The recent issue of SPOTLIGHT carried the interview given to BBC by James F. Moriarty, U.S. Ambassador to Nepal. It must have generated heated debates in most political quarters in Kathmandu. The ambassador has expressed grave apprehensions that Nepal might turn into a “crazy totalitarian state” if King Gyanendra did not reach out to the political parties for reconciliation to hand them over the reins of his government. If he has condemned the Maoists for “spreading terror,” he has also denounced the “undemocratic royal regime” for “leading an unsuccessful authoritarian rule.” He has even criticized the “shaky seven party alliance” for entering into an “untenable agreement” with the Maoists. He has also tried to assure the Nepalis that he would prevent Nepal from becoming a totalitarian state. Knowing well the American stance against communism and terrorism, all peace loving Nepalis must have welcomed the ambassador’s statement. They do also trust that the Americans would never forsake a small friendly country like Nepal. But why should he have assailed King Gyanendra’s one year old regime only for taking Nepal to such a calamitous situation when the so called democratic parties had ruled Nepal for twelve years before him is, indeed, surprising. Moreover, had the greatest democracy, friendly neighbor, India, scotched the Maoists right in the beginning, this situation would have been easily avoided. Instead, India, despite branding the Maoists terrorists, not only granted them sanctuary but openly permitted them to train their cadres in their country to mount violent insurgency against Nepal. Even to think that the Americans were totally ignorant of this reality, would be quite foolish. As a good friend of Nepal, why didn’t they impress upon India to stop such unfriendly behavior is, indeed, beyond all human comprehensions. And why should India be playing such a blatant double game with her traditional friend and good neighbor, is for anybody to guess. The ambassador needs no illumination to see, if our good friend India wanted, the Maoist problem can be easily resolved, and quite soon too.
Like love and war, everything is fair in politics also. Kathmandu must be rife with rumors that the U.S. too might be playing a double game in Nepal. Since the responsibilities of the United States are global, varied and unenviable, it can play any kind of game as demanded by its grave imperatives. This is very clearly reflected in the regime of George W. Bush. Since King Gyanendra’s responsibilities are different, he should not be influenced by the behavior of leaders of bigger countries. He has his own imperatives, which he has to confront with his own judgment. He must not permit, at any cost, any amount of pressure, from whatever quarter it might come, to impress upon him because all are motivated by their own interests or constraints. King Gyanendra must never lose sight of the axiomatic truth that whoever volunteers help or cooperation, even to the needy, will always try to exact his pound of flesh. As such, King Gyanendra has no option but to tackle the situation himself. Of course, he would need wise and sound advice so that he will be able to fulfill his commitment in the stipulated time. King Gyanendra is fully aware, it is the teeming millions of poor Nepalis who need his attention, concern and service, and not a handful of corrupt and quisling politicians. They are expendable, not the people. Since only a free and fair election can produce a new generation of patriotic politicians, the only course left open to him is the general elections, and Nepal’s good friends must join him in this noble task. Why should the extremely anti-Communist Nepali Congress align itself with the Maoist insurgents is plainly clear for everyone who can keep his eyes open. If it is not the greed for power then what is it? Thrown in the wilderness for such a long time, they have lost all their senses of judgment. How can a patriotic Nepali even think of a Republican Nepal? The anti-king agitation is nothing but a marriage of convenience between opposing forces, detrimental to Nepal’s interests. Consequently, all those who want peace and democracy restored in Nepal soon, must cooperate with King Gyanendra and not pressurize him to give in to anti-national forces. Since this is not a time to rush but to think and act sagaciously, every well wisher of Nepal has to give second thoughts to what he speaks and how he acts.
