Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Editorial

By and large the countries housed in the European Union remained as a mere spectator on the events that forced King Gyanendra to come to terms with the agitating seven party alliances which was underneath but clearly being supported by the all-powerful the Maoists. Albeit, the countries belonging to the Union saw for themselves the various political maneuverings being played underneath by some countries near and far but could not spell even a single word suggesting the interfering countries not to do so for understandable reasons. The EU's quandaries were visible and clear. Situated in comparatively a far flung distance, geographically speaking, they have had a very little or negligible role to play here other than to see return of the democratic system. That was all to do for them Nepal which they did on their part in a logical and credible diplomatic manner. Albeit, the members of the European Union combined have a greater role to play in the post conflict Nepal . It is these countries, at best, who would soon send colossal amounts for the development of this almost devastated and ruined country. Their role is merely limited to as donors and that too no strings attached.

But then yet surprising is the fact that only recently Denmark, one of the powerful donors for this country, have had registered a sort of warning to the government and the people of Nepal, which perhaps included the Maoists as well, wherein the country referred to above had suggested the people and the establishment here to take the entire "ownership" for arriving at a paramagnet solution to the conflict here. However, events that have unfolded here after the said Danish warning suggest the otherwise. It appears that contrary to the Danish expectations and hope, the ownership of the management of the rest of the political affairs here in between the establishment and the insurgents have slipped some where else. Bluntly speaking, it went to the hands of the Indian establishment which not only brought Sitaram Yechury-the non-entity in the Nepali scheme of things politically speaking, who not only guided the Nepali establishment to do this and to do that but also managed some lucrative "secret deals" for his country to the chagrin of the Nepali nationalists, if any left.

It was after the departure of Mr. Yechury from this country; India managed not only to seduce Comrade Prachanda by inviting him to Delhi but also finalized the most dangerous citizenship bill by the parliament which would surely change the demographic pattern of this India-locked country. It remains yet to be seen as to what else we are about to lose when the incumbent foreign secretary of India , Mr. Menon, will wind up his Nepal trip which is beginning this Wednesday. We are always at the losing end. Let's admit this fact.

How Comrade Prachanda-the declared nationalist-digested this bill being passed from the parliament which he till the other day denounced so vociferously, remains a mystery nevertheless. We are surprised to note the stoic silence acquired by the Nepali people over the passing of such a dangerous bill by the parliament which in many more ways than one initiated the process of the most infamous "SIKKIMIZATION" of this country. Will Prachanda and Nepal 's other leaders demand the same treatment for the Nepalese residing in India which is what they deserve according to the principle of reciprocity? Perhaps they will not do so for fear of being instantly unseated from the chairs that they have just snatched from King Gyanendra.

However, this should not mean that we oppose providing of the citizenship certificates to those who are entitled for that. We are and will be in favor of those who have yet to be granted what is their due from the state, but we oppose the haste exhibited by the state and the parliament and more so the leaders housed in different political paraphernalia in order to get the bill passed by the parliament. We smell rat here.

If Prachanda can stall the signing of the controversial extradition treaty bill then why he kept mum while the citizenship bill were being passed in the parliament?

Is it so that Prachanda did so because he has just returned from New Delhi wherein he was greeted and welcomed by his old Indian associates who have had provided him adequate assistance in order to shield him from the possible wrath of the then Nepali establishment?

Prachanda is answerable to this question? He must answer as to why he kept mum over such a sensitive topic which has the latent potential of turning Nepal into what Sikkim is today.

By time now the members of the European community plus America must have come to their senses learning about their political limitations. They can only see and experience but can do nothing. Poor EU members and America .

Ambassador Moriarty though tried hard to save this country from the Indian maneuverings but miserably failed. Unfortunately, Ambassador Shiv Shanker Mukherjee seating in a dark corner in Kathmandu did every thing that he could do for his country and we the Nepalese people though understood his maneuverings could do nothing in order to save this country from going to the full-grips of India -the former British colony.