Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Editorial

Our attention has been drawn towards a statement issued by the Denmark 's Development Minister Mrs. Ulla Tornes on the successful conclusion of an agreement in between the rebels and the government last Tuesday October 31, wherein the minister has said so many things in such a subtle manner than even careful and mature analysts would conclude that the minister's statement contained nothing but were simply a congratulatory message as is usual on such occasions.

Apart from the customary language that Denmark was happy in to learn what she called an "important" step towards a lasting peace in this beleaguered country, she however, also warns Nepal that "in the process of securing peace to take roots and be a lasting one, the ownership (stress added) must remain with the Nepalese people alone".

Look how she indicates in an implied manner that only the Nepali people were and should be entitled to handle and manage the lasting peace after the conclusion of the said agreement arrived in between the two conflicting parties, : "Ownership by the people of Nepal is crucial to secure that peace takes roots and lasts".

In saying so the Danish minister clearly hints that her country hoped that the peace in this country not only lasts for long but also took roots so that no further conflict of any sort erupts in the country. Similarly, her statement though mild in nature and content amply hints and that too in a very candid manner that in the entire peace building efforts henceforth, the Nepalese should themselves take the initiatives and that no ownership in any form or whatsoever be allowed to be owned by others which further means that "interested countries with vested interests" that are in play in this country in a "traditional manner" –read India by implication.

This should mean that Denmark would prefer Nepal and the Nepalese to be in the driving seat and be solely allowed without any interference from any quarter to institutionalize peace here.

The Minister is also candid in her statement that states that the international community which wish to see the permanence of peace in this country must support Nepal in her peace building efforts seriously but care should be taken that the international community thus supporting Nepal must not dare to lead the peace process but instead be given to the Nepalese people who would manage their own affairs in their own manner that is suitable to the country and her people.

In saying so perhaps the Danish minister who has visited Nepal recently hints that during her visit to this country she could sense that several countries have had been poking their nose in the internal affairs of Nepal for a variety of reasons.

Now talking of countries having shown extra interests in nepali affairs what comes to the fore is that except India no other third country in the globe has any material or territorial gains to be bagged from this country after peace gets settled down in this country.

However, Indian political maneuverings beginning November 22, 2005 has been such that she has shown a variety of interests in this country by aligning herself with practically all the political actors, including those of the Maoists and even with the now defunct King, which matured analysts say could in no way be for free. Those who understand better say that Indian political designs in this country were unfathomable and hence to expect that India has been longing for the permanence of peace in this India-locked country would be no less than a cruel joke.

Perhaps it is these possible subtle Indian designs towards which the Danish minister has been hinting at.

We presume that Denmark prefers that Nepal as a nation-state be allowed to guarantee peace in their country through their own efforts which is what other countries should understand, more specially India whose political tentacles have penetrated practically into the body politic of each and every political paraphernalia currently in operation in the country.

Thanks Ulla Tornes for your message that is loaded with political significance and meaning underneath.