Editorial»
Question of intent
NOV 28 - People, who are worried about the future of democracy in Nepal, will definitely ppreciate Indian Prime Minister’s support for multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy. At the moment of political confusion and chaos, it is good to note that the world’s largest democratic country is putting its weight for democracy. The suggestion by the Indian Prime Minister to form a national government on the principles of multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy that would seek a national consensus looks appropriate and timely. The message to the political parties, in general, and to the King, in particular, to “demonstrate flexibility and reach a consensus to address the challenges posed by the Maoist insurgency,” is certainly what supporters of democracy would like to hear about.
The official Indian view on Nepal has come at a time when the political parties are in rumpus against the King’s latest move. The King’s demand for the recommendation of a person of his choice from the Constitutional Council to the post of Chief Election Commission has enraged the political parties. If it is a message to the King to adhere to the 1990 constitution, Nepali citizens will no doubt support it. At the face value, Atal Behari Vajpayee’s support for democracy, and peace in Nepal is not a subject of controversy. But the statement bears both political and diplomatic connotations, which conspicuously raise the question of intention. India’s categorical stance on a representative government, working in co-operation with the monarch, also indicates the possibility of the continuation of the Thapa government as it is the one that enjoys the proximity with the monarch.
The question of intention arises when a country bluntly suggests its neighbour about the composition and nature of the latter’s government. For the first time, the South Bloc has officially announced its position in the formation of an all-party government — an internal affair of Nepalis, which should be considered apprehensively, and it should be taken seriously. If this is the beginning of formal Indian interference in Nepal’s internal politics, this certainly shows an ominous sign for Nepal’s sovereignty.
The statement by the Indian government was certainly not only a formal announcement after a neighbouring country’s Prime Minister’s visit. If it were, it would have talked about bilateral issues. The statement maintained suspicious silence about the Maoist issues. The issue was of great importance as the hitherto parliament’s main opposition leader has just recently met the rebel’s commander in Indian soil recently. The Nepali Prime Minister must have raised those issues with Prime Minister Vajpayee. The southern neighbour should be careful in future before making any statement that hurts the sentiment of the Nepalis. India should respect its small neighbour’s sovereignty and refrain from interfering in each other’s internal matters in the future.Posted on: 2003-11-27 10:34
Headlines
Advertisements
