Singh also used the term in reference to the blasts. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like No annual fees for life UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo The Hindu pontiff also raised questions as to why the government is still unable to catch the culprits of the Malegaon blast case. "We do not wish to comment on the court's proceedings; whatever was done in court, we believe, must have been correct. If these people were found innocent in the court's view, then it is right they were acquitted. But the bigger problem is that the blast did not happen on its own — someone must have done it. Who was it? Where is the Government of India, the state government failing, that someone comes, carries out a blast, and leaves, and despite having vast resources and plenty of time, we are still unable to catch the culprit? This is a big slap on our capability that we cannot apprehend the guilty," he said. On July 31, a special NIA court in Mumbai acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case. The court said that the prosecution could not prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court also directed the Maharashtra government to pay Rs 2 lakh compensation to the families of the people who died in the blast, and Rs 50,000 to those who were injured. The seven accused were former MP Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, retired Major Ramesh Upadhyay, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhankar Dhar Dwivedi (also known as Shankaracharya), and Sameer Kulkarni. "All bail bonds of the accused are cancelled and sureties are discharged," the court said. The court examined 323 witnesses from the prosecution and eight from the defence before giving the verdict. All seven were acquitted of charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Arms Act, and other related charges. The blast occurred on September 29, 2008, near a mosque in Bhikku Chowk area of Malegaon. An explosive device placed on a motorcycle went off, killing six people and injuring 95 others. Initially, 11 people were named as accused, but charges were framed against seven. The lawyer representing the victims' families has said that he will challenge the acquittal in the high court. Earlier, on the eve of the judgment in the Malegaon blast case, Union home minister Amit Shah had said in Parliament that no Hindu can ever be a terrorist. "I am proud to say, no Hindu can ever be a terrorist," Shah had said in Rajya Sabha. Meanwhile, after the NIA court judgment, former Maharashtra CM Prithviraj Chavan also spoke on the matter last week and said that he does not support the use of the term "saffron terror." "Don't use the term 'Saffron terrorism'. If you want to describe such acts, use 'Hindu fundamentalist' or 'Hindu terrorism' instead."
The Wire
an hour ago
- The Wire
Malegaon Terror Blast Judgment: How the Crucial Witnesses Prosecution Dropped Impacted the Case
Government Sukanya Shantha Just as the prosecution's reasons for suppressing certain key witnesses are unclear, it is equally unclear why the court did not exercise its authority to summon these witnesses. Mumbai: Since the trial for the 2008 Malegaon terror blast commenced in 2018, the prosecution examined 323 witnesses over a span of seven years. In the process, it dropped several witnesses, without providing any explanation as to why. The special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court felt that these witnesses had been 'crucial' in establishing the chain of events. The decision to drop these witnesses, said special NIA judge A.K. Lahoti, gave the scope to draw an 'adverse inference' against the prosecution. The 1036-page judgement was made available on August 1, a day after the court acquitted all seven accused – including BJP leader and formed member of parliament Pragya Singh Thakur and serving Army officer Prasad Purohit. In it, the court has raised questions about the prosecution's intention to drop several crucial witnesses who the court observed would have helped connect the missing dots in the case. Besides Thakur and Purohit, five other persons – Major Ramesh Upadhyay (retired), Ajay Rahirkar, Sameer Kulkarni, Sudhakar Chaturvedi were also acquitted by the NIA court on July 31. The acquittal, the court has observed, was an outcome of the prosecution's failure to bring sufficient evidence. Even with 'grave suspicion', the court was not able to punish the accused persons, as 'mere suspicion is not enough', the court observed. According to the Anti-Terrorism Squad's case, which was later taken up by the NIA, Purohit has allegedly founded an organisation 'Abhinav Bharat' in 2006 and had attempted to establish a 'Hindu rashtra [nation]' which would have its own constitution, flag and 'government in exile' to be run from either Israel or Thailand. As a part of this agenda, the accused persons had come together and carried out the terror blast in Malegaon. Special public prosecutor Avinash Rasal took over the case soon after the earlier special public prosecutor Rohini Salian made a dramatic exit from the case in 2015 claiming that she was given instructions to 'go soft' on the accused persons charged in the case. She had claimed that she had received the instructions from 'higher ups'. Since Salian's exit, Rasal has been involved in the case for close to a decade. Among the many witnesses that the prosecution decided to drop are those who could have helped establish the movement of the alleged bombers days before the blast occurred. Ramchandra Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange One of the witnesses that the prosecution decided to drop without any cogent explanation is the person whose user ID and phone number was used to book tickets. According to the ATS's case, which was later taken over by the NIA which eventually filed a chargesheet in 2016, one witness named Vilok Sharma had used his account and his phone number to book the train tickets for two absconding accused persons, Ramchandra Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange, to travel from Pune to Indore. The two, according to both the ATS and the NIA, were accused of planting the bombs. Another person, Praveen Takkalki alias Pravin Mutalik, who the ATS had earlier accused of participating in the blast along with the two absconding accused was eventually discharged from the case after the NIA did not find any evidence against him in 2017. The judgment, narrating the NIA's case, points to Sharma's role in getting the tickets booked under fake names – Balwant Pathak and Mansingh – instead of their real names Ramchandra Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange. Their travel to Pune, where the RDX explosive was allegedly procured from Purohit and then to Indore where the absconding accused had allegedly assembled, planted, fitted the explosive on the LML Freedom motorcycle, were fundamental to the investigation. Also read: Malegaon Blast Trial: 1,087 Hearings, Inexplicable Orders and Victims Who Refused to Relent The court said although the facts of the case create 'grave suspicion' against the accused, mere suspicion was not enough to convict them. The court finally had to give the 'benefit of the doubt' and acquit the seven persons facing trial in the case. The travel to Pune and Indore was crucial not just to establish the movement of the absconding accused but also their otherwise loosely hanging links with army officer Purohit, who now stands acquitted in the case. 'Thus, Vilok Sharma from the aforesaid point of view was a material witness who could narrate about ticket details, booking details and traveling history. But, the prosecution has not examined Vilok Sharma. The prosecution has dropped the said witness... Therefore, in the absence of any evidence on this point, it cannot be said that, from his account the railway tickets were booked in the name of two fake persons and those were actually booked by AA-1 (Kalsangra) and AA-2 (Dange).' It is not just Sharma's statement but also the fact that an absolutely essential certificate, to be procured under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act, was not produced before the court. Without this certificate, electronic evidence is not admissible. The prosecution's case was that Kalsangra and Dange were in Pune around the same time as when Purohit had allegedly procured the RDX, i.e. August 8 to August 11. These finer details of the conspiracy and procurement of the explosive needed step-by-step building up of the evidence. The prosecution, according to the NIA judge, had dropped that. Sharma was dropped from the list of witnesses even though his name cropped up in the examination of other witnesses, especially a senior railway executive and an ATS officer. The judgement says: 'Thus, only Vilok Sharma was the witness who could say about the booking of the aforesaid ticket. The material witness Vilok Sharma is not examined by the prosecution. Non examination of material witness without any explanation give rise to draw the adverse inference against prosecution.' Another witness Pramod Deshmukh, who according to the investigating agency had seen Kalsangra and Dange had seen them in Pune around August 8 and 11, was an 'eye witness' but dropped by the witness. Another important witness, the court points out, was the policeman who diffused the detonator but was not examined as a witness. Judge Lahoti writes: 'Officer API Sachin Gawade who has actually diffused the detonator as per the case of prosecution is not examined as witness. He was the only person who could narrate the exact condition of the detonator, the procedure carried out by him for diffusing the detonator and collection of remnants after diffusing. The non-examination of material witnesses give rise to adverse inference." 'Missing' In 2016, the NIA had informed the court that around 13 witness statements, recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before a magistrate, had gone missing. The central agency had attributed this sudden and suspicious disappearance of documents to their constant ferrying between the trial and the higher courts. While the original copies of these statements had gone missing, the NIA had sought permission before the NIA court to use the photocopies of the document – which the court had granted. This permission was challenged by one of the accused persons in the Bombay high court, which later stayed the trial court's order and had directed the NIA to file a fresh application authenticating that the photocopies were indeed a replica of the original. Interestingly, the NIA did not file that application, and the witnesses were examined solely on whether their testimonies were recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. In the absence of these Section 164 statements, the magistrate who recorded them should have been examined. However, the prosecution decided against it. The judgment notes, 'The aforesaid statements (recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.) were neither presented to the witnesses nor was the concerned magistrate examined in such circumstances.' These 13 statements were crucial for proving the conspiracy meetings, the movements of the alleged bombers, and other key aspects of the case. At least two of these witnesses were essential to prove the conspiracy meetings where conversations purportedly on revenge on Muslims were discussed. While it is incumbent upon the prosecution to present important witnesses in court, when the prosecution fails to do so, the court could have done it. Section 311 of the CrPC empowers the court to summon witnesses it deems essential for the case. Just as the prosecution's reasons for suppressing certain key witnesses are unclear, it is equally unclear why the court did not exercise its authority to summon these witnesses. The prosecution examined a total of 323 witnesses in the case, of whom 39 turned hostile. However, public prosecutor Rasal did not initiate perjury proceedings against them, and nor did the court make any significant observations regarding the witnesses who refused to adhere to their original statements. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
