 |
|||
|
|||
STATE OF EMERGENCY |
|
|||
|
|||
STATE OF EMERGENCY |
Absence Of Responsibility The comments of politicians
and senior officials on the state of emergency sow confusion By A CORRESPONDENT At a time when security forces are engaged
in the dangerous mission of disarming Maoist terrorists in various parts of the country,
intellectuals, political leaders and judges are busy uttering irresponsible comments. The
army personnel are sacrificing their life to bring normalcy to the country, but civilian
leaders and opinion makers are spending time and energy on undermining the objectives of
the emergency.
In difficult terrain and amid great
personal risk, soldiers and police have been working day and night to disarm the
terrorists and to show the presence of the administration. In the operations, a number of
soldiers and policemen have been martyred. Scores of others have been injured. The
sacrifice of the security personnel, however, seems to have no effect on politicians and
intellectuals. In the last six years, when more than 500
policemen were killed in various parts of the country fighting terrorist well trained on
foreign soil, Nepalese political leaders and intellectuals ignored their sacrifices. The
extent of the politiciansí brazen disregard for the seriousness of the issue can be seen
in their failure to discuss how terrorism could have originate in a peace-loving country. "Instead of moving to cure the
disease, the politicians just made efforts to divert public attention by sending
ill-equipped police personnel on the battlefield. Had senior politicians taken proper
steps to identify the forces behind the problems, the situation would not have gone out of
proportion," says a political analyst. Even after the mobilization of the army, it
seems politicians and intellectuals are yet to learn how to conduct themselves. Recent
comments from a senior judge, former army general and political leaders show an abject
lack of sensitivity toward the situation. A former army general even went to the extent of
disclosing the strategies employed during the armed actions. A senior judge of the Supreme Court seems
to have taken upon himself the responsibility to create confusion by questioning the
legitimacy of the stateís actions. Although the comments were against the code of conduct
of a judge, nobody has bothered to raise the point. Political leaders, too, are in a
similar race to sow confusion. While supporting the governmentís action against
terrorism, they are demanding the lifting of the emergency, which is a basic prerequisite
for successful army action. "This shows how supposedly responsible
people misunderstand the system of governance and fail to appreciate the seriousness of
major issues," says a political analyst. "The recent decision by Indian MPs,
following the terrorist attack in the parliament building, to donate a monthís salary to
the family of security personnel who died defending the heart of Indian democracy was an
exemplary gesture. Could our politicians and intellectuals think that way?" Instead of backing the strategy and
sacrifices of security forces, Nepalís intelligentsia is discouraging them by their
irresponsible utterances. "The responsibility of a judge is to the case presented
before him," says the analyst. "In other countries, you donít find judges
preaching about democratic conduct. If journalists had made such utterances, they would
have been sent to prison. Who will judge the judge?" Recent uncharitable and unsolicited
utterances of senior judges have been disliked by many in the legal profession. Unless the
judge himself realizes the harm he is doing, there can be no cure for the problem. "A
judge has to deliver justice in the cases presented before them. He or she cannot speak as
a politician." Others dispute this contention. "A
judge has every right to speak on constitutional matters. If a judge cannot speak against
the imposition of restrictions on fundamental rights, who will defend the rights of the But when a judge starts speaking publicly
on an issue that could provoke strong public reaction, there is a possibility of serious
differences of opinion at the highest level. Thus his decision may engulf the country in a
controversy that could ultimately undermine the national interest. Other high-ranking officials have similar
problems. Nobody seems to understand the responsibility and limitations attached to
security-related matters. Public security and the strategy of armed operations seem to be
normal issues for them. Either they do not know the gravity of the situation under a state
of emergency or they are playing into the hands mysterious elements in total ignorance of
their responsibility. Politicians are meeting every day to
discuss issues related to emergency, as if they do not have other subjects in front of
them. This shows that even the supposedly enlightened group of Nepalis are yet to learn
the culture of statecraft. Once a state of emergency is declared, what
is the purpose and intention of creating confusion and controversy that would undermine
the mission. Once the emergency is lifted after fulfilling its aims, there would be enough
time for post mortem. |
Send your feedback to the
editor: spotligh@mos.com.np |
