Had Abraham Lincoln been alive…

Our attention has been drawn towards the much-publicized meeting in between King Birendra and the American Ambassador, Ralph Frank, which took place some two weeks back and the events, visible and invisible both, that followed immediately after the said meeting and shaped the national politics thenceforth. Understandably, what transpired in between the two dignitaries is beyond our "speculation" as some of our professional colleagues dared to do so. However, what is important of the meeting is that it took place at a very crucial period when Nepal's "carefully" nurtured "nascent" democracy is plagued by a host of crises of our own making which at least demands now Intensive Care Treatment. Failing to provide right treatment at the right time and that too by a seasoned physician or surgeon or whatsoever would perhaps be a case to what we generally pronounce "after death the doctor". The significant meeting that was hence warrants in-depth analysis.

Most importantly the meeting apparently facilitated to the second time approval of the bill that was brought earlier by the Koirala regime to tame the Maoists but could not get through the parliament because of the adamancy of the entire opposition to that bill brought through the use of the Royal Ordinance some two and a half months back. The re-activation of the already dead bill by the constitutional monarch is perhaps one of the gains of this meeting which solely saved the face of a government that is being discredited by all and sundry in the country including a very powerful section of the ruling Congress party itself. The constitutional monarch who has till today abided by the norms of the constitution gave yet another chance to Koirala's sinking government to try his best despite the popular grumbling of the people impressing upon the monarch not to approve the bill for the second time.

Yet another important achievement, if it could be called, of the said meeting had been the dramatic shift in the perception of the people that the crisis in which the country was engulfed that time might invite the King's intervention to control the already deteriorated schemes of things in the country. In essence, the timing of the meeting was significant in the sense that the meeting apparently provided the American envoy to put forth the American stance through a press release dated April 11, 2001, of their conviction in the constitutional processes and impress upon the monarch to retain the status quo. It is altogether a different matter whether the king was interested in any sorts of intervention or let the things go its own way, is hard to contemplate. We are told that the Nepali monarch is a good listener only. If this is correct, then what could be guessed is that the meeting proved an opportunity for the king to conceive the American and the West's perspective vis-a- vis the functioning of Nepali democracy.

Most interestingly immediately after this meeting the European Union made almost a similar statement that too gave a new lease of life to the already defunct and paralyzed Koirala government whose existence is felt in the news broadcast of State run media Institutions only.

All put together proved to be a boon to Prime Minister Koirala, which definitely prompted him to address the nation in that fashion. It is again a different matter that the people and the opposition forces summarily rejected his almost hollow but yet strong worded statement.

If one carefully analyses Ambassador Frank's statement released in the pretext of "Dristi's speculation, what could be said is that the embassy very much wished to hint the Nepali population of its "overarching" principles that guide US foreign policy interests in Nepal and throughout the world. Presumably the Ambassador might have told the same to the Nepali monarch what has been printed in the statement released on April 11. By and large, Dristi's speculation gave an opportunity to the embassy to sound its reservations in the scheme of the ongoing Nepali things more so in the political sector. "The US embassy does not comment on the substance of private meetings"', says the press release but interestingly the Ambassador divulges presumably everything that transpired in between the two dignitaries at the Palace. And this he does with proper finesse. So many papers comment on such meetings but never we have heard of such immediate response from the US embassy. This is intriguing. It would have been nice had the Ambassador kept a silence for obvious reasons.

We suppose that the American Ambassador and his friends belonging to the European Union were all abreast with the ongoing chaotic Nepali politics. Presumably they were the ones who knew things better than a common Nepali intellectual. The two-press statements that were issued by the Ambassador and by the European Union regarding their total commitments towards the consolidation and the strengthening of Nepali democracy should be taken in a positive manner. This means that the two wish to see constitutional processes prevail for the ouster of the Prime Minister. This is also most welcome. However, they should understand that "ultimately, of course, the problems facing Nepal need to be resolved by Nepalis" and hence also should conclude that it is the entire Nepali population that has developed a sort of allergy with the government under Koirala the reflection of which is the present chaos in the country. The Western world also understands it better that slowly but very steadily the Koirala government is loosing credibility and thus legitimacy as well. The past ugly demonstrations and the disruption seen in the parliament for all along two months were all the outbursts of the people albeit cashed in on by the UML and its allies.

The US Embassy in Kathmandu and the office of the European Union would do well if they go to the districts outside Kathmandu valley and interact with the local population and compile their findings which definitely would tell so many things about the Koirala regime, Koirala's governance, Koirala's law and order situation and more so the corruption practices that have flourished under Koirala to which the latter himself acknowledged in Biratnagar the other-day. All put together, the statements released by the US embassy and the EU might have encouraged Prime Minister Koirala for these statements went in favor of Koirala this time. However, the fact is that "artificial respiration" can't save a dying person for long.

In effect, the US embassy and the EU should yet again come out with yet another statement that suggests Koirala to deliver and listen to the popular demand and save the nation from going to the approaching precipice. The Nepali population does not possess any sort of special love and sympathy for the UML nor do they possess any hatred for the ruling party itself. However, it is the mal-governance and the excessive corrupt practices that have flourished under congress regime that has been cashed in on by the opposition parties this round of agitation. The Nepali population also understands that what the UML and its allies were doing were all pushing the nation to the brink. They also understand that Ambassador Frank's statement is all aimed at the institutionalization of democratic system in the country. However, what they fail to understand that why the champions of the democratic system take back seat in sending right signals to a corrupt and non functioning government of the sort of Koirala?

We all wish the system taking roots in the nation. But not the manner in which our system is functioning.

Had Abraham Lincoln been alive and watched the functioning of the Nepali democracy, he would have either gone nervous or at best he would shouted "Oh! Jesus Christ"

Headline | National | 5 Question  | 2nd Impression | International | Past |