Double standards in all sectors

The country had an almost ideal situation when "loktantra" (democracy) was introduced after months of sometimes violent protests, concentrated mostly in the capital Kathmandu.

Many Western powers called it “people’s power”, though if such violent political incidents took place in those countries themselves, they would call it “anarchy”. We don’t have to go that far back to recall the incident when violent protests took place near the White House, which is the official residence of American presidents. Similarly, this columnist also was a witness when he saw ambassadors in Kathmandu, involving themselves directly in the ‘internal political developments’ when that took place in Nepal. Would America like it, if foreign diplomats and INGOs there in Wahington DC preached to them to accept ‘peoples’ power?

But here, willing journalists were used to the hilt, including those who liked to call themselves ‘independent’, though they were working on behalf of some INGOs or some other foreign officials.

I remember meeting many foreign journalists during that time who all were supporting the overthrowing of the then king and later came to know that even representatives of the IFJ (Internation Federation of Journalists) had come with bags of money to distribute to the local journalists here in Kathmandu.

Some journalists or so-called civil society leaders gained immensely from such an attitude of the foreigners and they grabbed this opportunity with both hands, though they knew it was bad for the country and they themselves were not journalists in the real sense, exactly like our politicians, greed always won over any sense of nationalism or sovereignty of the country. While meeting the foreign journalists or our own brand of those in the media outlets, there could not be any sensible discussion, as these people were on a mission and apart from personal gains, nothing mattered to them. Where are these ‘firebrand’ journalists of Nepal now when the country really needs them? They must be laughing by looking at the present political mess, but not worried at all because their personal greed had been fulfilled and they were now good friends of the foreigners, who have even given good jobs for them so that they can enjoy peace in their ill gotten wealth and not worry at all about what is happening to the country. Now to also say something of the “make trouble in all parts of the world” policy followed by America and its allies in Europe, it is flabbergasting to observe why that country and its allies, are trying to bring confrontations everywhere! Now that it is the sole superpower of the world makes it even more strange.

What are they doing in Ukraine, what are they doing in Taiwan and an integral part of China and what are they also doing in Nepal, as mentioned at the beginning of this article is questionable. They are showing total double standards. The

American and some EU nations are sending arms to Ukraine, and they are also selling billions of dollars worth of sophisticated weapons to these places, while externally they say they want to see “peace” there. Will more arms and weapons bring peace to any country where the trouble is brewing?

For example, how many people died during the rule of late Iraqi president Saddam Hussein? Now thousands of people are dying there. But now it is fine. But at that time even when only about three dozen people lost their lives, it was ‘horrendous’ and a crime against humanity. What is it now then, specially after foreign military action there?

Now they are also targeting Nepal to bring instability in China, Nepal’s Northern neighbour.

Now let us also talk about India, which gobbled an independent nation like Sikkim and in some ways Jammu and Kashmir as well. One respected senior advocate asked on a TV talk show, what do the present-day political leaders want? To make Nepal another Sikkim or another Fiji, where the Indian population dominates the local populace?

Meanwhile, in the violent protests that were mostly organized by Leftist parties in the past, quite many people lost their lives in clashes during such strikes in Nepal too. Moreover, the first elected prime minister after the first general election in the early nineties, the late Girija Prasad Koirala, was accused of not being able to do anything in such a situation. Not only in national issues, but he was not very deft in foreign policy matters also.

In national politics, though he used to threaten every time that he would “finish off the communists from Nepal for good”, actually he became the very man who as a prime minister gave legitimacy to the Maoists, who himself touted as “terrorists” before.

That India had a big hand in grooming the Maoists while calling them terrorists is another story of dirty policy and double talk of dictating nations. It did not help matters that, it was revealed in many popular print media outlets of that time that Koirala was the chief architect in ensuring the virtual political demise of late Krishna Prasad Bhattarai as well. He was then perhaps one of the most popular and also influential political leaders when he was the PM and also at later times. In fact, there are still staunch supporters of Bhattarai within the Nepali Congress and also outside of this party.

Late Bhattarai was always firm in the belief that the future of the monarchy always went hand in hand with the future of the Nepali Congress. Furthermore, unlike the political leaders of these days, he was a truly honest man liked by even his rivals and critics. Now there are hardly any leaders of his stature.

It is the same thing with the late Ganesh Man Singh. He was offered the post of prime minister by the late King Birendra after the panchayat system was overthrown, but Singh declined the offer and instead recommended to the then King that Bhattarai should be made the prime minister. How different was, the manner in which, with no fuss, they sacrificed power from the power-hungry leaders we are seeing after that period?

It must be mentioned that, for harmony in the country, though the political parties had won the battle for multi-party democracy, still there was a space created for the king and thus, at least politically, things ran smoothly and there was peace in the country. I remember one American diplomat, who had invited several journalists for a movie show and drinks at his house and interact with young scribes and he was convinced about the real political situation in Nepal.

At that time the differences between late Koirala, the then PM, and late Singh were at their height and the diplomat asked whether the fight was a political one or a “communal” one. Almost all of them replied that this was a political tussle, but just one journalist replied it was a communal one. Virtually everyone was shocked, but that was true as Koirala had then appointed 12 ambassadors and all of them belonged to one community, whereas one candidate of Singh, who is from the Newar community was overlooked. This was bad politics as it divided the once smooth relations between all Nepalese, no matter which community they belonged to.

Now is the time for Nepali leaders to realize the interests in this tiny country of foreign powers and also forget all greed and hunger for power, for the good of the Nepalese and Nepal.