Editorial (Spotlight Weekly)

The four day visit to Nepal a few days ago by Christina Rocca, the United States Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian affairs has re-affirmed the super power’s concern at the political developments there. But, how deeply do Nepal’s woes move the great country and how deeply are Nepal’s interests involved in that concern is not only not clear but very difficult to figure out. Whatever sympathies the United States government might harbor for the poor Nepalis, her top priority will always remain to preserve, pursue and promote her own interests. The failure of Nepali statesmen and politicians to delve into the American thinking; and their inability to impress upon the U.S. establishment about the unavoidable urgency of their unstinted cooperation to get over the devastating insurgency as soon as possible, have clearly been exposed by the complexes manifested by them in their unscrupulous and self-centered behaviour and submissive attitudes. No wonder the quality and stature of Nepali leadership has not been able to build equal relationship with their foreign counterparts. Rocca’s unambiguous admission that “diplomatic obligations” did not permit her to put all the cards on the table face upwards. And this amply proves our contention, if one can read between the lines. If our friends do not come up to our expectations we must have the guts to gracefully accept our own failures and shortcomings. No patriotic statesmen will ever sacrifice their county’s interests to oblige, ingratiate or help others, howsoever friendly. As such, nothing will be a greater folly on our part even to imagine that Nepal’s friends, howsoever big and powerful, will come to our help at the cost of their own interests. The United States and the United Kingdom are Nepal’s good friends. Nothing would be more foolish to think that even these friendly countries will disregard or overlook all other considerations and come to our rescue. How much we can draw them out depends on the ability and efficiency of our statesmen and politicians. The character and calibre of our present rulers cannot impress them to go beyond a certain limit irrespective of what happens to poor Nepal. That’s exactly why we have all the time been emphasising on the change of leadership. As a matter of fact, the insurgency in Nepal would have taken a different turn long ago had not the overall interests of these bigger friends stood in their way. We must never forget the axiomatic truth that unless we are able to help ourselves, we will never be able to get over our difficulties with outside help, whosoever might come to our assistance. But we must never accept nor appreciate the double standard followed by any of our friends who profess to be good and friendly to us but never tire to work against our interests. Our morally degenerate leadership can neither stand up against such flagrant violations of mutual trust but have also lost all the credibility with their own people. And consequently they cannot solve our problems. That is the only reason we have been exhorting our king, who is the de facto power in our country at the moment, to effect a quick change in the leadership. He has no option if he’s seriously keen for a quick improvement in the situation. Undue delay will only generate misgivings in the general people while aggravating their unbearable miseries.

* * *

The Indian ambassador to Nepal, Shyam Saran, could not have made truer statements when he said that, “There is a crisis of confidence everywhere and ‘mutual trust has got to be developed’ between the two countries.” Indeed, it is very gratifying to see that he too has ultimately realised this fact and spoken without any reservation. But it is very surprising to find that such “good and close friends for centuries” have not yet been able to forge mutual trust and there exists a serious “crisis of confidence” between them. It would be greatly advisable for both neighbours and friends to make frank self-introspection why it is so. Who is to blame? Is it the India locked tiny Nepal with 23 million people or giant India with more than a billion people armed to their teeth with even nuclear weapons? Which one is at the receiving end? However Saran’s contention that it will not be possible for India to locate the Nepali Maoists in the big Indian crowd without Nepal’s active cooperation does not sound very convincing. His statement, “We cannot do anything now unless we have developed a process of exchanging bilateral intelligence” is an eloquent admission of the fact that India will not nab the Maoist leaders unless Nepal leads her to their sanctuary. Inability of Indian establishment to spot the place easily found by Nepal’s politician Madhav Nepal is indeed enigmatic. What is one to understand from it? What do our good international friends and redoubtable rulers and bureaucrats say about this? Or will they again keep mum?