Can Nepal afford continuation of highly volatile politics for so long?

April 21, 2004
5 MIN READ
A
A+
A-

Kathmandu: The five-party sponsored agitation is on. Burning of pneumatic tyres, pelting of stones and breaking the iron railings and what not what not have all become the hallmarks of the agitation basically designed supposedly to correct King’s regressive moves.

It has already become a routine affair and the Kathmanduites have to endure all these democratic/undemocratic moves because the agitating parties have been ventilating that the success of the ongoing agitation will herald a new Nepal wherein all the Nepalese will have their rights and democratic values secured for all time to come.

In the process, the agitators and the security personals do face each other on a regular basis with no signs of an end to the ongoing agitation.

The government has become ruthless in its action against the agitators. Even the media men covering the news of the agitation have been misbehaved, manhandled and handcuffed by the men belonging to the security agency-the police force.

With each broken head of the leaders, the leaders now in agitation claim that they will continue their struggle ad infinitum until the King yielded to their genuine demands.

The students affiliated to different political factions have already captured the streets and appear to proceed ahead with their goals come what may. The political parties in essence bank of the energy and the determination of the students’. In addition to this, several professional organizations have extended their solidarity to the ongoing agitation.

The nation is in a fix. It’s politics is taking new turns by each passing days and is moving from bad to worse.

The King apparently is hinting that he is watching the events seriously but he will take time to settle his scores with the agitators.

The commander of the agitation declares that the agitation has already attained a new height and its success was round the corner.

In the process, the lay men appear more confused and presumably are in a sort of sheer dilemma as to which side they should favor in the ongoing tussle: those of the agitators’ or of the monarch?

The confusion continues.

Of late, the international community based in Kathmandu is tight-lipped.

However, the outgoing United States Ambassador, Michael E. Malinowski on Monday broke the silence. Ambassador Malinowski clearly told that until and unless all the constitutional forces, implied the King as well, converged at one point, the Nepali crisis will continue to grow.

What the envoys from the European and the Nordic countries will assess the continuing Nepali crisis will be important an thus is seriously awaited by Nepali academicians and the media men alike.

Nevertheless, Indian Ambassador, Shyam Saran, appears to be on the move. That he is already on the move gets reflected from the fact that it was he who met the King and the Nepali leaders. Upon his meetings with Nepal’s “key-players”, Ambassador Saran “suggested” the confronting parties to patch up their differences in the larger interest of Nepal and her population.

What was funny of it all that Ambassador Saran disclosed upon his meeting with the King that the King told him that he would accept any one as the country’s next Prime Minister other than Nepal’s two political stalwarts, Koirala and Madhav Nepal.

Question now arises as to why the King needed Ambassador Saran’s good-offices to tell this much to the agitating Nepali leaders? Logically, if the King so desired he could have ventilated his inner wishes through his own aides which he did not, at least which is being given to understand.

Analysts understand that the leaders still possess respect for the monarch who could have been communicated about the King’s desire straight in order to ease the situation and in turn the leaders could have searched a competent one from among them, except the two, and settled the matter amicably.

To recall, Koirala and Madhav Nepal are on record to have told the press already that they are agitating not for the Prime Ministerial Chair but for the institutionalization of the democratic right s of the people. If this were so, the King have had a free hand in selecting a new prime minister.

What is also possible is that the Ambassador could have exceeded his functions? But then it is hard to believe that he could have done so.

Analysts now prefer to brush aside all that could have transpired in between the King and Ambassador and what appeared in the media as any further elaboration of this issue will only damage the prospects of a possible patch-up in between the King and the political parties.

But then yet, the story does not end here.

What is significant is that Ambassador Saran leaves for Delhi after his famous meeting with the King and the Nepali leaders. This is significant in the sense that his briefing in Delhi could have its impact in the country’s politics sooner than later.

Fortunately, Delhi has been time and again reiterating that the King and the political parties must reconcile with each other and move together.

Analysts prefer not to question the very intentions of the Indian Ambassador for he has met the King and Nepal’s leaders and his meetings could have been made possible when the dignitaries extended their invitations to him. Unless invited, he would not have seen them on his own.

Summing up, what comes to the fore is that we have been inviting Indian mediation for sorting out our own petty political matters-the ones we ourselves complicated and brought this crisis. It was not India that complicated our matters, plainly speaking.

Blaming others for our own faults will boomerang.