Army deployment at the borders, a decision taken in haste!

It has been rightly said that if you wish to corrupt some one, you just manage a lucrative chair for him. He becomes corrupt.

Nepali problem has been the chair. It is such an seating arrangement which makes a person mad to the extent that a time comes when the occupant of the said chair wishes to glue himself on the chair for all the time to come. Since 1990, Nepali democracy has revolved around this chair. There has been a continuous struggle in between various political forces on how to occupy the chair and retain it for posterity. In the process, various unheard ugly and shameful games have been played in Nepal in order either to continue in power or snatching power from the rival camp. This climax of such ugly drama has been that even some leaders of a particular party have very unceremoniously unseated their own party prime ministers in order to occupy the prestigious chair. The fresh victim had been Krishna Prasad Bhattarai. In the recent years, it was Sher Bahadur Deuba who had to bear the brunt of this "chair" phenomenon. Freshly, it is perhaps the repetition of the same shameful play that is being played by some quarters of the NC's Koirala opposition in collaboration with the opposition led by the UML.

Fortunately, the national population has been allowed to entertain this drama since all along these ten years-the democratic years as it is best called by the chair occupiers or snatchers. People in other countries have to pay entertainment fees but here in my country one is free to enjoy such perennial drama and that too free of cost. In the process, the Kathmandu based international community too has enjoyed it free. I'm afraid what would happen to them if they wish to watch such phenomenon in their own respective countries where it practically does not take place? Should we invite them again and again so that they could quench their thirst?

I'm sorry that I deflected from my today's main topic. In essence I wished today to talk about the negative impact of the deployment of the Army personnel at the borders.

In my opinion it was just an unwise decision of the government. It could have been accomplished by sending some police men under the command of a very senior police officer. The people who are supposed to guard and defend the borders have been sent to control the deflection seen in the revenue collection at the borders, which is dangerously porous.

Consider what would happen if this set becomes corrupt? Consider what would happen if the Army personnel get the taste of the money and other lucrative consumer items provided to them by the real and notorious smugglers in lieu of getting the goods through the borders? Consider what would happen if by chance some local leaders begin influencing the Army personnel to allow some favors to the set of smugglers attached to this or that political parties? Consider what if the army officers themselves begin to align with the smugglers at a later stage? Consider what if the military starts taking interests in other vital sectors as well? And finally what would happen if the army men exhibit their visible political preference and act accordingly at the borders and facilitate the free passage of the smuggled goods of the smugglers who claim to have tacit connections with this or that political parties? What if the apolitical army becomes really political?

These are the questions, which the government should have taken into account prior to sending the army men at the borders. Add to this the impending Indian reaction to this new adventure of the Nepali government. Albeit, we have every right to post our men at our borders, however, how India reacts to our very internal overtures is perhaps also very important.

Headline | National | 5 Question  | Editorial | International | Past |