 |
Kathmandu,Thursday February 17, 2000 Fagun 05, 2056.
|
Common sense, not nonsense
Apropos Rama Poudel’s letter (TKP,
February 15), allow me to make the following points: That the world has changed since
Nehru’s statement of March 17, 1950 is neither here nor there: what is germane is
that India’s strategic view of the world/region and her place in the international
sun has not. That is common sense -- not nonsense!
As far as we are concerned, as much is surely
indicated not only by the 1950 Nepal-India Treaty that was concluded even as the Rana
autocracy was on its last legs, but also by relentless Indian efforts since then to resist
any concerted attempt to alter it -- in keeping with precisely the sea changes that have
taken place since that document was humiliatingly formalised by signature of a Nepali
prime minister and an Indian ambassador.
If Pokhran II (as also Pokhran I) does not
underline India’s extra territorial ambitions/security concerns were the Big Bangs
meant merely as mega Diwali crackers? Why should India’s current nuclear
proliferation posture invite the anxious attention of the whole world if her nuclear
ambitions did not have any adverse security implication for the world outside India?
Similarly, can Poudel suggest why ‘peace
loving’ India, supposedly without any security designs upon or intentions in Nepal or
anywhere else, refused to endorse Nepal’s Zone of Peace proposal even after it was
supported by 116 sovereign nations?
It is well known there is often a Grand
Canyon-like chasm between what diplomats and politicians say in public and what they state
during negotiations between states, particularly those which are unequal in military
might.
Don’t take my word for it, Ramaji: read
up on the subject or even better ask any of the hundreds of former Nepalese officials and
politicians who have taken part in tough negotiations with India in the past on that
enormously fascinating subject.
If everything Indian ambassador K V Rajan
says in defence of his government is to be taken as gospel, then we would even have to
believe that the Indian Foreign Minister did not -- despite evidence to the contrary on TV
viewed by thousands in Nepal -- charge Nepal with complicity in the recent Indian Airlines
hijacking.
Zee TV -- when faced with a libel suit from
Gajendra Man Tamrakar, a Nepali hostage accused of being a terrorist -- came up with the
expected mea culpa: the source of its "scoop" was Indian intelligence sources
(as reported, incidentally, in this very daily).
During the IA hostage crises all information
that was broadcast/ published in the Indian media necessarily originated from Indian
official sources as no journalist had direct access to the hijacked aircraft.
Finally, anyone with a familiarity with the
workings of the Indian government knows very well that in matters concerning foreign/
security policy, the mainstream Delhi-based Indian media, as often as not, accurately
reflect the official line.
As an independent columnist, I write what I
think is in the public interest guided by my conscience, research and study, not by any
fictitious "force" -- first, second or third!
M R Josse,
Boudha Mahankal, Kathmandu |
