CK Lal has finally written something concrete ('Mixed messages', #243). With the help of civil Maoists disguised as human rights advocates, militant Maoists have finally got themselves sucessfully recognised internationally as an established party to the internal conflict. The international community has also rendered a great service to the Maoists in their efforts to get recognised of having certain areas of Nepal under their control. Bravo! Look at the fate of poor Nepalis: the political parties which they believe represents them are also welcoming the UN monitoring of human rights because they think it will help the restoration of democracy even though they were in power when the abuses took place. The king has benevolently taken up the challenge. Why is it that the parties can only unite for destructive purposes? Why can't they unite with the king to resolve the Maoist problem? Human rights will probably benefit most from sharpening the claws of the National Human Rights Commission and allowing it to work in accordance with the laws of the land. Lal must be appreciated for pointing out: 'It is quite unlikely that an international agency empowered merely to observe and authenticate will affect ground realities in any meaningful way.' The UN's precious resources should be spent for resettlement of victims than to bring more ignorant foreigners to work with equally ignorant human rights organisations. Easy money has created many parasites who don't care about human rights but are more interested in private projects for their corporate dynasties.
Dibya B Gurung,
. Many of us were puzzled with Anne Cooper's interview ('One of the biggest press freedom crises in the world', #243). I agree with Sushil Bogati (Letters, #244) that if this was indeed so then her comments would not have been published in the first place. Neither would the article by CK Lal in the same issue ('Winning back friends'). It is a sorry state of affairs when the continuous bashing of Nepal by the international community is being hailed directly and indirectly by our political leaders and many in the media. Sorrier still is the way in which the RNA is systematically under attack from the same people while terrorists are called 'rebels'. No wonder there is no strong opposition to some undemocratic happenings in the country. All I can say is that we do not need 'the freest press in the world' but we certainly need peace and stability.
. At present, Nepal is moving forward bravely on a thorny and difficult path but alone. We are working for a peaceful, progressive and democratic Nepal. But where are those hands of friendship and strength that would help guide us in this difficult task? Do Nepal's friends seriously believe that the so-called political parties really represent the interest of the general population? Time and again they have proven to be incompetent, self and party indulgent, corrupt and power hungry. They are the ones who have created the Maoists during their terms of office and could not even come together as a cohesive force against the Maoist even after repeated requests by His Majesty asking them to unite. What more do you expect from them or the democracy they represented? Nepal's foreign friends have not given Nepal the benefit of doubt. Stopping foreign aid will only strengthen the Maoists who the international community itself categorises as terrorists. So why are you weakening the government by backing terrorists and a pack of corrupt and incompetent political parties who you support under the name of democracy? The present government has been forced to take the present steps to safeguard the sovereignty, integrity and the identity of the country. We need the help of the outside world to attain peace, provide food, education and heathcare to citizens-that is true democracy. Otherwise it is just an excuse for the political parties to keep plundering the country. The friends of Nepal should re-think and reconsider their policy towards Nepal and extend a big helping hand.