| suva chintak |
Posted
on 03-Jan-04 07:33 PM
Here is an interesting debate between Nepal's celebrated columnist CK Lal and Jack Shaw published in the current issue of 'People's Review.' Read on:
-----------
CK Lal's highly partisan reaction to US undersecretary of state Christina Rocca's visit to Nepal and his equally vitriolic polemic against the King and the Royal Nepal Army is materially misleading and historically untenable despite his insuination that he alone enjoys privileged access to the "ground realities" in Nepal. Let us explore some of his "ground realities" and gems of wisdom.
He makes the absurd claim that "Unlike nationalist armies in other developing countries, the RNA never had to go through the transformation process of anti-colonial struggle." The RNA fought, quite valiantly one might add, against the British colonialists and the Chinese empire in the 18th and 19th century to safeguard Nepal's national sovereignty. Wake up, Mr. Lal, if that is not anti-colonial, what is? In comparision, the Indian army, for example, is a British leftover, not an anti-colonial institution that Mr. Lal would have us believe.
Mr. Lal makes a ludicrous accusation that the RNA has "always acted as an instrument of power." If not an instrument of power, what is RNA, or any other army for that matter, supposed to be? One sincerely hopes that Mr. Lal does not want us to suggest that the mighty Indian army has been the paragon of Gandhian ahimsha and love and not an instrument of brute coercion and hegemony in the region and over its own people.
He pulls another rabbit out of his hat when he declares that the army in newly independent states, the communist party in post-communist states, and the king in traditional society are responsible for instability. This is the most ludcrious and pretentious claim, unsupported by any comparative evidence. If he is really looking for the roots of instabilities, Mr. Lal would do well to look into the role of "friendly neighbors" in creating such situations in Sri Lanka, Sikkim, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Laos. It was not the army, the communist party in a post-communist state, or the king which destroyed these countries. Instead why doesn't Mr. Lal compare this situation with the stabalizing role of monarchy in Thailand, Japan and Bhutan.
The US does not like popularly elected leaders, Mr. Lal argues, because they are "less respectful towards foreigners." This claim is inaccurate on several grounds. During the thirty years of Panchayat, it was rare for a Nepali Prime Minister to be received in the White House. It was the kings who made state visits to Washington D.C. However, in the past years, more than three prime ministers have been entertained by the US government, and the king has not been received once! That does not seem like not liking the elected leaders, no?
Secondly, his claim that elected leaders are less respectful towards foreigners is patently false: haven't we seen how Girija Koirala and Madhab Nepal grovel themselves before the Indian ambassador or New Delhli in general? In contrast, Marichman Singh had displayed far more dignity and self-respect.
Mr. Lal speaks of the "myth of the god-King." The Nepali Constitution nor any other state documents have ever said that the King is god; nor has the King himself ever claimed such a ridiculous position either. It is indeed ironic that monarchy's staunchest critics should be dreaming and spreading the myth of god-king in Nepal. Lacking facts, Nepali republicans have to fabricate myths to attack the monarchy.
Lal asserts that "US supports status quo in countries under its influence." Is the US to be redeemed only if it goes for regime changes everywhere, especially where it suits Mr. Lal's taste? The fact of the matter is that New Delhi and the Indo-centric lobby in Nepal have been alarmed by Nepal's growing relationship with the only superpower in the world. The Indian ruling class had wanted to keep the Himalayan region closed off as its chicken coop. New Delhi's strategists had intended to use the Maoists to further strangle Nepal into a monopoly domain. However, due to 9/11 and the efforts of Sher Bahadur Deuba, Nepal has been able to internationalize the Maoist crisis and gain US support. The pro-India lobby was upset when Colin Powell came to Nepal, they are peeved when Rocca is here. It is also why New Delhi and its vanguards in Nepal hate Deuba's guts to no end. In the last analysis, it is not the Langley strategists as much as the Delhi lackeys that Nepal has to fear.
Mr. Lal appears to be miffed that Ms Rocca did not call on him to tap into his inexhaustible well of homespun wisdom on the "ground realities." The fact is, Ms Rocca already got the original version of the "ground realities" from the camel's mouth in New Delhi; she ought to be excused for not wanting to waste her precious State Department time on a xeroxed copy in Kathmandu.
Finally, Mr. Lal seeks to rescue his baseless accusations, myths, half-truths, and outright lies by invoking the fair name of democracy. Seasoned diplomat that she is, Ms Rocca will be aware of such self-serving sanctimony. She will also recognize that there can be not be a real chance for democracy, development, and rule of law unless the Maoist terror is brought under control. You can not repair a house while it is burning: the first task for Nepal is to douse the Maoist fire. The present crisis is not only testing Nepalis, it is also a test for those who claim to be Nepal's friends: genuine ones will spontaneously step forward to put out the blaze; the fake ones will make excuses, pass judgements, and actually stir the cinders to serve their own interests.
Jack Shaw
Lexington, Ma.; USA
|
