| Username |
Post |
| eNepal |
Posted
on 17-Apr-03 08:48 PM
Did Maoists Die for Country? or for Government?
Should not we revisit the cause for which Maoists in Nepal ran killing spree?
Check out the following paragraphs:
Toward A Kinder, Gentler Patriotism
April 17, 2003
Howard Zinn
(middle part)
Full article can be read at:
http://www.ctnow.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-zinn0417.artapr17,0,5819124.story?coll=hc%2Dheadlines%2Doped
As a patriot contemplating the dead GIs, should I comfort myself (as, understandably, their families do) with the thought: "They died for their country"? But I would be lying to myself. Those who die in this war will not die for their country. They will die for their government.
The distinction between dying for your country and dying for your government is crucial in understanding what I believe to be the definition of patriotism in a democracy. According to the Declaration of Independence - the fundamental document of democracy - governments are artificial creations, established by the people, "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" and charged by the people to ensure the equal right of all to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Furthermore, as the Declaration says, "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it."
|
| eNepal |
Posted
on 17-Apr-03 09:13 PM
You should read the following too:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,931873,00.html
Chemical hypocrites
As it struggles to justify its invasion, the US is getting ready to use banned weapons in Iraq
(the last part of the article:)
The deployment of chemicals in Baghdad could be the event which finally destroys the treaties designed to contain them, and this, in turn, would be another step towards the demolition of international law and the inception of a bloody and brutal era, in which might is unconstrained by universal notions of right.
You cannot use chemical weapons to wage war against chemical weapons. They are, as the convention makes clear, the instruments of terrorists. By deploying them, the US government would liquidate one of the remaining moral distinctions between its own behaviour and that of the man it asks us to abominate.
|
| eNepal |
Posted
on 17-Apr-03 09:18 PM
It is really interesting to read :
Rumsfeld, formerly the chief executive of GD Searle, one of the biggest drugs firms in the US, has never been an enthusiast for the chemical weapons convention. In 1997, as the Senate was preparing to ratify the treaty, he told its committee on foreign relations that the convention "will impose a costly and complex regulatory burden on US industry". Enlisting the kind of self-fulfilling prophecy with which we have since become familiar, he maintained that it was not "realistic", as global disarmament "is not a likely prospect". Dick Cheney, now vice-president, asked the committee to record his "strong opposition" to ratification.
Rumsfeld: was head of Drug firm
Cheney: was head of an Oil firm
Bush: ...
It makes sense why there was war?
One article says:
The public opinion and domestic economy in US as it approaches to next election will decide whether Syria will be next victim of US War.
This seems to be a real Nintendo Game.
|
| Ghar jwaaii |
Posted
on 17-Apr-03 10:34 PM
The current state of reality (in the county) has created an immense confusion. It has become very hard to get the defination of goverment and its existance. When the any legitimate defination and existance of GOVENRMENT can be found, only then it is possible to make sense if the Maoists die or died for the country or the government. Kanak Mani Dixit, editor of the prestigious Nepali Times laments: "The state of Nepal is falling to pieces. There is no center of power that is able to coagulate the necessary forces to deal with a situation that is rapidly becoming very dangerous. We are bordering general anarchy".
There is a so called government of the King errected outside legal framework of the constitution and there another so called government of the Maoist which is also created outside any constitution (infact there is no such thing called CONSTITUTION in existance in the country after OCT 4, 2002 ). Both of the so called goverments have acted hard to generate opinion and fighting force on their favor so it is more realistic to say that Maoists are diying for the goverment ( of thier own) and the Royalists are diying to save the government of thier own. And it is more unfortunate to see that there is no such thing called government with a center of power that can bring together all the pieces together as mentioned by Kanak Mani Dixit in the first paragraph. The so called Maoist goverment is in no different situation.
The more saddening fact is that before Oct 4, 2002 there was a major distinction within the goverment (in Kathmandu) and the Royal Palace and RNA. The events before Oct 4 showed that the defination of the government( in Kathmandu) did not constitute the monarch and the Royal Nepal Army. Though the gap between the government and Monarch and his army was consolidated and the defination of the GOVERMENT (in Kathmandu) now constitutes the monarch and the army after Oct 4, 2002 (By setting up a government of his own) .
Their actions are being written down in the books of history. It is very clear that the maoists died and are dying for the goverment (of their own) and only the history can more accurately tell if the maoists died for the country as well.
To me (at this point of time) both the sides died for the goverments of thier own and neither died for the country. Infact there was no need for war and "New Democracy" (as described by the Maoists) nor there was any need for active role of Royal Palace. The both sides have justified thier actions as patriotic. War is a very expensive and loss making business in social, economical and human terms.
|
