|
"Terrorism is a Global Threat"
By Ajay P. Nath
IF the recent political development in Nepal has brought hopes and raised expectations of the people, it has also brought dilemma and discomforts to some of its neighbours and international partners. The people of Nepal who have suffered, sacrificed and are tortured and brutalized by the Pol-Pot like terrorists in the guise of Maoists as well as by the misrule of corrupt, inefficient, undisciplined, ever bickering and dithering political leadership, see a bright light at the end of the tunnel. Some of the neighbours and international partners see this development as a setback to democracy. For the Nepalese when there are national level problems beyond the reach and powers of political leadership, they look up to monarchy to step in order to resolve it. Nepalese traditions and histories have proved this time and again. The neighbours and international partners who see it as a setback to democracy are adopting double standards and are not really worried about functioning democracy but are driven by selfish colonial type ideology and biased interest.
Firstly, it is an internal matter of an independent, sovereign country, a step taken to sort out domestic affairs in order to fight for democracy against terrorism. Today terrorism has taken a global shape and universal size. This is a common threat to global community. This is not a problem of only a particular country. Neither is this only a regional problem. The entire nation along with the population and resources as well as the future of the whole human civilization are under a severe threat from the terrorists. And no other nation understands better than the USA, Great Britain and India the threats posed by the terrorists. America has bitter experiences of fighting terrorism and right now it is sponsoring and leading the world on war against terrorism. Great Britain has been fighting terrorism in one form or the other from Vladi-Vostok to Cape of Good Hope for over a century. It must have the wealth of bitterest experiences in fighting terrorism including in Iraq and Afghanistan which none else has it. India was somehow forced to fight insurgency from the day it was born as an independent nation. Today, unfortunately, these are the very countries, which are announcing Cuts and Closure of all military aids and materials to a country, which is under severe threat of terrorists, more menacing, brutal and violent than Pol-Pot's Khemer Rouge.
These countries and the European union, including Nordic countries, have right now two choices to make as far as terrorism in Nepal is concerned. They must decide and decide fast either to stand with terrorism which is set to plague the human lives and its civilization or with a state committed to setting democratic institutions back on track as well as protecting individual liberty, personal freedom and universal justice. There is no middle path in this case. One either supports, shelters, harbours and trains the terrorists in a targeted country as described by Professor Karl W. Deutsch or supports, assists and aids a state which is fighting for the rights and liberty of its people in line with the global demands of the 21st century. Of course, there are countries who have understood the extreme compulsions of Nepal, who are ready to do everything in their capacity. Nepal, under a compelling national and regional situations, will have to turn to anyone and anything who will extend a hand of friendship. When global partners fail to see the actual problem in its right perspective, a nation has to look around for its existence. When a question of survival arises, the survival instinct has to come into effect. If a small terrorist group, when hunted by major world powers finds a shelter in this planet, why can't a state?
Nepal is committed to democratic institutions and human rights as were amply reflected in the King's Proclamation. His Majesty has drawn out a road map of three years. Three years for a state is nothing. The so-called friends of Nepal who see a setback to democracy should have known, we know it pretty well, whether the kind of democracy we preach was functioning in Nepal? Was there any trust of the people in so many previous governments? What did the so-called democracy deliver to the people of Nepal? Is breaking law and order, blocking roads and streets, burning car and tyres, stoning Supreme Court and closing the parliament democracy? Could Abraham Lincoln's definition of democracy as a system "for the people, by the people and of the people" materialise in Nepal? Why on earth is it only the King who is pressurized to compromise and roll back when there is no pressure on the terrorist to give up violence and cruelty? Why is the political leadership not under the same scrutiny and pressure for utterly destroying all the state institutions? Why don't Nepal's neighbours and friends put similar pressure on the political leadership to come out with a specified and stated strategy about the terrorists? How do you want to deal with the terrorists? The political leadership has also only two choices to make. Stand either with the terrorists who are against pluralistic social order, democratic political system and free market economy or support the King's move who is standing on the side of liberty, freedom and universal justice. His ultimate aim and objective is to correct the past mistakes of the politicians, bring the terrorists to the negotiating table, disarm, de-mobilize and re-integrate them in the mainstream politics, restore peace, hold impartial, neutral and fair elections and consolidate democratic institutions.
All those who are so concerned about democracy and human rights in Nepal and claim even to join hands with terrorist outfits if Nepal does not roll-back should ask a pertinent question to themselves. Why are they not equally concerned for the same thing in other countries like Bhutan? Why is India adopting this double standard on democracy in its neighbourhood? It has even proclaimed itself to be the regional policeman, quoting US ambassador to Delhi as saying that America wants India to play a leading role in the region. None thinks America will just give in like that. Therefore, if major democracies are ready to accept a radical, communist, terrorist outfit to rule Nepal then they must also accept that their countries will also not remain untouched and uncontaminated by the Red Terror.
If Nepal's neighbours and its global partners want to see a functioning democracy in this country as soon as possible, if they want to see terrorist outfits of all forms and size to be wiped out from the face of the earth, then they must also support the new move of the King without attaching any string to Nepal. There should be no doubt on the honesty and the sincerity of the King. His Majesty gave ample opportunities and options to the political parties to chart a common strategy to resolve a political and insurgency problems but they failed, which is known to Nepal's security and development partners. Nepal was forced by the circumstances to do what it did. Those of us who are asking Nepal for a specific road map should be wise to remember the initial road map at the outset for Iraq and Afghanistan. This also brings us closer to home in the conflict in Kashmir.
Remembering all these and being practical, Nepal's neighbours and international partners should come to its rescue first from terrorism and then from poverty and backwardness in all forms: starving Nepal from critical items at this hour of need to fight terrorism and consolidate democratic institutions would be a myopic policy. Nepal should not be pushed hard to the wall. Therefore, it is time to press the political parties to extend a helping hand to the King and force terrorists to come to the national mainstream.
|
