Respect for our Servicemen
Democracy does not mean inaction and endless bickering among leaders at the cost of the nation.

Sridhar K. Khatri

A couple of weeks ago, Bob Kerr called me and suggested that to coincide with the Memorial Day in the US, we should speak on the contribution of our service men to our respective countries. From my own stay in the US, I know that there is a strong tradition in the States in paying tribute to men and women who have given their lives in service to their country so that others may enjoy the rights and freedom which the American people hold dear under its Constitution.

I accepted Bob's offer to speak briefly on this occasion, not because I have anything profound to offer on this subject, but because we are also today in the midst of a national crisis where our security forces are laying down their lives to preserve and protect our Constitution. I was particularly motivated to come forward and say a few words on this subject because, when a nation is at peril and people are laying down their lives to prevent it from disintegration, there cannot be and should not be two minds on what needs to be done.

I am not a politician and don't have any political agenda to push, either my own or on behalf of anyone. I am a student of political science, but I am not here to make a political analysis or statement. I am here as a Nepali, who has been witnessing the country burning on all sides while political leaders, who have taken the responsibility to develop and protect our country, have let the nation slide into a quagmire and are still backtracking on policies when decisive measures and determination to root out the cause of this evil should be a priority.

Democracy is about dialogue and debates, but it does not mean inaction and endless bickering among leaders and groups at the cost of the nation. Democracy provides certain rights to the people, but it also entails obligations to protect the rights of others. For over the past decade, we have enjoyed democracy in Nepal as a free ride without living up to our obligations. Freedom has been a license to do as we please with little thought to the responsibility it entails on everyone of us.

The end result of the way we have taken democracy for granted is obvious. Corruption is rampant, with people even admitting that politicians cannot finance their political career without resorting to the insidious means. Morale in the bureaucracy is at the lowest ever in the last 50 years. Despite the high expectation of the people after democracy was re-ushered in a little more than 12 years ago, there is strong air of cynicism about everything, including the future of the country. And, most important of all, signs of incompetence are pervasive. With the Maoist threat looming large every year in the past six years, one government after another did nothing about it by following an ostrich like policy, simply wishing that it would go away. Security forces, and particularly the army was emasculated and deprived of the minimum resources that it would need to defend the national interest when needed. After six years, the lesson is very clear: individuals may come and go with their own personal agenda or self enrichment scheme, but the nation always pays the price of incompetence of its people. There is no free ride in anything. There are always costs to be paid by the nation.

When the debate on the Maoist problem initially began, the tendency even among responsible people was to take a high moral ground and claim that they did not favor any measures which involved Nepalis killing Nepalis. This was in a way self-deception at its best since the Maoist were in fact killing Nepalis in gruesome manners, without making distinction in their atrocities between old people, women and children. The strategy of the Maoist smacks of terrorism unleashed by Pol Pot in Cambodia and their edicts on culture are no different than those of the Taliban, who made Afghanistan a germinating ground for global terrorism.

Six months ago, Nepal made a turnaround to end the phase of complacency that had engulfed us for over half a decade. Political parties united and supported the Emergency, signaling that a line was going to be drawn on the issue with a message that terrorism would not be tolerated any longer. Security forces were fully mobilized and the government left no stones unturned to generate international support for a war on terrorism which had become international in nature. There have been high and low points in the operation against the Maoists, with lessons learned each step of the way. It has been a slow process. But to expect anything other than that would be to ignore reality since even the coalition forces with all their technology and firepower in Afghanistan have been involved in this exercise for even longer time and recognize that terrorism is not something that can be dealt with one stroke overnight.

Six month down the road, the question of extending the Emergency became the subject of petty politics all over again. It is clear that the political leaders have again lost focus if they can believe that the war against terrorism can be won in six months. The question that needs to be asked today is not whether any legislation short of Emergency will serve to end the Maoist threat, but why did the political parties support it six months ago and why did they chose to withdraw the support when the goal is far from fulfilled? Moreover, there are other questions:

Is the threat of terrorism in Nepal less now than six months ago?

Is negotiated solutions possible in the midst of a military campaign that just started, and the fact that the Maoists themselves withdrew abruptly from negotiations before and launched a massive assault immediately afterwards?

Most important, what solutions would the political leaders present other than the course taken by the present government?

Debates are essential in any democratic society, but to follow a divisive policy at midstream is not a luxury which a nation like ours can afford. Moreover, to follow a self-destruct mode without viable alternatives lingers on irresponsibility.

I hope you'll pardon me for this digression, but I do so to make a simple point. We have for too long indulged ourselves in petty politics and have failed to draw a line, particularly when innocent lives and national interests are at stake. There are certain things that are sacrosanct in the life of a nation and one of them is to support the efforts of our servicemen who have put their lives at stake in the service of the country so that we may continue to enjoy the benefit of democracy which they are there to protect. Let us not forget that we are not alone in this endeavor since Nepal is also part of a tacit coalition against international terrorism. Nepal's two immediate neighbors strongly support the government's policy, as do other important countries which include the United States and United Kingdom.

By way of concluding, I would like to do some loud thinking and suggest that since we are here today to pay respect to the dedication of our service men there should be some provisions made by Nepalis everywhere, along with friends of Nepal, to set up a fund to look after the welfare of families of those who have lost their lives in the present conflict. I realize that there are already schemes supported by government for the police and the army. I believe we can go a step beyond that since Neaplis all over the world are in a position to contribute the welfare of there brethren at home. In United States alone, there are already over 40,000 Nepalis who are registered there. Just one dollar from each individual, supplemented by contribution from Nepalis in other countries would go a long way in helping the needy families of our servicemen at home. Nepal as a nation cannot be strong until we can appreciate the contribution of our people, both living and dead.

Presented at a talk program organized by American Center, Kathmandu, Nepal, May 30, 2002

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