Editorial (Spotlight Weekly)

At a gaming table at the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas a few days ago I was sitting along a sad looking black American who was losing quite heavily. He said ‘Hi’ and I did the same. “Where you from?” he asked. I said, “Guess.” “India,” he said. “No, but close. I am from Nepal.” Suddenly his sad face lit up. “Oh Nepal,” he said, “I was there thirty years ago as a Peace Corps volunteer. Beautiful place.” “No more beautiful” I told him. “Full of only ugly people now.” We quit putting bets and started talking. He was at Las Vegas to mitigate his raw sorrow at the irreparable loss of his young son at Fallujah fighting a few weeks back. I asked him, “How do you justify this war?” He glared at me and said, “Justify, my foot! Man, this is only Bush’s war.” That is the general feeling I have found in most Americans. Since there would be very few who have very high stakes in wars, it is difficult to find Americans who would morally justify Bush’s Iraq policy. And it has become quite clear by now that George W. did not win his reelection on foreign policy issues and Iraq war.

All wars are, generally, fought for political ends. And so are the insurgencies. So, both must be won on political planes. Soldiers and insurgents can only kill, murder, pillage or ravage. They can neither win nor lose. The last mile in every war or insurgency is about claiming political gains. It is the politicians behind all wars and insurgencies that are the victors or losers. And Nepali politicians have proved they can never become victors since they are puppets dancing to the strings attached to alien fingers; since they have irrefutably proved they are self-oriented, immoral and anti-national and since they have forfeited all claims to lead the country by their corrupt and selfish behavior. The sooner the country gets rid of these politicians, the better the chances of peace and normalcy returning to the country. And in the present context they are there because King Gyanendra has put them there. These unscrupulous politicians are not only the real causes of all the ills Nepal is facing today but are also contributing to erode the image of the monarchy. Consequently, King Gyanendra cannot afford to delay taking immediate action to redeem the situation.

The Pakistani Prime Minister’s recent visit to Nepal, although made in the capacity of Chairperson of the SAARC, seems to have generated some fresh enthusiasm to strengthen Nepal-Pakistan relations. This kind of sporadic burst of camaraderie in Nepal-Pakistan relations is nothing new. But that it does not sustain for long has been clearly manifested by the experience of the last forty years. That Nepali statesmen have never succeeded in formulating a purely nationalistic foreign policy has been quite evident and clearly reflected in their behavior. Even Pakistan still suffers from serious misgivings about Nepali capacity to withstand pressures not to relinquish her traditional pattern of developing bilateral ties in the region. Pakistan could have positively influenced the course of events in the South Asian subcontinent if she were not restricted by domestic political instability in her earlier days. But her changed status since she became a nuclear power should have impelled her in playing a more robust role in the regional politics. As a matter of fact she could not only have emerged as an alternative power bloc in South Asia and worked as a strong foil to Indian hegemony but could even assume very important posture in the Muslim world ranging from Morocco to Indonesia. Be that as it may, she definitely could play a distinctly forceful role in the SAARC and in developing greater and purposeful relations with the smaller SAARC countries. With the Hindu kingdom of Nepal directly under the Indian orbit, her hesitation to open up to develop more intimate ties is quite understandable. Pakistan’s misgivings regarding Nepal’s earnestness to develop closer relations with her have undoubtedly proved to be the bottleneck in bringing the two nations closer. Consequently, how sincere and reliable are the assurances of greater cooperation given by the Pakistani Primer Minister to Nepal is yet to be experienced. Since the proof of the pudding lies in eating Nepal should not prevaricate in accepting the Pak dignitary’s offer of cooperation. That it will demand a strong and independent stance from Nepali statesmen needs no emphasis.