Being away from home always provides wonderful opportunities
to make objective observations of happenings back in the mother country. The criticisms of
Nepalese and non-Nepalese, who still are well wishers of the poor country about the
developments there, seem to be fairly balanced and non-biased. The serious concerns
expressed by Nepal’s international friends, both nearer home and far away, do not
seem to be shared in the same vein by all and sundry in Nepal. Nepal’s so called good
friends have unequivocally shown great anxiety at the prevailing insurgency there which
has claimed more than ten thousand lives in the last five years apart from senseless
destructions of invaluable infrastructures donated by kind friends and donors. All these
have not only adversely affected the overall economy but taken the country back at least a
couple of decades. There can be no two opinions that the poor Nepalis have gotten tired of
the continuing killings, deaths and destructions and want peace and stability in the
country as early as possible. And they are more than willing to accept any kind of help
and cooperation that would end the violence and vandalism without further delay. At the
same time they are finding it very hard to give full credence to the serious concerns
manifested by Nepal’s long time friends and well wishers, since there is a big
divergence in what they say and what they do. For example, Nepal’s traditional friend
and a power to reckon with—India, shows great anxieties in her rhetorics about the
insurgency in Nepal, and even goes a long way to help her with money and materials to
fight the insurgency. But her flagrant violations of international commitment to fight
terrorism in the manner they openly not only shelter the Nepali Maoists but provide them
with all kinds of help and encouragements exposes her naked hypocrisy and blatant double
standard. And nobody seems to notice such behaviour as it might not be conducive to their
own interests. In this connection I chanced to read the most recent statement of the
special British envoy to Nepal Sir Jeoffery James on the Internet a few days back. No one
will disagree that Nepal has excellent relations with Britain and the British people and
they always wish well of Nepal. And for sure, neither does Britain harbor any kind of
ulterior motive against the poor tiny friend. Sill, it has come as a big surprise to see
the special envoy taking refuge behind diplomacy while expressing his opinion on the
activities of the Nepali Maoists in India recently. We certainly feel highly optimistic
when he says, “We can help to bring into the situation perhaps some of the
international experience we might have had and may be from some other parts of the
world.” But when he categorically denies to arraign the Indians for their treatment
of the Maoist leaders, especially in regard to their recent meeting with Nepali political
leaders, it kind of generates a very bitter taste in our mouths forcing us to give second
thoughts on his protestations. But we should really feel highly indebted to him for his
wise advice to approach the concerned parties regarding the parleys—their motives and
the outcome. After all, he is a mature diplomat with decades long experience behind him.
The special envoy’s emphasis on the restoration of multi party democracy totally
coincides with our thinking and here we would not mind sharing his concerns. As a matter
of fact, we have never minced any words exhorting King Gyanendra to expedite the holding
of the general elections to restore the democratic process in Nepal as early as possible.
Since the people of Nepal have no faith in any of the political parties that have ruled
the country in the last thirteen years, they want him to appoint a government of clean and
patriotic people who will conduct the elections in the most free and fair manner. For this
some kind of understanding has got to be reached with the Maoists. We do believe the
Maoists will be ready to negotiate with honest Nepalis. And there is no dearth of honest
and patriotic Nepalis. It is for King Gyanendra to find them and entrust them with the
sacred job. Of course, we would not refuse any cooperation from friends on this matter.
But, the overwhelming majority of Nepali people would invariably think twice to agree with
Sir Jeoffrey when he says, “There is a great unanimity of views between the three
partners of Nepal—India, the United States and the United Kingdom.” As far as
the United States and the United Kingdom are concerned we can take them as partners in
resolving this vexing issue, since they have no axe to grind. But India has not only
greater interests in Nepal but greater stakes as well. And they too many not agree with
the statement in to.to. Despite all the rhetorics from both sides, Nepal-India relations
have always suffered from serious misgivings ever since the establishment of diplomatic
relations in 1947 when India got freedom from the British colonial rule. Even the ongoing
Maoist insurgency has become a cause for severe heart burns in the bilateral relations.
There is a general conviction among the Nepalis that no insurgency against Nepal can
sustain that long without the tacit approval and encouragement of the Indian
establishment. As a matter of fact, since India played a dominant role in uprooting the
hundred odd year old Rana regime in Nepal, Nepal has faced violent uprisings against her,
mounted from India by Nepali political dissidents with direct support from the Indian
rulers. Had the Indians so wanted the Maoist insurgency in Nepal would have been nipped in
the bud and Nepal would not have faced such a terrible and devastating situation. So, if
the British and the US friends think, “There is a great unanimity of views between
them and the Indians,” they can surely impress upon their good friend-India-not to
permit a free hand and sanctuary in any part of her territory to the Nepali Maoists to
continue their heinous crimes against their own motherland. And no one should be in any
doubt that unless India really wants Maoists insurgency in Nepal will not end. And the
other two partners—the US and the UK—good friends of Nepal too, perhaps, are
fully aware of this fact. Are they ready yet to use their good offices with their good
friend, India to rid their small friend, Nepal of this scourge of insurgency? Or does
Nepal have to wait for some more auspicious moment when her two powerful friends will
condescend to help her? |
