A great harm has been done to the country's foreign policy in these ten years

-Professor Anand P. Shrestha

In Nepal, political pendulum swings to two extremes; either multi-party rule or absolute dictatorship

He is dynamic. His scholarly presentations at the Kathmandu seminars inevitably draw the attention of the attending participants. He is a person who would stick to his assertions. Professionally, he is a man of high integrity. His concerns for social interests are unimaginably very strong. So are his concerns for the preservation of Nepal's national interests. In other words, he is a die hard nationalist.

Professor Anand P.Shrestha studied in India up to the Bachelor level. He obtained his M.A degree in English from Tribhuban University in the year 1970. Since then Professor Shrestha has taught English language at various educational institutions under the T.U. In the process, he also taught at the Royal Nepal Military Academy, Kharipati and Birendra Sainik Campus. Professor Shrestha currently is working at the CNAS-Center for Nepal and Asian Studies. His additional qualifications include attending a four week course in 1971 in English Linguistics and applied Lingustics under the joint auspices of the English department, TU College and the British Council; completed English language in service training program sponsored by the TU central office in cooperation with the Summer Institute of Linguistics; and was awarded Diploma in Teaching of English as a foreign language from the University of Sydney, Australia, 1976.

He has already served as the Chairman of the English Instruction Committee in Palpa; Chairman of the Instruction Committee in R.R. Campus; and as Executive Director at the NEFAS and is continuing there to date since 1995. Apart from these experiences, Professor Shrestha has had also the honor to edit quite a number of books. During his three decades long uninterrupted career, Professor Shrestha has penned more than five hundred articles on contemporary events-national and international both.

Professor Shrestha has interviewed world's towering personalities like Henry Kissinger; late Rajiv Gandhi and late Zia-ul-Haq, which were later printed in the CNAS publication. He is also associated with numerous societies in Nepal. For example, he is the member of the Nepal Britain Society; member of Nepal Library Association; member Palpali Sangam and member of Tansen Guthi. Some of his publications include, Colorful Palpa; Child Development Study in Nepal; Human Rights Issues in modern Nepali poetry and translation of Devkota's Muna Madan into Nepali.

The Telegraph had the honor to talk to this versatile scholar last week. During the meeting we requested him for an exclusive interview to which he readily accepted. The results- Chief editor.

TGQ1: How do you Professor Shrestha assess the performance achieved if any during the past ten years of the multi-party dispensation? Also tell us regarding the status of governance in the country?

Prof. Shrestha: Looking back at the last ten years of multi party dispensation in Nepal leaves no space whatsoever, for any optimism. To begin with, in the last ten years, we have seen a change in six Prime ministers, experienced two general elections and in addition a mid- term poll. We have also in these ten years seen almost all-major political parties, of all hues colors and combination at the helm of affairs. This in turn also affected major changes in key position in all other sectors with the result that there was no continuance in matters of policy. The overall effect has been negative. For example, take the economic sector, or for that matter, the educational, administrative, health or any other sector that we can think of. At least I for one do not see any reason to be even the slightest bit elated at what the performance in these sectors have been. These ten years have been an absolute disappointment, full of wild promises in the name of democracy. In short, the rise in the poverty situation, rampant corruption and the non-existent law and order situation has been the hallmark of one decade of so-called democracy in the country.

The general population of the country has now become absolutely fed up of promises being made in the name of democracy. The situation today is such that the people now hanker after a political system of a not so democratic past and conclude that it was far better than the present multi-party "democracy" that the leaders and people's representatives seem so helplessly to be in love with. In this context, take for example, the Maoists uprising in the northwestern hills of Nepal. Various governments who have come in and out of power have been unable to solve the Maobadi problem. If some wanted political negotiations, others to crush the rebellion have opted for political and economic packages but with no success. According to my view, the rise and popularity of the Maoists uprising has been the direct outcome of the non-performance of all the governments we have seen to date. The day any government starts to perform in the true sense, or when developmental politics takes firm root in Nepali soil, the Maobadis will gradually fade away and die a slow death. But the more non-performance and corruption we see or are likely to see in the coming years is likely to further strengthen the Maobadi movement. This is precisely the reason why more people in the deprived far-western region of the country are becoming sympathetic towards the Maobadi cause.

TGQ2: How do you characterize the political culture of the country in general and the ruling elite in particular? Who is to be primarily to be blamed for the present state of affairs seen in the field of governance?

Prof.Shrestha: To begin with, this country right from the time of Bhimsen Thapa right down to the present times, for some reason or the other failed to develop the culture of the politics of development. Throughout history the politics of revenge and vendetta has been rife in our body-politic. In the old days, it was Thapa's vs the Pandeys, infighting among the Ranas, Jung Bahadur family vs the 17 brothers, then A class Ranas vs. B and C class Ranas, M.P.Koirala vs.B.P.Koirala, B.P. vs. King Mahendra, G.P Koirala vs Ganeshman, Ganeshman vs. K.P.Bhattarai, Deuba vs. Shailaja Acharya, vs. R.C.Poudel, Madhav Nepal vs.Bamdev Gautam, K.P.Oli, S.B.Thapa vs. Chand vs. Devkota. The list is endless. In this existing political scenario it is somewhat difficult to foresee developmental politics emerge.

This has been the tragedy of the country, whether in a democracy or in absolute rule. In this country the political pendulum has always swung to two extremes. Either multi-party rule or absolute dictatorship. The next swing, whether we like it or not, is obviously towards absolute rule. The blame for the present state of affairs goes not to any one political party or individual but towards all political parties and personalities who have at some point in time sat at the helms of power.

For developmental politics to come about in the country or for that matter for good governance to emerge, all the political parties must live up to the expectations of the people born out of the political manifestos of the parties' concerned. A serious commitment towards democracy in the true sense has been long overdue. The culture of becoming millionaires overnight has to be overcome by the politicians and those in power. The concerned political parties must drill serious discipline into the rank and file of the party members. Without this democracy in Nepal will forever remain a moth's cry for the moon.

TGQ3: Professor Shrestha! We are told that the contemporary intellectuals of the country instead of speaking the truth to the powers that be have become subservient to those in power, thus leading to a vacuum in social change or social transformation? As a result people are daily encountering a false consciousness. How do you react to this and how can this situation be arrested?

Prof.Shrestha: If we look at the political history of any democratic nation in the world, the intellectuals of the countries concerned are always found to be the dissenting voice --the voice of conscience of the nation. But in our case, this has not been the case. Most of the Nepali intellectuals are in some way or the other affiliated with some political party or the other for matters of vested interests. The limited few intellectuals who have dared to remain neutral have sadly been hounded by the concerned major political parties and have been relegated to the "endangered species" category. Not only the intellectuals, the press, the judiciary, the politicians and our so called leaders, the stalwarts and champions of democracy and human rights have turned equally partisan and must take equal blame for betraying the hard earned democracy that the people fought died and bled for.

For democracy to take firm root in Nepalese soil the above mentioned sectors must uphold democratic ideals, norms and practices in the true sense and not just provide lip service --something that they have been doing all these years. Democracy does not only take root just by speeches and lectures alone. The people in these ten years have become absolutely fed-up of this practice that they are now seriously looking for performance and results. It is for these sectors to realize that unless they do the needful and heed to the writing on the wall the political pendulum could well swing once more, this time to the other extreme.

TGQ4: Only recently Nepal's foreign minister said that Nepal is all set for the formulation of a new foreign policy. Does he mean that so far this country has had no foreign policy as such or does he wish to bring about a change in the existing policy to meet the changing needs of the time. Also please tell us how Nepal as a country sandwiched between two Asian giants needs to conduct her foreign policy affairs? Is the present policy truly nonaligned or is there a tilt as is considered by a section of the intellectuals?

Prof. Shrestha: First of all, I have failed to understand what the foreign minister means in his statement regarding the formulation of a new foreign policy. If by this he means to say that in these ten years our foreign policy has heavily tilted towards the South, then I fully agree with him --that there must be a change. I certainly feel that a reversal of the present foreign policy of this nation is necessary. But if the foreign minister by his statement means that we should move away from the "yam and two boulders concept", then I have my own reservations. Personally, I feel that a great harm has been done to the country's foreign policy in these ten years. So dramatic has been the tilt/shift that China hardly figures any more in Nepal's foreign policy equation. To reverse the tilt, or to start the process of damage control may not be so easy. Even the slightest reversal to go back to the yam and the boulder concept could in reality cost the country a great deal. As geography dictates, Nepal because of its strategic location can not afford any other foreign policy than the one propounded by Prithivi Narayan Shah. I only hope that the foreign minister's statement means going back to the practical foreign policy suited for our purpose. In these ten years the yam has moved dangerously into the shadow of the Southern boulder. It will only be wise for the yam to creep back into the sunshine right between the two boulders where it rightfully belongs.

If non-alignment is truly to be the corner stone of Nepal's foreign policy then we must realize that we have exceeded the boundary and that it would only be wise for the nation in the long run to adopt the policy for all practical purposes.

TGQ 5: Given the dismal performance of the establishment, deteriorating law and order situation in the country, growing corruption at the highest echelons of political parties, partisan bureaucracy and even the law enforcement agency, how do you Porofessor Shrestha see the role of the media in correcting the existing anomalies so that the silent majority in the remote areas could get to taste the fruits of development in an equitable manner that has so far been denied to them.

Prof. Shrestha: As I mentioned above, the media, supposed to be a staunch pillar of democracy has also turned partisan in the Nepali context. Except for a handful of papers, a majority are propped up by some political party or the other. If we are to look for an objective assessment of any issue that concerns the nation as a whole, those faithful party papers provide partisan views on the subject. The reader may have to go through some eight or ten newspapers before he can form an objective assessment of his own.

Take for example, the rampant corruption, the water deals with neighboring states or the deteriorating law and order situation in the country. Though there is ample coverage in regard to the same by papers that are on the opposite side of the political fence, the papers of those in power fail for whatever reasons to publish the news that they have more access to. The media could do a great deal in regard to these anomalies should objective reporting be the order of the day. However, only blaming the media would not be just. The government policy in regard to media laws and favoring one or some over the others has also brought about this discrepancy.

It is imperative for the non-partisan media to bring this to light. It is also equally responsible for the media as a whole to uphold the norms and practices associated with a multi-party dispensation. They should make all efforts within their limits to save democracy and bring the guilty to book. For example, the corrupt practices of today and the rampant corruption that makes everyday headlines should be exposed fearlessly by the media. In other words, a more responsible role needs to be in the offing. Like the motto of your paper rightly says, "Press and the nation's democracy rise and fall together".

Headline | National | Editorial | 2nd Impression | International | Past |