Both Prashant Jha and Swapan Dasgupta hit it squarely on the head in your last issue (NT, #247), heralding perhaps not just realpolitik vis-?-vis Nepal but also realmedia. The so-called Indian flip-flop is really the other way around: its ill-informed over-reaction in the immediate aftermath of 1 February was the real diplomatic flop, while Manmohan Singh embracing ground truth in Nepal was a flip back to reality. He is undoubtedly India's pragmatic response to China's Deng. But the South Block's original flop reaction is understandable: it was naturally reluctant to write off its political investments endowed in various party bosses. After all they did deliver, whether it was Mahakali or the Bhutani refugee imbroglio.
What is difficult to comprehend, however, are the Euro-Americans standing in phalanx behind South Block. Why would these self-styled paragons of liberal democracy and good governance so unequivocally support the resumption of power by kleptocrats of yore without forcing them to submit to a popular vote? Could it be that they too have benefited? Look at the Enron-like Dhabol deals of Bhote Kosi/Khimti where Nepali consumers have to pay double the electricity rates while Euro-American investors and contractors are walking away with the windfall. Look at the Kali Gandaki scam where Rs 12 billion was doled out in a Rs 7 billion civil contract, with the major beneficiary being not Nepali electricity consumers but Euro-American contractors. Look at Middle Marsyangdi where the story is repeating itself. Look at the oversight-free partnership of western aid agencies and their INGOs with party-organised NGOs in Nepal. The zillion-dollar question is: would Nepali cognoscenti be wrong in explaining this anomaly with the hypothesis that Euro-Americans too have benefited from the kleptocracy of the 1990s?
Name withheld on request
. Kiran Panday's picture of Girija Prasad Koirala and Madhab Kumar Nepal on your online edition (#246) says it all. The distrustful body language of the two leaders, their reluctant postures, the utter hopelessness of their demeanours. And in the background, the sardonic grins of party cadres who probably hope to benefit from the unity in terms of future employment. That picture spoke a thousand words.
Bijay Gurung,
Ibaraki, Japan
. This letter is in response to the letter to the editor by Sanchit Shrestha (#247). Your newspaper should be wary of publishing anything that purports to understand the sentiment of the Nepali people better than the rest of us. He not only says that Dixit, along with the 'iniquitous' parties, have failed to win Nepali hearts and minds but takes the silence on our fellow citizens' part as the conclusive proof of love lost between them. Either he is blissfully oblivious to the silencers imposed on Nepalis or he feels them justified, in which case he should talk only of himself and not on behalf of the 'silent' masses. The worst arguments in support of the royal coup (and the only argument) is that it was carried out on behalf of the Nepali people. If indeed that is the case, then the king should immediately prove it by taking the proposition to the people. Otherwise him and his followers like Mr Shrestha should stop reading other people's mind and focus on their own.
Name withheld on request
. The concern raised by Former Speaker Daman Nath Dhungana in your translation of his interview in Deshantar ('How dare we let it happen, #247) shows his concern for democracy in Nepal. He is right about the harassment people are facing. Democracy is granted and democracy is taken back from the hands of the people as if it was &#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&'216; 'tathastu ashirbad' of Lord Shiva. The king has no right to do this to his people, but who has the right to decide on our behalf? In the past too, when we had to fight for democracy, we were united, we shared our interest and goal. We did get democracy no matter how many times it was taken back. But the people chosen to be representatives of the citizens were distracted by vested interests, abusing the trust bestowed on them. Why can't leaders work and dedicate themselves to the betterment of citizens and for the nation? The history of politics is stained with corruption, injustice, bias and personal interests. Now that the king has admitted he wants democracy but only when the people understand its value, when leaders can commit themselves for the good of the nation, what makes Dhungana think the people will still support political leaders like him who squandered democracy after they had won it? How can these leaders ask, 'Did the king consult with any of the political forces before making his February First move?' The people have eyes to see and the right to cast their vote. Freedom and democracy exist only when leaders understand and execute their duties properly. Things will then fall into place.
Reena Sen,
email
. Recently there has been an outpouring of support for February First in your letters column. Most seem to be from readers in Kathmandu or outside Nepal who are ignorant of the security situation in the hinterland. They were pampered during the Panchayat and must be hoping that the good old days are back again. Why else would they be so blind to what is happening in the country? They are following the king in blaming the political parties and their leaders and put all the blame for Maoist activities on them. It was actually the palace that damaged the atmosphere during both past ceasefires and negotiations that the parties tried to negotiate with the Maoists with issues like the Doramaba massacre and the five km limit on army movement. The king has time and again expressed his wish to be a 'constructive' ruler, without elaborating on what this means. He has ended up surrounding himself with sychophants and yes-men who are going about issuing orders that are contradictory to his royal proclamation. How else can the flagrant human rights abuses so soon after the signing of the Geneva MoU be justified? The palace's strategy is to postpone the crisis and buy time to pursue an undemocratic path so the monarch can be active and the psychophants can enjoy power again. It is painful to see so much contradiction between what the royal government says and what it does. The king has said he wants to strengthen democracy but all his actions so far show only a drift towards authoritarianism.
Ram Milan Sah,
Sarlahi
